Jehovah’s Witnesses
By Dr. Walter Martin
The Deity of Jesus Christ
Throughout the entire content of inspired
Scripture the fact of Christ’s identity is clearly taught. He is revealed as
Jehovah God in human form (Isaiah 9:6; Micah 5:2; Isaiah 7:14; John 1:14; 8:58;
17:5 [cf. Exodus 3:14]; Hebrews 1:3; Philippians 2:11; Colossians 2:9; and
Revelation 1:8, 17–18; etc.). The deity of Jesus Christ is one of the
cornerstones of Christianity, and as such has been attacked more vigorously
throughout the ages than any other single doctrine of the Christian faith.
Adhering to the old Arian heresy of the fourth century A.D., which Athanasius
the great church Father refuted in his famous essay “On the Incarnation of the
Word,” many individuals and all cults steadfastly deny the equality of Jesus
Christ with God the Father, and, consequently, the Triune deity. Jehovah’s
Witnesses, as has been observed, are no exception to this infamous rule.
However, the testimony of the Scriptures stands sure, and the above mentioned
references alone put to silence forever this blasphemous heresy, which in the
power of Satan himself deceives many with its “deceitful handling of the Word
of God.”
The deity of Christ, then, is a prime answer to
Jehovah’s Witnesses, for if the Trinity is a reality, which it is, if Jesus and
Jehovah are “One” and the same, then the whole framework of the cult collapses
into a heap of shattered, disconnected doctrines incapable of even a semblance
of congruity. We will now consider the verses in question, and their bearing on
the matter.
1.(a)Isaiah 7:14. “Therefore the Lord [Jehovah]
himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel” (literally, “God” or “Jehovah with us,” since
Jehovah is the only God).
(b)Isaiah 9:6. “For unto us a child is born,
unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his
name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting
Father, The Prince of Peace.”
(c)Micah 5:2. “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he
come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been
from of old, from everlasting.”
Within the realm of Old Testament Scripture,
Jehovah, the Lord of Hosts, has revealed His plan to appear in human form and
has fulfilled the several prophecies concerning this miracle in the person of
Jesus Christ. Examination of the above listed texts will more than convince the
unbiased student of Scripture that Jehovah has kept His promises and did become
man, literally “God with us” (Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:32–33; John 1:14).
The key to Isaiah 7:14 is the divine name
“Immanuel,” which can only be rightly rendered “God with us”; and since there
is no other God but Jehovah by His own declaration (Isaiah 43:10–11), therefore
Jesus Christ and Jehovah God are of the same Substance in power and eternity,
hence equal. This prophecy was fulfilled in Matthew 1:22–23; thus there can be
no doubt that Jesus Christ is the son of the virgin so distinctly portrayed in
Isaiah 7:14. Jehovah’s Witnesses can present no argument to refute this plain
declaration of Scripture, namely that Jehovah and Christ are “One” and the
same, since the very term “Immanuel” (“God” or “Jehovah with us”) belies any
other interpretation.
Isaiah 9:6 in the Hebrew Bible is one of the
most powerful verses in the Old Testament in proving the deity of Christ, for
it incontestably declares that Jehovah himself planned to appear in human form.
The verse clearly states that all government will rest upon the “child born”
and the “son given” whose identity is revealed in the very terms used to
describe His attributes. Isaiah, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, describes
Christ as “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace”—all attributes of God alone. The term “mighty God” is in
itself indicative of Jehovah since not only is He the only God (Isaiah
43:10–11), but the term “mighty” is applied to Him alone in relation to His
deity. Jehovah’s Witnesses dodge this verse by claiming that Christ is a mighty
god, but not the Almighty God (Jehovah). This argument is ridiculous on the
face of the matter. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses insist that since there is no
article in the Hebrew text, “mighty,” therefore, does not mean Jehovah. The
question arises: Are there two “mighty Gods”? This we know is absurd; yet
Jehovah’s Witnesses persist in the fallacy, despite Isaiah 10:21, where Isaiah
(without the article) declares that “Jacob shall return” unto the “mighty God,”
and we know that Jehovah is by His own word to Moses “the God of Jacob” (Exodus
3:6). In Jeremiah 32:18 (with the article) the prophet declares that He
(Jehovah) is “the Great, the Mighty God” (two forms of saying the same thing;
cf. Isaiah 9:6; 10:21; Jeremiah 32:18). If we are to accept Jehovah’s
Witnesses’ view, there must be two mighty Gods; and that is impossible, for
there is only one true and mighty God (Isaiah 45:22).
The prophet Micah, writing in Micah 5:2,
recording Jehovah’s words, gives not only the birthplace of Christ (which the
Jews affirmed as being the City of David, Bethlehem), but he gives a clue as to
His identity—namely, God in human form. The term “goings forth” can be rendered
“origin,” and we know that the only one who fits this description, whose origin
is “from everlasting” must be God himself, since He alone is the eternally
existing one (Isaiah 44:6, 8). The overwhelming testimony of these verses alone
ascertains beyond reasonable doubt the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, who
became man, identified himself with us in His incarnation, and offered himself
“once for all” a ransom for many, the eternal sacrifice who is able to save to
the uttermost whoever will appropriate His cleansing power.
2. John 1:1. “In the beginning [or “origin,”
Greek, ] was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God .”
Contrary to the translations of The Emphatic
Diaglott and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the Greek
grammatical construction leaves no doubt whatsoever that this is the only
possible rendering of the text. The subject of the sentence is Word , the verb
was. There can be no direct object following “was” since according to
grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate
nominatives, which refer back to the subject—in this case, Word . In fact, the
late New Testament Greek scholar Dr. E. C. Colwell formulated a rule that
clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (in this case, —God) never
takes an article when it precedes the verb (was), as we find in John 1:1. It is
therefore easy to see that no article is needed for (God), and to translate it
“a god” is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek since is the predicate
nominative of was in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must refer back
to the subject, Word . Christ, if He is the Word “made flesh” (John 1:14), can
be no one else except God unless the Greek text and consequently God’s Word be
denied.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, in an appendix in their New
World Translation (pp. 773–777), attempt to discredit the proper translation on
this point, for they realize that if Jesus and Jehovah are “One” in nature,
their theology cannot stand since they deny that unity of nature. The
refutation of their arguments on this point is conclusive.
The claim is that since the definite article is
used with in John 1:1b and not with in John 1:1c, therefore the omission is
designed to show a difference; the alleged difference being that in the first
case the one true God (Jehovah) is meant, while in the second “a god,” other
than and inferior to the first, is meant, this latter “god” being Jesus Christ.
On page 776 the claim is made that the rendering
“a god” is correct because “all the doctrine of sacred Scriptures bears out the
correctness of this rendering.” This remark focuses attention on the fact that
the whole problem involved goes far beyond this text. Scripture does in fact teach
the full and equal deity of Christ. Why then is so much made of this one verse?
It is probably because of the surprise effect derived from the show of
pseudo-scholarship in the use of a familiar text. Omission of the definite
article with does not mean that “a god” other than the one true God is meant.
Let one examine these passages where the definite article is not used with and
see if the rendering “a god” makes sense: Matthew 3:9; 6:24; Luke 1:35, 78;
2:40; John 1:6, 12–13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Romans 1:7, 17–18; 1 Corinthians
1:30; 15:10; Philippians 2:11–13; Titus 1:1, and many, many more. The “a god”
contention proves too weak and is inconsistent. To be consistent in this
rendering of “a god,” Jehovah’s Witnesses would have to translate every instance
where the article is absent as “a god” (nominative), “of a god” (genitive),
“to” or “for a god” (dative), etc. This they do not do in Matthew 3:9; 6:24;
Luke 1:35, 78; John 1:6, 12–13, 18; Romans 1:7, 17, etc.
You cannot honestly render “a god” in John 1:1,
and then render “of God” (Jehovah) in Matthew 3:9, Luke 1:35, 78; John 1:6,
etc., when is the genitive case of the same noun (second declension), without
an article and must be rendered (following Jehovah’s Witnesses’ argument) “of a
god” not “of God” as both The Emphatic Diaglott and New World Translation put
it. We could list at great length, but suggest consultation of the Greek New
Testament by either D. Erwin Nestle or Westcott and Hort, in conjunction with
The Elements of Greek by Francis Kingsley Ball on noun endings, etc. Then if
Jehovah’s Witnesses must persist in this fallacious “a god” rendition, they can
at least be consistent, which they are not, and render every instance where the
article is absent in the same manner. The truth of the matter is that Jehovah’s
Witnesses use and remove the articular emphasis whenever and wherever it suits
their fancy, regardless of grammatical laws to the contrary. In a translation
as important as God’s Word, every law must be observed. Jehovah’s Witnesses
have not been consistent in their observances of those laws.
The writers of the claim have exhibited another
trait common to Jehovah’s Witnesses—that of half-quoting or misquoting a
recognized authority to bolster their ungrammatical renditions. On page 776 in
an appendix to the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures,
when quoting Dr. A. T. Robertson’s words, “Among the ancient writers was used
of the god of absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods,”
they fail to note that in the second sentence following, Dr. Robertson says,
“In the New Testament, however, while we have (John 1:1–2) it is far more
common to find simply , especially in the Epistles.”
In other words, the writers of the New Testament
frequently do not use the article with , and yet the meaning is perfectly clear
in the context, namely that the one true God is intended. Let one examine the
following references where in successive verses (and even in the same sentence)
the article is used with one occurrence of and not with another form, and it
will be absolutely clear that no such drastic inferences can be drawn from
John’s usage in John 1:1–2 (Matthew 4:3–4; 12:28; Luke 20:37–38; John 3:2;
13:3; Acts 5:29–30; Romans 1:7–8, 17–19; 2:16–17; 3:5; 4:2–3, etc.).
The doctrine of the article is important in
Greek; it is not used indiscriminately. But we are not qualified to be sure in
all cases what is intended. Dr. Robertson is careful to note that “it is only
of recent years that a really scientific study of the article has been made.”
The facts are not all known, and no such drastic conclusion, as the writers of
the appendix note, should be dogmatically affirmed.
It is nonsense to say that a simple noun can be
rendered “divine,” and yet, at the same time, that same noun without the
article conveys merely the idea of quality. The authors of this note later
render the same noun as “a god,” not as “a quality.” This is a
self-contradiction in the context.
In conclusion, the position of the writers of
this note is made clear in an appendix to the New World Translation of the
Christian Greek Scriptures (p. 774); according to them it is “unreasonable”
that the Word (Christ) should be the God with whom He was (John 1:1). Their own
manifestly erring reason is made the criterion for determining scriptural
truth. One need only note the obvious misuse in their quotation from Dana and
Mantey (pp. 774–775). Mantey clearly means that the “Word was deity” in accord
with the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, but the writers have dragged in
the interpretation “a god” to suit their own purpose, which purpose is the
denial of Christ’s deity, and as a result a denial of the Word of God. The late
Dr. Mantey publicly stated that he was quoted out of context, and he personally
wrote the Watchtower, declaring, “There is no statement in our grammar that was
ever meant to imply that ‘a god’ was a permissible translation in John 1:1” and
“It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a
god.’ ”
Over the decades the Watchtower and
independently minded Jehovah’s Witnesses have struggled without success to
refute the above presentation regarding the Greek of John 1:1. Their convoluted
argumentation is nowhere more evident than in their Should You Believe in the
Trinity? booklet. Contemporary Witnesses use the contentions from this booklet
to argue that John 1:1 should be translated as the New World Translation does:
“The word was a god.” However, none of these polemics have any more scholarly
merit than the earlier arguments we refuted.
For example, the booklet claims, “Someone who is
‘with’ another person cannot be the same as that other person” (p. 27). This is
a complete misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is, simply
stated, that within the nature of the one true God there are three eternal,
distinct persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. When we say that
Jesus is God, we do not mean that the Son is the same person as the Father.
That would be in accord with another ancient church heresy known as modalism.
John 1:1 commits no logical blunders when it states that the Word (the second
person) is with God (the first person) and is himself God.
The sources referred to and quoted in Should You
Believe in the Trinity? can be summarized in three categories: liberals who do
not believe that the Bible is God’s Word or that Jesus Christ was anything more
than an inspired human; out-dated materials that fail to engage with
up-to-date, comprehensive scholarship; and sources used out of context or
misinterpreted. A number of valuable critiques of the Watchtower arguments
concerning John 1:1 are currently in print.
3. John 8:58. “Jesus said unto them Before
Abraham was [born], I am” (bracketed mine).
In comparing this with the Septuagint
translations of Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 43:10–13, we find that the translation
is identical. In Exodus 3:14, Jehovah, speaking to Moses, said “I AM,” which
any intelligent scholar recognizes as synonymous with God. Jesus literally said
to the Jews, “I AM Jehovah,” and it is clear that they understood Him to mean
just that, for they attempted, as the next verse reveals, to stone Him.
Hebrew law on this point states five cases in
which stoning was legal—and bear in mind that the Jews were legalists. Those
cases were: (1) Familiar spirits, Leviticus 20:27; (2) Cursing (blasphemy),
Leviticus 24:10–23; (3) False prophets who lead to idolatry, Deuteronomy
13:5–10; (4) Stubborn and rebellious adult son, Deuteronomy 21:18–21; and (5)
Adultery and rape, Deuteronomy 22:21–24 and Leviticus 20:10. Now any honest
biblical student must admit that the only legal ground the Jews had for stoning
Christ (actually they had none at all) was the second violation—namely,
blasphemy. Many zealous Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that the Jews were going
to stone Him because He called them children of the devil (John 8:44). But if
this were true, why did they not try to stone Him on other occasions (Matthew
23:33, etc.) when He called them sons of vipers? The answer is very simple.
They could not stone Christ on that ground because they were bound by the law,
which gives only five cases, and would have condemned them on their own grounds
had they used “insult” as a basis for stoning. This is not all, however, for in
John 10:33, the Jews again attempted to stone Christ and accused Him of making
himself God (not a god, which subject has already been treated at length). Let
us be logical: If the Jews observed the laws of stoning on other occasions when
they might have been insulted, why would they violate the law as they would
have had to do if Jehovah’s Witnesses are right about their interpretation of
John 8:58? Little more need be said. The argument is ridiculous in its context;
there is only one “I AM” in the Scriptures (Isaiah 44:6; 48:12; Revelation 1:8,
17–18), and Jesus laid claim to that identity for which the Jews,
misinterpreting the law, set about to stone Him.
Jehovah’s Witnesses declare that the Greek
rendering of (I AM) in John 8:58 is “properly rendered in the ‘perfect
indefinite tense’ (“I have been,” not “I AM”). To unmask this bold perversion
of the Greek text, we shall now examine it grammatically to see if it has any
valid grounds for being so translated.
It is difficult to know what the translator
means since he does not use standard grammatical terminology, nor is his
argument documented from standard grammars. The aorist infinitive as such does
not form a clause. It is the adverb prin that is significant here, so that the
construction should be called a prin clause. The term “perfect indefinite” is
not a standard grammatical term and its use here has been invented by the
authors of the note, so it is impossible to know what is meant.
The real problem in the verse is the verb “.”
Dr. Robertson, who is quoted as authoritative by the NWT translators, states
(p. 880) that is “absolute.” This usage occurs four times (in John 8:24; 8:58;
13:19; 18:5). In these places the term is the same used by the Septuagint in Deuteronomy
32:39; Isaiah 43:10; 46:4; etc., to render the Hebrew phrase “I (AM) He.” The
phrase occurs only where Jehovah’s Lordship is reiterated. The phrase, then, is
a claim to full and equal Deity. The incorrect and rude rendering of the NWT
only serves to illustrate the difficulty of evading the meaning of the phrase
and the context.
This meaning in the sense of full Deity is
especially clear in John 13:19, where Jesus says that He has told them things
before they came to pass, that when they do come to pass the disciples may
believe that (I AM). Jehovah is the only One who knows the future as a present
fact. Jesus is telling them beforehand that when it does come to pass in the
future, they may know that “I AM” , i.e., that He is Jehovah!
In conclusion, the facts are self-evident and
undeniably clear—the Greek allows no such impositions as “I have been.” The
Watchtower’s contention on this point is that the phrase in question is a
“historical present” used in reference to Abraham, hence permissible. This is a
classic example of Watchtower double-talk. The passage is not a narrative, but
a direct quote of Jesus’ argument. Standard grammars reserve the use of
“historical present” to narratives alone. The term is translated here correctly
only as “I AM,” and since Jehovah is the only “I AM” (Exodus 3:14; Isaiah
44:6), He and Christ are “One” in nature, truly the fullness of the Deity in
the flesh.
The Septuagint translation of Exodus 3:14 from
the Hebrew utilizes as the equivalent of “I AM” (Jehovah), and Jesus quoted the
Septuagint to the Jews frequently, hence their known familiarity with it and
their fury at His claim (John 8:59). Additional Old Testament references to
Jehovah as “I AM” include Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah 48:12.
4. Hebrews 1:3. “He is the reflection of [his]
glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all
things by the word of his power” (NWT).
This passage of Scripture, I believe, clarifies
beyond doubt the deity of Jesus Christ. It would be illogical and unreasonable
to suppose that Christ, who is the image imprinted by Jehovah’s substance, is
not of the substance of Jehovah and hence God, or the second person of the
triune Deity. No creation is ever declared to be of God’s very “substance” or
“essence” (Greek, ); therefore, the eternal Word, who is “the fulness of the
Godhead [Deity] bodily” (Colossians 2:9), cannot be a creation or a created
being. The writer of the book of Hebrews clearly intended to portray Christ as Jehovah,
or he never would have used such explicit language as “the image imprinted by
His substance” (Greek interpretation), and as Isaiah 7:14 clearly states, the
Messiah was to be Immanuel, literally “God with us.” Jehovah’s Witnesses
attempt the articular fallacy of “a god” instead of God, in reference to
Immanuel; but if there has been “before me no God formed, neither shall there
be after me” (Jehovah speaking in Isaiah 43:10), then it is impossible on that
ground alone, namely, God’s declaration, for any other god (“a god” included)
to exist. Their argument, based on a grammatical abstraction, fails to stand
here, and the deity of the Lord Jesus, as always, remains unscathed.
5. Philippians 2:11. “And that every tongue
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
If we compare this verse of Scripture with
Colossians 2:9 and Isaiah 45:23, we cannot help but see the full deity of the
Lord Jesus in its true light. Jehovah spoke in Isaiah 45:23: “I have sworn by
myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not
return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” In
Colossians 2:9 the apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, declares, “For in Him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily.” The literal translation of the Greek word (Godhead) is Deity, so in
Christ all the fullness of the Deity resides in the flesh.
In Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament, which is referred to as being “comprehensive” by the Watchtower, a
complete analysis of (Godhead, Deity) is given, especially its interpretation
in the context of Colossians 2:9. Jehovah’s Witnesses will do well to remember
that Thayer was a Unitarian (one who denies the deity of Christ), and therefore
more prone to accept their interpretations than those of evangelical
Christianity. But despite his theological views, Thayer was a Greek scholar
whose integrity in the presentation of honest facts, despite their disagreement
with his beliefs, is the trait exemplified in all legitimate critics and honest
scholars. Thayer states that [Godhead, Deity] is a form of (Deity), or in his
own words: “i.e., the state of Being God, Godhead” (p. 288, 1886 ed.). In other
words, Christ was the fullness of “the Deity” (Jehovah) in the flesh! The
Emphatic Diaglott correctly translates “Deity”; but the NWT erroneously renders
it “the divine quality,” which robs Christ of His true deity. The only way to
substantiate this inaccurate translation would be to substitute the word
(Divinity) and thus escape the condemning evidence of “the Deity,” . However,
documentary evidence reveals that they cannot rightfully do this, for in
Thayer’s own words, “ (Deity) differs from (Divinity) as essence differs from
quality or attribute.” This fact again exposes the deception employed by
Jehovah’s Witnesses to lead the unwary Bible student astray into the paths of
blasphemy against the Lord Jesus. It cannot be so translated, for the
substitution of one word for another in translation is pure scholastic
dishonesty, and Jehovah’s Witnesses can produce no authority for this bold
mistranslation of the Greek text. Jesus Christ, according to the words
themselves, is the same essence and substance as Jehovah, and as the essence
(Deity) differs from the quality (Divinity), so He is God— (The Deity)—Jehovah
manifest in the flesh.
That Jesus and Jehovah are “One” in nature dare
not be questioned from these verses, which so clearly reveal the plan and
purpose of God. Paul sustains this argument in his epistle to the Philippians
(2:10–11) when he ascribes to the Lord Jesus the identity of Jehovah as
revealed in Isaiah 45:23. Paul proclaims boldly, “That at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” It is a well-known biblical fact that
the highest glory one can give to God is to acknowledge and worship Him in the
person of His Son, and as Jesus himself said, “No man cometh unto the Father,
but by me” (John 14:6) and “All men should honour the Son, even as they honour
the Father” (John 5:23).
It is therefore clear from the context that the
wonder of the Godhead is specifically revealed in Jesus Christ to the fullest
extent, and it is expedient for all men to realize the consequences to be met
if any refuse the injunctions of God’s Word and openly deny the deity of His
Son, who is “the true God, and eternal life” (1 John 5:20).
6. Revelation 1:8. “ ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’
says Jehovah God, ‘the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty’
” (NWT; cf. Revelation 1:7–8, 17–18; 2:8; 22:13; Matthew 24:30; Isaiah 44:6).
In the seventh, eighth, seventeenth, and
eighteenth verses of the first chapter of Revelation a unique and wonderful
truth is again affirmed—namely, that Jesus Christ and Jehovah God are of the
same substance, hence coequal, coexistent, and coeternal. In short, one nature
(but three persons) in its fullest sense. We shall pursue that line of thought
at length in substantiating this doctrine of Scripture.
Comparing Matthew 24:30 with Revelation 1:7, it
is inescapably evident that Jesus Christ is the one coming with clouds in both
the references mentioned.
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man
in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see
the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory
(Matthew 24:30, emphasis added).
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye
shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth
shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen (Revelation 1:7, emphasis added).
Following this train of thought, we find that
Jehovah declares in Isaiah 44:6 that He alone is the first and the last and the
only God, which eliminates forever any confusion as to their being two “firsts
and lasts.” Since Jehovah is the only God, then how can the be “a god,” a
lesser god than Jehovah, as Jehovah’s Witnesses declare in John 1:1? (The
Emphatic Diaglott and New World Translation). Many times Jehovah declares His
existence as the “only” God and Savior (Isaiah 41:4; 43:10–13; 44:6; 45:5;
48:12; etc.). This is indeed irrefutable proof, since Christ could not be our
Savior and Redeemer if He were not Jehovah, for Jehovah is the only Savior of
men’s souls (Isaiah 43:11). However, despite the testimony of Scripture that
“before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me” (Isaiah
43:10), the “a god” fallacy is pursued and taught by Jehovah’s Witnesses in
direct contradiction to God’s Word. In 1 Corinthians 8:4–6 Paul points out that
an idol or false god is nothing and, even though men may worship many things as
gods, there is only one true and living God (cf. Acts 5:3–4 and John 1:1 for
the other persons of the Trinity).
Revelation 1:17–18 and 2:8 add further weight to
the deity of Christ, for they reveal Him as the first and the last, who became
dead and lives forever. Now, since Jehovah is the only first and last (cf. Isaiah
references), either He and Christ are “One,” or to claim otherwise Jehovah’s
Witnesses must deny the authority of Scripture.
In order to be consistent we must answer the
arguments advanced by Jehovah’s Witnesses concerning the use of “first” (Greek,
) and “last” (Greek, ) in Revelation 1:17 and 2:8.
By suggesting the original use and translation
of (firstborn) and implying that “firstborn” necessarily means “first created,”
instead of (first) in these passages (see the footnotes to the passages in the
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures and The Emphatic
Diaglott), Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt to rob Christ of His deity and make Him
a created being with “a beginning” (Let God Be True, 107). When approached on
this point they quickly refer you to Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14,
“proving” that the Logos had “a beginning” (see John 1:1 in both translations).
To any informed Bible student, this conclusion is fallacious. A Greek Lexicon
of the New Testament, translated and edited by J. H. Thayer (1886), states that
the only correct rendering of is “first,” and in Thayer’s own words, “The
Eternal One” [Jehovah] (Revelation 1:17). Here again the deity of Christ is
vindicated.
Jesus said, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning
and the end, the first and the last” (Revelation 22:13), and not only this but
it is He who is revealing the mysteries to John (Revelation 1:1 and 22:16) and
declaring himself to be the “faithful witness” (Revelation 1:5) who testifies
“I come quickly” (Revelation 22:20). It is evident that Jesus is the one
testifying and the one coming (Revelation 1:2, 7) throughout the book of
Revelation since it is by His command (Revelation 22:16) that John records
everything. So in honesty we must acknowledge His sovereignty as the “first”
and “last” (Isaiah 48:12, Revelation 1:17 and 22:13), the Lord of all, and the
eternal Word of God incarnate (John 1:1).
Revelation 3:14 asserts that Christ is the
“beginning of the creation of God,” and Colossians 1:15 states that Christ is
“the firstborn of every creature.” These verses in no sense indicate that
Christ was a created being. The Greek word (Revelation 3:14) can be correctly
rendered “origin” and is so translated in John 1:1 of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’
own 1951 edition of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures. Revelation 3:14 declares that Christ is the faithful and true
witness, the “origin” or “source” of the creation of God. This corroborates
Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16–17 in establishing Christ as the Creator of all
things and, therefore, God (Genesis 1:1).
Christ is the firstborn of all creation since He
is the new Creation, conceived without sin (Luke 1:35), the second Adam (1
Corinthians 15:45 and 47), the fulfillment of the divine promise of the God-man
(Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; Micah 5:2), and the Redeemer of the world (Colossians 1:14).
John 3:13 states that no one has ascended into heaven but Christ who came down;
Philippians 2:11 declares that He is Lord (Greek, ), and as such is “the Lord
from heaven” of 1 Corinthians 15:47—God—and not a created being or “a god.”
The word “firstborn” refers not to the first one
created or born, but to the one who has the preeminence or the right to rule as
an heir has the right to rule over his predecessor’s estate. The same term is
used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX) in Genesis 25:33,
where Esau actually sells his “right of the firstborn” to Jacob because he is
hungry. It is also used in Exodus 4:22 by Jehovah regarding Israel as His
“firstborn” nation, the nation that receives the blessings of His kingdom. (See
also Psalm 89:27; Genesis 49:3; and Jeremiah 31:9, cf. Genesis 41:51–52.) This
is the same meaning that “firstborn” carries in Colossians 1:15, 18 regarding Jesus
Christ, and in Hebrews 11:17 regarding Isaac, who was Abraham’s “son of
promise,” or “firstborn,” but, having been born after Ishmael, not literally
his first son born.
The Lord Jesus is also the “firstborn” from the
dead (Revelation 1:5)—that is, the one who conquered death by rising in a
glorified body (not a spirit form—see Luke 24:39–40), which type of body
Christians will someday possess as in the words of the apostle John: “It doth
not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we
shall be like [similar to] him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2,
bracketed mine). We know that these promises are sure, “for he is faithful that
promised” (Hebrews 10:23), and all who deny the deity of Christ might well take
cognizance of His warning and injunction when He said, For I testify unto every
man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add
unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this
book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the
holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation
22:18–19).
7. John 17:5. “And now, O Father, glorify thou
me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world
was” (Jesus Christ).
This passage of Scripture, in cross-reference
with Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11, proves conclusively the identity of the Lord Jesus
and is a fitting testimony to the deity of Christ.
In Isaiah 42:8 Jehovah himself is speaking and
He emphatically declares, “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I
not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” Again in Isaiah 48:11
Jehovah is speaking and He declares, “For mine own sake, even for mine own
sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my
glory unto another.”
It is plain to see from these references in
Isaiah that Jehovah has irrevocably declared that His divinely inherent glory,
which is of His own nature, cannot and will not be given to anyone other than
himself. There is no argument Jehovah’s Witnesses can erect to combat the truth
of God as revealed in these passages of Scripture. The inherent glory of God
belongs to God alone, and by His own mouth He has so ordained it to be. God,
however, bestowed upon the incarnate Word a certain glory manifested in the
presence of the Holy Spirit, through whose power and agency Christ worked while
in the flesh, and Jesus in turn bestowed this upon his followers (John 17:22).
But it was not the glory of God’s nature; rather, it was (and is) the abiding
presence of His Spirit. The two quite different types of glory should not be
confused. Jesus prayed to receive back again the glory He had with the Father
“before the world was” (John 17:5). Also, it was not the glory given to Him as
the Messiah, which glory Christ promised to share with His disciples (v. 22).
Nowhere in Scripture are the types of glory equated.
The Lord Jesus Christ, when He prayed in John
17:5, likewise irrevocably revealed that He would be glorified with the glory
of the Father and that the glory of the Father (Jehovah) was not new to Him,
since He affirmed that He possessed it with (Greek, ) the Father (“the glory
which I had with thee”) even before the world came into existence. Jehovah’s
Witnesses attempt to answer this by asking that if He were God, where was His
glory while He walked the earth?
In answer to this question, the Scriptures list
at least four separate instances where Christ manifested His glory and revealed
His power and deity. On the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:2) Christ
shone with the inherent glory of God, which glory continued undiminished when in
John 18:6 the Lord applied to himself the “I AM” of Jehovahistic identity that
radiated glory enough to render His captors powerless at His will. The
seventeenth chapter of John, the twenty-second verse, also confirms the
manifestation of Jehovah’s glory when Jesus, looking forward to the cross,
prays for His disciples and affirms the origin of His glory as being the
substance of God. The resurrection glory of Christ also serves to illustrate
His deity and reveal it as of God himself.
So it is plain to see that the argument
Jehovah’s Witnesses advance to the effect that Christ did not manifest the
glory of himself is invalid and finds no basis in the Scriptures. The truth of
the whole matter is that the Lord Jesus did reveal the true glory of His nature
in the very works He performed, and as John says (1:14), “And the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
Paul, in the second chapter of Philippians,
removes all doubt on this question when he writes, guided by the Holy Spirit,
that Christ never ceased to be Jehovah even during His earthly incarnation. It
is interesting to note that the Greek term , translated “being” in Philippians
2:6, literally means “remaining” or “not ceasing to be”; consequently, in the
context Christ never ceased to be God, and “remained” in His basic substance;
He was truly “God manifest in the flesh.”
An average Jehovah’s Witness interviewed
recently, in attempting to escape the obvious declaration of Christ’s deity as
revealed in this text, reverted to the old Greek term-switching routine of the
Society and asserted that the word “with” (Greek, ) in John 17:5 really means
“through,” and therefore the glory that is spoken of is not proof of Christ’s
deity since the glory is Jehovah’s and is merely shining “through” the Son; it
is not His own but a manifestation of Jehovah’s glory.
Once again we are confronted with the problem of
illogical exegesis, the answer to which must be found in the Greek text itself.
We must believe that the grammar of the Bible is inspired by God if we believe
that God inspired the writers, or how else could He have conveyed His thoughts
without error? Would God commit His inspired words to the failing grammatical
powers of man to record? No! He could not do this without risking corruption of
His message; therefore, as the wise and prudent Lord that He is, He most
certainly inspired the grammar of His servants that their words might transmit
His thoughts without error, immutable and wholly dependable. With this thought
in mind, let us consider the wording and construction of the verse.
The Greek word (with) is used in the dative case
in John 17:5 and is not translated “through” (Greek ) but is correctly rendered
according to Thayer’s Lexicon as “with,” and Thayer quotes John 17:5, the very
verse in question, as his example of how (with) should be translated.
Never let it be said that in this context
indicates anything less than possessive equality—“the glory which I had with
thee before the world was.” The Lord Jesus Christ clearly meant that He as God
the Son was the possessor of divine glory along with the Father and the Holy
Spirit before the world was even formed. Christ also declared that He intended
to appropriate that glory in all its divine power once again, pending the
resurrection of His earthly temple, which, by necessity, since it was finite,
veiled as a voluntary act His eternal power and deity (Philippians 2:5–8). The
glory He spoke of did not only shine through the Father; it was eternally
inherent in the Son, and since John, led by the Holy Spirit, deliberately chose
(literally, “with”) in preference to (through), the argument that Jehovah’s
Witnesses propose cannot stand up. The Lord Jesus claimed the same glory of the
Father as His own, and since Jehovah has said that He will not give His
inherent glory to another (Isaiah 42:8), the unity of nature between Him and
Christ is undeniable; they are one in all its wonderful and mysterious
implications, which, though we cannot understand them fully, we gladly accept,
and in so doing remain faithful to God’s Word.
8. John 20:28. “Thomas answered and said unto
him, My Lord and my God.”
No treatment of the deity of Christ would be
complete without mentioning the greatest single testimony recorded in the
Scriptures. John 20:28 presents that testimony.
Beginning at verse 24, the disciple Thomas is
portrayed as being a resolute skeptic in that he refused to believe that Christ
had risen and appeared physically in the same form that had been crucified on
the cross. In verse 25 Thomas stubbornly declares that “Except I shall see in
his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the
nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Following through
the sequence of events in verses 26 and 27, we learn that the Lord appeared to
Thomas together with the other disciples and presented His body bearing the
wounds of Calvary to Thomas for his inspection. This was no spirit or phantom,
no “form” assumed for the occasion, as Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain. This was
the very body of Christ that bore the horrible imprints of excruciating torture
and the pangs of an ignominious death. Here displayed before the eyes of the
unbelieving disciple was the evidence that compelled him by the sheer power of
its existence to adore the One who manifested the essence of Deity. “Thomas
answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” This was the only answer Thomas
could honestly give; Christ had proved His identity; He was truly “the Lord
God.” Let us substantiate this beyond doubt.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have vainly striven to elude
this text in the Greek (The Emphatic Diaglott and the New World Translation),
but they have unknowingly corroborated its authority beyond refutation, as a
brief survey of their sources will reveal.
In The Emphatic Diaglott (John 20:28, p. 396) ,
literally “the God of me,” or “my God,” signifies Jehovahistic identity, and since
it is in possession of the definite article, to use Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own
argument, it must therefore mean “the only true God” (Jehovah), not “a god.” On
page 776 in an appendix to the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures, the note states, “So, too, John 1:1–2 uses to distinguish Jehovah
God from the Word (Logos) as a god, the only begotten god as John 1:18 calls
him.” Now let us reflect as sober individuals. If Thomas called the risen
Christ Jehovah (definite article ), and Christ did not deny it but confirmed it
by saying (verse 29), “Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed
are they that have not seen, and yet have believed,” then no juggling of the
text in context can offset the basic thought—namely, that Jesus Christ is
Jehovah God!
The New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures carefully evades any explanation of the Greek text on the
aforementioned point, but just as carefully it inserts in the margin (p. 350)
six references to Christ as “a god,” which they attempt to slip by the unwary
Bible student. These references, as usual, are used abstractly, and four of
them (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1, 18; and 10:35) have been mentioned already in
previous points. The question, then, is this: Is there any other god beside
Jehovah which Jehovah’s Witnesses affirm to be true by their reference to
Christ as “a god” (John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6)? The Scriptures give but one answer:
an emphatic NO! There is no god but Jehovah. (See Isaiah 37:16, 20; 44:6, 8;
45:21–23; etc.)
To be sure, there are many so-called gods in the
Scriptures, but they are not gods by identity and self-existence; rather, they
are gods by human acclamation and adoration. Satan also falls into this
category since he is the “god of this world,” who holds that position only
because unregenerate and ungodly men have accorded to him service and worship
belonging to God.
The apostle Paul seals this truth with his
clear-cut analysis of idolatry and false gods in 1 Corinthians 8:4–6, where he
declares that an idol is nothing in itself and that there is no god but Jehovah
in heaven or earth, regardless of the inventions of man.
The picture is clear. Thomas adored Christ as
the risen incarnation of the Deity (Jehovah); John declared that Deity was His
from all eternity (John 1:1); and Christ affirmed it irrefutably: “If ye
believe not that I am he [Jehovah], ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24, cf.
Exodus 3:14, bracketed mine). All of the pseudo-scholastic and elusive tactics
ever utilized can never change the plain declarations of God’s Word. Jesus
Christ is Lord of all; and like it or not, Jehovah’s Witnesses will never
destroy or remove that truth. Regardless of what is done to God’s Word on
earth, it remains eternal in the glory, as it is written, “For ever, O LORD,
thy word is settled in heaven” (Psalm 119:89).
9. John 5:18. “[He] said also that God was his
Father, making himself equal with God.”
To conclude this vital topic, this verse is
self-explanatory. The Greek term “equal” cannot be debated; nor is it
contextually or grammatically allowable that John is here recording what the
Jews said about Jesus, as Jehovah’s Witnesses lamely argue. The sentence
structure clearly shows that John said it under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, and not the Jews! Anyone so inclined can diagram the sentence and see
this for himself. No serious scholar or commentator has ever questioned it. In
the Jewish mind, for Jesus to claim to be God’s Son was a claim to equality
with God, a fact Jehovah’s Witnesses might profitably consider!
We see, then, that our Lord was equal with God
the Father and the Holy Spirit in His divine nature, though inferior (as a
man), by choice, in His human nature as the last Adam (John 14:28; 1
Corinthians 15:45–47). This text alone is of enormous value and argues
powerfully for our Lord’s deity.
Refutation of
Watchtower Theology in Regard to the Triune Deity
One of the greatest doctrines of the Scriptures is that of the Triune Godhead
or the nature of God himself. To say that this doctrine is a “mystery” is
indeed inconclusive, and no informed minister would explain the implications of
the doctrine in such abstract terms. Jehovah’s Witnesses accuse “the clergy” of
doing just that, however, and it is unfortunate to note that they are, as
usual, guilty of misstatement in the presentation of the facts and even in
their definition of what Christian clergymen believe the Deity to be.
First of all, Christian ministers and Christian
laypersons do not believe that there are “three gods in one” (Let God Be True,
100), but do believe that there are three Persons all of the same
Substance—coequal, coexistent, and coeternal. There is ample ground for this
belief in the Scriptures, where plurality in the Godhead is very strongly
intimated if not expressly declared. Let us consider just a few of these
references.
In Genesis 1:26 Jehovah is speaking of Creation,
and He speaks in the plural: “Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness.” Now it is obvious that God would not create man in His image and the
angels’ images if He were talking to them, so He must have been addressing
someone else—and who but His Son and the Holy Spirit who are equal in Substance
could He address in such familiar terms? Since there is no other god but
Jehovah (Isaiah 43:10–11), not even “a lesser mighty god” as Jehovah’s
Witnesses affirm Christ to be, there must be a unity in plurality and Substance
or the passage is not meaningful. The same is true of Genesis 11:7, when God
said at the Tower of Babel, “Let us go down,” and also of Isaiah 6:8, “Who will
go for us? ” These instances of plurality indicate something deeper than an
interpersonal relationship; they strongly suggest what the New Testament fully
develops, namely, a Tri-Unity in the One God. The claim of Jehovah’s Witnesses
that the early church Fathers, including Tertullian and Theophilus, propagated
and introduced the threefold unity of God into Christianity is ridiculous to
the point of being hardly worth refuting. Any unbiased study of the facts will
convince the impartial student that before Tertullian or Theophilus lived, the
doctrine was under study and considered sound. No one doubts that among the
heathen (Babylonians and Egyptians, for example) demon gods were worshiped, but
to call the Triune Godhead a doctrine of the devil (Let God Be True, 101), as
Jehovah’s Witnesses do, is blasphemy and the product of untutored and darkened
souls.
In the entire chapter titled “Is there a
Trinity?” (Let God Be True, 100–101), the whole problem as to why the Trinity
doctrine is “confusing” to Jehovah’s Witnesses lies in their interpretation of
“death” as it is used in the Bible. To Jehovah’s Witnesses, death is the
cessation of consciousness, or destruction. However, no single or collective
rendering of Greek or Hebrew words in any reputable lexicon or dictionary will
substantiate their view. Death in the Scriptures is “separation” from the body
as in the case of the first death (physical), and separation from God for
eternity as in the second death (the lake of fire, Revelation 20). Death never
means annihilation, and Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot bring in one word in context
in the original languages to prove it does. A wealth of evidence has been
amassed to prove it does not. I welcome comparisons on this point.
The rest of the chapter is taken up with
childish questions—some of which are painful to record. “Who ran the universe
the three days Jesus was dead and in the grave?” (death again portrayed as
extinction of consciousness) is a sample of the nonsense perpetrated on
gullible people. “Religionists” is the label placed on all who disagree with
the organization’s views regardless of the validity of the criticism.
Christians do not believe that the Trinity was incarnate in Christ and that
they were “three in one” as such during Christ’s ministry. Christ voluntarily
limited himself in His earthly body, but heaven was always open to Him and He
never ceased being God, Second Person of the Trinity. At His baptism the Holy
Spirit descended like a dove, the Father spoke, and the Son was baptized. What
further proof is needed to show a threefold unity? Compare the baptism of
Christ (Matthew 3:16–17) with the commission to preach in the threefold Name of
God (Matthew 28:19) and the evidence is clear and undeniable. Even in the
Incarnation itself (Luke 1:35) the Trinity appears (see also John 14:16 and
15:26). Of course it is not possible to fathom this great revelation
completely, but this we do know: There is a unity of Substance, not three gods,
and that unity is One in every essential sense, which no reasonable person can
doubt after surveying the evidence. When Jesus said, “My Father is greater than
I,” He spoke the truth, for in the form of a servant (Philippians 2:7) and as a
man, the Son was subject to the Father willingly; but upon His resurrection and
in the radiance of His glory taken again from whence He veiled it (vv. 7–8). He
showed forth His deity when He declared, “All authority is surrendered to me in
heaven and earth” (Matthew 28:18); proof positive of His intrinsic nature and
unity of Substance. It is evident that the Lord Jesus Christ was never
inferior—speaking of His nature—to His Father during His sojourn on earth.
The Resurrection of
Christ
Jehovah’s Witnesses, as has been observed, deny
the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and claim instead that He was
raised a “divine spirit being” or as an “invisible spirit creature.” They
answer the objection that He appeared in human form by asserting that He simply
took human forms as He needed them, which enabled Him to be seen, for as the
Logos He would have been invisible to the human eye. In short, Jesus did not
appear in the same form that hung upon the cross since that body either
“dissolved into gases or is preserved somewhere as the grand memorial of God’s
love”. This, in spite of Paul’s direct refutation in 1 Timothy 2:5, where he
calls “the man Christ Jesus” our only mediator—some thirty years after the
resurrection!
The Scriptures, however, tell a completely
different story, as will be evident when their testimony is considered. Christ
himself prophesied His own bodily resurrection, and John tells us “He spake of
the temple of His body” (John 2:21).
In John 20:24–26, the disciple Thomas doubted
the literal, physical resurrection of Christ, only to repent of his doubt (v.
28) after Jesus offered His body (v. 27), the same one that was crucified and
still bore the nail prints and spear wound, to Thomas for his examination. No
reasonable person will say that the body the Lord Jesus displayed was not His
crucifixion body, unless he either ignorantly or willfully denies the Word of
God. It was no other body “assumed” for the time by a spiritual Christ; it was
the identical form that hung on the tree—the Lord himself; He was alive and
undeniably tangible, not a “divine spirit being.” The Lord foresaw the unbelief
of men in His bodily resurrection and made an explicit point of saying that He
was not a spirit but flesh and bones (Luke 24:39–44), and He even went so far
as to eat human food to prove that He was identified with humanity as well as
Deity. Christ rebuked the disciples for their unbelief in His physical
resurrection (Luke 24:25), and it was the physical resurrection that confirmed
His deity, since only God could voluntarily lay down and take up life at will (John
10:18). We must not forget that Christ prophesied not only His resurrection but
also the nature of that resurrection, which He said would be bodily (John
2:19–21). He said He would raise up “this temple” in three days (v. 19), and
John tells us “He spake of the temple of his body” (v. 21).
Jehovah’s Witnesses utilize, among other
unconnected verses, 1 Peter 3:18 as a defense for their spiritual resurrection
doctrine. Peter declares that Christ was “put to death in the flesh, but
quickened by the Spirit.” Obviously He was made alive in the Spirit and by the
Spirit of God, for the Spirit of God, who shares the nature of God himself,
raised up Jesus from the dead, as it is written, “But if the Spirit of him that
raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you ” (Romans 8:11). The meaning of the
verse then is quite clear. God did not raise Jesus as merely a spirit but
raised Him by His Spirit, which follows perfectly John 20:27 and Luke 24:39–44
in establishing the physical resurrection of the Lord.
The Watchtower quotes Mark 16:12 and John
20:14–16 as proof that Jesus has “other bodies” after His resurrection.
Unfortunately for them, the reference in Mark is a questionable source, and a
doctrine should not be built around one questionable verse. Neither verse has
anything to do with the material reality of Christ’s resurrection. The reason
that Mary (in Mark 16) and also the Emmaus disciples (Luke 24) did not
recognize Him is explained in Luke 24:16 (RSV): “Their eyes were kept from
recognizing him”(RSV), but it was “Jesus himself” (v. 15).
Jehovah’s Witnesses also try to undermine our
Lord’s bodily resurrection by pointing out that the doors were shut (John
20:26) when Jesus appeared in the Upper Room. However, Christ had a “spiritual
body” (1 Corinthians 15:50, 53) in His glorified state; identical in form to
His earthly body, but immortal; consequently, He was capable of entering either
the dimension of earth or of heaven with no violation to the laws of either
one.
Paul states in Romans 4:24; 6:4; 1 Corinthians
15:15; etc., that Christ is raised from the dead, and Paul preached the
physical resurrection and return of the God-man, not a “divine spirit being”
without a tangible form. Paul also warned that if Christ is not risen, then our
faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14); to us who believe God’s Word there is a
Man in the Glory who showed His wounds as a token of His reality and whose
question we ask Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Has a spirit flesh and bones as you see
me have?” (Luke 24:39).
The Watchtower’s
Scriptural Distortions
(1) The first major perversion that Jehovah’s
Witnesses attempt to foist upon the minds of the average reader is that it has
remained for them as “God’s true Witnesses” to restore the divine Old Testament
name Jehovah to the text of the Greek New Testament. But let us observe this
pretext as they stated it in their own words.
The evidence is, therefore,
that the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been tampered
with, the same as the text of the LXX [the Septuagint—a Greek translation of
the Old Testament] has been. And, at least from the third century A.D. onward,
the divine name in tetragrammaton [the Hebrew consonants , usually rendered
“Jehovah”] form has been eliminated from the text by copyists. In place of it
they substituted the words (usually translated “the Lord”) and , meaning “God”
(p. 18).
The “evidence” that the Witnesses refer to is a papyrus roll of the LXX, which
contains the second half of the book of Deuteronomy and which does have the
tetragrammaton throughout. Further than this, the Witnesses refer to Aquila
(A.D. 128) and Origen (ca. A.D. 250), who both utilized the tetragrammaton in
their respective Version and Hexapla. Jerome, in the fourth century, also
mentioned the tetragrammaton as appearing in certain Greek volumes even in his
day. On the basis of this small collection of fragmentary “evidence,” Jehovah’s
Witnesses conclude their argument:
It proves that the original
LXX did contain the divine name wherever it occurred in the Hebrew original.
Considering it a sacrilege to use some substitute such as or , the scribes
inserted the tetragrammaton at its proper place in the Greek version text (p.
12).
The whole case the Witnesses try to prove is that the original LXX and the New
Testament autographs all used the tetragrammaton (p. 18), but owing to
“tampering” all these were changed; hence, their responsibility to restore the
divine name. Such is the argument, and a seemingly plausible one to those not
familiar with the history of manuscripts and the Witnesses’ subtle use of
terms.
To explode this latest Watchtower pretension of
scholarship completely is an elementary task. It can be shown from literally
thousands of copies of the Greek New Testament that not once does the
tetragrammaton appear, not even in Matthew, which was possibly written in
Hebrew or Aramaic originally, therefore making it more prone than all the rest to
have traces of the divine name in it—yet it does not! Beyond this, the roll of
papyrus (LXX) that contains the latter part of Deuteronomy and the divine name
only proves that one copy did have the divine name, whereas all other existing
copies use kyrios and theos, which the Witnesses claim are
“substitutes.” The testimonies of Aquila, Origen, and Jerome, in turn, only
show that sometimes the divine name was used, but the general truth upheld by
all scholars is that the Septuagint, with minor exceptions, always uses kyrios
and theos in place of the tetragrammaton, and the New Testament never
uses it at all. Relative to the nineteen “sources” the Watchtower uses (pp.
30–33) for restoring the tetragrammaton to the New Testament, it should be
noted that they are all translations from Greek (which uses kyrios and theos,
not the tetragrammaton) back into Hebrew, the earliest of which is A.D. 1385,
and therefore they are of no value as evidence.
These cold logical facts unmask once and for all
the shallow scholarship of Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose arrogant pretension that
they have a sound basis for restoring the divine name (Jehovah) to the
Scriptures while inferring that orthodoxy suppressed it centuries ago is
revealed to be a hollow scholastic fraud. The Watchtower itself admits, “But
apart from [the use of “Jah” in “Hallelujah” in the book of Revelation], no
ancient Greek manuscript that we possess today of the books from Matthew to
Revelation contains God’s name [the tetragrammaton] in full.”
No reasonable scholar, of course, objects to the
use of the term Jehovah in the Bible. But since only the Hebrew consonants
appear without vowels, pronunciation is at best uncertain, and dogmatically to
settle on Jehovah is straining at the bounds of good linguistics. When the
Witnesses arrogantly claim then to have “restored” the divine name (Jehovah),
it is almost pathetic. All students of Hebrew know that any vowel can be
inserted between the consonants (YHWH or JHVH), so that
theoretically the divine name could be any combination from JoHeVaH to JiHiViH
without doing violence to the grammar of the language in the slightest degree.
(2) Colossians 1:16. “By means of him all
[other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things
visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or
lordships or governments or authorities”(NWT).
In this particular rendering, Jehovah’s
Witnesses attempt one of the most clever perversions of the New Testament texts
that the author has ever seen. Knowing full well that the word other does not
occur in this text, or for that matter in any of the three verses (16, 17, 19)
where it has been added, albeit in brackets, the Witnesses deliberately insert
it into the translation in a vain attempt to make Christ a creature and one of
the “things” He is spoken of as having created.
Attempting to justify this unheard-of travesty
upon the Greek language and also upon simple honesty, the New World Bible
translation committee enclosed each added “other” in brackets, which are said
by them to “enclose words inserted to complete or clarify the sense in the
English text.” Far from clarifying God’s Word here, these unwarranted additions
serve only to further the erroneous presupposition of the Watchtower that our
Lord Jesus Christ is a creature rather than the Eternal Creator.
The entire context of Colossians 1:15–22 is
filled with superlatives in its description of the Lord Jesus as the “image of
the invisible God, the first begetter [or ‘original bringer forth’—Erasmus] of
every creature.” The apostle Paul lauds the Son of God as Creator of all things
(v. 16) and describes Him as existing “before all things” and as the one by
whom “all things consist” (v. 17). This is in perfect harmony with the entire
picture Scripture paints of the eternal Word of God (John 1:1) who was made
flesh (John 1:14) and of whom it was written: “All things were made by him; and
without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). The writer of the
book of Hebrews also pointed out that God’s Son “[upholds] all things by the
word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3) and that He is Deity in all its fullness, even
as Paul wrote to the Colossians: “For in him should all fulness [of God] dwell”
(Colossians 1:19).
The Scriptures, therefore, bear unmistakable
testimony to the creative activity of God’s Son, distinguishing Him from among
the “things” created, as the Creator and Sustainer of “all things.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses, therefore, have no
conceivable ground for this dishonest rendering of Colossians 1:16–17 and 19 by
the insertion of the word “other,” since they are supported by no grammatical
authorities, nor do they dare to dispute their perversions with competent
scholars lest they further parade their obvious ignorance of Greek exegesis.
(3) Matthew 27:50. “Again Jesus cried out with a
loud voice, and yielded up his breath” (NWT). Luke 23:46. “And Jesus called
with a loud voice and said: Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit” (NWT).
For many years the Watchtower has been fighting
a vain battle to redefine biblical terms to suit their own peculiar theological
interpretations. They have had some measure of success in this attempt in that
they have taught the rank and file a new meaning for tried and true biblical
terms, and it is this trait of their deceptive system that we analyze now in
connection with the above quoted verses.
The interested student of Scripture will note
from Matthew 27:50 and Luke 23:46 that they are parallel passages describing
the same event, namely, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In Matthew’s account,
the Witnesses had no difficulty substituting the word “breath” for the Greek
“spirit”, for in their vocabulary this word has many meanings, none of them
having any hearing upon the general usage of the term, i.e., that of an
immaterial, cognizant nature, inherent in man by definition and descriptive of
angels through Creation. Jehovah’s Witnesses reject this immaterial nature in
man and call it “breath,” “life,” “mental disposition,” or “something
windlike.” In fact, they will call it anything but what God’s Word says it is,
an invisible nature, eternal by Creation, a spirit, made in the image of God
(Genesis 1:27). Sometimes, and in various contexts, spirit can mean some of the
things the Witnesses hold, but context determines translation, along with
grammar, and their translations quite often do not remain true to either.
Having forced the word “breath” into Matthew’s
account of the crucifixion to make it appear that Jesus only stopped breathing
and did not yield up His invisible nature upon dying, the Witnesses plod on to
Luke’s account, only to be caught in their own trap. Luke, learned scholar and
master of Greek that he was, forces the Witnesses to render his account of
Christ’s words using the correct term “spirit”, instead of “breath” as in
Matthew 27:50. Thus in one fell swoop the entire Watchtower fabric of
manufactured terminology collapses, because Jesus would hardly have said:
“Father, into thy hands I commit my breath”—yet if the Witnesses are
consistent, which they seldom are, why did they not render the identical Greek
term as “breath” both times, for it is a parallel account of the same scene!
The solution to this question is quite
elementary, as all can clearly see. The Witnesses could not render it “breath”
in Luke and get away with it, so they used it where they could and hoped nobody
would notice either it or the different rendering in Matthew. The very fact that
Christ dismissed His spirit proves the survival of the human spirit beyond the
grave, or as Solomon so wisely put it: “Then shall the dust return to the earth
as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes
12:7).
(4) Philippians 1:21–23. “For in my case to live
is Christ, and to die, gain. Now if it be to live on in the flesh, this is a
fruitage of my work—and yet which thing to select I do not know. I am under
pressure from these two things; but what I do desire is the releasing and the
being with Christ, for this, to be sure, is far better”(NWT).
In common with other cults that teach soul-sleep
after the death of the body, Jehovah’s Witnesses translate texts contradicting
this view to suit their own ends, a prime example of which is their rendering
of Philippians 1:21–23. To anyone possessing even a cursory knowledge of Greek
grammar the translation “but what I do desire is the releasing” (v. 23)
signifies either a woeful ignorance of the rudiments of the language or a
deliberate, calculated perversion of terminology for a purpose or purposes most
questionable.
It is no coincidence that this text is a great
“proof” passage for the expectation of every true Christian who after death
goes to be with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). Jehovah’s Witnesses realize that
if this text goes unchanged or unchallenged it utterly destroys their
Russellite teaching that the soul becomes extinct at the death of the body.
This being the case, and since they could not challenge the text without
exploding the myth of their acceptance of the Bible as the final authority, the
Watchtower committee chose to alter the passage in question, give it a new
interpretation, and remove this threat to their theology.
The rendering, “but what I do desire is the
releasing,” particularly the last word, is an imposition on the principles of
sound Greek exegesis. The NWT renders the infinitive form of the verb as a
substantive. In the context of this particular passage, to translate it “the releasing”
would require the use of the participle construction, which when used with the
word “wish” or “desire” denotes “a great longing” or “purpose” and must be
rendered “to depart” or “to unloose.” (See Thayer; Liddell and Scott; Strong,
Young, and A. T. Robertson.)
Quite frankly, it may appear that I have gone to
a great deal of trouble simply to refute the wrong usage of a Greek form, but
in truth this “simple” switching of terms is used by the Witnesses in an
attempt to teach that Paul meant something entirely different than what he
wrote to the Philippians. To see how the Watchtower manages this, I quote from
their own appendix to the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures (780–781):
The verb is used as a verbal
noun here. It occurs only once more in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and that
is at Luke 12:36, where it refers to Christ’s return. The related noun occurs
but once, at 2 Timothy 4:6, where the apostle says: “The due time for my
releasing is imminent.” But here at Philippians 1:23 we have not rendered the
verb as “returning” or “departing,” but as “releasing.” The reason is, that the
word may convey two thoughts, the apostle’s own releasing to be with Christ at
his return and also the Lord’s releasing himself from the heavenly restraints
and returning as he promised.
In no way is the apostle here saying that
immediately at his death he would be changed into spirit and would be with
Christ forever. It is to this return of Christ and the apostle’s releasing to
be always with the Lord that Paul refers at Philippians 1:23. He says there
that two things are immediately possible for him, namely, (1) to live on in the
flesh and (2) to die. Because of the circumstances to be considered, he
expressed himself as being under pressure from these two things, not knowing
which thing to choose as proper. Then he suggests a third thing, and this thing
he really desires. There is no question about his desire for this thing as
preferable, namely, the releasing, for it means his being with Christ.
The expression , or the releasing cannot
therefore be applied to the apostle’s death as a human creature and his
departing thus from this life. It must refer to the events at the time of
Christ’s return and second presence, that is to say, his second coming and the
rising of all those dead in Christ to be with him forevermore.
Here, after much grammatical intrigue, we have the key as to why the Witnesses
went to so much trouble to render “depart” as “releasing.” By slipping in this
grammatical error, the Watchtower hoped to “prove” that Paul wasn’t really
discussing his impending death and subsequent reunion with Christ at all (a
fact every major biblical scholar and translator in history has affirmed ), but
a third thing, namely, “the events at the time of Christ’s return and second
presence.” With breathtaking dogmatism, the Witnesses claim that “the releasing
cannot therefore be applied to the apostle’s death. It must refer to the events
at the time of Christ’s return.”
Words fail when confronted with this classic
example of unparalleled deceit, which finds no support in any Greek text or
exegetical grammatical authority. Contrary to the Watchtower’s statement that
“the word may convey two thoughts, the apostle’s own releasing to be with
Christ at his return and also the Lord’s releasing himself from the heavenly
restraints and returning as he promised,” as a matter of plain exegetical fact,
Christ’s return is not even the subject of discussion—rather it is the
apostle’s death and his concern for the Philippians that are here portrayed.
That Paul never expected to “sleep” in his grave until the resurrection as
Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain is evident by the twenty-first verse of the
chapter, literally: “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” There would
be no gain in dying if men slept till the resurrection, for “[God] is not the
God of the dead, but the God of the living” (Mark 12:27). Clearly, Paul was
speaking of but two things: his possible death and subsequent presence with the
Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8), and also the possibility of his continuing on in the
body, the latter being “more needful” for the Philippian Christians. His
choice, in his own words, was between these two (1:23), and Jehovah’s Witnesses
have gone to great trouble for nothing; the Greek text still records faithfully
what the inspired apostle said—not what the Watchtower maintains he said, all
their deliberate trickery to the contrary.
Concluding our comments upon these verses in
Philippians, we feel constrained to point out a final example of Watchtower
dishonesty relative to Greek translation.
On page 781 of the New World Translation of the
Christian Greek Scriptures, it will be recalled that the committee wrote: “The
expression , or the releasing cannot therefore be applied to the apostle’s
death as a human creature and his departing thus from this life.”
If the interested reader will turn to page 626
of the same Watchtower translation, he will observe that in 2 Timothy 4:6 the
Witnesses once more use the term “releasing”, where all translators are agreed
that it refers to Paul’s impending death. The Revised Standard Version, often
appealed to by Jehovah’s Witnesses, puts it this way: “For I am already on the
point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come.” (See also An
American Translation [Goodspeed]; Authorized Version; J. N. Darby’s Version;
James Moffatt’s Version; J. B. Rotherham’s Version; Douay Version [Roman
Catholic]; etc.)
Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves render the text:
“For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the due time for
my releasing is imminent” (2 Timothy 4:6, NWT).
Now, since it is admitted by the Witnesses,
under the pressure of every translator’s rendering of his text, that this verse
refers to Paul’s death, and further, since the noun form of the Greek word is
here used and translated “releasing,” why is it that they claim on page 781
that this expression “the releasing” (—Philippians 1:23) “cannot therefore be
applied to the apostle’s death as a human creature and his departing thus from
this life”? The question becomes more embarrassing when it is realized that
Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves admit that these two forms ( and ) are “related”
(p. 781). Hence they have no excuse for maintaining in one place (Philippians
1:23) that “the releasing” cannot refer to the apostle’s death, and in another
place (2 Timothy 4:6) using a form of the same word and allowing that it does
refer to his death. This one illustration alone should serve to warn all honest
people of the blatant deception employed in the Watchtower’s “translations,” a
term not worthy of application in many, many places.
(5) Matthew 24:3. “While he was sitting upon the
mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: ‘Tell us, When
will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the
conclusion of the system of things?’ ”(NWT).
Since the days of “Pastor” Russell and Judge
Rutherford, one of the favorite dogmas of the Watchtower has been that of the ,
the second coming or “presence” of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jehovah’s Witnesses,
loyal Russellites that they are, have tenaciously clung to the “pastor’s”
theology in this respect and maintain that in the year A.D. 1914, when the
“times of the Gentiles” ended (according to Russell), the “second presence” of
Christ began. (See Make Sure of All Things, 319.)
From the year 1914 onward, the Witnesses
maintain,
Christ has turned his
attention toward earth’s affairs and is dividing the peoples and educating the
true Christians in preparation for their survival during the great storm of
Armageddon, when all unfaithful mankind will be destroyed from the face of the
earth (p. 319).
For Jehovah’s Witnesses, it appears, Christ is not coming; He is here! (A.D.
1914)—only invisibly—and He is directing His activities through His theocratic
organization in Brooklyn, New York. In view of this claim, it might be well to
hearken unto the voice of Matthew who wrote:
Then if any man shall say unto
you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false
Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch
that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have
told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the
desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For
as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so
shall also the coming of the Son of man be (Matthew 24:23–27).
Jehovah’s Witnesses, on page 780 of their New World Translation of the
Christian Greek Scriptures, list the twenty-four occurrences of the Greek word
, which they translate each time as “presence.” They give the following defense
found on page 779:
The tendency of many
translators is to render it here “coming” or “arrival.” But throughout the 24
occurrences of the Greek word we have consistently rendered it “presence.” From
the comparison of the of the Son of man with the days of Noah at Matthew
24:37–39, it is very evident that the meaning of the word is as we have
rendered it. And from the contrast that is made between the presence and the
absence of the apostle both at 2 Corinthians 10:10–11 and at Philippians 2:12,
the meaning of is so plain that it is beyond dispute by other translators.
Following this gigantic claim, namely, that their translation of the word is
“beyond dispute by other translators,” the “theocratic authorities” proceed to
list the verses in question.
Now, the main issue is not the translation of as
“presence,” because in some contexts it is certainly allowable (see 1
Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6–7; 10:10; and Philippians 1:26; 2:12). But
there are other contexts where it cannot be allowed in the way Jehovah’s
Witnesses use it, because it not only violates the contextual meaning of the
word but the entire meaning of the passages as always held by the Christian
church.
Jehovah’s Witnesses claim scholarship for this
blanket translation of , yet not one great scholar in the history of Greek
exegesis and translation has ever held this view. Since 1871, when “Pastor”
Russell produced this concept, it has been denounced by every competent scholar
upon examination.
The reason this Russellite rendering is so
dangerous is that it attempts to prove that in regard to Christ’s second advent
really means that His return or “presence” was to be invisible and unknown to
all but “the faithful” (Russellites, of course). (See Make Sure of All Things,
319–323.)
The New World translators, therefore, on the
basis of those texts where it is acceptable to render “presence,” conclude that
it must be acceptable in all texts. But while it appears to be acceptable
grammatically, no one but Jehovah’s Witnesses or their sympathizers accept the
New World Translation’s blanket use of “presence,” be the translators Christian
or not. It simply is not good grammar, and it will not stand up under
comparative exegesis as will be shown. To conclude that “presence” necessarily
implies invisibility is also another flaw in the Watchtower’s argument, for in
numerous places where they render “presence” the persons spoken of were hardly
invisible. (See again 1 Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6–7 and 10:10;
Philippians 1:26 and 2:12.)
If the Watchtower were to admit for one moment
that can be translated “coming” or “arrival” in the passages that speak of
Christ’s return the way all scholarly translators render it, then “Pastor” Russell’s
“invisible presence” of Christ would explode in their faces. Hence, their
determination to deny what all recognized Greek authorities have established.
The late Dr. Joseph H. Thayer, a Unitarian
scholar, translator/editor of one of the best lexicons of the Greek New
Testament (and who, incidentally, denied the visible second coming of Christ),
said on page 490 of that work, when speaking of : “a return (Philippians 1:26).
In the New Testament, especially of the Advent, i.e., the future visible return
from heaven of Jesus, the Messiah, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment,
and set up formally and gloriously the Kingdom of God.” (For further
references, see Liddell and Scott, Strong, and any other reputable authority.)
Dr. Thayer, it might be mentioned, was honest
enough to say what the New Testament Greek taught, even though he didn’t
believe it. One could wish that Jehovah’s Witnesses were at least that honest,
but they are not.
In concluding this discussion of the misuse of ,
we shall discuss the verses Jehovah’s Witnesses use to “prove” that Christ’s
return was to be an invisible “presence” instead of a visible, glorious,
verifiable event.
The following references and their headings were
taken from the book Make Sure of All Things, published by the Watchtower as an
official guide to their doctrine.
(1) “Angels Testified at Jesus’ Ascension as a
Spirit that Christ Would Return in Like Manner, Quiet, Unobserved by the
Public” (p. 320).
And after he had said these
things while they [only the disciples] were looking on, he was lifted up and a
cloud caught him up from their vision. “Men of Galilee, why do you stand
looking into the sky? This Jesus who was received up from you into the sky will
come thus in the same manner as you have beheld him going into the sky” (Acts
1:9, 11, NWT).
It is quite unnecessary to
refute in detail this open perversion of a clear biblical teaching because, as
John 20:27 clearly shows, Christ was not a spirit and did not ascend as one.
The very text they quote shows that the disciples were “looking on” and saw him
“lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their vision”(v. 9). They could
hardly have been looking at a spirit, which by definition is incorporeal, not
with human eyes at least, and Christ had told them once before, “Behold my
hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath
not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Luke 24:39).
So it remains for Christ himself to denounce the
Russellite error that He “ascended as a spirit.” Moreover, since He left the
earth visibly from the Mount of Olives it is certain that He will return
visibly even as the Scriptures teach (see Matthew 26:63–64; Daniel 7:13–14;
Revelation 1:7–8; Matthew 24:7–8, 30).
Recently the Jehovah’s Witnesses “reinterpreted”
their prophetic scheme to downplay the significance of 1914. As the Watchtower
Society approaches the new millennium, it must somehow account for the fact
that the Battle of Armageddon has not yet occurred, even though, according to
the Society’s interpretation, it was supposed to occur at least within the
lifetime of those born by 1914.
For decades the Awake! masthead contained the
statement, “Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator’s
promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the
events of 1914 passes away.” However, the November 8, 1995 issue (as well as
all subsequent issues) states, “Most important, this magazine builds confidence
in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure new world that is about to
replace the present wicked lawless system of things.” This is but the latest in
a multitude of reinterpretations by the Watchtower to extend their erroneous
end times scenario into successive decades as their “prophetic” prowess fails.
Following is a chart that shows the successive replacement teachings of the
Watchtower over the years.
Teaching |
Statement |
Source |
“Beginning of the End” in 1799
(later changed to 1914). |
“1799 definitely marks the
beginning of ‘the time of the end.’ ‘The time of the end’ embraces a period
from A.D. 1799, as above indicated, to the time of the complete overthrow of
Satan’s empire. We have been in ‘the time of the end’ since 1799.” |
The Harp of God (1928 ed.):
235–236, 239. |
Christ’s “Invisible Presence”
begins in 1874 (later changed to 1914). |
“The time of the Lord’s second
presence dates from 1874. From 1874 forward is the latter part of the period
of ‘the time of the end.’ From 1874 is the time of the Lord’s second
presence.” |
The Harp of God, 236, 239–240. |
The Battle of Armageddon ends in
1914 (later changed to “still future”). |
“The ‘battle of the great day of
God Almighty’ (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete
overthrow of earth’s present rulership, is already commenced.” |
Charles Taze Russell, The Time Is
at Hand, 101. |
The Battle of Armageddon will end
shortly after 1914. |
“In the year 1918, when God
destroys the churches wholesale and the church members by millions, it shall
be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn
the meaning of the downfall of ‘Christianity.’” |
Charles Taze Russell, The Finished
Mystery (1917 ed.), 485. |
The Battle of Armageddon will come
around 1925. |
“The date 1925 is even more
distinctly indicated by the Scriptures because it is fixed by the law God
gave to Israel. Viewing the present situation in Europe, one wonders how it
will be possible to hold back the explosion much longer; and that even before
1925 the great crisis will be reached and probably passed.” |
The Watch Tower (July 15, 1924):
211. |
1914 is the starting date for the
last generation before the Battle of Armageddon. |
“The thirty-six intervening years
since 1914, instead of postponing Armageddon, have only made it nearer than
most people think. Do not forget: ‘This generation shall not pass, till all
these things be fulfilled’ ” (Matt. 24:34). |
The Watchtower (November 1, 1950):
419. |
People who were present and
understood the events of 1914 will live to see the Battle of Armageddon. |
“Jesus said, ‘This generation will
by no means pass away until all these things occur.’ Which generation is
this, and how long is it? The ‘generation’ logically would not apply to
babies born during World War I. It applies to Christ’s followers and others
who were able to observe that war and the other things that have occurred in
fulfillment of Jesus’ composite ‘sign.’ Some of such persons ‘will by no means
pass away until’ all of what Christ prophesied occurs, including the end of
the present wicked system.” |
The Watchtower (October 1, 1978):
31. |
Anyone born by 1914 will live to
see Armageddon. |
“If Jesus used ‘generation’ in that
sense and we apply it to 1914, then the babies of that generation are now
seventy years old or older. And others alive in 1914 are in their eighties or
nineties, a few even having reached one hundred. There are still many
millions of that generation alive. Some of them ‘will by no means pass away
until all things occur’ ” (Luke 21:32). |
The Watchtower (May 14, 1984): 5. |
Anyone who sees the events
signaling the End, regardless of any relationship to 1914, will see the
Battle of Armageddon. |
“Eager to see the end of this evil
system, Jehovah’s People have at times speculated about the time when the
‘great tribulation’ would break out, even tying this to calculations of what
is the lifetime of a generation since 1914. However we ‘bring a heart of
wisdom in’ not by speculating about how many years or days make up a
generation. ‘This generation’ apparently refers to the peoples of earth who
see the sign of Christ’s presence but fail to mend their ways.” |
The Watchtower (November 1, 1995):
17–20. |
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society still has
not learned to refrain from prophesying falsely. In the January 1, 1997
Watchtower (p. 11), it once again raises expectations among its followers that
the Battle of Armageddon is just around the corner:
In the early 1920s, a featured
public talk presented by Jehovah’s Witnesses was entitled “Millions Now Living
Will Never Die.” This may have reflected over-optimism at that time. But today
that statement can be made with full confidence. Both the increasing light on
Bible prophecy and the anarchy of this dying world cry out that the end of
Satan’s system is very, very near!
(2) “Christ’s Return Invisible, as He Testified That Man Would Not See Him
Again in Human Form” (p. 321).
A little longer and the world
will behold me no more (John 14:19, NWT).
For I say to you, You will by no means see me
from henceforth until you say, “Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name!”
(Matthew 23:39, NWT).
These two passages in their respective contexts give no support to the
Russellite doctrine of an invisible “presence” of Christ for two very excellent
reasons:
(a) John 14:19 refers to
Christ’s anticipated death and resurrection—the “yet a little while” He made
reference to could only have referred to His resurrection and subsequent
ascension (Acts 1:9–11), before which time and during the period following His
resurrection He appeared only to believers, not the world (or unbelievers),
hence the clear meaning of His words. Jesus never said that no one would ever
“see Him again in human form” as the Watchtower likes to make out. Rather, in
the same chapter (John 14) He promised to “come again, and receive you unto
myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (v. 3). The Bible also is quite
clear in telling us that one day by His grace alone “we shall be like him; for
we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). So the Watchtower once more is forced
into silence by the voice of the Holy Spirit.
(b) This second text, Matthew 23:39, really
proves nothing at all for the Watchtower’s faltering arguments except that
Jerusalem will never see Christ again until it blesses Him in repentance as the
Anointed of God. Actually the text hurts the Russellite position, for it
teaches that Christ will be visible at His coming, else they could not see Him
to bless Him in the name of the Lord. Christ also qualified the statement with
the word “until,” a definite reference to His visible second advent (Matthew
24:30).
(3) “Early Christians Expected Christ’s Return to Be Invisible. Paul Argued
There Was Insufficient Evidence in Their Day” (p. 321).
However, brothers, respecting
the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him,
we request of you not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be excited
either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a
letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. Let no
one seduce you in any manner, because it will not come unless the apostasy
comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction (2
Thessalonians 2:1–3, NWT).
This final example from
Second Thessalonians most vividly portrays the Witnesses at their crafty best,
as they desperately attempt to make Paul teach what in all his writings he most
emphatically denied, namely, that Christ would come invisibly for His saints.
In his epistle to Titus, Paul stressed the
importance of “looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the
great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (2:13), something he would not have been
looking for if it was to be a secret, invisible or “presence.”
Paul, contrary to the claims of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, never believed in an invisible return, nor did any bona fide member
of the Christian church up until the fantasies of Charles Taze Russell and his
nightmare, as a careful look at Paul’s first epistle to the Thessalonians
plainly reveals. Said the inspired apostle:
For this we say unto you by
the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the
Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven
[visible] with a shout [audible], with the voice of the archangel, and with the
trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first (4:15–16, bracketed
mine).
Here we see that in perfect accord with Matthew 26 and Revelation 1, Christ is
pictured as coming visibly, and in this context no reputable Greek scholar
alive will allow the use of “presence”; it must be “coming.” (See also 2
Thessalonians 2:8.)
For further information relative to this
subject, consult any standard concordance or Greek lexicon available, and trace
Paul’s use of the word “coming.” This will convince any fair-minded person that
Paul never entertained the Watchtower’s fantastic view of Christ’s return.
These things being clearly understood, the
interested reader should give careful attention to those verses in the New
Testament which do not use the word but are instead forms of the verb and those
related to the word (see Thayer, 250ff) and which refer to the Lord’s coming as
a visible manifestation. These various texts cannot be twisted to fit the
Russellite pattern of “presence,” since means “to come,” “to appear,” “to
arrive,” etc., in the most definite sense of the term. (For reference, check
Matthew 24:30 in conjunction with Matthew 26:64—; also John 14:3—; and
Revelation 1:7—.)
Once it is perceived that Jehovah’s Witnesses
are only interested in what they can make the Scriptures say, and not in what
the Holy Spirit has already perfectly revealed, then the careful student will
reject entirely Jehovah’s Witnesses and their Watchtower “translation.” These
are as “blind leaders of the blind” (Matthew 15:14), “turning the grace of God
into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ”
(Jude 4). Further, that they wrest the Scriptures unto their own destruction (2
Peter 3:16), the foregoing evidence has thoroughly revealed for all to judge.