Apologetics

  v. JW
  v. Rome
  v. ignert

Boards

Links

Misc.

My church

Photo

New

BIBLICAL MONOTHEISM EXAMINED:

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Heb. 13:8 NIV

ETERNAL

"Because in Him there is continuously and permanently at home all the fullness of absolute deity in bodily fashion." (Ibid., p. 358)

"The second point to note is that Rhodes (ed.- Trinitarian Apologist), and others, ignore the context of Colossians 2:9 in order to arrive at their interpretation of the passage.

"For example, in Colossians 1:19 we are told, according to the NIV, ‘For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.’ The Greek word translated ‘please’ is... eudokeo. In the Word Biblical Commentary we are told that ‘the verb "be pleased" which often appears in the Old Testament to denote the good pleasure of God (Ps. 44:3, 147:11, 149:4) is particularly used to denote divine election.’ Similarly, the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament makes these observations:

NT use of eudokeo, a vb. Of the will, is shaped by the influence of the LXX. The meanings alternate between want, decide, and choose... In these examples the idea of the divine election predominates in view of the singular and transcendent designation of Christ, the only Son (the... ["beloved"]). The same christological view is seen in Col. 1:19 (cf. Ps. 67:17 LXX); according to the most probable interpretation the fullness... of the saving riches that dwell in Christ (so that he may mediate them to humankind; cf. 2:9-11; Eph. 1:23) refers to the free and absolute decree of God.

"The Scriptures will not sustain the view that Almighty God’s powers and attributes are something contingent upon the ‘will’ or ‘decree’ of another. Such is the case, however, with the Lord Jesus Christ. God ‘chose’ (Goodspeed), ‘decided’ (Beck), ‘willed’ (Moffatt) to have all His attributes displayed in the person of His Son..." (Stafford, J.W.D., pp. 25-26)

"... The verb huperchon is a present active participle and means that Jesus was the ‘essence of God’ not only before His incarnation but after it as well. At no point before or after His incarnation did Jesus cease to be the essence of God... Before His descent from heaven, Jesus Christ was the essence of God. During His time on earth, He was the essence of God. After His ascension back to heaven, He was the essence of God. And today Jesus is still the essence of God. As Wuest points out, ‘This is the impact of Paul’s use of the present participle.’ " ( Morey, Trinity, pp. 336-337)

Therefore, Col. 1:19 does not refer to Jesus’ pre-incarnate existence as God, but rather refers to the fact that it pleased the Father for Christ to remain what he already was prior to the Incarnation.

Secondly, Trinitarians do not believe that there are three independent Beings who have conflict of purposes or ambitions. Jesus does nothing by himself, but perfectly fulfills all that the Father desires since they are one in all things. Likewise, the Holy Spirit does not act on his own accord, but in perfect harmony with the Father and Son. (Cf. Jn. 5:19, 16:13)

Thirdly, the fact that Paul in Col. 2:9 uses the present participle in relation to Jesus, affirming that he continues to exist bodily with the fullness of God, serves to reinforce that these passages must be understood in light of the Incarnation. The citation cannot be referring to Jesus’ pre-incarnate state since Scripture affirms that God is Spirit. Due to the fact that God is Spirit, he does not have either a spiritual or material body. Hence, Jesus in his preincarnate state existed in the nature of God and therefore had no material or spiritual body.

The fact that God has neither a spiritual or material body is seen in that God is not limited to a localized area, since he infinitely fills all things without being contained by anything. (Cf. Jn. 4:24; 1 Kg. 8:27; Ps. 139:7-10; Isa. 66:1; Jer. 23:23-24; Acts 17:24-28; Eph. 1:23, 4:10)

This is precisely the reason that Christ became flesh since prior to the Incarnation Jesus, being God, existed as Spirit.

In light of these factors, Stafford’s point on eudokeo meaning divine election only serves to reinforce the Trinitarian position of the Son coming to do the will of the Father as the God-man.

(Note- At the Incarnation, Christ took on a human will along with his divine will. Trinitarians believe that the testimony of inspired Scripture is that Jesus is one divine Person with two natures and two wills. [Cf. Mt. 26:39; Jn. 5:19])

Stafford brings up another point in trying to refute the fact that Jesus has always been the eternal God:

"Another point to note in the context of Colossians 2:9 is what follows in verse 10. It reads, ‘And so YOU are possessed of a fullness by means of him’ (NWT); ‘and through union with Him you too are filled with it.’ (C. B. Williams New Testament) Yes, the Christians in union with Christ Jesus will also ‘be filled with the very fullness of God.’ (Eph. 3:19, Goodspeed) This, however, does not make them equal to God, the One who willed that they should possess such a fullness in union with His Son." (Stafford, J.W.D., p. 27)

Stafford erroneously concludes that believers in Christ will also receive the fullness of Deity. Yet, Stafford fails to quote the rest of the passage which explains the type of fullness Paul had in mind. The fullness to which Paul is alluding is the fullness of justification, that in Christ we have received the forgiveness of sins and all the unsearchable riches of God’s wisdom and glory. Paul’s whole point is to show that the fullness of all things pertaining to God’s glorious riches have been given to us in Christ:

"I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness- the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." Col. 1:25-27 NIV

"My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely Christ, in who are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Col. 2:2-4 NIV (Cf. Eph. 1:3-23)

"... who is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done with the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." Col. 2:10b-14 NIV

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth…From the fullness of HIS grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John 1:14, 16-17

This is precisely why Paul goes on to say, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ," since in Christ we have the perfect revelation and riches of God. (Cf. Col. 2:8)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jn. 1:1

This is one of the clearest references to the Deity of Christ and perhaps the most controversial as well.

The verse has caused ongoing debate between Trinitarians and JWs in relation to its proper interpretation and translation. The JWs NWT translates John 1:1:

"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the word was a god."

The controversial point that has led Trinitarians and JWs into rendering John 1:1 in such a contradictory and conflicting manner stems primarily from the Greek construction of John 1:b-c:

1:1b: Kai ho Logos en pros ton theon

And the Word was with the God

1:1c: Kai Theos en ho Logos

And God was the Word

In 1:1b we are told that the Word is with a specific, identifiable person whom John calls the God. The God with whom the Word was is later identified by John as the Father. (Cf. John 1:14, 18)

In 1:1c the Word is called Theos without the Greek article preceding it.

The reason why no article precedes the noun is that it is a preverbal predicate nominative, and as such does not require the article. It is when the predicate proceeds the verb that the article is usually placed, and even then when it is a definite noun. By definite is meant a noun referring to a specific person or thing as opposed to a noun used to denote quality or class.

The argument is whether the term Theos in relation to the Word is to be understood as definite, indefinite, or qualitative. The problem with saying that Theos is definite is that in this particular clause it would make the Word the same person as the God he was with, ton theon. This would make Jesus God the Father. This in essence would teach modalism, the belief that the Father and Son are not distinct persons, but one person taking on different roles. If this is what John wanted to convey he could have written kai ho Theos en Ho Logos, making the Word the only person that is God.

The problem with viewing the noun as indefinite, as JWs do, is that it gives the impression that Jesus is a lesser god, "a god," but not the true God, Jehovah. If this is what John intended, the Greek ho Logos en Theos (the Word was a god) would have sufficed. On the other hand, if indefinite is understood to mean that Theos is not referring to a specific person or thing and is not viewed as being qualitatively inferior, then the noun is clearly indefinite.

That the noun is qualitative implying that the Word is not the same person as the Father whom he was with, but equally God, is evident in light of the following. As was already pointed out, the Greek verb en (was) is in the imperfect tense. The tense is used to imply continuous existence in the past, in this case before the absolute beginning. That the Word was continuously existing before the beginning implies that he is eternal. Author Dr. James R. White states:

"The tense of the verb expresses continuous action in the past... as far back as you wish to push ‘the beginning,’ the Word is already there. The Word does not come into existence at the ‘beginning,’ but is already in existence when the ‘beginning’ takes place. If we take the beginning of John 1:1, the Word is already there. If we push it back further (if one can even do so!), say, a year, the Word is already there. A thousand years, the Word is there. A billion years, the Word is there. What is John’s point? The Word is eternal. The Word has always existed. The Word is not a creation. The New English Bible puts it quite nicely: ‘When all things began, the Word already was.’ " (White, The Forgotten Trinity- Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief [Minneapolis, MN; Bethany House Publishers, 1998], pp. 50-51)

Frederick Louis Godet indicates:

The imperfect en, was, must designate, according to the ordinary meaning of the tense, the simultaneousness of the act indicated by the verb with some other act. This simultaneousness is here that of the existence of the Word with the fact designated by the word beginning. ‘When everything which has begun began, the Word was.’ Alone then, it did not begin; the Word was already. Now that which did not begin with things, that is to say, with time, the form of the development of things, belongs to the eternal order... The idea of this first proposition is, therefore, that of the eternity of the Logos. (Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John [Grand Rapids; Zondervan, n.d.], vol. 1, pp. 244-245 bold emphasis ours)

Murray J. Harris concurs,

In itself John 1:1a speaks only of the pretemporality or supratemporality of the Logos, but in his conjunction of... en (not egeneto) John implies the eternal preexistence of the Word. He who existed ‘in the beginning’ before creation was himself without a beginning and therefore uncreated. There was no time when he did not exist. John is hinting that all speculation about the origin of the Logos is pointless. (Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Grand Rapids; Baker Book House 1992], p. 54 emphasis ours)

Robert M. Bowman Jr. elaborates,

Had John wanted to say that the Word was the first creation of God, or even simply say that the Word existed before the rest of creation, there are a number of ways he could have said so clearly and without any possibility of misunderstanding. He could have written, ‘from the beginning,’ using the word apo instead of en, as he did repeatedly in his writings in the expression ap’ arches (John 8:44; 15:27; 1 John 1:1; 2:7, 13, 14, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 5, 6). This would trace his existence back to the beginning without telling us anything about his existence ‘before’ the beginning (if such existence were possible). Or, he could have written, ‘In the beginning the Word came into existence,’ substituting for the word en the word egeneto, which occurs repeatedly in the Prologue (John 1:3, 6, 10, 14, 17). This would have settled the debate forever in favor of the JW interpretation of the text, since it would be an explicit affirmation of the creation of the preincarnate Jesus. Yet John wrote neither of these things. Instead, he wrote what most naturally would be (and as a matter of historical record has been) interpreted as a declaration of the eternality of the Word. ‘In the beginning the Word was’; the verb was is the imperfect past tense verb en, here unquestionably used of durative, continuing existence. To continue existing at the beginning of the time is to be eternal by definition. (Bowman, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ & The Gospel of John [Grand Rapids; Baker Book House, 1995], p. 23 emphasis ours)

Randolph Yeager, a modern Greek scholar, concludes:

Thus the Word existed before the beginning, since He has always existed. With Him there is no beginning. He is eternal and everlasting... It is impossible to avoid the force of John’s grammar. (Yeager, The Renaissance New Testament [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1973], vol. 4, p. 2 bold emphasis ours)

For John to say that the Word was (en) God, meant that Jesus as the Word has eternally existed as God.

Scholars who agree that the noun Theos is qualitative, implying that Jesus is God in an absolute and eternal sense include:

F. F. Bruce,

The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation "The Word was God." Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also "with God." What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase "What God was, the Word Was," brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can. (Bruce, The Gospel of John [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1983], p.31 emphasis ours)

And,

Those people who emphasize that the true rendering of the last clause of John 1.1 "the word was a god" prove nothing thereby save their ignorance of Greek grammar. (Bruce, The Books and the Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ; Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963], pp. 60-61 note)

A. T. Robertson,

And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say... So in John 1:14 ho logos sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of the Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality. (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament [Grand Rapids; Baker Book House, 1932], vol. 5, pp. 4-5, emphasis ours)

Kenneth Wuest,

And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity. (The New Testament: An Expanded Translation [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1956] emphasis ours)

John L. McKenzie,

The Word theos is used to designate the gods of paganism. Normally the word with or without the article designates the God of the Old Testament and Judaism, the God of Israel: Yahweh. But the character of God is revealed in an original way in the NT; the originality is perhaps best summed up by saying that God reveals Himself in and through Jesus Christ. The revelation of God in Jesus Christ does not consist merely in the prophetic word as in the OT, but in an identity between God and Jesus Christ. Jn 1:1-18 expresses this by contrasting the word spoken by the prophets with the word incarnate in Jesus. In Jesus the personal reality of God is manifested in a visible and tangible form. In the words of Jesus and in much of the rest of the NT the God of Israel (ho theos) is the Father of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few times. Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the Word was with God [= the Father], and the Word was a divine being.’ Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, ‘My Lord and my God’ (Jn. 20:28). ‘The glory of our great God and Savior’ which is to appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus (Tt.[Titus] 2:13). (McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible [New York: Macmillan, 1965], p. 317 emphasis ours)

That McKenzie understood Jn 1:1 as declaring Jesus as God in an absolute sense, is evident from his statement that Jn. 20:28 and Titus 2:13 both refer to Jesus as God. This is solidified by the fact that McKenzie addressed Yahweh as a divine being as well:

This name needs no defining genitive; Yahweh is the God of Israel without further definition. The name implies that a divine personal being being has revealed Himself as the God of Israel through the covenant and exodus; it designates the divine personal reality as proclaimed and experienced. (Ibid, p. 317)

Murray J. Harris,

In the first proposition of verse 1 John affirms that the Logos existed before time and creation and therefore implicitly denies that the Logos was a created being. In the second, he declares that the Logos always was in active communion with the Father and thereby implies that the Logos cannot be personally identified with the Father. In the third, he states that the Logos always was a partaker of deity and so implicitly denies that the Logos was ever elevated to divine status. The thought of the verse moves from eternal preexistence to personal communion to intrinsic deity: only because the Logos participated inherently in the divine nature could he be said to be already in existence when time began or creation occurred and to be in unbroken and eternal fellowship with the Father. This would justify regarding theos as emphatic, standing as it does at the head of its clause. (Harris, Jesus as God, p.71, emphasis ours)

Amazingly, Stafford misquotes Harris, giving a misleading impression as to what the latter actually said:

"Compare Murray J. Harris... who states that ‘from the point of view of grammar alone... could be rendered "the word was a god"... But the theological context, viz., John’s monotheism, makes this rendering of 1:1c impossible’..." (Stafford, J.W.D., p. 186, f. 53)

Here is what Harris actually said,

"Since the basic function of the article is deictic, to add precision to thought by emphasizing individuality or identity, the nonoccurrence of the article with a noun may point to the nonparticularity, indefiniteness, of the concept. Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, theos en ho logos could be rendered ‘the Word was a god,’ just as, for example, if only grammatical considerations were taken into account, umeis ek tou patros tou diabolou este (John 8:44), could mean ‘you belong to the father of the devil. But the theological context, viz, John’s monotheism, makes this endering of 1:1c impossible, for if a monotheist were speaking of the Deity he himself reverenced, the singular theos could be applied only to the Supreme Being, not to an inferior divine being or emanation as if theos were simply generic. That is, in reference to his own beliefs, a monotheist could not speak of theoi nor could he use theos in the singular (when giving any type of personal description) of any being other than the true God whom he worshiped." (Harris, Jesus as God, p. 60 bold emphasis ours)

Murray’s point on John’s theology relates to the fact that a monotheist, as JWs claim that they are, would never call any being apart from the true God theos or its Greek equivalent. Harris goes on to say,

"The translation ‘a god’ as found in the New World Translation, Jannaris (‘Logos’ 24, but ‘a God’ on p. 20), and Becker (65, 68, 70: ‘ein Gott’). The reasons for rejecting this rendering- represented in none of the major English translations of the twentieth century- have been set out in &D.3.a (1) above." (Harris, Jesus as God, p. 68 emphasis ours)

James Moffatt (Bible translator),

"The Word Was God... And the Word became flesh," simply means "The Word was divine... and the Word became human." The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man... (Moffatt, Jesus Christ the Same [Nashville; Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945], p. 61 emphasis ours)

B. F. Westcott,

The predicate ["God"] stands emphatically first, as iv.24. It is necessarily without the article [theos not ho theos] inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of the expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1958 rp.], p. 3 bold emphasis ours)

C. H. Dodd,

On this analogy, the meaning of theos and ho logos will be that the ousia ["essence"] of ho logos ["the Word"], that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos... That this is the ousia of ho theos (the Personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, Nicene homoousios to patri ["of one essence of the Father"] is a perfect paraphrase. (Dodd, New Testament Translation Problems II, p. 104 bold emphasis ours)

Dr. Philip B. Harner,

As an aid in understanding the verse, it will be helpful to ask what John might have written as well as what he did write. In terms of the types of word-order and vocabulary available to him, it would appear that John could have written any of the following:

A. ho Logos en ho theos (the Word was the God);

B. Theos en ho Logos (God was the Word);

C. ho Logos Theos en (the Word God was);

D. ho Logos en Theos (the Word was a god);

E. ho Logos en Theios (the Word was divine);

...Clause D with the verb preceding an anarthrous (without the article, ‘the’) predicate, would probably mean that the logos was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos... John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E... But in all these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express. Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of expressing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos (the Word), no less than ho theos (the God), had the nature of theos (God). (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, pp. 84-85, 87 bold emphasis ours)

To summarize John’s point in writing his prologue, we are told:

The Word was eternally existing before anything ever came into being

The Word eternally existed in an interpersonal relationship with the One called the God, i.e. the Father

The Word was eternally God.

The preceding points based on the inspired Greek text shatters any attempt to view Jesus simply as a lesser god created by Jehovah.

"So because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, ‘My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working. For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." Jn. 5:16-18 NIV

The inspired Apostle affirms that it was Jesus, not the Jews, who was calling God his Father as well as claiming equality with him. This is not the only time where Jesus claims equality:

"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one." Jn. 10:28-30 NIV

The context does not limit oneness to unity, as JWs assume, but oneness in all things. Christ, like his Father, is able to preserve his followers from perishing, guaranteeing them eternal life. Christ has both the power to preserve life and the quality of eternal life to impart to others, things true only of God. Hence, oneness here implies oneness in essence and nature.

"And I heard a loud voice saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God (tou Theou- the God) is with men, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people and God (ho Theos- the God) himself will dwell with them and be their God.’ He who was seated on the throne said, I am making everything new! Then he said, ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.’ " Rev. 21:3-7 NIV

That the one speaking is the Lord Jesus Christ becomes evident when comparing the italicized portions with the following citations:

"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel’- which means, ‘God with us.’ " Mt. 1:22-23 NIV

"Jesus answered her, ‘If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living waters’... Jesus answered, ‘Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.’ " Jn. 4:10, 13-14 NIV

"On the last day, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, ‘If anyone is thirsty, let him come to ME and drink. Whoever believes in ME, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.’ " Jn. 7:37-38 NIV

The similarities between the words of Christ and that of Revelation strongly suggests that Jesus is the one referred to as God. This is clearly seen in the fact that the Bible indicates that it is Jesus who is to come in visible glory and reign over the nations, not the Father. (Cf. 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10, 4:1, 8; Tt. 2:13; Heb. 9:28; Rev. 1:7) The only sense in which the Father can be said to be coming is in the person of his Son through whom he both enacts judgment and reigns with the saints. The Scriptures nowhere speak of him coming visibly.

A possible objection that might be raised is that the speaker indicates that a believer who overcomes will be his son. This seemingly refers to the Father since believers are pictured as Christ’s brethren, not his sons.

Logically, it does not follow that the statement "he will be my son" means the Father is speaking. If this were so, the Apostle Paul would also be claiming to be the Father in the following passage:

"I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." 1 Cor. 4:14-15 NIV

Furthermore, Isaiah 9:6 would prove that Jesus is the Father if this logic were to be sustained:

"For to us a child id born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father (Heb. - Abi Ad, Father of Eternity), Prince of Peace."

Neither Trinitarians nor JWs take this to mean that Jesus is God the Father, but that he is the author of eternal life.

(Note - There are Christians who use this verse to try to prove that Jesus is the Father, since they believe that there are not three Persons but one Person assuming three different roles. This belief is known as modalism, a teaching adhered to by modern Oneness Pentecostals or "Jesus Only" churches.)

This logic would also prove that Abraham was God the Father as well:

"Therefore, the promise comes by grace, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring- not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of all. As it is written: ‘I have made you a father of many nations.’ He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed- the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they are." Romans 4:16-17 NIV (Cf. Acts 7:1-2)

This would also include the Apostle John:

"I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth." 3 John 4 NKJV

Hence, "son" need not imply that the Father is being addressed since the term can refer to the children that the Father has given the Son to raise up and glorify:

"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." Jn. 6:37-39 NIV

"And again he says, ‘Here am I, and the children God has given me.’ " Heb. 2:13b NIV

Thus, Christians are viewed as the children of Christ in the sense that he is their very life and the power that grants them immortal glory. (Cf. Phil. 3:20-21; Col. 3:3-4)

ROCK

JEHOVAH

He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God, who does no wrong, upright and just is he. Deut. 32:4 NIV

Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one. Isa. 44:8 NIV

JESUS

They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 1 Cor. 10:3-4 NIV

According to Paul, the One who supernaturally provided for Moses and Israel while in the desert for forty years was the preincarnate Christ. Yet, according to the Pentateuch that One was Jehovah! (Cf. Ex. 16:2-36, 17:1-7; Nu. 20:2-11, 21:16; Ps. 78:15, 105:41)

STONE OF STUMBLING

JEHOVAH

The LORD of hosts, Him you shall hollow; Let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread. He will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble; They shall fall and be broken, be snared and taken. Isa. 8:13-15 NKJV

JESUS

Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

‘Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.’

Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone,’ and ‘A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.’ 1 Peter 2:4-8 NKJV

JUDGE OF THE NATIONS

JEHOVAH

Let the nations be roused; let them advance into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side. Joel 3:13 NIV

You then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. Romans 14:10 NIV

JESUS

When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. Mt. 25:31-32 NKJV

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 2 Cor. 5:10 NKJV

SALVATION

JEHOVAH

Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. Isa. 45:22 NIV

And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved... Joel 2:32 NIV

JESUS

He told them, ‘This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.’ Luke 24:46-47 NIV

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. Acts 4:12 NIV

HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS ONE

JEHOVAH

I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man - the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath. Hosea 11:9 NIV

The LORD within her is righteous; he does no wrong. Morning by morning he dispenses his justice, and every new day he does not fail, yet the unrighteous know no shame. Zephaniah 3:5 NIV

JESUS

You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. Acts 3:14 NIV

Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him. Acts 7:52 NIV

TRUE AND FAITHFUL WITNESS

JEHOVAH

Then they said to Jeremiah, ‘May the LORD be a true and faithful witness against us if we do not act in accordance with everything the LORD your God sends you to tell us. Jer. 42:5 NIV

JESUS

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. Rev. 3:14 NIV

WORSHIP DUE TO GOD

The final line of evidence in support of Jesus being Jehovah God is that Jesus receives the very worship due to God. This is precisely what we would expect to find if indeed the NT writers viewed Jesus as God.

The Greek term used for worship is proskuneo which means either to do obeisance or to worship. In the Old Testament, we find that many received obeisance:

Afterward David also arose, and went out of the cave, and called after Saul, "My lord the king!" And when Saul looked behind him, David bowed with his face to the earth, and did obeisance (Gr.- prosekunesen). 1 Sam. 24:8 RSV

And the third day, behold, a man from Saul’s camp, with his clothes rent and earth upon his head. And when he came to David, he fell to the ground and did obeisance GR- prosekunesen). 2 Sam. 1:2 RSV

In NT times, however, the act of proskuneo was forbidden altogether:

"Well, I, John was the one hearing and seeing these things. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship (proskunesai) before the angel that had been showing me these things. But he tells me: ‘Be careful! Do not do that! All I am is a fellow slave of you and of your brothers who are prophets and of those who are observing the words of this scroll. Worship God (theo proskuneson).’ " Rev. 22:8-9 NWT (Cf. Rev.19:9-10)

"As Peter entered, Cornelius met him, fell down at his feet and did obeisance (prosekunesen) to him. But Peter lift him up, saying: ‘Rise; I myself am also a man.’" Acts 10:25-26 NWT

When we come to Jesus we find that he not only receives worship, but receives doxologies due only to God.

WORSHIP

JEHOVAH

"... And let all the angels worship him." Deut. 32:43 LXX

JESUS

"... in order that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He that does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." Jn. 5:23 NWT

"And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, He says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’ " Heb. 1:6 NIV

According to the author of Hebrews the Septuagint’s command that all the angels should worship Jehovah is actually speaking of Jesus. We once again find the NT writers applying an OT passage of Jehovah to Jesus, affirming that the writers viewed Jesus as Jehovah.

PRAYER

"Also, whatever it is that YOU ask in my name, I WILL DO THIS, in order that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son. If YOU ask anything in my name, I WILL DO IT." Jn. 14:13-14 NWT

It is interesting to note that the JWs fail to translate a key Greek phrase that is included in the Greek text used in their The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. The phrase, ean ti aitesete me en to onomati mou touto poieso, literally reads: "if ever anything you should ask ME in the name of me this I shall do."

Jesus is telling believers to ask him anything directly and he will do it. The JWs have left out "me" from their text as to prevent their followers from addressing Jesus directly in prayer. In fact, it is not only the Westcott/Hort Greek text used by JWs that have the phrase "me", since this reading is supported by the best and most ancient Greek MSS of the New Testament. Noted Textual critic, Bruce M. Metzger, comments on the possible reasons why some MSS dropped the phrase me from the text, despite it being the most probable reading:

"Either the unusual collocation, ‘ask me in my name.’ or a desire to avoid contradiction with 16.23 seems to have prompted (a) the omission of me in a variety of witnesses... or (b) its replacement with ton patera... The word me is adequately supported... and seems to be appropriate in view of its correlation with ego later in the verse." (Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [United Bible Societies, USA 1971first edition; Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, D-Stuttgart, second edition 1994, second printing 1998], p. 208)

Furthermore, the New Testament clearly affirms the fact that the first Christians did indeed pray to Jesus. Notice the following examples:

"While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ Then he fell on his knees and cried out, ‘Lord, do not hold this against them.’ When he had said this, he fell asleep." Acts 7:59-60

Stephen prays to Jesus in the exact manner Jesus prayed to the Father while on earth!:

"Jesus called out with a loud voice, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.’ When he had said this, he breathed his last." Luke 23:46

(Note- The JWs insert the word Jehovah in place of Lord at Acts 7:60, without any warrant to do so since there is not one single New Testament MS which contains the divine name. Yet, interestingly if the JW rendering is correct this would prove that Jesus is Jehovah since he is the only referent in the context!)

"In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, ‘Ananias!’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ he answered. The Lord told him, ‘Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.’ ‘Lord,’ Ananias answered, ‘I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with all authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.’ But the Lord said to Ananias, ‘Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.’ Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord-Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here- has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’" Acts 9:10-17 NIV

In this passage, we find Ananias both addressing Jesus in prayer as Lord and affirming that the early followers called on Jesus’ name, i.e. prayed to him directly.

"To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ- their Lord and ours." 1 Cor. 1:2 NIV

"Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power (dunamis) is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore, I will boast all the more gladly about my weakness, so that Christ’s power (dunamis tou Christou) may rest on me." 2 Cor. 12:8-9 NIV

These examples sufficiently demonstrate that the first Christians prayed to Jesus as to God, an explicit witness to his essential equality with the Father. The question we have for JWs, and for Greg Stafford for that matter, is does not the fact that Christians prayed to Jesus imply his omniscience, omnipresence and his omnipotence? Otherwise, how could Jesus be able to hear and answer the prayers of the multitudes of Christians everywhere both then and now if he were not all-powerful and ever-present?

DOXOLOGIES

JEHOVAH

"To the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen." Rom. 16:27 NIV

"Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, who no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen" 1Tim. 6:16 NIV

JESUS

"But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen." 2 Pt. 3:18 NIV

"Then I heard every creature (pan ktisma) in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: ‘To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, forever and ever!" Rev. 5:13 NIV

The fact that John includes every living creature in praising God, affirms that Jesus is not part of creation. If Jesus had been one of God’s creatures we would expect to find him as one of those worshiping God in heaven. Instead we find Jesus receiving the same praise and glory that the Father receives, both in heaven and in the Church. This makes him the eternal Creator instead of a creature.

In his attempt to diminish the worship of Jesus to less than that of the Father, Stafford reasons that whereas Jesus receives proskuneo, he does not receive latreuo (sacred service). Only the Father receives latreuo:

"Yet, he (Jesus) still showed that only Jehovah was to be given absolute, religious worship when he told Satan, ‘It is Jehovah God you worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service [... latreuo].’- Mt. 4:10

"Bowman asserts that ‘Jesus also receives... sacred service (Rev. 22:3).’ Is this true? Does Revelation 22:3 teach that Jesus receives latreuo? The NIV reads: ‘No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve [form of latreuo] him’ (emphasis added). Revelation speaks of two individuals, ‘God’ and the ‘Lamb.’ In referring to the one who would receive latreuo, John uses the third person singular pronoun (‘his,’ ‘him’), showing that it has reference to but one of the two individuals mentioned. If John wanted his readers to know that both God and the Lamb (Jesus Christ) were to receive latreuo, he would have simply used the third person plural pronoun (for example, ‘and their servants will serve them’) instead of the singular. "If it is argued that latreuo here refers to the ‘Lamb,’ then we must indeed wonder why it does not refer to God, the One to whom it is elsewhere restricted. Also, there would be no evidence other than mere opinion to support such a theory that Jesus here receives latreuo and God does not. Thus, we may safely conclude that latreuo is here given to the same individual who receives it in Revelation 7:15, and elsewhere in the Bible." (Stafford, pp. 85-86)

Stafford’s footnote found on the same page states:

"Revelation 7:15 speaks of the great crowd that comes out of tribulation rendering latreuo to the ‘One seated on the throne,’ referring to Jehovah. Whereas Jesus is clearly distinguished from the One seated on the throne, as he is said to be ‘in the midst of the throne,’ according to verse 17." (Ibid., f. 37)

We gladly respond to these assertions. Stafford fails to inform his readers that Revelation also indicates that Jesus himself sits on the very throne of the Father. In Rev. 3:21 Jesus says, "To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, even as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne" (NWT)

The fact that both Father and Son sit on the same throne is evident from the very passage Stafford cites: "... But the throne (singular) of God and of the Lamb will be in [the city]..." Rev. 22:3 NWT

John speaks of the throne of God and the Lamb, not thrones, affirming that Jesus also sits on God’s throne.

Finally, in Revelation 20:11-15 we are told that the one who sits on the throne will judge the dead. According to John 5:22, the Father judges no one but has entrusted all judgment to the Son. This again proves that Jesus is also sitting on the very throne of the Father.

Stafford erroneously assumes that if John wanted to include Jesus as receiving latreuo he should have used the third person plural. What Stafford again fails to mention is that John proceeds to use the singular in a context where both the Father and Son are clearly involved: "and they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads." Rev. 22:4 NWT

Yet in Rev. 14:1 we are told that believers are to receive the names of both God and the Lamb on their foreheads: "And I saw, and, look! The Lamb standing upon the Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father on their foreheads." NWT

In light of the above, we find that Stafford’s reasoning is invalidated by the Apostle himself.

Stafford asserts that no evidence, other than mere opinion, can be given to support the fact that it is Jesus who, in this particular reference, is the one receiving latreuo. Far from opinion, we will present the context of the chapter itself to support the premise that it is Jesus, not the Father, who is receiving "sacred service":

"And they will see HIS FACE, and his name will be on their foreheads." Rev. 22:4 NWT

According to the Bible it is Jesus whom believers shall see face to face:

"Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be. We do know that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him JUST AS HE IS." 1 Jn. 3:2 NWT

The Bible states that at the second-coming our bodies will be glorified like that of Christ’s, not the Father since he never became incarnate:

"But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body." Phil. 3:20-21 NIV

"And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven." 1 Cor. 15:49 NIV

According to Scriptures the Father, "lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen OR CAN SEE." 1 Tim. 6:16

The second line of evidence that points to Jesus comes from Rev. 22:6:

"The angel said to me, ‘These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent HIS angel to show HIS servants the things that must soon take place.’" NIV

In Rev. 22:16, we are told:

"I, JESUS, HAVE SENT MY ANGEL TO GIVE YOU THIS TESTIMONY FOR THE CHURCHES." NIV

In these citations, Jesus is called the God of the prophets who sent his angel to prepare his servants for the culmination of the age. These factors clearly prove that believers are to give Jesus the same type of latreuo that the Father receives.

Stafford also reasons that to say Jesus receives latreuo here is to suggest that God does not. Yet, Stafford fails to realize that to render sacred service to Jesus is to also render service to the Father:

"Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son. That all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him." Jn 5:22-23 NIV

It is JWs who do not honor the Father. They dishonor the very God whom they claim to serve as they refuse to give Jesus the same honor demanded in Scripture. In light of the overwhelming evidence there can be no denying that the New Testament ascribes to Jesus the same type of worship which is given only to God.

CONCLUSION

In this study we examined the biblical teaching in relation to monotheism. We discovered that whereas the Scripture uses the term "God" in three distinct manners, there is only one true God by nature. The other so called gods are categorized as false deities whom the nations wrongly view as gods; or messengers acting in the place of God as his mouthpiece and representative.

We also examined the biblical teaching in relation to the person of Jesus Christ. We did this to show that the Bible does not view Jesus as a false god who is wrongly worshiped. Nor does the Bible support the fact that he is a lesser god created by Jehovah to be his agent in creation and redemption. Instead, the biblical evidence leads us to embrace Jesus as the true God, Jehovah, who became man for our salvation. The Bible ascribes to Jesus the titles Jehovah, God, Lord, King of Kings etc. It also ascribes to him the functions and attributes of Jehovah such as creation, eternality, immutability, omnipresence (Mt. 18:20; Jn. 14:23; Eph. 4:10), and omniscience (Jn. 21:17; Rev. 2:23b cf. Jer. 17:10). All these factors prove that Jesus is the eternal God and not God’s first exalted creature, the archangel Michael.

The Bible also leads us to affirm that while Jesus is fully God he is not the only person who is the true God. Scripture clearly indicates that both the Father and the Holy Spirit are fully God as well, with all three Persons comprising the unity of the one true God. (Cf. Deut. 6:4; Mt. 28:19)

The Bible also denies henotheism, the belief that there are a host of gods but only one eternal God who is to be worshiped. Scripture clearly teaches that no god has ever been formed nor are angels partakers of God’s nature. The only Persons who partake of the nature of God fully and perfectly are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the blessed Trinity.

It is to the Trinity that we bow and worship. It is for the Trinity that we live and die. It is to the Trinity that we pray. All our hope and love and faith must be directed to the one and only true and Tri-personal God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We have been chosen by the Father (Eph. 1:3-5), purchased by the Son (Rev. 5:9), sealed by the Spirit (Eph. 4:30). Blessed God, Three in One.

Our heartfelt prayer is that all who read this will come to know and believe in the only true God and eternal Life, Father, Son and Holy Spirit:

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12 NIV

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil. 2:10-11 NIV

Amen, Come Lord Jesus.

THE USAGE OF GREEK TENSES AND BIBLICAL CHRISTOLOGY

It must be pointed out that our usage of Greek tenses in relation to key biblical passages in and of itself are insufficient in establishing our case for Trinitarianism. This is primarily due to the fact that in biblical Greek one must differentiate between aspect and Aktionsart, the sense in which the verbal forms are used in a given construct. In other words, just because a writer uses the present participle it does not necessarily mean that the writer intended to imply a continuous action or state of existence. Hence, it is not the aspect itself but the way the writer uses the verbal form in a given context that establishes the action as continuous or not. This is essentially true of all verbs and tenses, and is not just limited to the present tense.

To solidify the points made earlier that verses such as Philippians 2:5-7 and Colossians 2:9 the intention of the author was to affirm the abiding reality of Christ’s divine nature even while on earth, and that Jesus continues to remain the fullness of Deity in bodily form, we present the following biblical citations.

First, in relation to the fact that Christ continues to retain his human nature and body, albeit a glorified body at that, we present the following verses:

"he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption." Acts 2:31 NKJV (Cf. Acts 13:34-37)

The apostle Peter clearly affirms that Jesus’ flesh did not see corruption, implying that Christ’ resurrection body was material, fleshly.

"Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." Lk. 24:39 NKJV

"’because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by THE MAN whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.’ And when they (Athenians) heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, ‘We will hear you again on this matter.’" Acts 17:31-32 NKJV

If all Paul had in mind was a spiritual resurrection, then the Greeks would not have mocked him since they believed in the immortality of the soul yet denied a physical resurrection. Hence, Paul could only have been referring to a physical, bodily resurrection when addressing the Athenians. This is solidified by Paul’s point that God will judge the world by a Man, namely Jesus Christ. This strongly argues that Jesus is still fully human, otherwise it could not be said that a Man will judge the world if Christ were raised a spirit creature.

"And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living soul (psuchen).’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit... The first man was of the earth, of dust; the second Man is from Heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man." 1 Cor. 15:45, 47-49

Paul affirms that Jesus is still Man while now in heaven. A typical response is to point out the fact that Paul indicates that Jesus is now a life-giving spirit, and hence is no longer in the flesh. This no more denies that Jesus is a man than Paul saying that Adam was a living soul denies that he had a fleshly body.

JWs correctly indicate that soul (psuchen) here does not refer just to the immaterial aspect of Adam but to his total being, to his entire existence as man which includes both the material and immaterial aspects of his nature. This understanding of the Greek term serves to solidify the case that Jesus’ entire being was raised on the third day since Peter affirms that David spoke concerning Christ saying,

"For David says respecting him, ‘I had Jehovah constantly before my eyes; because he is at my right hand that I may never be shaken. On this account my heart became cheerful and my tongue rejoiced greatly. Moreover, even my flesh will reside in hope; because you will not leave MY SOUL (ton psuchen mou) in Hades, neither will you allow your loyal one TO SEE CORRUPTION.’" Acts 2:25-27 NWT

Hence, Jesus’ psuchen, his entire being which included both the material and immaterial aspects of his nature, was not abandoned to the grave but raised in immortal glory.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, A MAN, Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5 NWT

According to the apostle Paul, it is the Man Jesus who is now the mediator between God and men. In light of the preceding biblical evidence, we are left to conclude that Jesus continues to exist in a physical, glorified body retaining his human nature while now reigning in heaven as King of kings and Lord of lords. This means that Christ has a material body and continues to remain "the fullness of Deity in bodily form."

(Note- Amazingly, in his attempt to disprove Jesus’ bodily resurrection, Stafford serves to reinforce it by citing Igantius:

"Interestingly, Ignatius (who died sometime during Trajan’s reign [98-117 C.E.]) writes to the Smyrnaeans (3:2): ‘For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when he came to Peter and those with him, he... said to them: "Take hold of me; handle me and see that I am not a disembodied demon [ouk eimi daimonion hasomaton]."’... Of course, Ignatius himself believed in the physical resurrection of Christ, and our citation of him on this point is merely to demonstrate that ‘spirit’ in Luke 24:39 was understood by others to mean a demonic spirit." (Stafford, J.W.D., pp. 255-256 bold emphasis ours)

The question begging to be asked is how can Stafford claim a spiritual resurrection when Ignatius, being a contemporary of the companions of the Apostle John, affirmed that Jesus’ resurrection was indeed physical? Obviously, Ignatius is more qualified to know whether Jesus’ resurrection was physical or spiritual seeing that he was both closer to the events and had a thorough command of Scripture.

Furthermore, other church fathers such as Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) also confirmed that the resurrection of Jesus was physical saying that those who "maintain that even Jesus Himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh: these persons seek to rob the flesh of the promise." [Justin Martyr, Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection, chpt. 2 - Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vols. 1-14, Grand Rapids; Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985]

Hence, the weight of the evidence seems to indicate that the JW position is biblically and historically indefensible.

For a thorough refutation of JW arguments used to support their belief in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus, we refer the reader to Robert M. Bowman Jr.’s book, Jehovah’s Witnesses [Zondervan Publishing House; Grand Rapids, MI. 1995])

To support the Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2:5b-6 that Jesus did not cease to be God while on earth, but set aside his divine authority and glory to become a servant of the Father we present the following biblical references.

First, according to Isaiah 7:14 the virgin was to give birth to Immanuel, affirming that God himself would be present with his people. Matthew indicates that this was fulfilled by the birth of Christ, implying that Jesus is the very God who was prophesied to come and dwell with his people. (Mt. 1:22-23)

Further support that the Messiah-child would be God while as a man on earth is derived from the Hebrew usage of "name". To the Hebrew mind the fact that the child would be named Immanuel was not merely to denote a proper name. Rather, the name signified the child’s nature or essence.

Edward J. Young, in his commentary on Isaiah 7:14 notes:

"... In the Bible the name indicates the character, essence, or nature of a person or object." (Young, Commentary on the Book of Isaiah [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1974], p. 331 emphasis ours)

Therefore, the fact that the virgin born son would be named Immanuel implies that the child’s nature would be that of absolute Deity even while on earth.

According to Isaiah 9:1-2 and 6-7, a great light would dawn in Galilee of the Gentiles by way of Jordan. The reason given is that "a child is born, and unto us a son is given; and the government shall be on his shoulder, and his name shall be Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgement and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."

According to both Matthew and Luke, this prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus’ earthly life and ministry. (Cf. Mat. 4:12-17-Isa. 9:1-2; Luke 1:30-33-Isa. 9:6-7) This affirms that Jesus was the Son, the Mighty God and the Eternal Father while on earth.

Further evidence that Jesus was both God and the Father of Eternity while on earth is seen in the fact that the phrase "Everlasting Father" is used to denote that Jesus is the source of eternal life. Accordingly, Jesus was the source of life both before and during his earthly ministry:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men... That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him." Jn. 1:1-4, 9-10 NKJV

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life- the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us..." 1 Jn. 1:1-2 NKJV

"Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, ‘I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life." Jn. 8:12 NKJV

"As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." Jn. 9:5 NKJV

"Jesus said to her, ‘I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE...’" Jn. 11:25

"Jesus said to him, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, AND THE LIFE...’" Jn. 14:6

These passages conclusively prove that Jesus remained on earth what he was in heaven, namely God and the Author of Life.

The final line of evidence supporting the fact that Jesus was God in the flesh is Matthew 17:1-2, 5:

"Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light... While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" NKJV

Jesus’ inner, abiding nature manifested itself before his disciples, clearly demonstrating that he did not cease to be "in the form of God." What was different was that Jesus had taken on a human nature which temporarily veiled his inner, abiding glory.

Having fully examined the biblical data in relation to the life and nature of Jesus Christ, we reach the inescapable conclusion that Christ never ceased to be God while fulfilling his earthly ministry. Furthermore, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus eternally exists as God while in a glorified material body in heaven. Therefore, from a purely biblical perspective JW theology is completely indefensible.

AMEN LORD JESUS

 

                                              
Theology

Reformation Theology

Systematics

Theo Links

Hardware

Greek

Pleasures of God

Software