Monday, June 11, 2012

`Jesus is Jehovah?'


Thank you for your message. As per my stated policy, if I receive a private message that is about a topic covered by one of my blogs, I

[Above: "The Shield of the Trinity or Scutum Fidei is a traditional Christian visual symbol which expresses many aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity, summarizing the first part of the Athanasian Creed in a compact diagram. ... This diagram consists of four nodes (generally circular in shape) interconnected by six links. The three nodes at the edge of the diagram are labelled with the names of the three persons of the Trinity (traditionally the Latin-language names, or scribal abbreviations thereof): The Father (`PATER'), The Son (`FILIUS'), and The Holy Spirit (`SPIRITUS SANCTUS'). The node in the center of the diagram (within the triangle formed by the other three nodes) is labelled God (Latin `DEUS'), while the three links connecting the center node with the outer nodes are labelled `is' (Latin `EST'), and the three links connecting the outer nodes to each other are labelled `is not' (Latin `NON EST'). The links are non-directional - this is emphasized in one thirteenth-century manuscript by writing the link captions `EST' or `NON EST' twice as many times (going in both directions within each link), and is shown in some modern versions of the diagram by superimposing each occurrence of the `is'/`is not' text on a double-headed arrow <-> (rather than enclosing it within a link). So the following twelve propositions can be read off the diagram: ...

`The Father is God'
'The Son is God'
'The Holy Spirit is God'
'God is the Father'
'God is the Son'
'God is the Holy Spirit'
'The Father is not the Son'
'The Son is not the Father'
'The Father is not the Holy Spirit'
'The Holy Spirit is not the Father'
'The Son is not the Holy Spirit'
'The Holy Spirit is not the Son'

The Shield of the Trinity is not generally intended to be any kind of schematic diagram of the structure of God, but instead is merely a compact visual device from which the above statements (contained in or implied by the Athanasian Creed) can be read off." ("Shield of the Trinity," Wikipedia, 21 February 2012)]

usually answer publicly via that blog, less the sender's personal identifying information, as I am doing here. Your words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

Hi there. Just read your Jesus is Jehovah God paper on your Blog Jesus is Jehovah

I assume you mean my one-page summary, "Jesus is Jehovah!"

First you state:

>who is HIS god?

"God" or "the Father."

Again, nowhere in the Bible does Jesus address "Jehovah" (Gk. kurios "Lord") as His God. (see above). That ... That Jesus called the Father (not "Jehovah", i.e. Gk. kurios "Lord") His God in these verses

But this is not from my post, "Jesus is Jehovah!." It is a quote from another of my posts, "Re: Is Jesus Jehovah? Please answer the following #2," in which I was responding to a Jehovah's Witness called "grandpa len" (his words (>bold):

>who is HIS god?
"God" or "the Father." Again, nowhere in the Bible does Jesus address "Jehovah" (Gk. kurios "Lord") as His God. (see above). That Jesus called the Father (not "Jehovah", i.e. Gk. kurios "Lord") His God in these verses ... [Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34; Jn 20:17; Rev 3:2,12] ... is no problem at all for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, since it is based on the Bible. The explanation is that, first, since Jesus in His human nature was a devout Jewish man, the Father was in that sense, Jesus' God.

Whilst I agree that the tetragrammaton does not appear in the TEXT of the Greek scriptures we presently have,

This is a fatal admission by a Jehovah's Witness that the tetragrammaton (Heb. YHWH = English "Yahweh" or "Jehovah") does not appear in the text of the "Greek scriptures" (i.e. the New Testament):

"Reading New Testament Greek, one quickly notices a problem for the Witnesses that the Watchtower has never been able to explain fully. The authors of the New Testament never use the word Jehovah, or even Yahweh. Even in quotes from the Old Testament where the divine name had been used, the authors of the New Testament decided to use the word Lord (Greek, kurios) instead." (Evert, J., "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses," 2001, p.96).

"Along these same lines, we must reiterate that according to the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the word Jehovah does not occur a single time in the New Testament. This is highly significant, for if Jehovah was to be the sole name for God in all generations, then the word would certainly occur in the New Testament. But it does not occur there anywhere, despite the fact that the Watchtower's New World Translation deceitfully inserts the term throughout the New Testament in verses thought to refer exclusively to the Father." (Rhodes, R., "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," 2006, p.55).

Moreover there is no evidence that the Greek equivalent of the tetragrammaton was ever in the text of the original New Testament manuscripts. The Watchtower's claim that it was originally there but it was removed, is not supported by the evidence:

"The Watchtower explains that the original manuscripts surely must have had Jehovah in them, but later copyists from the `apostate' Church altered them to hide the true name of God. [Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, p.887; The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, 1984, p.25] To correct this, the NWT added the word Jehovah 237 times in the New Testament. [Ibid., p.888] In the appendix to the NWT the reader is assured: `To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background. We have looked for agreement from available Hebrew versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures to confirm our rendering.' [New World Translation, Appendix 1, p.1640). However, the Watchtower doesn't mention here that there is no early manuscript evidence to support such a change, since it was not until the fourteenth century that a Jewish translator named Shem Tob ben Shaprut used the divine name in his Hebrew translation of Matthew. [Ibid., p.887] Even then, he would not have used the term Jehovah, but the Tetragrammaton (YHWH)." (Evert, 2001, pp.96-97).

And would mean that the `Jehovah' of the Watchtower was a weak god, who could not prevent his name being removed from every copy of every book of the New Testament, in every language it had been translated into:

"Did the original authors of the New Testament use the name Jehovah before apostates altered the text to hide the name of God? There is absolutely no trace of that name's being used in the oldest manuscripts. There are thousands of ancient manuscripts of the Bible in Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, Georgian, Ethiopian, Arabic, Gothic, Armenian, and Latin-but not one of them uses the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in the New Testament, let alone Jehovah." (Evert, 2001, p.97)

as well as from every one of the thousands of New Testament quotations in the writings of the early church fathers!

The Bible most CERTAINLY DOES tell us that Jehovah is the God of Jesus!

First, since "the Father" is Jehovah (along with the other two Persons of the Trinity: the Holy Spirit and the Son):
"Jesus is Jehovah! ... What I don't mean by Jesus is Jehovah ... That Jesus is Jehovah does not preclude the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity (Mt 28:19; 2Cor 13:14; 1Pet 1:2): the Father (Ps 139:7; Isa 40:13 = Rom 11:34 & 1Cor 2:16; Mk 3:28-29; Acts 5:3-4; 13:2; 28:25-27; 2Cor 3:17; Heb 3:7-11 = Ps 95:7-11; Heb 10:15-17 = Jer 31:33), also being Jehovah: the one Triune God."

I have no problem with "the Bible" (i.e. the Old Testament part of the Bible) saying that Jehovah will be the God of the Messiah, who the New Testament revealed was Jesus:

Mt 2:4-6. "4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he [Herod] inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him, `In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet [Mic 5:2]: 6 "And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel."'";

the God-man:

Jn 1:1,14. "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth"

But my point was that the New Testament does not say that Jehovah was Jesus' Father. You tacitly concede this below by quoting from the Old Testament, and only one verse at that!

Notice Micah 5:4 where we read (speaking of the messiah):

"And he (Jesus) will certainly stand and do shepherding in the strength of Jehovah, in the superiority of the name of Jehovah his God."

Yes, in His human nature Jehovah was Jesus' God and Father.

And you are playing Jehovah's Witnesses' favourite game of `Bible ping-pong', that is, playing one part of the Bible against another to force it to agree with Watchtower doctrine":

"In short, Jehovah's Witnesses pit one part of Scripture against another part to force the Bible to agree with their doctrine. This is one of the most frequent errors of Jehovah's Witness biblical interpretation. John 14:28 is said to rule out the possibility that John 1:1 makes Jesus God, regardless of the particular language used in John 1:1 (and indeed, without careful consideration of the precise language and context of John 14:28). In personal dialogue with Jehovah's Witnesses I have seen this error committed repeatedly. One rather naive Jehovah's Witness even presented me with a list of Scriptures `pro' and `con' on the Trinity, with texts such as John 1:1 listed as `pro' and John 14:28 listed as `con'!" (Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses," 1991, p.107. Emphasis original).

The correct approach is the Christian one, which is to accept what the Bible teaches, that is, both Jesus is God (Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Php 2:5-6; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2Pet 1:1; 1Jn 5:20) and that the Father is Jesus' God (Mic 5:4; Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34; Jn 20:17; Rom 15:6; 2Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3,17; Col 1:3; Pet 1:3; Rev 1:6; 3:2,12).

This verse not only PROVES Jehovah is the God of Jesus

Indeed it does, but only in the sense that Jehovah God the Father is the God of Jesus the God-man, i.e. in His human nature:

"Jesus is Jehovah! ... The Father is Jesus' God" The Watchtower cites verses where Jesus speaks of the Father as His God (Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34; Jn 20:17; Rev 1:6; 3:2,12) and the New Testament writers call the Father Jesus' God (Rom 15:6; 2Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3,17; Col 1:3; Pet 1:3), as proof that Jesus cannot be God. But in His human nature (Jn 1:14; Rom 1:3; 8:3; Php 2:5-8; Heb 2:14) the Father is Jesus' God. And that the Son is officially subordinate to the Father (Jn 14:28; 1Cor 11:3), that does not preclude the Son from being equal in nature with the Father (Jn 1:1; 5:17-18; 10:30-33; Php 2:6 NIV). To the son of a co-regent king his father is still his king, even though he has the same nature as his father and to others the son is also king.

but the name Jehovah is SUPERIOR to the name Jesus!

The verse you cited (Micah 5:4 NWT) does not say anything about "the name Jehovah" being superior "to the name Jesus."

And the New Testament teaches that Jesus, looking forward to His resurrection, ascension and exaltation, thanked the Father for "your name, which you have given me":

Jn 17:11. And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one."

The Apostle Paul makes it clear that this name which was "bestowed on" Jesus is in fact "the name that is above every name":

Php 2:8-9. 8 "And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,"

So that now Jesus' name is "far above ... every name that is named":

Eph 1:19-21. "19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come."

So either Jesus' name is "Jehovah," or more likely now, the New Testament name "Jesus" (which means "Jehovah is salvation" - Mt 1:21) is above even the Old Testament name "Jehovah"!

That the name "Jesus" is now exalted higher even than the Old Testament name "Jehovah" is consistent with the fact that in the New Testament, "The name `Jesus' appears 912 times, hence far outnumbering the 237 insertions of the name `Jehovah" (my emphasis):
"Secondly, even if we were to accept the numerous insertions made by the translators (more accurately, the translator, Fred Franz) of the New World Translation of the name `Jehovah' in the Christian Scriptures, we are still faced with the fact that the original writers of those Christian Scriptures referred to the name of God's Son with far greater frequency. The name `Jesus' appears 912 times, hence far outnumbering the 237 insertions of the name `Jehovah.' This too is strikingly different from the practice found within Watch Tower publications, where the ratio is at times just the reverse. Beginning particularly with Rutherford's presidency, those publications reveal a progressive increase in the use of the name `Jehovah,' accompanied by at least a diminished reference to God's Son, Jesus Christ. Yet God himself has stated that it is His will 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.' [John 5:23 NWT] The writers of the Christian Scriptures clearly took that statement to heart and their example should be followed ... The evidence is, then, that the practice found within the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses as to repetitive use of, and emphasis on, the Tetragrammaton in actuality reflects more the practice existing within the nation of Israel in pre-Christian times than it does the practice within the congregation of Christ's followers in the first century." (Franz, R., "In Search of Christian Freedom," 2007, pp.504-505. Emphasis original).

Note that the above quote was by the late Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses!

This quote is from the vastly superior NWT of the Bible

In this particular verse, Micah 5:4, there is no essential difference between the New World Translation and mainstream Christian translations.

But as for the NWT being "vastly superior" that is simply false. In fact, the NWT is not even a translation! That is because the NWT's `translators' knew little Greek and even less Hebrew (let alone Aramaic):

"Not a Scholarly Translation The `Bethelites' (workers at the Watchtower's Brooklyn headquarters) were some of the people who worked on the New World Translation, but they had no linguistic skills or education in foreign languages when they entered Bethel. Most of those who go to the Brooklyn headquarters do so at the age of eighteen, with only a high school education at best. The only exception to this was Frederick Franz, who attended college for three years and studied some Greek during that time. Two or three years of college Greek, however, hardly qualifies a person to be a `Greek scholar.' Even more significant is the fact that he only studied Greek and not Hebrew. There is no evidence that the Watchtower Society's translation committee ever requested the help of any recognized Greek or Hebrew scholars. There is no evidence that any of them even knew any Greek or Hebrew, except for the little that Franz knew. ... The New World Translation is really not a translation taken directly from the original Greek and Hebrew but a compilation of material taken from about twenty-five other English translations of the Bible. It seems obvious that the men on the committee searched multitudes of English Bible translations to find verses that seemed to agree with their interpretation instead of going directly to the Greek and Hebrew." (Lingle, W., "What the Watchtower Society Doesn't Want you to Know," 2009, pp.161-162. Emphasis original).

Now, in all fairness, I see this was part of an online discussion, so I am not sure who is saying what, so I trust you can explain it to me.

See above.


As you are a Trinitarian, I have a simple question for you:

You are telling the world Jesus is Jehovah God right?

No, the Bible is "telling the world Jesus is Jehovah God." Read my "Jesus is Jehovah!"

Okay then:

If the Great Jehovah God is a triune being of three distinct persons, and as we know, each of those persons can be divided,

No each of the three Persons of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit cannot "be divided."

another words, the Father is not the Son, the son is not the holy spirit,

It is not in "another words" that "each of those persons can be divided" means that "the Father is not the Son, the son is not the holy spirit." But it is correct, as the above "Shield of the Trinity" makes clear, that the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit, nor vice-versa.

yadda yadda, and yet, we ALSO know that the persons CANNOT be divided from the ESSENCE of being God

You may be thinking of a garbled version of the Athanasian Creed, "Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence":

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity." ("Athanasian Creed," Wikipedia, 3 May 2012).

Each of the three Persons of the Trinity share in the essence of God's being. There are three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the one Being, the triune God.

then I ask:


Is Jesus the Great Triune God Jehovah?

No, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are together the Triune God.

If not, what God is he?

The Son is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.


You're welcome.


Stephen E. Jones, B.Sc., Grad. Dip. Ed.
My other blogs: The Shroud of Turin & CreationEvolutionDesign (inactive)

No comments: