Jesus is Jehovah!

Jehovah's Witnesses call God's kingdom the true government

2012-01-22T21:14:00.013+08:00

I was cutting this down for an article in my Jehovah's Witness News, January 2012 when I realised there were so many points to answer, that I decided to respond in a separate post. The article is bold to distinguish it from my comments.

Jehovah's Witnesses call God's kingdom the true government, Jenna Mink, Bowling Green Daily News, January 20, 2012.

[Right: Forest Walters of Bowling Green speaks Sunday at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses at 1035 Mt. Olivet Rd. Walters is an elder of the hall, and spoke on the topic "Keep close in mind the fear inspiring day." Pete Rodman/Daily News]

It is significant that Jehovah's Witnesses "fear" the Day of Judgment. That alone shows they are not Christians (see also below) because for Christians, "There is no fear in love, but perfect love throws fear outside," as the JW's own NWT says:

1Jn 4:19 NWT "There is no fear in love, but perfect love throws fear outside, because fear exercises a restraint [Gk. "has to do with punishment" cf. ESV]. Indeed, he that is under fear has not been made perfect in love."

But the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society needs to keep its members constantly in fear so that it can keep them firmly under its control.

Also the Watchtower Society does not really believe the text, "Your word is truth" - John 17:17 NWT, because it has effectively admitted that if JWs "read the Bible exclusively" they would come to believe the doctrines of Christianity:

"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those who ... say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such `Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago ..." ("Serving Jehovah `Shoulder to Shoulder'," The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, pp.28-29, p.29).

not those of the Watchtower!

At the age of 18, Rachel Walters already is a traveling minister. She's had the door slammed in her face. She's heard her share of slurs. A few people have answered their doors wearing nothing but a towel. But it doesn't deter the young Jehovah's Witness from Bowling Green. Her belief is everything, she said. "I like ... the preaching work," Walters said. "It gives us a chance to go out and bring our hope to other people."

This Watchtower teaching that "anyone who participates in their door-to-door literature distribution program [is] a minister" is one of the Society's "back- and-forth doctrinal flip-flop[s]". Because from at least 1956 "the Society taught that all JWs were ministers." Then "In 1976 this teaching was reversed, so that only those appointed as elders, servants, and so on, were called ministers." "Then in 1982 ... the teaching was reversed again-back to the earlier point of view-and the term ministers was again applied to all active Witnesses":

"Minister(s) .... Though Jehovah's Witnesses call anyone who participates in their door-to-door literature distribution program a minister ... In this matter of `ministers,' however, the organization cannot claim that the changes in teaching have been progressive with advancing light, for the simple reason that JWs ended up believing the same way they had originally. In essence, the changes took place along these lines: first, the official view was that all JWs were ministers; then the Society declared that only its appointed congregational leaders (elders and servants) were ministers, offering biblical support for this position; finally, it returned to teaching the original view. These back-and-forth changes can be traced in the name changes of the Society's internal publication for those going door to door. The monthly was named Kingdom Ministry in 1956, because the Society taught that all JWs were ministers. In 1976 this teaching was reversed, so that only those appointed as elders, servants, and so on, were called ministers, and the members in general were not ministers. So, in 1976 the publication's name was changed to Our Kingdom Service. Then in 1982 after a shakeup on the Governing Body involving expulsion of Raymond Franz from the organization, the teaching was reversed again-back to the earlier point of view-and the term ministers was again applied to all active Witnesses. Accordingly, the publication's name was changed again, this time to the present form, Our Kingdom Ministry. Illustrations and text on page 247 of the JW book Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom purportedly covering the history of this internal publication show earlier and current versions of the monthly but omit the 1956-76 Kingdom Ministry and the 1976-82 Our Kingdom Service-evidently to hide the facts about this embarrassing back- and-forth doctrinal flip-flop." (Reed, D.A., 1996, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses: Subject by Subject," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1998, pp.164-166. Emphasis original).

This "embarrassing back- and-forth doctrinal flip-flop" shows that the Watchtower Society, like the Pharisees of Jesus' day, "teach[es] as doctrines commands of men" making them in effect to be "commandment of God" (Mk 7:7-8 NWT), and so comes under Jesus' condemnation.

It's that hope that drives Jehovah's Witnesses. They are a unique group, especially this year. During a time when conversations are buzzing about the upcoming presidential election - and religion is a big part of that discussion - Jehovah's Witnesses stay away from anything political. They don't believe in government. They don't vote, join the military or wave the American flag. They don't celebrate holidays. They believe that trinities are evil. It all goes back to their belief that the true government is God's kingdom, which will soon take over. Their beliefs stem from a strict interpretation of the Bible and the histories of certain events, such as holidays.

Again, like the Pharisees, the Watchtower has a long list of "don'ts", to give JWs the illusion of negative righteousness. As for "They don't celebrate holidays" because of "the histories of certain events, such as holidays," see below.

On, "They believe that trinities are evil," that would mean that JWs believe the Christian Trinity, which is Biblical (Mt 3:16-17; 28:19; Lk 1:35; 3:22; Jn 14:16-17; Ac 2:33; Rom 1:4; 8:11; 15:16; 1Cor 12:4-6; 2Cor 13:14; Eph 1:13-14; 2:18; 4:4-6; 2Th 2:13; Heb 9:14; 1Pet 1:2; Jude 1:20-21), is "evil," which must the ultimate blasphemy, calling God "evil." See below on the Society's claim to be "Christian."

And on "their belief that the true government is God's kingdom, which will soon take over" the Society's original prediction, as pronounced by its founder Charles Taze Russell (1852 -1916), was that "in A. D. 1914... the Kingdom of God ... will obtain full, universal control, and that it will then be `set up,' or firmly established, in the earth:"

"In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e. the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A. D. 1914; and that that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove: Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, `Thy Kingdom come,' will obtain full, universal control, and that it will then be `set up,' or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions." (Russell, C.T., "Studies in the Scriptures, Series II: The Time is at Hand," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, 1889, pp.77-78. Emphasis original).

This was proved to be a false prophecy in Russell's own lifetime. The Society continued to make false prophecies of the end of this present system, including in 1925, 1975, and 1994. The Society has (amazingly) admitted that "those ... who predicted an `end of the world,' even announcing a specific date .... Yet ... The `end' did not come ... were guilty of false prophesying":

"True, there have been those in times past who predicted an `end of the world,' even announcing a specific date. Some have gathered groups of people with them and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses waiting for the end. Yet, nothing happened. The `end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? Missing was the full measure of evidence required in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them." ("A Time to `Lift Up Your Head' in Confident Hope," Awake, October 8, 1968, p.23).

and that "Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them"!

While it's a newer belief, about 500 Jehovah's Witnesses reside in Bowling Green, which is home to two meeting halls. About 30 years ago, one meeting hall in Park City served the entire area with an estimated 30 Jehovah's Witnesses, said Glen Pennington, an elder. Now, about 150 people pack the smaller of the two Kingdom Halls. In the brick building on Mount Olivet Road, people are singing upbeat songs, discussing the Bible, reading their study guides and mapping out their door-to-door ministries. In a tiny room, color-coded and numbered maps hang from the walls. It's where witnesses are assigned territories to cover. When they're baptized, Jehovah's Witnesses become ordained ministers and are expected to travel to homes, briefly speaking to residents. There's no clergy, but appointed elders organize events at each meeting hall, Pennington said.

The Watchtower's does have a "clergy." The "appointed elders" carry out all the roles that a clergyman fills in a Christian church. But if the claim is that Jehovah's Witnesses don't have a paid clergy then that just shows again that JWs don't believe that, "Your word [the Bible] is truth" ( Jn 17:17 NWT), but that the Watchtower overrides the Bible. Because the Bible, including the Watchtower's New World Translation, clearly teaches that it is right to have a paid clergy, i.e. "the Lord ordained for those proclaiming the good news to live by means of the good news":

1Cor 9:7,13-14 NWT. 7 Who is it that ever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who shepherds a flock and does not eat some of the milk of the flock? ... 13 Do YOU not know that the men performing sacred duties eat the things of the temple, and those constantly attending at the altar have a portion for themselves with the altar? 14 In this way, too, the Lord ordained for those proclaiming the good news to live by means of the good news.

Pennington, of Bowling Green, has preached for decades. He's convinced many people to give Jehovah's Witnesses a try. And there are those who don't want to hear it. He's encountered angry dogs and surly people. When he witnessed in New York, a group of ministers would travel to some of the most dangerous neighborhoods. They never shied away from an area, he said. "Some people ... either they don't like people in general coming to their door or they may feel something about Jehovah's Witnesses that either they don't understand or want to deal with," he said. "So, we respect them."

There is no excuse for Christians not to be polite to JWs at their door. Indeed I want them to come to my door, but I am on their blacklist because I know too much about them. The reason why most people, including most Christians, in my experience, don't like JWs coming to their door is because nothing the average person (including the average Christian) says seems to make any difference to JWs.

In fact, there's one misconception about Jehovah's Witnesses that many agree is the biggest misunderstanding - the idea that they're not Christians. That's not true, they say. While they don't believe in the Christian trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, they have a firm belief in Jesus Christ.

The Society has admitted that "the Trinity [is] 'the fundamental doctrine of Christianity'":

"How Is the Trinity Explained? THE Roman Catholic Church states: `The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion ... Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: `the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.' In this Trinity ... the Persons are co- eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.' - The Catholic Encyclopedia. Nearly all other churches in Christendom agree. For example, the Greek Orthodox Church also calls the Trinity `the fundamental doctrine of Christianity,' even saying: `Christians are those who accept Christ as God.' In the book Our Orthodox Christian Faith, the same church declares: `God is triune ... The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God.' Thus, the Trinity is considered to be `one God in three Persons.' Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for eternity." ("Should You Believe in the Trinity?," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 1989, Reprinted, 2006, pp.3-4. Emphasis original).

Therefore for the Watchtower to claim that "they don't believe in the Christian trinity" but they are "Christians" is like someone claiming, "I am a Muslim but I don't believe in Allah"!

And as for "they have a firm belief in Jesus Christ," Pennington significantly omits to tell the journalist what that "firm belief in Jesus Christ" is. Because the Watchtower's "firm belief in Jesus Christ" is that he is Michael the archangel, not God as the Bible teaches (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).

Also, if JWs were Christians then they would call themselves Jesus' witnesses, which is what Jesus commanded His followers to be, even in the JW's own Bible:

"You will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant parts of the earth." (Acts 1:8 NWT).

And then the Society would not have stated that JWs are "a people, not for the name of Jesus":

"By means of his written Word upon which the light of fulfilled prophecy was shining Jehovah led the remnant to appreciate more the importance and preciousness of his name. They came to appreciate that they were a people, not for the name of Jesus, but for the name of Jehovah ..." ("Of Which God Are You a Witness?" The Watchtower, February 15, 1964, pp.104-111, p.109).

Nor would the Society have reduced in its songbook the number of songs praising Jesus from "twice as many songs praising Jesus as ... songs praising Jehovah" down to where "Jehovah is honored by four times as many songs as is Jesus":

"In the songbook produced by Jehovah's people in 1905, there were twice as many songs praising Jesus as there were songs praising Jehovah God. In their 1928 songbook, the number of songs extolling Jesus was about the same as the number extolling Jehovah. But in the latest songbook of 1984 [Sing Praises to Jehovah], Jehovah is honored by four times as many songs as is Jesus." (WB&TS, 1988, "Revelation: Its Grand Climax At Hand!," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, p.36).

And I own a copy of the Society's 1984 songbook, "Sing Praises to Jehovah" and as the name implies, there are no songs in it praising Jesus!

"We talk about Jehovah God, because that's God the father's name," said Tammy Walters, a Jehovah's Witness from Bowling Green. "But Jesus is his son. We believe his sacrifice is the key to our salvation." They believe that Jesus is the head of God's heavenly government, which will soon rule the earth.

The Bible (including the NWT) says that Jesus being God's Son, means that He is "equal to God" the Father in nature:

Jn 5:18 NWT. On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.

When that happens, God's people will be resurrected from the grave and live again on earth, they claim. "Many religions are heaven-oriented. That we're just here for a while, then we die and go to a better place," Pennington said. "We don't believe the Bible teaches that at all. The earth originally was man's home." That doesn't mean they don't believe in a type of heaven. Heaven is where God is, where he rules from. Only a select few will go there. The rest will simply be resurrected to live again on earth, Pennington said.

Actually JWs will not "be resurrected from the grave and live again on earth." Watchtower teaching is that everyone, including JWs, "cease to exist" (see next) when they die. And that dead JWs "do not exist except in God's memory":

"What beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses set them apart as different from other religions? ... (7) Death: They believe that the dead are conscious of absolutely nothing; that they are experiencing neither pain nor pleasure in some spirit realm; that they do not exist except in God's memory, so hope for their future life lies in a resurrection from the dead." ("Reasoning from the Scriptures," [1985], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, Second edition, 1989, pp.199-201. Emphasis original).

Therefore what the Watchtower calls "resurrection from the dead" is actually a re-creation from God's memory:

"On the other hand, the Bible does contain accounts of dead people being restored to life. In the case of Lazarus, this happened after he had been dead for four days. (John 11:39, 43, 44) What, though, will happen to people who died hundreds or thousands of years ago? Does their prospect for future life require that God resurrect the selfsame body they had when they died? No. Such a thought is inconsistent with what happens to the atoms that make up a dead body. In time, some of these same atoms are absorbed by vegetation that, in turn, is consumed by other creatures and becomes part of their bodies. Does this mean that there is no hope for people long dead? No. The Creator of our vast universe has an awesome, unlimited memory. Within his perfect memory, he has the capacity to store the personality and genetic traits of any dead human he chooses to remember. Moreover, Jehovah God has the power to recreate a human body with the exact genetic code of a person who has lived before. He can also place within it the memory and personality of the one whom he remembers, such as Abraham." ("Your Dead Loved Ones-Where Are They?," The Watchtower, June 15, 1994, pp.3-4, p.4).

But that means that it won't be the Jehovah's Witnesses who will be "resurrected to live again on earth" but copies of them! So each JW is slaving away for the benefit of someone else: his/her copy who has done nothing to earn life on the JW Paradise Earth. An identical copy of an original is not that original.

They also don't believe in the traditional idea of hell - a place of fire and brimstone. The grave itself is the equivalent of hell, and the Bible compares death to sleep, not torment, they say. Those who remain dead in their graves after the resurrection period will stay in hell, according to their beliefs. "Everybody goes to hell when they die, even Jesus," said George Perry, an elder. "The Bible uses hell as a place to go when life ends, as we know it ... they're not tortured in hell fire. They just cease to exist."

See below on "fire and brimstone." The Watchtower's denial of conscious punishment in an afterlife, i.e. "hell," is another example of how it sets aside the Bible's clear teachings in favour of its own. The Watchtower's own NWT correctly translates Jesus' warning that we should "not fear those who kill the body and after this are not able to do anything more" but rather we should "Fear him who after killing has authority to throw into Ge•hen'na":

Lk 12:4-5 NWT 4 Moreover, I say to YOU, my friends, Do not fear those who kill the body and after this are not able to do anything more. 5 But I will indicate to YOU whom to fear: Fear him who after killing has authority to throw into Ge•hen'na. Yes, I tell YOU, fear this One

But , "If the Witnesses were correct, someone whose body had been killed would no longer exist, hence would have nothing to fear from men or from God. Once you pass out of existence, there is no longer anything that anyone can do to you" (my emphasis):

"Hell There can be no punishment after death in the Jehovah's Witness scheme of things because the dead cease to exist. They are gone, vanished without a trace. There is no soul or spirit remaining to experience punishment. If that were true, however, what sense would there be to this warning spoken by Jesus Christ? `And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.' (Luke 12:4-5) If the Witnesses were correct, someone whose body had been killed would no longer exist, hence would have nothing to fear from men or from God. Once you pass out of existence, there is no longer anything that anyone can do to you. You simply do not exist. However, Jesus warned that there is indeed more that God can do to a person after the person has been killed. What? God can cast the person into hell (Gehenna in Greek), Jesus said. The Watchtower Society has assured its followers that this does not involve anything unpleasant happening to a person after death; instead, it represents `complete and everlasting destruction' or `death from which there is no resurrection.' (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, page 87) If this were so, however, what reason would there be for someone to fear being thrown there after being killed-after already ceasing to exist, in the JW interpretation?" (Reed, 1998, p.133. Emphasis original).

They believe that people should continually work to stay in God's favor, so they try to be as unworldly as possible. Still, they partake in normal activities just like everyone else, they say. They get married, have families, go to school, play sports. They even believe it's OK to drink alcohol, but in moderation. In fact, some Jehovah's Witnesses are alcoholics, Pennington said.

It is interesting that Pennington admits that "some Jehovah's Witnesses are alcoholics." In fact, according an online audio testimony of a former JW elder, alcoholism is a major problem among JWs, including (if not especially) among JW elders.

Also, this "people should continually work to stay in God's favor" is revealing. The Watchtower officially denies it teaches salvation by works, but if JWs do not continually work on the Watchtower treadmill, they will be threatened with not surviving Armageddon and so not making it to the Paradise Earth. But JW can never feel that he or she has done enough to earn God's favor. And even if they did, they can never be sure that they will be in God's favor on the Day of Armageddon. But Christian (like me) believe the Bible that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works:

Eph 2:8-9 ESV. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast

But they're different in other ways, most notably their refusal to celebrate holidays and birthdays. They believe many holidays are actually rooted in evil and are not biblical - not even Easter or Christmas. "Christmas is simply not Christian," Pennington said. "There's nothing biblical (saying) to celebrate Christ's birth. Plus, Jesus was not born on Dec. 25." Furthermore, some claim Christmas originally was a pagan holiday. It was first observed during a celebration to a sun god, said Banks Crandell, a Jehovah's Witness.

It is true that "There's nothing biblical (saying) to celebrate Christ's birth." But it is also true that there is nothing Biblical saying not to celebrate Christ's birth. And the Bible does say that it is OK if "One [man] judges one day as above another":

Rom 14:5 NWT. One [man] judges one day as above another; another [man] judges one day as all others; let each [man] be fully convinced in his own mind.

which would include the day of Christ's birth, his own birthday, etc. And it is simply not true that there's nothing biblical about celebrating Christ's birth. The angels and shepherds celebrated Christ's birth (Lk 2:8-14) - see also below.

It is also false the claim that "Jesus was not born on Dec. 25." He may have been. See my series: "Was Jesus born on December 25?" Also it is false the claim that "Christmas originally was a pagan holiday" (see that same series). And even if December 25 was not the day of Jesus' birth and even if was originally a pagan holiday, the key word is "was." Christianity conquered Roman paganism and today millions celebrate December 25 as Christ's birth and comparatively few (if any) celebrate December 25 as "a celebration to a sun god".

There are other misconceptions, Crandell claims, such as the idea that Jesus died on a cross. He was crucified, but not on a cross - the cross is actually a traditional pagan symbol, Crandell said. "Jesus was never put on a cross," he said. "He was on a pole."

Again, it is false the Watchtower claim that "Jesus died ... not on a cross" but "on a pole." The evidence is overwhelming that Jesus died on a two-beamed wooden cross. See my (incomplete) series, "Jesus was executed on a cross, not a stake!" Especially #2: Biblical:

A. According to Mt 27:37 NWT, the charge against Jesus was posted "above his HEAD" (not "above his HANDS");
B. According to Jn 20:25 NWT, Jesus had the "print of the NAILS" (plural) in His hands;
C. Jesus predicted the "sort of death" that Peter would die would be by him having to "stretch out" (Gk. ekteino) his hands (Jn 21:17-19 NWT); and
D. Jesus could not have walked to Golgotha "bearing the torture stake for himself" (Jn 19:17 NWT).

As for birthdays, there's nothing Christian about celebrating one's birth. Birthdays are mentioned in a few biblical scriptures, and each one happens during a terrible event, Jehovah's Witnesses claim. For example, Herod was celebrating his birthday when he ordered the beheading of John the Baptist. Another scripture tells the story of Pharaoh, who celebrated his birthday by executing his chief baker, they say.

Even if this were true (which it isn't - see below), it is a fallacious argument that: 1) Birthdays are mentioned in a few biblical scriptures; 2) a terrible event happened during each one; and 3) therefore celebrating birthdays is wrong. It is not the birthday that was wrong, it is the terrible event that happened during some (not all - see below) of the few recorded birthdays in the Bible.

The Bible does not draw the conclusion that celebrating birthdays is wrong. As we saw in Rom 14:5 NWT, if "One [man] judges one day as above another," which could be his own, or Jesus', birthday, "let each [man] be fully convinced in his own mind." So this is another Watchtower "tradition of men" by which it has set aside a "commandment of God" (Mk 7:7-8 NWT).

Besides, it is false that "a terrible event happens during each" birthday in the Bible. Job's son's regularly celebrated "each one on his own day" (Job 1:4 NWT), which in the case of Job "his day" was "the day ... on which I came to be born" (Job 3:1-3 NWT):

"Although the actual word `birthday' appears only in connection with Pharaoh and Herod in most translations, the Bible does contain reference to such celebrations in godly families. At Job 1:4, the JW New World Translation says of the patriarch Job, `And his sons went and held a banquet at the house of each one on his own day; and they sent and invited their three sisters to eat and drink with them.' That his own day refers to each one's birthday becomes clear when we read further, `It was after this that Job opened his mouth and began to call down evil upon his day. Job now answered and said: 'Let the day perish on which I came to be born.' (Job 3:1-3) Thus, the Living Bible renders Job 1:4-5 this way: `Every year when each of Job's sons had a birthday, he invited his brothers and sisters to his home for a celebration. On these occasions they would eat and drink with great merriment. When these birthday parties ended-and sometimes they lasted several days-Job would summon his children...' Furthermore, the Watchtower Society's own New World Translation reveals that the birth of John the Baptist was an occasion to be celebrated, when it records this angelic announcement: "And you will have joy and great gladness, and many will rejoice over his birth." (Luke 1:14)" (Reed, 1998, pp.47-48. Emphasis original).

And also there is "the birth of Christ, celebrated by the angels in song and much glory ... It was convenient to the WT to leave this very positive and important birthday out of their consideration, for it destroys their point in saying that all birthdays in the Bible were negative":

"Though the WT only admits to two birthdays being mentioned in the Bible, there are actually three [in fact four since `each one on his own day' (Job 1:4 NWT) means `on their birthdays' (NIV)] that were celebrated. There was the birthday of Pharaoh (Gen. 40:20), Herod (Matt. 14:6), and also the birth of Christ, celebrated by the angels in song and much glory: And the angel said to them, `Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord ... And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, `Glory to God in the highest, and on the earth peace among men with whom he is pleased.' (Luke 2:10,11,13,14) It was convenient to the WT to leave this very positive and important birthday out of their consideration, for it destroys their point in saying that all birthdays in the Bible were negative." (Watters, R., 1996, "Refuting Jehovah's Witnesses," [1987], Bethel Ministries: Manhattan Beach CA, Third edition, pp.77-78. Emphasis original).

Some Jehovah's Witnesses say it was difficult to give up those celebrations after converting. Peggy Ashley, for example, researched the idea after studying to become a Jehovah's Witness, she said. "Nothing was bad except Christmas," said Ashley, of Bowling Green. "We were brought up to believe in Christmas. When I started studying, I questioned that." But for firm believers, such as Ashley, it's the only way to live. Many spend any spare time witnessing to others or studying, and some dedicate their lives to the ministry.

Peggy, if you read this, please consider that the real reason the Watchtower won't let JWs celebrate birthdays, Christmas, and other holidays, is to cut them off from their non-JW family and friends, so that they become socially isolated, leaving the JWs increasingly under the control of the Watchtower:

"As the student begins to accept Watchtower teachings that Christmas, Easter, Mother's Day, and birthday celebrations are of pagan origin and therefore offensive to God, fellowship with non-JW family and friends on those occasions comes to an abrupt halt, and social interaction with non-Witnesses on other occasions becomes more difficult. Eventually outside friendships cease altogether for the fully committed Jehovah's Witness, and family ties outside the sect cool to the point that relatives feel the JW has become a stranger. This, too, is by design and is a key part of the mind-control process. The same sort of social isolation from outsiders that David Koresh's Branch Davidians (and certain other mind-control cults) imposed by physically removing members to a communal compound, the Watchtower organization imposes by erecting numerous invisible barriers:

objections to holidays and other occasions when families traditionally get together
rejection of tobacco smoking as extremely sinful, not just a health hazard
complete rejection of the political process so that even casting a ballot for the local dog catcher or high school class president can result in expulsion from the sect
classification of the flag salute, the pledge of allegiance, and rising for the national anthem as acts of religious idolatry, so that even attendance at sporting events becomes stressful and embarrassing
rejection of all non-JW religious services as satanic worship, so that Witnesses avoid church weddings and clergy-conducted funerals, even of close friends and relatives.
This social isolation is a key element, of mind control because it cuts off the sect member from the free flow of ideas that normally occur among friends or relatives. Once it is in place, only Watchtower ideas are heard and taken into the mind. If other opinions are encountered from outsiders at school or at a JW's place of employment, these are viewed with suspicion and contempt as coming from ungodly, `worldly' people who are no longer regarded as peers." (Reed, D.A., 1996, "Blood on the Altar: Confessions of a Jehovah's Witness Minister," Prometheus: Amherst NY, pp.188-189).

When 14-year-old Keagan Zachary graduates high school, getting a job is not the priority. Instead, she wants to attend pioneer school, where she will become a full-time Jehovah's Witness minister, she said. Keagan, who is home-schooled, has already started her ministry. She travels door-to-door in an attempt to share her beliefs with others. It's always rewarding, but not always easy, she said."Sometimes it gets pretty ugly. Last month, a brother told me I was going to hell," Keagan said. "I tried to stay calm and not take it personally because they have their own beliefs."

Keagan, if you read this, that Christian who told you that you were "going to hell" was only telling you what the Bible says. Here are all the occurrences of "hell" (Gk. Gehenna) in the Bible, quoting from your own New World Translation:

Mt 5:22 However, I say to YOU that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; but whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, `You despicable fool!' will be liable to the fiery Ge•hen'na.

Why would it matter whether Gehenna was "fiery" if when you die you "cease to exist" as the Watchtower teaches? If "The grave itself is the equivalent of hell" how can the grave be "fiery"?

Mt 5:29 If, now, that right eye of yours is making you stumble, tear it out and throw it away from you. For it is more beneficial to you for one of your members to be lost to you than for your whole body to be pitched into Ge•hen'na.

Mk 9:47-48 47 And if your eye makes you stumble, throw it away; it is finer for you to enter one-eyed into the kingdom of God than with two eyes to be pitched into Ge•hen'na, 48 where their maggot does not die and the fire is not put out.

Why, if when you die you "cease to exist," would it be "more beneficial to you for one of your members" (such as "your right eye") to be lost to you than for your whole body to be pitched into Ge•hen'na"? Wouldn't it be far worse to live with only one eye, than to cease to exist and "your whole body to be pitched into Ge•hen'na," which is the equivalent of the grave? Why would one care what happened to one's body after one died and ceased to exist?

If "the grave itself is the equivalent of hell" (Gehenna), and it is a state of non-existence, how can Ge•hen'na be "where their maggot does not die and the fire is not put out"? Is that not a picture of ongoing conscious "torment" rather than "sleep"?

Mt 5:30 Also, if your right hand is making you stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you. For it is more beneficial to you for one of your members to be lost than for your whole body to land in Ge•hen'na.

Mk 9:43 "And if ever your hand makes you stumble, cut it off; it is finer for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go off into Ge•hen'na, into the fire that cannot be put out.

Why, if when you die you "cease to exist," would it be "more beneficial to you for one of your members" (such as "your right hand") to be lost to you than for your whole body to be pitched into Ge•hen'na"? Wouldn't it be far worse to live with only one hand than to cease to exist and "your whole body to be pitched into Ge•hen'na"? Why would one care what happened to one's body after one died and ceased to exist?

Mt 10:28 And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Ge•hen'na.

Lk 12:5 But I will indicate to YOU whom to fear: Fear him who after killing has authority to throw into Ge•hen'na. Yes, I tell YOU, fear this One.

Why, if when you die you "cease to exist," should one "not become fearful of those who kill the body ... but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Ge•hen'na"? Why would one care of what happened after one died and ceased to exist? How could God "destroy both soul and body in Ge•hen'na" after one had died and ceased to exist?

Mt 18:9 Also, if your eye is making you stumble, tear it out and throw it away from you; it is finer for you to enter one-eyed into life than to be thrown with two eyes into the fiery Ge•hen'na.

Again, why, if when you die you "cease to exist," would it be "finer for you to enter one-eyed into life than to be thrown with two eyes into the fiery Ge•hen'na"? Wouldn't it be far worse to live with only one eye than to cease to exist and be "thrown with two eyes into the fiery Ge•hen'na"? How could one be non-existent and be "thrown with two eyes into the fiery Ge•hen'na"?

Mt 23:15 "Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU traverse sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one YOU make him a subject for Ge•hen'na twice as much so as yourselves.

Again, why would it matter to a Pharisee if he or his convert was "subject for Ge•hen'na" if Gehenna is only the equivalent of the grave, where one ceased to exist, as the Watchtower teaches?

Mt 23:33 "Serpents, offspring of vipers, how are YOU to flee from the judgment of Ge•hen'na?

Why would the Pharisees "flee from the judgment of Ge•hen'na" if Gehenna is only the equivalent of the grave, where one ceased to exist, as the Watchtower teaches?

Jas 3:6 Well, the tongue is a fire. The tongue is constituted a world of unrighteousness among our members, for it spots up all the body and sets the wheel of natural life aflame and it is set aflame by Ge•hen'na.

Again, if "the grave itself is the equivalent of hell" (Gehenna), comparable to sleep, not torment, why the mention of it being "aflame"?

Keagan, while it is usually good to not "take it personally," Jesus wants you to "take it personally." Also, as the above Bible verses show, "Hell" (Gk. Gehenna) is not merely the Christian's "own beliefs." And it is not the equivalent of the grave. The Bible's linking of Gehenna with fire shows that it is a place or state of conscious "torment," not "sleep".

The words "fire and brimstone" are not a Christian invention, but a Christian translation of the Greek words puri kai theio, "fire and sulfur," as found around the brim of active volcanoes, hence the term "brimstone" in the KJV (e.g. Lk 17:29; Rev 9:17,18; 14:10; 19:20; 20:10; 21:8). And your own NWT confirms that unbelievers after they die, "shall be tormented with fire and sulphur":

Rev 14:9-10 NWT. 9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the wild beast and its image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, 10 he will also drink of the wine of the anger of God that is poured out undiluted into the cup of his wrath, and he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur in the sight of the holy angels and in the sight of the Lamb.

Rev 21:8 NWT. But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death."

So Keagan, which will you believe? The Watchtower Society or the Bible? The decision is yours but so are the consequences.

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

Jesus is Jehovah!: 3B. Jesus claimed and accepted the titles "Lord" and "God" of Himself

2012-01-16T18:07:00.006+08:00

This is my part #9, "3B, "Jesus claimed and accepted the titles `Lord' and `God' of Himself," which is part of my series, "Jesus is Jehovah!" (by topic), which in turn is based on my morning `quiet

[Above (click to enlarge): "The Incredulity of Saint Thomas" (1601-1602), by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio: Wikipedia.]

time' Bible reading. The previous post in this series was part #8, "3. Jesus claimed to be Jehovah: 3A. Jesus claimed to be `I AM.'." See the Contents page for more details of this series. I am using the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible, unless otherwise indicated. I have quoted the verses which support each topic, and I have provided quotes under only some of those verses as added support.

JESUS IS JEHOVAH!
© Stephen E. Jones

Jesus is Jehovah!: Contents

3. JESUS CLAIMED TO BE JEHOVAH

B. Jesus claimed and/or accepted the titles "Lord" and "God" of Himself

i. Jesus accepted the title "my Lord" (Gk. ho kurios) of Himself (Jn 20:28).

Jn 20:24-29. ²⁴Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. ²⁵So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe." ²⁶Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." ²⁷Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." ²⁸Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" ²⁹Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

"John 20:28 [NWT]`In answer Thomas said to him: `My Lord and my God!' (NWT)' Yes, this verse actually appears in the Jehovah's Witness Bible!":

"John 20:28 `In answer Thomas said to him: `My Lord and my God!' (NWT)' Yes, this verse actually appears in the Jehovah's Witness Bible! ... Thomas, although doubting longer than the other apostles, finally came to accept Christ as Lord and God-not `a god' as Watchtower leaders have mistranslated John 1:1 to read in their Bible, but `God,' as his words show. Jehovah's Witnesses find this verse very difficult to deal with because they do not want to admit the simple fact that it declares Christ's deity. ... the ... JW may try to brush it off by saying, `Thomas was just exclaiming his surprise. If we saw a friend return from the dead, we, too, might say, `Oh! My God!' out of sheer surprise. Thomas didn't mean anything by it.' If a Witness takes this approach, we should ask him, `Do you mean that Thomas was using God's name in vain? That would be blasphemy! Thomas certainly wouldn't do that.' Then point out that in the next verse [Jn 20:29] Jesus commented on what Thomas has said. If Thomas had said `God' in vain, Jesus would surely have rebuked him for it, but, instead, he acknowledged that Thomas had finally `believed.' Believed what? That Jesus Christ is both Lord and God! ... Since the Witnesses refer to Jesus as `a god' in contrast with the Father, whom they call `the God,' you may wish to have the JW look up John 20:28 in his own Kingdom Interlinear (1985) Bible. The word-for-word English under the Greek text shows that Thomas literally called Jesus, `The Lord of me and the God of me!'" (Reed, D.A., 1986, "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Thirty-first printing, 2006, pp.83-84. Emphasis original).

"Thomas used. He said `ho theos' the phrase that the WBTS say is used exclusively of Jehovah God. Jesus is called not just `a god' but `the God'":

"John 20:28 ... This is the second time that Jesus has appeared to the disciples but the first time that Thomas sees Him. His immediate response is to acknowledge Jesus as my Lord and my God. Again this seems fairly clear until we realise that the Witness has been taught that either Thomas got so excited he blasphemed or he said my Lord looking at Jesus and My God looking up to Jehovah in heaven. Read and explain the verse carefully. First it clearly says Thomas said to Him (Jesus) both statements. Second ask the Witness what their KIT [Kingdom Interlinear Translation] shows for the words Thomas used. He said `ho theos' the phrase that the WBTS say is used exclusively of Jehovah God. Jesus is called not just `a god' but `the God'. Indeed Thomas literally says, `the God of me.' If this were not true He would have had to rebuke Thomas in verse 29. Rather though he commends all those who will believe the same as Thomas believed. In the midst of those who would go out to teach the early church, Jesus accepts the acclamation that He was God." (Harris, D. & Browning, B., 1993, "Awake to the Watchtower," [1988], Reachout Trust: London, Revised, pp.140-141. Emphasis original).

"... Thomas was finally overwhelmed with the evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead, he cried out, `My Lord and my God' (Jn. 20:28). The Jehovah's Witnesses' own translation employs a capital `G.' Their Scriptures unmistakably call Jesus Jehovah God, the God (ho theos)":

"In the second place any Christian can point out to Jehovah's Witnesses that the word for `God' (theos) without the definite article ('the') is often used for Jehovah God. He may show this to a Witness in the New World Translation itself. That version translates theos without the article by `God,' with a capital `G' in John 1:6, 12, 13; 3:2, 21! Third, any Christian can show a Jehovah's Witness the fact that some passages do designate Jesus as `the' God, using the definite article (ho) with `God' (theos). According to Matthew 1:23 the birth of Jesus fulfilled the prophetic announcement that the virgin born son should be called Immanuel, `which means when translated, `With us is God.' ` Note the capital `G' which, according to the New World translators, denotes Jehovah God, the God (ho theos) ! Again, when skeptical Thomas was finally overwhelmed with the evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead, he cried out, `My Lord and my God' (Jn. 20:28). The Jehovah's Witnesses' own translation employs a capital `G.' Their Scriptures unmistakably call Jesus Jehovah God, the God (ho theos). Furthermore, the same version represents Jesus as accepting the worship of Thomas and commending all who share his faith. `Jesus said to him: Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe" (v. 29 NWT)." (Lewis, G.R., 1966, "The Bible, the Christian and Jehovah's Witnesses," Presbyterian & Reformed: Phillipsburg NJ, Reprinted, 1980, pp.14-15. Verse typo corrected).

"If Thomas called the risen Christ Jehovah (definite article), `O Kurios mou kai o Theos mou,' and Christ did not deny it but confirmed it ... then no juggling of the text ... can offset the basic thought, namely, Jesus Christ is Jehovah 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. ... `Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God.' ... Jehovah's Witnesses have vainly striven to elude this text ... but they have unknowingly corroborated its authority beyond refutation .... In .... Jn 20:28 ... O Theos mou, 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 of the New World Translation (Appendix), the author of the note states, `So too John 1:1, uses O THEOS 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 on this. If Thomas called the risen Christ Jehovah (definite article), `O Kurios mou kai o Theos mou,' and Christ did not deny it but confirmed it by saying, `Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; Blessed are they not having seen yet have believed' (v. 29), then no juggling of the text in context can offset the basic thought, namely, Jesus Christ is Jehovah God!" (Martin, W.R. & Klann, N., 1953, "Jehovah of the Watchtower," Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, Reprinted, 1981, pp.64-66. Emphasis original).

See also below under "ii. Jesus accepted the title `God' of Himself" and "ii. b. Jesus would have rebuked Thomas if he was wrong,"

a. Jesus claimed and accepted the title "the Lord" (Gk. ho kurios) of Himself.

Jn 13:13. You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am.

"Lord (Ho Kurios). .... For I am (eimi gar). Jesus distinctly claims here to be both Teacher and Lord in the full sense":

"[Jn 13:13] Ye (humeis). Emphatic. Call me (phoneite me). `Address me.' Phoneo regular for addressing one with his title (1:48). Master (Ho didaskalos). Nominative form (not in apposition with me accusative after phoneite), but really vocative in address with the article (called titular nominative sometimes) like Ho Kurios kai ho theos mou in 20:28. `Teacher.' See 11:28 for Martha's title for Jesus to Mary. Lord (Ho Kurios). Another and separate title. In 1:38 we have Didaskale (vocative form) for the Jewish Rabbei and in 9:36, 38 Kurie for the Jewish Mari. It is significant that Jesus approves (kalos, well) the application of both titles to himself as he accepts from Thomas the terms kurios and theos. For I am (eimi gar). Jesus distinctly claims here to be both Teacher and Lord in the full sense, at the very moment when he has rendered this menial, but symbolic, service to them. Here is a hint for those who talk lightly about `the peril of worshipping Jesus!'" (Robertson, A.T., 1932, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V: The Fourth Gospel & the Epistle to the Hebrews," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.240. Emphasis original).

"When Jesus said to his disciples that they rightly regarded him as their 'Lord' he implied they were beginning to realize that he was much more than a person deserving respect":

"[Jn 13:13] ... Jesus continued, You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord', and rightly so, for that is what I am. ... Jesus is also addressed or spoken of as 'Lord' (kyrios) many times in the Fourth Gospel. Sometimes kyrios is translated correctly as `Sir', a term of respectful address, when used by people who did not realize, or had not yet realized, who he was ... In other places kyrios is translated correctly as 'Lord', when something more than respectful address was intended by those using it, such as the evangelist himself (6:23; 11:2; 20:20; 21:12), Peter (6:68; 13:6, 9, 36, 37; 21:15,16, 17, 21), the man born blind (9:38), Mary and/or Martha (11:3, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39), the disciples as a group (11:2; 20:25), the beloved disciple (13:25; 21:7, 20), Thomas (14:5; 20:28), Philip (14:8), Judas, not Iscariot (14:22) and Mary Magdalene (20:2, 13, 18). When Jesus said to his disciples that they rightly regarded him as their 'Lord' he implied they were beginning to realize that he was much more than a person deserving respect; he deserved their obedience as well." (Kruse, C.G., 2003, "The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.283-284. Emphasis original. Verse typos corrected).

"Also they were right in addressing him as Lord (ho kurios); and the deeper the meaning they poured into this concept, the more right they were. He was, indeed, the owner of all things (see on 13:1, 3); moreover, he was equal in essence and authority with God, the Father":

"[Jn 13:13] `You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say (this) correctly, for (that is what) I am.' Indeed, the disciples were right in addressing Jesus as Teacher (ho didaskalos, probably to be regarded as a translation of the Aramaic Rabbi; as 1:38 seems to indicate), for his teaching `with authority and not as the scribes' was the greatest that was ever heard on earth. Also they were right in addressing him as Lord (ho kurios); and the deeper the meaning they poured into this concept, the more right they were. He was, indeed, the owner of all things (see on 13:1, 3); moreover, he was equal in essence and authority with God, the Father." (Hendriksen, W., 1964, "A Commentary on the Gospel of John: Two Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One," [1954], Banner of Truth: London, Third edition, Vol. 2, pp.234-235. Emphasis original).

Jn 13:14. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet.

Mt 21:1-3 ¹Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, ²saying to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. ³If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord needs them,' and he will send them at once."

"[Mt 21:3] The Lord (ho kurios). .... In the LXX it is common in a variety of uses which appear in the N.T. ... of God (Matt. 1:20; 11:25), and often of Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 10:36). ... the Christians boldly claimed the word for Christ as Jesus is here represented as using it with reference to himself. ... the disciples were calling Jesus `Lord' and that he accepted the appellative and used it as here":

"[Mt 21:3] The Lord (ho kurios). It is not clear how the word would be understood here by those who heard the message though it is plain that Jesus applies it to himself. The word is from kuros, power or authority. In the LXX it is common in a variety of uses which appear in the N.T. as master of the slave (Matt. 10:24), of the harvest (9:38), of the vineyard (20:8), of the emperor (Acts 13:27), of God (Matt. 1:20; 11:25), and often of Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 10:36). Note Matt. 8:25. This is the only time in Matthew where the words ho kurios are applied to Jesus except the doubtful passage in 28:6. ... the Christians boldly claimed the word for Christ as Jesus is here represented as using it with reference to himself. It seems as if already the disciples were calling Jesus `Lord' and that he accepted the appellative and used it as here." (Robertson, A.T., 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume I: The Gospel According to Matthew & The Gospel According to Mark," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, pp.167-168. Italics original. Verse typo corrected).

"Note especially that Jesus is here using the title `Lord' to designate himself (see Matt. 11:27; 28:18)":

"[Mt 21:3] ... And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, The Lord needs them, and immediately he will let them go. Note especially that Jesus is here using the title `Lord' to designate himself (see Matt. 11:27; 28:18). It is clear, therefore, that this epithet was not an invention of the early church after Christ's departure. It was not something borrowed from a non- Christian culture. It came from the very mouth of Jesus! Note also `the' Lord, not merely `your' Lord; rather, the Lord of all, with the right to claim all for his own use. Jesus predicts that when his claim, by mouth of the two men, is asserted, the owners will immediately release the animals. These owners must have been friends and followers of the Lord." (Hendriksen, W., 1974, "The Gospel of Matthew: New Testament Commentary," Banner of Truth: Edinburgh UK, Reprinted, 1982, pp.763-764).

"[Mt 21:3] Jesus plainly refers to himself as the Lord [ho kurios], the sovereign orchestrator of these events." (Wilkins, M.J., 2007, "Matthew," in "The ESV Study Bible," Crossway Bibles: Wheaton IL, p.1865).

Mk 11:2-3. ²and said to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it. ³If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' say, 'The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.'"

Lk 19:30-32. ³⁰saying, "Go into the village in front of you, where on entering you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever yet sat. Untie it and bring it here. ³¹If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' you shall say this: 'The Lord has need of it.'" ³²So those who were sent went away and found it just as he had told them.

"`Lord' ... [Mk 11:2-3; Lk 19:30-32] ... the natural way to take `Lord' is Jesus' way of referring to himself. ... the church's ascription of `Lord' to Jesus in a full christological sense finds its roots in Jesus' self-references":

"[Mt 21:3] `Lord' (also Mark-Luke [Mk 11:2-3; Lk 19:30-32]) might mean `owner'; but then the disciples' response would be untrue, unless Jesus owned the animals, which is extremely unlikely. The title might refer to Yahweh-the animals are needed in Yahweh's service. But the natural way to take `Lord' is Jesus' way of referring to himself. This step is not out of keeping with the authority he has already claimed for himself and fits this late period of his ministry, when he revealed himself with increasing clarity. ... even the church's ascription of `Lord' to Jesus in a full christological sense finds its roots in Jesus' self-references." (Carson, D.A., "Matthew," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1984, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 - Matthew, Mark, Luke," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.437).

Acts 9:4-5 ⁴And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" ⁵And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

Acts 22:8. And I answered, 'Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.'

Acts 26:15. And I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord [ho kurios]. said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.

"The voice from the glory could only be the voice of God; hence Lord in Paul's question, Who are you, Lord? (5), is meant as a divine title, not as a mere courtesy `Sir'" ... Saul had to identify the Lord Jehovah of the OT whom he zealously sought to serve, with Jesus of Nazareth":

"[Acts 9:3-6] The encounter (3-6). The lightning-swift light (so the verb), brighter than Syria's noonday sun, could only be the shekinah glory, indicative of the divine presence. From this glory came the amazing question: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? Who was the person who spoke thus? The voice from the glory could only be the voice of God; hence Lord in Paul's question, Who are you, Lord? (5), is meant as a divine title, not as a mere courtesy `Sir'. I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting was the answer-a revelation which meant that, in one tremendous moment of time, Saul had to identify the Lord Jehovah of the OT whom he zealously sought to serve, with Jesus of Nazareth whom he ferociously persecuted in the person of His saints. The shock to his innermost soul was tremendous and showed itself physically in the loss of sight; but once the identification had been made Saul had no doubts or reserves, and from that time forward could truthfully say: `For to me, to live is Christ' (Phil. 2:21). NIV preserves the true text of this narrative, but the added details of the later narratives should be noted. Paul's companions `felt' the celestial presence but did not see the Lord; they heard Saul's voice, but not that of the Lord (7; 22:9)." (Trenchard, E.H., "Acts," in Bruce, F.F., ed., 1986, "The International Bible Commentary," [1979], Marshall Pickering / Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Second edition, Reprinted, 1994, p.1284. Emphasis original).

"Saul's answer, `Who are you, Lord?' (v. 5), in all likelihood implies recognition of the divine presence, since the words had come from heaven":

"Saul's conversion occurs on the road to Damascus, one of the world's oldest cities, located in Syria. His experience involves a light from heaven which temporarily leaves him blind. This light may be the glory of Christ, usually veiled during his earthly ministry, and revealed at the transfiguration for a few brief moments (Matt. 17:1-8). Saul hears a voice from the Lord, and a brief dialogue takes place. In Acts 22:9 Luke states that Saul's companions did not hear (NIV understand) the voice, and in 26:14 he says that only Saul heard the voice, but in 9:7 he says that his companions heard the voice (Gk. phone in all of these cases). The New International Version rightly translates the word `sound' (v. 7), and this indicates the legitimate range of meaning which the word can have. In other words, everyone heard a sound, but only Saul understood the words. Saul's answer, `Who are you, Lord?' (v. 5), in all likelihood implies recognition of the divine presence, since the words had come from heaven, but until the voice is identified as the voice of Jesus whom Saul is persecuting, there is no recognition of identity. This, along with Saul's obedience to the command to `go into the city, and ... be told what [he] must do' (v. 6), is evidence of conversion or confessing Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10:9)." (Baker, W.H., "Acts," in Elwell, W.A., ed., 1989, "Evangelical Commentary on the Bible," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1990, p.897. Emphasis original).

b. Jesus claimed and accepted the title "Lord" of Himself.

Mt 7:21. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

"Were we to take seriously the hypothesis of an original New Testament text containing the tetragram, Matthew 7:21-22 would be a clear candidate for `restoring' the divine name YHWH, since the doubled kurie kurie evidently originated from Greek-speaking Jews translating `Lord YHWH' and `YHWH Lord'":

"Early in his ministry, Jesus warned that even those who said to him `Lord, Lord' (kurie, kurie) and claimed to do miracles in his name were condemned if they disobeyed him (Matt. 7:21-22; Luke 6:46; see also Matt. 25:11). This doubled form of address occurs repeatedly in the Septuagint in place of the Hebrew `Lord YHWH' (Deut. 3:24; 9:26; 1 Kings 8:53; Ps. 69:6; Ezek. 20:49; Amos 7:2, 5) or `YHWH Lord' (Pss. 109:21; 140:7; 141:8), but never in reference to anyone but YHWH. ... Were we to take seriously the hypothesis of an original New Testament text containing the tetragram, Matthew 7:21-22 would be a clear candidate for `restoring' the divine name YHWH, since the doubled kurie kurie evidently originated from Greek-speaking Jews translating `Lord YHWH' and `YHWH Lord.'" (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, pp.159, 337 n.13).

"It is doubtful whether all who called Jesus `Lord' thought of him as deity, but on numerous occasions there can be no question that they did ( Matt. 7:21f. ...):

"Christ is called Lord. In the New Testament the Greek term is used in four ways. It is used of God the Father ( Matt. 4:7; 11:25; Luke 2:29; Acts 2:17:24; Rom. 4:8; 2 Cor. 6:17f.; Rev. 4:8), as a title of courtesy (Matt. 13:27; 21:29; 27:63; Luke 13:8; John 12:21), as a name for a master or owner (Matt. 20:8; Luke 12:46; John 15:15; Col. 4:1), and as a title of address to, or as a name for, Christ (Matt. 7:22; 8:2; 14:28; Mark 7:28). It is doubtful whether all who called Jesus `Lord' thought of him as deity, but on numerous occasions there can be no question that they did ( Matt. 7:21f.; Luke 1:43; 2:11; John 20:28; Acts 16:31; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11). The title `Lord,' as it is often used of Jesus, is the translation of the Hebrew name Jehovah. Thus, Christ is identified with the Jehovah of the Old Testament (cf. John 12:40f.; Rom. 10:9, 13; and 1 Pet. 3:15 with Isa. 6:1ff.; Joel 2:32; and Isa. 8:13 respectively)." (Thiessen, H.C. & Doerksen, V.D., "Lectures in Systematic Theology," [1949], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1977, Revised, pp.94-95).

Mt 8:25. "And they went and woke him, saying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing."

Mt 14:30. "But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."

"Peter tried to walk on the sea ... but when he lost faith and started to sink, he also cried out, `Lord, save me!' (kurie, soson me, Matt. 14:30). ... the words of a Psalm directed to God: `O LORD, save now' (o kurie, soson de, Ps. 118:25":

"On one occasion, Jesus had fallen asleep while out in a fishing boat on the Sea of Galilee with some of his disciples. When a severe storm threatened to capsize the boat, the men woke Jesus up, saying, `Lord, save us!' (kurie, soson, Matt. 8:25). On another occasion, Peter tried to walk on the sea after seeing Jesus do it, but when he lost faith and started to sink, he also cried out, `Lord, save me!' (kurie, soson me, Matt. 14:30). They may not have intended to do so, but the disciples' cries to the Lord Jesus for help recall the words of a Psalm directed to God: `O LORD, save now' (o kurie, soson de, Ps. 118:25, translating literally)." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, p.160).

Mt 25:11. "Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.'.

Lk 6:46. "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?

ii. Jesus accepted the title "God" of Himself.

a. Jesus accepted the title "my God" (Gk. ho theos) of Himself (Jn 20:28).

"But in at least eight passages the clear weight of relevant evidence supports our reading them as straightforward assertions of the deity of Christ: ...`Thomas answered, "My Lord and my God!" ' (Jn. 20:28)":

"DIRECT STATEMENTS OF DEITY The texts which assert the deity of Christ are predictably among the most debated in the entire NT. In several the grammatical evidence calls for hesitation before interpreting them as assertions of Christ's Godhood. But in at least eight passages the clear weight of relevant evidence supports our reading them as straightforward assertions of the deity of Christ: `Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!' (Rom. 9:5) `About the Son he [God] says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever".' (Heb. 1:8) `In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' (Jn. 1:1-2) 'No-one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.' (Jn. 1:18) `The glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.' (Tit. 2:13) `Thomas answered, "My Lord and my God!" ' (Jn. 20:28) `The righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.' (2 Pet. 1:1) `The church of God, which he bought with his own blood.' (Acts 20:28) The NT contains numerous other verses which possibly, though not definitely, imply the deity of Christ (e.g., Mt . 1:23; Jn. 17:3; Col. 2:2; 2 Thes. 1:12; 1 Tim. 1:17; Jas. 1:1; 1 Jn. 5:20). The eight texts quoted above are sufficient to establish the biblical position beyond doubt; there is, however, much more material." (Milne, B., 1982, "Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Fifth printing, 1988, p.128-129. Emphasis original).

"... my God' (on the lips of a faithful believer) can refer only to the Lord God of Israel. The language is as definite as it could be and identifies Jesus Christ as God himself":

"Jesus as `My God' in the Climax of John's Gospel (John 20:28). Although the Gospel of John has 21 chapters, the climax of the Gospel comes at the end of chapter 20, when the apostle Thomas confesses Jesus as his Lord and God (v. 28) ... There is essentially no controversy among biblical scholars that in John 20:28 Thomas is referring to and addressing Jesus when he says, `My Lord and my God!' ... Indeed, it is difficult to find any contemporary exegetical commentary or academic study that argues that Thomas's words in John 20:28 apply in context to the Father rather than to Jesus. The reason is simple: John prefaces what Thomas said with the words, `Thomas answered and said to Him' (v. 28a NASB). ... It is therefore certain that Thomas was directing his words to Jesus, not to the Father. ... Thomas's words echo statements addressed in the Psalms to the Lord (Jehovah), especially the following: `Wake up! Bestir yourself for my defense, for my cause, my God and my Lord [ho theos mou kai ho kurios mou]!' (Ps. 35:23). These words parallel those in John 20:28 exactly except for reversing `God' and `Lord.' More broadly, in biblical language `my God' (on the lips of a faithful believer) can refer only to the Lord God of Israel. The language is as definite as it could be and identifies Jesus Christ as God himself." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, pp.142-143. Emphasis original).

"Thus Jesus ... willingly receives divine homage (John 20:28-29)":

"Such passages as these (and it should be emphasized that they constitute merely a sampling chosen out of many others of similar import) agree with the representation throughout the Gospels that Jesus both claimed and exercised the prerogatives of the Lord God himself. Thus Jesus forgives sins (Mark 2:10, etc.), raises the dead (Luke 7:12-15, etc.), controls nature (Matt. 8:26), will judge the secret motives of men (Matt. 7:22-28), and willingly receives divine homage (John 20:28-29). The statement, therefore, in John 10:30, `I and the Father are one,' is but the epitome of the constant claim of Jesus. As has often been pointed out, Jesus' statement is either true or false. If it is true, then he is God. If it is false, he either knew it to be false or he did not know it to be false. If while claiming to be God he knew this claim to be false, he was a liar. If while claiming to be God he did not know this claim to be false, he was demented. There is no other alternative." (Metzger, B.M., 1953, "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Reprint of article in Theology Today, April, pp.65-85, p.74).

"Christ is, in fact, called `God' with the definite article [ho theos "the God"] in several other texts (John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20)"

"First of all, it must be remembered that what is indefinite in Greek need not-and sometimes must not-be translated with an indefinite article in English. The reason why it would be incorrect to translate theos `a god' shall be made clear as we progress; the fact is that such a rendering is not necessitated by theos being indefinite. Second, the point that is being made here is that for theos to be definite in this context-after just using the definite ton theon to refer specifically to the person of the Father-would be modalistic. This does not mean that theos cannot ever be definite when applied to Christ, nor does it mean that Christ cannot be called theos with the definite article ho. Christ is, in fact, called `God' with the definite article in several other texts (John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20). It is true, however, that none of these passages calls Christ simply ho theos without qualification, evidently because this expression was so firmly associated with the person of the Father. Thus he is called `my God,' `our God and Savior,' `our great God and Savior,' and `the true God and eternal life'-all using the definite article, all indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament, but all avoiding identifying him as the person of the Father." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., 1989, "The Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1995, p.41. Emphasis original).

"Thus he [Jesus] is called `my God,' [Jn 20:28] `our God and Savior,' [2Pet 1:1] `our great God and Savior,' [Tit 2:13] and `the true God and eternal life' [1Jn 5:20]-all using the definite article, all indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament":

"First of all, it must be remembered that what is indefinite in Greek need not-and sometimes must not-be translated with an indefinite article in English. The reason why it would be incorrect to translate theos `a god' shall be made clear as we progress; the fact is that such a rendering is not necessitated by theos being indefinite. Second, the point that is being made here is that for theos to be definite in this context-after just using the definite ton theon to refer specifically to the person of the Father-would be modalistic. This does not mean that theos cannot ever be definite when applied to Christ, nor does it mean that Christ cannot be called theos with the definite article ho. Christ is, in fact, called `God' with the definite article in several other texts (John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20). It is true, however, that none of these passages calls Christ simply ho theos without qualification, evidently because this expression was so firmly associated with the person of the Father. Thus he is called `my God,' `our God and Savior,' `our great God and Savior,' and `the true God and eternal life'-all using the definite article, all indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament, but all avoiding identifying him as the person of the Father." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., 1989, "The Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1995, p.41. Emphasis original).

b. Jesus would have rebuked Thomas if he was wrong, but instead Jesus blessed Thomas for his insight.

"Thomas ... did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing":

"[Jn 20:28] My Lord and my God (Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou). Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koine. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing." (Robertson, A.T., 1932, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V: The Fourth Gospel & the Epistle to the Hebrews," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.316. Emphasis original).

"Here was a monotheistic Jew saying to Jesus: `My God!' The fact that Jesus did not rebuke Thomas but commended him for his faith proves decisively that Jesus was equal to the Father, that He was Himself very God!":

"All these instances in which Jesus was worshiped come to a climax in the adoration of Thomas recorded in John 20:28. When Thomas saw Jesus the week after he had expressed disbelief in Jesus' resurrection, he said to Him, `My Lord and my God!' (NWT). If Jesus were not God, he should have rebuked Thomas at this point. Instead of rebuking him, however, Jesus praised Thomas, saying, `Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe' (v. 29, NWT). Surely here is indisputable proof that Jesus recognized Himself to be God and not only permitted but encouraged believers to worship Him as such! ... (1) What can the expression `my God' possibly mean other than `my true God'? ... the New Testament recognizes no true God beside Jehovah God; any god other than Jehovah is for New Testament writers a false god or an idol. Thomas, being a Jew, was a strict monotheist; for him there was no God beside Jehovah. When he said, `my God,' he could have meant nothing other than `my one and only true God.' (2) .... Here was a monotheistic Jew saying to Jesus: `My God!' The fact that Jesus did not rebuke Thomas but commended him for his faith proves decisively that Jesus was equal to the Father, that He was Himself very God!" (Hoekema, A.A., 1972, "Jehovah's Witnesses," [1963], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1990, pp.139-140. Emphasis original).

"`Thomas answered and said to Him, `My Lord and My God'. And our Lord did not restrain him nor rebuke him, He received this as His rightful designation":

"Among the disciples was one who refused to believe in the resurrection of Christ without tangible proof. For him the witness of others was not sufficient in a matter of such momentous consequence. He demanded nothing less than positive proof within the domain of his own senses. When Our Lord appeared to Him, He did not rebuke him for his scepticism, rather He readily provided the kind of proof asked for. His confession, in words expressing the ultimate in Christian faith, could not have been a consequence of seeing someone risen from the dead, for he must surely have seen the risen Lazarus. There is no mistaking their intent: `Thomas answered and said to Him, `My Lord and My God'. And our Lord did not restrain him nor rebuke him, He received this as His rightful designation (John 20:24-29)." (Bruce, F.F. & Martin, W.J., 1964, "The Deity of Christ," North of England Evangelical Trust: Manchester UK, pp.20-21. Emphasis original).

"... contrary to the claim of the Watchtower Society-theos ('God') with the definite article ho ('the') is indeed used of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. One example of this is John 20:28, where Thomas says to Jesus, `My Lord and my God!' The verse reads literally from the Greek, `The Lord of me and the God [ho theos] of me'":

"Christ Is Definitely God As if all that weren't enough to prove the deity of Christ in John 1:1, it is also critical to note that-contrary to the claim of the Watchtower Society-theos ('God') with the definite article ho ('the') is indeed used of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. One example of this is John 20:28, where Thomas says to Jesus, `My Lord and my God!' The verse reads literally from the Greek, `The Lord of me and the God [ho theos] of me.' Clearly, Christ is just as much God as the Father is. Other examples of ho theos ('the God') being used of Christ include Matthew 1:23 and Hebrews 1:8. We see again, then, that the same words used of the Father's deity are used in reference to Jesus' deity. Ask... o If theos ('God') with the definite article ho ('the') is used in the New Testament of Jesus Christ just as it is used of Jehovah-God, then doesn't this mean Jesus is just as much God as the Father is?" (Rhodes, R., 1993, " Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 2006, pp.109-110. Emphasis original).

"It would be ... blasphemy for Jesus not to rebuke Thomas if he were wrong. ... but in fact he accepts Thomas's profession of faith that he is God in the next verse":

"My Lord and My God! (John 20:28) In John 20:28 Thomas says to Jesus, `My Lord and my God,' which in the Greek is `Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou' Translated literally, the sentence reads, `The Lord of me and the God of me.' It would be nothing short of blasphemy for Jesus not to rebuke Thomas if he were wrong. Jesus does nothing of the sort, but in fact he accepts Thomas's profession of faith that he is God in the next verse: `Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.' [Jn 20:29 ] This is especially significant because the Watchtower teaches that the Greek phrase ho Theos ('the God') is used in Scripture to refer to the true God, as opposed to lesser gods. Yet here ho Theos is applied directly to Jesus, showing on the Watchtower's own logic that Jesus is the God, and not just a god. This creates a major theological problem for the Watchtower. To try to explain this verse, the claim is made that Thomas's statement was merely an exclamatory expression of praise directed to the Father. Yet the Watchtower's own NWT refutes this notion, as this verse clearly states that Thomas directed his words to Jesus: `In answer, Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"' (emphasis added)." (Evert, J., "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses," Catholic Answers: El Cajon CA, 2001, p.78. Emphasis original).

"... when Thomas worshiped Jesus as `My Lord and my God' he was in effect committing blasphemy for which Christ would have immediately rebuked him, unless what Thomas was saying was true, namely, that Jesus was his Lord and his God, Jehovah, the Son":

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God (John 20:28). Most all students of Scripture are familiar with so-called `doubting Thomas' who refused to believe that Jesus Christ had risen from the grave until he had thrust his finger into the wounds of Christ's hands and his hand into Christ's open side, a statement he later deeply regretted. John records for us in the 20th chapter how the Lord Jesus appeared after His resurrection in a physical form and then singling out Thomas offered His resurrection body as proof that He had truly vanquished the grave as a man and had risen in a bodily form. Thomas, it will be noted, wasted no time in doing what any human being would do when confronted with such divine evidence, he uttered the immortal phrase, `My Lord and my God,' worshiping at the feet of his risen Saviour, and giving to Jesus Christ adoration and homage as `God manifest in the flesh.' Now if Jehovah's Witnesses honestly want to be realistic, they will have to recognize two facts: First, Jesus appeared in physical form bearing the marks which He received upon the Cross-inescapable evidence that His was a bodily resurrection, not a spirit resurrection as they attempt to teach. Second, the Witnesses will also have to admit that under Mosaic law no one is entitled to warship but Jehovah Himself (Exodus 20); therefore, when Thomas worshiped Jesus as `My Lord and my God' he was in effect committing blasphemy for which Christ would have immediately rebuked him, unless what Thomas was saying was true, namely, that Jesus was his Lord and his God, Jehovah, the Son. Since Jesus did not rebuke him, but instead continued on to teach His disciples more of His Identity and plans, the argument of the Watch Tower crumbles before this revelation of Scriptural truth. With Thomas then all true Christians can echo of the Lord Jesus Christ, `My Lord and my God.'" (Martin, W.R., "Jehovah's Witnesses," Bethany House: Minneapolis MN, 1957, Reprinted, 1969, pp.37-38. Emphasis original).

See also the future "5. JEHOVAH'S NAMES AND TITLES ARE APPLIED TO JESUS": "A. Jesus is `Lord'" and "B. Jesus is `God'".

My next post in this series will be part #10, "3C. Jesus claimed and accepted the title of The Son of God of Himself."

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

Jehovah's Witness News, January 2012

2012-01-07T18:11:00.056+08:00

With the New Year, I have decided to start a trial posting of a monthly "Jehovah's Witness News". I thought of the title, before I checked and found there were several sites with that same name. My aim is to post an extract of newsworthy articles about Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, with my comments in bold under each article.

My target is not individual Jehovah's Witnesses but the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society and the Jehovah's Witness system. I will progressively add news items (newest uppermost) to my Jehovah's Witness News post for that month. Comments are welcome but as per my stated policies, sub-standard or off-topic comments won't appear.

"Arbitration Court confirms the ban on spreading Jehovah's Witnesses magazines in Russia," Interfax, 26 January 2012. The 9th Arbitration Appeal Court confirmed the

[Left: Watchtower and Awake! magazines: Digital Journal]

Russian Supervisory Agency for Communications ban on spreading in Russia magazines of Jehovah's Witnesses ... According to estimations ... at the Justice Ministry, several thousands sects work in Russia, about 600-800 thousand people are involved in them. However ... the number of sectarian has reduced several times in Russia if compared to 1990s. ... This is the latest round in an ongoing battle between the Russian government and the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, over the "extremist" content of the Society's The Watchtower and Awake! magazines. See "Appeal in Jehovah's Witnesses case to be heard Jan. 25,"RAPSI, December 30, 2011; "Russian court revokes ban on Awake! and The Watchtower magazines," Digital Journal, JohnThomas Didymus, Nov 18, 2011 & "Watchdog presses for ban on Jehovah's Witnesses magazines," RAPSI, November 17, 2011. That the Society's publications are extremist is evident in a recent Watchtower which claimed that former Witnesses who have left the sect are "mentally diseased" ("Jehovah's Witness mag investigated under religious hatred laws," Katerina Nikolas, Digital Journal, September 27, 2011). The Society's problem is that its magazines have the same content everywhere, so it cannot start having a special Russian edition. That would set a precedent for the Society having to produce special editions for other countries, which would greatly increase its costs and place the Society under even greater financial pressure (see below). It is significant that according to the latest statistics, the number of sectarians (which includes JWs) in Russia has declined by several times compared to the 1990s.

"False prophecy causes $13 million loss in Thailand," Alessio Fratticcioli, Digital Journal, Jan 8, 2012. Bangkok - Thongbai Khamsa, 73, is under investigation by Thai police for allegedly circulating a prophecy over the Internet that one of the largest dams in Thailand would have collapsed on New Year's Eve. Last month Thongbai had informed the media of a prophecy made by his long-deceased son, according to which the Bhumibol Dam would have collapsed in December 31, 2011. The huge dam ... is located in Tak

[Right: Bhumibol Dam, Thailand: "Tak Province," Wikipedia, 28 December 2011]

province, about 470 kilometers (290 miles) north-west of Bangkok. The Bhumibol Dam is 154 m (505 ft) tall, 486 m (1,594 ft) long and 8 m (26 ft) wide at its crest. It withholds a reservoir of 13,462,000,000 m³ (10,913,821 acre ft). According to Mr Thongbai, his son made the prophecy 37 years ago. ... As is clear now, the dam is still standing, so the prophecy proved wrong. Moreover, provincial officials says the false alarm has caused a 90% decline in the number of tourist arrivals during the holiday season, leading to a public loss estimated at 400 million baht, equivalent to about $13,3 million. Now Thongbai risks jail, but what are exactly the charges against him? Spreading a prophecy ... which fortunately did not turn out correct? ... The Jehovah's Witnesses have made a number of predictions about the end of the world. The first was 1914, even though after the end did not come they changed the meaning of the prediction and stated that it was the date that Jesus would begin to "rule invisibly." Some other years that the group have predicted the end of the world to come are 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975, 1994, etc. .. It will be interesting to see if the court rules that those who lose financially from a false prophecy can recover damages from the false prophet. But apart from that courts elsewhere would probably not be bound by a precedent from a Thai court, the Statute of Limitations would presumably apply to Watchtower false prophesies that the world would end in 1914, 1925, 1975 and 1994, etc. For example, the JWs who sold their homes and property in the years leading up to the Autumn of 1975, so they could devote themselves to full-time preaching that there was only a "short time remaining before the wicked world's end":

"Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end." ("How Are You Using Your Life?," Our Kingdom Ministry, May 1974, p.3).

should be entitled to recover their loss from the Watchtower. Especially as Jesus stated that no one would know the date of His return (Mt 24:36; 24:50; 25:13; Mk 13:32; Lk 12:46, Acts 1:7) and it would only be false prophets who claimed that they did (Lk 21:8). But even if it cannot be held accountable to a human court, the Watchtower Society (and JWs who support it - 2Jn 10-11) will still be held accountable to God's court for every one of the evils that they have done (Mt 16:27; Rev 20:12), including false prophecy (Dt 18:20-22).

"Jones first American to undergo bloodless heart surgery," The Times of India, Jan 15, 2012. BANGALORE: Jack Jones, 74, of the US went through a beating heart surgery at Narayana Hrudayalaya on December 29, perhaps the first US citizen to undergo such a surgery in India. As a Jehovah's Witness, his faith bars him from have a blood transfusion ... While it's a religious matter for the Jehovah's Witness community, bloodless surgery has its own advantages, points out Dr Praveen Kumar of Narayana Hrudayalaya. "Firstly, there's a

[Left: Dr Praveen Kumar: Guardian Medical Services]

cost advantage given that there's significant expenditure involved in testing blood of donors. Secondly, it diminishes the possibility of infection that occur during transfusion," said Dr Praveen. But the challenges are immense. "While operating ... we have to be immensely watchful of the patient losing blood," explained Dr Praveen. Dr Sharad Damodar ... said they sometimes collect the patients blood, which can be reused. "But Jehovah's Witnesses believe their own blood can't be transfused back into their bodies. As per their law, if the patient suffers due to lack of blood, doctors will simply have to let the patient go," explained Dr Damodar. ... So while bloodless surgery has its advantages, the Watchtower's refusal to allow a patient's own blood to be reused still causes unnecessary deaths on the operating table. These would be added to the thousands (if not millions) of needless deaths, due to this Watchtower "tradition of men" (Mk 7:8 NWT), which converted a specific ruling that, so as not to offend Jews, Gentile Christians should avoid eating blood (Acts 15:19-21 NWT), into a general prohibition on JWs receiving blood transfusions. But since Jews today not only are not offended by blood transfusions, but regard them as "obligatory" when medically necessary:

Is blood transfusion permissible in Jewish belief? By Rochel Chein. There is nothing in Jewish law that would preclude a person from benefiting from a blood transfusion (or donating blood, for that matter). Furthermore, according to Jewish belief, saving a life is one of the most important mitzvot (commandments), overriding nearly all of the others. (The exceptions are murder, certain sexual offenses, and idol-worship-we cannot transgress these even to save a life.) Therefore, if a blood transfusion is deemed medically necessary, then it is not only permissible but obligatory. All the best, Rochel Chein for Chabad.org

there is no reason for Gentiles, including JWs, to not have them. The Watchtower Society, and those JWs who support its "no blood" policy (2Jn 10-11), will be held accountable to Jesus at the Judgment (2Cor 5:10; Jn 5:22 NWT) for all the uncountable numbers of needless deaths this Watchtower `wresting of the Scriptures' (2Pet 3:16 NWT) has caused (Dt 22:8 NWT).

"European Court releases judgments on Armenian Jehovah’s Witnesses members," NEWS.am, January 13, 2012. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) released two new judgments on January 10 protecting the right of conscientious

[Right: The European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France.]

objectors in the cases of Bukharatyan v. Armenia and Tsaturyan v. Armenia, both involving Jehovah’s Witnesses. The two applicants, Hayk Bukharatyan and Ashot Tsaturyan, were sentenced in 2003 to two years of imprisonment by Armenian authorities for refusal to participate in military service. Mr. Bukharatyan and Mr. Tsaturyan appealed their cases to the ECHR, stating that their rights were violated under Article 9 of the European Convention ... Armenian law on alternative civilian service allows seeking alternative service for those who refuse to join the army for religious reasons. However, young people, members of religious organizations, often refuse to enlist for alternative civilian service saying it is controlled by the Defense Ministry ... Refusal to participate in military service, even in alternative civilian service, is a Watchtower Society "tradition of men" (Mk 7:8 NWT), not a Biblical teaching. Apart from the many times in the Old Testament where the Israelites were not only commanded to fight military wars, they were told by Jehovah that he was fighting through them (e.g. Dt 1:30; Josh 10:14,42; 23:3,10; 1Sam 15:18, etc); in the New Testament when Roman soldiers asked John the Baptist "What shall we also do?" he did not say, "do not participate in military service" but rather told them, "Do not harass anybody or accuse anybody falsely, but be satisfied with YOUR provisions" (Lk 3:14 NWT). And then there was "Cornelius, an army officer ... a devout man and one fearing God together with all his household ... and made supplication to God continually" (Acts 10:1-3 NWT); who was visited by an angel who said to him, "Your prayers and gifts of mercy have ascended as a remembrance before God" (Acts 10:4 NWT). Later the Apostle Peter met Cornelius and described him as a "man that fears him [God] and works righteousness" (Acts 10:34-35 NWT). Not a word from either the angel or Peter that Cornelius should refuse to participate in military service!

"Cops Swarm Kingdom Hall Plagued by Attacks," NBC San Diego, Michelle Wayland, Tuesday, Jan 10, 2012. Police swarmed a

[Left: "The Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall is the target of several hate crimes and arson attacks"]

University Heights neighborhood Monday night after someone reported seeing a suspicious person at a Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall which has been plagued by recent arson attacks and vandalism. Police and firefighters were called to the Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall on Adams Avenue around 8 p.m. after a security guard reported seeing a silhouette on the roof and smelled something burning. Police did not arrest a suspect ... The neighborhood is on high alert as the Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall has been the target of several hate crimes and arson attacks. ... Just last week someone pried the word "Jehovah" off the building. The intruder allegedly poured gasoline inside the building and tried to set it on fire. ... In another incident, a vandal wrote "666" on the building. In the first incident, a fire in the staging area of the church was reported around midnight, according to firefighters. The suspect has not been caught and neighbors are extremely concerned. .... A $10,000 reward is being offered for information leading to a conviction in the case. ... While I certainly do not condone this, or any other, illegal action against Jehovah's Witnesses, I expect this vandal is a former Jehovah's Witness, or a family member of a Jehovah's Witness, whose life has, like so many others, been ruined by the Watchtower. The persistence of the attacks despite the increasing likelihood of being caught, the removal of the word "Jehovah," the writing of "666" and the fact that the vandal has not attacked any church or other place of religious worship in the area, points to the perpetrator being someone whose life has been severely and adversely affected by the actions of this particular Jehovah's Witness kingdom hall.

For example, he/she likely is one of the many victims of child sexual abuse perpetrated by Frederick McLean, a former ministerial servant at presumably this congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses near San Diego:

"New evidence in Jehovah's Witness allegations," Lisa Myers and Richard Greenberg, MSN Nightly News, November 21, 2007. The Jehovah's Witnesses have settled nine lawsuits alleging church policies protected men who sexually abused children for many years.
[Right: Frederick McLean: MSNBC]
Frederick McLean is one of the most-wanted fugitives in the United States, charged with 17 counts of child sexual abuse in California. Law enforcement sources say that when a victim's family confronted McLean in 2004, he allegedly confessed. But before he could be arrested, McLean fled. Authorities identified at least eight victims that McLean allegedly abused over the course of nearly a decade. One victim estimated McLean molested her "over 100 times," according to the U.S. Marshals Service. Deputy Marshal Thomas Maranda, who is leading the hunt for the 56-year-old fugitive, says McLean gained the trust of many of his victims through his leadership position, as a so-called ministerial servant, in his local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses near San Diego. "His role in the church was significant," Maranda explains, "because we believe that his participation in the church gave him access to his victims." His role in the church also became a matter of legal controversy. Last year, some victims' families filed suit against the Jehovah's Witnesses, alleging that both McLean's local congregation and the church's national headquarters, the Watchtower Society, "knew, or should have known, that Frederick McLean was a pedophile." The Jehovah's Witnesses recently agreed to pay to settle that lawsuit and eight other similar cases, without admitting wrongdoing. The cases all involved men the church allegedly knew had sexually abused children. The settlements for those cases are confidential and filed under seal. Frederick McLean However, NBC News has obtained a copy of one of the settlements from the McLean lawsuit, and it may offer an indication of the potential magnitude of the payouts. According to the court record, the church agreed to pay $781,250 to the accuser, who claimed McLean abused her from age 3 to age 9. (After legal fees and other costs, the accuser was set to receive approximately $530,000.) ...

"Jehovah's Witnesses to meet at convention," Amarillo Globe-News, Mark Haslett, January 6, 2012. An estimated 1,500 Jehovah's Witnesses from Amarillo and around the region

[Right: Amarillo Civic Center: Devil's Rope Studios. Appropriately named!]

will attend a semi-annual convention this weekend at the Amarillo Civic Center. The gathering will welcome worshippers from as far away as Guymon, Okla., and Clayton, N.M ... The schedule of events Saturday and Sunday includes lectures, conversations and performances ... The theme for this weekend's convocation, known as a Circuit Convention, is "Let your name be sanctified," ... The Civic Center regularly hosts Jehovah's Witnesses regional events, including the annual District Convention, a larger gathering. ... The theme, "Let your name be sanctified" is from Mt 6:9 NWT. But JW's attending are worse than wasting their time. Jesus said in Jn 5:23 NWT that unless they "honor the Son just as they honor the Father" then they do "not honor the Father who sent him."

"Watchtower Building In Heights Sells for $7.1M," Linda Collins, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, January 3, 2012. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS - A Brooklyn Heights multi-family building previously owned by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (also known as the Jehovah's Witnesses) has been sold by Massey Knakal Realty Services.

[Left: 50 Orange St., Brooklyn Heights: Brooklyn Heights Press]

The building, at 50 Orange St., on the southeast corner of Orange and Hicks streets, was sold in an all-cash transaction valued at $7.1 million ... Massey Knakal is also marketing two other properties on behalf of the Watchtower: o 183 Columbia Heights .... The asking price is $7.1 million. ".... o 161 Columbia Heights ... The asking price is $3.45 million. ... More evidence of the Watchtower's continuing decline! Following its loss in the Jimmy Swaggart case, having to change in 1990 from a sales to a `donations' system for its literature distribution, or pay sales tax, the Watchtower's revenues declined markedly. Then the Global Financial Crisis from 2008 would have hit the Society hard because its membership is less educated and lower paid and so would be more likely to become and remain unemployed. Also, non-JWs have less money to `donate' for Watchtower literature. So presumably the Watchtower is `selling the furniture' in order to survive. But it cannot continue forever doing that, as even after the GFC is over, the Society's pre-GFC revenue decline will still be in effect.

"Jehovah's Witness Jumps To Death In Brooklyn," Gothamist, Ben Yakas, December 29, 2011. A Jehovah's Witness jumped to his death from a Brooklyn rooftop yesterday.

[Right: "Brooklyn man leaps 15 stories to his death," NY Daily News, December 28, 2011]

According to police, Dwayne Fagan, 48, jumped from the top of his apartment building in the Linden Houses in East New York just before 1 p.m. Wednesday afternoon as bystanders looked on ... A ledge above the building's entrance broke Fagan's fall before he hit the ground. ... Police say Fagan, who was said to be a devout Jehovah's Witness, had warned a family member he was planning to hurt himself in a series of texts messages before his death. According to the Cult Awareness And Information Center and other reports, Jehovah's Witnesses commit suicide at a rate far exceeding (5-10 times greater) the general population. I would not normally comment on this individual tragedy except for the claim that "Jehovah's Witnesses commit suicide at a rate far exceeding (5-10 times greater) the general population" based on experts' estimates. Yet "Those who attend church frequently are four times less likely to commit suicide than those who never attend." ("Religious faith and suicide, " Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, February 11, 2001). Jesus told us that false prophets would come and we know them by their fruit (Mt 7:15-21 NWT)!

Jesus is Jehovah!: 3A. Jesus claimed to be "I AM"

2011-12-13T07:58:00.013+08:00

Here is part #8, "3A. Jesus claimed to be `I AM'," the first topic in section 3. "Jesus Claimed to be Jehovah," of my series, "Jesus is Jehovah!" (by topic), which is based on my morning `quiet time'

[Above (click to enlarge): "Jesus Walks on Water" (1888), by Ivan Aivazovsky (1817-1900): Wikipedia.]

Bible study. My previous post in this series was part #7, "2C. Jehovah promised that He would come to Jerusalem in Person." See part #1 the Contents page for more details of this series. I am using the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible, unless otherwise indicated. In this post some of the headings are from the late Jay P. Green Sr's KJ3-LITV (King James 3-Literal Translation Version), which consistently translates the Greek ego eimi in John as "I AM."

JESUS IS JEHOVAH!
© Stephen E. Jones

Jesus is Jehovah!: Contents

3. JESUS CLAIMED TO BE JEHOVAH

A. Jesus claimed to be "I AM."

i. Jesus claimed to be "I AM" (Gk. ego eimi).

1) "Jesus [walking on the sea] spoke to them, saying, `Have courage, I AM!'" (Mt 14:25; Mk 6:50; Jn 6:20. LITV).

Mt 14:27. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, "Take heart; it is I [ego eimi]. Do not be afraid."

Mk 6:50. for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart; it is I [ego eimi]. Do not be afraid."

Jn 6:20. But he said to them, "It is I [ego eimi]; do not be afraid."

"... Jesus walking on the sea ... in this miracle account `Jesus is portrayed as filling the role ... of Yahweh ... `It is I [ego eimi]; do not be afraid' (Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20). This statement echoes statements by the Lord God in Isaiah ...":

"As various scholars, both conservative and liberal, have observed, the Gospel accounts of Jesus walking on the sea [Mt 14:23-33; Mk 6:47-52; Jn 6:16-21] allude rather clearly to the account in Exodus 14-15 of the Israelites' crossing of the Red Sea. The Israelites walked in `the midst of the sea' (Exod. 14:16, 22, 27, 29 NASB) and crossed to the other side (Exod. 15:16). Likewise, the disciples' boat was `in the middle of the sea' (Mark 6:47 NASB) and they also `crossed over' the sea (Mark 6:53). A strong wind from the east blew across the Red Sea and, close to daybreak, the Egyptians found it increasingly difficult to drive their chariots as they attempted to follow the Israelites (Exod. 14:21, 24-25). Likewise, an adverse wind blew across the Sea of Galilee and, based on the geography, it also would have been blowing from the east; this wind also blew close to daybreak and made it difficult for the disciples to row their boat (Mark 6:48). According to Mark, the disciples had the same problem as the Egyptians: their hearts were hardened (Exod. 14:4, 8, 17; Mark 6:52). ... in this miracle account `Jesus is portrayed as filling the role ... of a greater Moses and of Yahweh. Jesus' response to the disciples' fear encompasses both roles. Moses had told the Israelites, `Take heart!' (tharseite, Exod. 14:13 LXX) and Jesus told the disciples the same thing: `Take heart!' (tharseite, Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50). But then Jesus added, `It is I [ego eimi]; do not be afraid' (Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20). This statement echoes statements by the Lord God in Isaiah, where he speaks of a kind of `new Exodus' when the Jews would be restored to their land: `Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; Do not fear, for I am with you; ... so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he [ego eimi] ... I am the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King:' Thus says the LORD, who makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters. (Isa. 43:1-2, 5, 10, 15- 16)." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, p.205).

"Jesus' saying `It is I' (ego eimi) draws out a reflection on the identity of Jesus ... In the Old Testament only God stills storms.":

"Jesus and Peter Walking on the Sea (Mt 14:22-33 / Mk 6:45-52; cf. Jn 6:16-21). ... As in Mark 6:48, Jesus walking on the stormy sea could only be seen as God himself coming to the distressed disciples. In the Old Testament it is only God who can save people from the sea (see ... on Mk 6:45-52). ... Peter's address to Jesus as `Lord' reflects what faith Peter does have in the one who is Lord of the destructive storm, which presumably is still raging as Peter makes his request (Mt 14:24,28, 32), for in John it is implied that only God could walk on the sea (Jn 6:19-20). And, for Matthew, Jesus' saying `It is I' (ego eimi) draws out a reflection on the identity of Jesus ... In the Old Testament only God stills storms. [Job 26:11-12; Ps 65:7; 89:6-10;107:29; Jnh 1:15] It is then thoroughly appropriate for Matthew to say that the disciples in the boat `worshiped' (proskunein) Jesus, saying, `Truly you are the Son of God' (Mt 14:33). Of all Matthew's miracle stories, it is this one that portrays the highest Christology. The story begins by drawing parallels between Moses and Jesus. In the body of the story, it is not that Jesus acts for God. Rather, in Jesus, God is seen acting to calm the storm and to rescue his people." (Twelftree, G.H., 1999, "Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical Theological Study," InterVarsity Press,' InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.130-132. Emphasis original).

"Most significantly of all ... Jesus spoke of himself as `I AM', recalling ... where God revealed himself to Moses and the people by these words (Exod. 3:14). ... by these very words Jesus identified himself with God. `Be not afraid, I AM,' ...(Mark 6:50; John 6:20 ...)":

"Most significantly of all, as we have seen, Jesus spoke of himself as `I AM', recalling the high point in the Old Testament where God revealed himself to Moses and the people by these words (Exod. 3:14). Yet by these very words Jesus identified himself with God. `Be not afraid, I AM,' he told the terrified fishermen, words that appear in independent sources (Mark 6:50; John 6:20; my tr.). Jesus refers to himself many times in the Gospel of John as `I AM', in both absolute and qualified senses (e.g. `I AM the bread of life'; John 6:35). But these I AM words also occur in the Synoptic Gospels; for example, when Jesus answered the high priest, `I AM; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power...' (Mark 14:62). The false prophets imitate Jesus in saying, `I AM', thereby confirming his use of these words (Mark 13:6)." (Barnett, P.W., 2009, "Messiah: Jesus - the Evidence of History," InterVarsity Press: Nottingham UK, p.122. Emphasis original).

2) "Jesus said to her [a Samaritan woman], `I AM! the One speaking to you.'" (Jn 4:26. LITV)

"Literally Jesus said, 'I am (ego eimi), the one speaking to you'":

"[Jn 4:25-26]. In response, The woman said, 'I know that Messiah' (called Christ) 'is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.' It was all too difficult for her to understand. She would have to wait for the arrival of the Samaritan Messiah/Taheb to explain everything. Then Jesus declared, 'I who speak to you am he.' Literally Jesus said, 'I am (ego eimi), the one speaking to you.'" (Kruse, C.G., 2003, "The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, p.135. Italics original).

"... Jesus' statement to the Samaritan woman: `I am he [ego eimi], the one who is speaking to you' (John 4:26). ... is almost a perfect quote from Isaiah 52:6, in which God tells his people that at some point in the future they will finally realize that he is the one speaking to them":

"According to a broad consensus of New Testament scholars, at least some of the `I am' sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of John echo these `I am' sayings of God, especially those in Isaiah.' The clearest example is a pair of such sayings in John 8, which allude strongly to a saying of God in Isaiah 43:10. Another very likely allusion is Jesus' statement to the Samaritan woman: `I am he [ego eimi], the one who is speaking to you' (John 4:26). On a prosaic level, one can read Jesus' statement as simply an affirmation that he is the Messiah about whom the woman had asked. It turns out, however, that Jesus' response is almost a perfect quote from Isaiah 52:6, in which God tells his people that at some point in the future they will finally realize that he is the one speaking to them. Other `I am' sayings of Jesus are more allusive in their relation to sayings of God in Isaiah, but in light of these clear connections, and since most of them pertain to the same passage in Isaiah 43, we should recognize these allusions as genuine as well)." (Bowman Komoszewski, 2007, p.177).

"In [Jn] 4:26 Jesus says to the woman at the well, `I am, the one speaking to you' which is strangely reminiscent of the LXX rendering of Isaiah 52:6":

"The specific phrase ego eimi occurs twenty-four times in the gospel of John. Thirteen of these times it is followed by a clear predicate (John 6:35; 6:41; 6:51; 8:12; 8:18; 10:7; 10:9; 10:11; 10:14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1; 15:5). .... In 4:26 Jesus says to the woman at the well, `I am, the one speaking to you' which is strangely reminiscent of the LXX rendering of Isaiah 52:6. .... Given the above, we are left with seven uses that have been described as `absolute:' These would be John 8:24; 8:28; 8:58; 13:19; 18:5; 18:6; and 18:8. It is very significant that in each of these instances, the phrase comes at the end of the clause. We will note why it is important when we look at the usage of the phrase in the Septuagint." (White, J.R., 1998, "The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief," Bethany House: Minneapolis MN, pp.208-209).

3) Jesus said, "For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." (Jn 8:24. LITV)

"In each of these verses [Jn 8:24,58; 13:19; 18:5-6] a particular Greek phrase appears ... ego eimi ... `I am He.' The fact that the word `He' is italicized ... means the word itself is not found in the Greek":

"John's literary artistry was not limited to the prologue of his Gospel, nor was it confined to the direct assertion of the deity of Christ through calling Him `God' (1:1; 20:28). He found subtle ways of teaching this truth as well. One method that John presented ... is found in Jesus' use of the phrase I am. Look at these passages from the gospel of John: `Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins' (John 8:24). Jesus said to them, `Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am' (John 8:58). `From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He' (John 13:19). They answered Him, `Jesus the Nazarene.' He said to them, `I am He.' And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. So when He said to them, `I am He,' they drew back and fell to the ground. (John 18:5-6). In each of these verses a particular Greek phrase appears ... ego eimi ... The New American Standard Bible renders this Greek phrase as `I am He.' The fact that the word `He' is italicized is very important, for this means the word itself is not found in the Greek and is being supplied by the translators in an effort to smooth out an awkward English phrase. John makes sure, through the use of context, that we do not miss the point he is making by recording these words of Jesus." (White, 1998, pp.95-96).

"`... I am' without supplying a predicate in the absolute sense as the Jews (Deut. 32:39) used the language of Jehovah (cf. Isa. 43:10 ...). ... Jesus seems to claim absolute divine being as in 8:58":

"[Jn 8:24]. For except ye believe (ean gar me pisteusete). Negative condition of third class with ean me and ingressive aorist active subjunctive of pisteuo, `For unless ye come to believe.' That I am he (hoti ego eimi). Indirect discourse, but with no word in the predicate after the copula eimi. Jesus can mean ... `that I am' without supplying a predicate in the absolute sense as the Jews (Deut. 32:39) used the language of Jehovah (cf. Isa. 43:10 where the very words occur hina pisteusete - hoti ego eimi). The phrase ego eimi occurs three times here (8:24, 28, 58) and also in 13:19. Jesus seems to claim absolute divine being as in 8:58." (Robertson, A.T., 1932, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V: The Fourth Gospel & the Epistle to the Hebrews," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.146. Emphasis original).

"With astonishing frequency ... Jesus is identified as the Lord (that is, YHWH) of the Old Testament ... He is ...the one who says `I am' ... (John 8:24, 28, 58):

"With astonishing frequency-far more often than even many scholars have noticed-Jesus is identified as the Lord (that is, YHWH) of the Old Testament (Rom. 10:9-13; 1 Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:9-11; 1 Peter 3:13-15). He is the King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 17:14; 19:16), the divine Savior (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:11), the one who says `I am' or `I am he' (John 8:24, 28, 58), the first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega, and the beginning and the end (Rev. 1:7-8, 17b-18; 2:8; 22:12-13). The New Testament repeatedly and in a variety of ways makes the name of Jesus the center of Christian faith; he has the name that is above every name (Eph. 1:21; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 3:17)." (Bowman Komoszewski, 2007, pp.272-273).

"Thus we read in John 8:24: `... Except ye believe that I am (he), ye shall die in your sins.' ...The use of these words is reminiscent of the divine utterances occurring in the Old Testament; for instance, `I am that I am' (Ex. 3:14) ; or `See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no God with me' (Deut. 32:39)":

"We are now thinking of the manner in which Christ speaks of himself in the currently much-discussed `I am' texts. In the gospel Christ not only says in various ways what and who he is, as for instance the shepherd, the vine, the light, the way, the truth, the life and the door, but he also says of himself: I am. Thus we read in John 8:24: `... Except ye believe that I am (he), ye shall die in your sins.' In this unusual `I am' we have, says Grosheide, a self-disclosure such as had not, till now, been given us. ` [Grosheide, Comm. op Johannes, on John 8:24] I am: with these words any living man can indicate his earthly existence but the I am of Christ transcends this by far and can become an object of decisive belief. The use of these words is reminiscent of the divine utterances occurring in the Old Testament; for instance, `I am that I am' (Ex. 3:14) ; or `See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no God with me' (Deut. 32:39). For Christ, no less than for God, the I am without a predicate is valid; and upon this extraordinary reality, also here, faith is focussed. [Cf. Ps. 90:2; Isaiah 43:11, 15, 25; 44:6, 8, 24; 45:5, 18, 22] Christ repeats these words of the Father, taking them from the Old Testament, as having unique knowledge of his being, a being which places man before the decision of life and death." (Berkouwer, G.C., 1954, "The Person of Christ," Vriend, J., transl., Studies in Dogmatics, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, p.168. Emphasis original).

"To those who rejected him, Jesus warned, `You will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he' (John 8:24). ... Jesus' call here ... `links Jesus with the Father as the supreme object of faith'":

"On the basis of his divine identity, Jesus made promises to his followers and expected them to place their faith unconditionally in him. While Martha's brother Lazarus lay dead, Jesus assured her, `I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die' (John 11:25-26). To those who were spiritually thirsty, Jesus promised, `Whoever believes in me will never be thirsty' (John 6:35; see also 7:37-39). To those who rejected him, Jesus warned, `You will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he' (John 8:24). Moses never spoke like this! Again, belief in Jesus is not in place of belief in God. The person who accepts his teachings, Jesus said, `believes him who sent me' (John 5:24). This is what Jesus meant when he said, `Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me' (John 12:44). Jesus made it clear that he was not inviting faith in him apart from, or in place of, faith in God. On the other hand, he made the claim-audacious for any creature to make-that he was just as trustworthy an object of faith as God himself. `Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me' (John 14:1). Jesus' call here for the disciples to believe in him as they believed in God `links Jesus with the Father as the supreme object of faith:' [Keener, C.S., 2003, 2:931]" (Bowman Komoszewski, 2007, pp.62-63).

"... Jesus uses the term I am (Gr. Ego eimi) more than nineteen times in reference to himself in the gospel according to John. ... Often it is used to make claims about himself that would normally only be thought appropriate for God. For example ...`Unless you believe that I am ... you shall die in your sins' (8:24)":

"In all, Jesus uses the term I am (Gr. Ego eimi) more than nineteen times in reference to himself in the gospel according to John. [Jn 4:26; 6:35,41,48,51; 8:12,18,24,28,58; 10:7,9,11,14; 11:25; 13:19; 14:6; 15:1] Often it is used to make claims about himself that would normally only be thought appropriate for God. For example, `I am the bread of life, he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst' (6:35); `I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life' (8:12); `Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins' (8:24); `I am the good shepherd' (10:11-14) [cf. Psalm 23:1: `The LORD is my shepherd']; `I am the resurrection, and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies' (11:25)." (McDowell, J. Wilson, B., 1988, "He Walked Among Us: Evidence for the Historical Jesus," Here's Life Publishers: San Bernardino CA, pp.313-314, 344 n40).

4) "Then Jesus said to them, When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM ..." (Jn 8:28. LITV)

"Then, according to verse 28, Jesus told the Jews, `When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [I AM, or ego eimi] He.' Again, the original Greek text reads, `... you will know that I AM' (there is no he). Jesus purposely used the phrase as a means of pointing to His identity as Yahweh":

"Jesus Is Yahweh ... A comparison of the Old and New Testaments provides powerful testimony to Jesus' identity as Yahweh. ... The Septuagint provides us with additional insights on Christ's identity as Yahweh. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that dates prior to the birth of Christ. It renders the Hebrew phrase for `I AM' (God's name) in Exodus 3:14 as ego eimi. On a number of occasions in the Greek New Testament, Jesus used this term as a way of identifying Himself as God. For example, in John 8:24 (NASB) Jesus declared, `Unless you believe that I am [I AM or ego eimi] He, you shall die in your sins.' The original Greek text for this verse does not have the word he. The verse is literally, `If you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.' Then, according to verse 28, Jesus told the Jews, `When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [I AM, or ego eimi] He.' Again, the original Greek text reads, `When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM' (there is no he). Jesus purposely used the phrase as a means of pointing to His identity as Yahweh." (Rhodes, R., 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 2006, pp.63-64. Emphasis original).

5) "Jesus said to them, `Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came to be, I AM!'" (Jn 8:58. LITV)

"In actuality the phrase I am is an assertion of absolute, timeless existence":

"[Jn 8] The reply of Jesus is strange. Literally it reads: `Before Abraham came into being, I am' (58). The same contrast of verbs is used that appears in 1:1 and 1:14. `Came into being' involves a crisis in time, a definite act. `Am,' like the other form of the same verb in 1:1, means timeless being. There never was a time when the Son was not. He could always assert, `I am.' Three times in this context I am is used in the absolute sense: in verse 24, `Except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins'; in verse 28, `When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he'; and in verse 58, `Before Abraham was born, I am.' In no one of these passages does the third personal pronoun he follow the I am in the Greek text. The italicized form shows that it has been inserted by the translators to complete the meaning in English. In actuality the phrase I am is an assertion of absolute, timeless existence, not merely of a personal identity as the English equivalent would suggest." (Tenney, M.C., 1976, "John: The Gospel of Belief: An Analytic Study of the Text," [1948], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Second edition, pp.149-150. Emphasis original).

"... `before Abraham came into existence or was born.' I am (ego eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God":

"[Jn 8:58] Before Abraham was (prin Abraam genesthai). Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of ginomai) and the accusative of general reference, `before coming as to Abraham,' `before Abraham came into existence or was born.' I am (ego eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesthai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in 1:1 and egeneto in 1:14. See the contrast also in Psa. 90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genethenai). See the same use of eimi in John 6:20; 9:9; 8:24, 28; 18:6." (Robertson, 1932, pp.158-159. Emphasis original).

"Perhaps the strongest claim Jesus made to be Yahweh is in John 8:58, where he says, `Before Abraham was, I am.' This statement claims not only existence before Abraham, but equality with the `I AM' of Exodus 3:14":

"Jesus Claimed to Be Yahweh. Yahweh (YHWH; sometimes appearing in English translations as `Jehovah' or in small capital letters as `LORD') is the special name given by God for himself in the Old Testament. It is the name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14, when God said, `I AM WHO I AM.' ... Jesus claimed to be Yahweh. He prayed, `And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was' (John 17:5). But Yahweh of the Old Testament said, `my glory will I not give to another' (Isa. 42:8). Jesus also declared, `I am the first and the last' (Rev. 1:17)- precisely the words used by Jehovah in Isaiah 42:8. He said, `I am the good shepherd' (John 10:11), but the Old Testament said, `Yahweh is my shepherd' (Ps. 23:1). Further, Jesus claimed to be the judge of all people (Matt. 25:31f.; John 5:27f.), but Joel quotes Jehovah as saying, `for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side' (Joel 3:12). Likewise, Jesus spoke of himself as the `bridegroom' (Matt. 25:1) while the Old Testament identifies Jehovah in this way (Isa. 62:5; Hos. 2:16). While the Psalmist declares, `The LORD is my light' (Ps. 27:1), Jesus said, `I am the light of the world' (John 8:12). Perhaps the strongest claim Jesus made to be Yahweh is in John 8:58, where he says, `Before Abraham was, I am.' This statement claims not only existence before Abraham, but equality with the `I AM' of Exodus 3:14. The Jews around him clearly understood his meaning and picked up stones to kill him for blaspheming (cf. John 8:58 and 10:31-33). The same claim is made in Mark 14:62 and John 18:5-6." (Geisler, N.L., 1999, "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, p.129. Emphasis original).

"Supremely significant is the I AM (Ex. 3:14; cf. Jn. 8:58; 6:35; 8:12,24; 11:25; 14:6; 18:5f.; Mk. 14:62)":

"JESUS' IDENTITY WITH YAHWEH/JEHOVAH The NT attributes to Jesus many of the perfections of Yahweh (or, Jehovah), the creator/redeemer God of the OT. There are seven main points of identity. God's name When the OT was translated into Greek in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC (the Septuagint), the sacred name of God, YHWH, usually rendered Yahweh or Jehovah, was translated by the Greek word Kyrios (Lord); there are approaching 7,000 instances of this. This sacred and exalted title was attributed directly to Jesus (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11; etc., cf. also Lord of lords, 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16). Indeed the confession Jesus is Lord is probably the earliest confession of faith (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; 2 Cor. 4:5). On several occasions NT writers apply OT passages concerning Yahweh directly to Jesus (Acts 2:34f.; Rom. 8:34; Heb. 10:12f.; 1 Pet. 3:22 apply Ps. 110:1. Rom. 10:13 applies Joel 2:32. Phil. 2:9-11 applies Is. 45:23. Jn. 12:41 applies Is. 6:10. Eph. 4:8 applies Ps. 68:18). These passages clearly identify Jesus with Yahweh. Another link is provided by self-designations of God appropriated by Jesus or referred to him. Supremely significant is the I AM (Ex. 3:14; cf. Jn. 8:58; 6:35; 8:12,24; 11:25; 14:6; 18:5f.; Mk. 14:62). Others are bridegroom (Is. 62:5; Je. 2:2; Ezk. 16:8; cf. Mk. 2:19f.; Jn. 3:29; 2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 19:7); shepherd (Pss. 23:1; 80:1; Is. 40:11; Ezk. 34:15; cf. Jn. 10:11-16; Heb. 13:10; 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:4); the first and the last (Is. 44:6; 48:12; cf. Rev. 2:8; 22:13)." (Milne, B., 1982, "Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Fifth printing, 1988, pp.129-130. Emphasis original).

"Jesus' `I Am' Sayings Perhaps the greatest assertion among all of his claims not only to eternal pre- existence but also to actually being the Yahweh of the Old Testament is that which is found in his `I am' saying of John 8:58: `Before Abraham was, I am' (see Ex 3:14 ...)":

"Jesus' `I Am' Sayings Perhaps the greatest assertion among all of his claims not only to eternal pre- existence but also to actually being the Yahweh of the Old Testament is that which is found in his `I am' saying of John 8:58: `Before Abraham was, I am' (see Ex 3:14: `This is what you are to say to the Israelites: `I AM [the personal name of God] has sent me to you'). Most of Jesus' `I am' sayings,' it is true, he supplied with a subjective complement of some kind ... But I agree with D. A. Carson that `two are undoubtedly absolute in both form and content...and constitute an explicit self-identification with Yahweh who had already revealed himself to men in similar terms (see especially Isa. 43:10-11).' [Carson, 1984, p.541] The two instances Carson refers to are in John 8:58 and 13:19, but there could well be other instances as well, such as Jesus' `I am' usages in John 6:20; 8:24,28; and 18:5-8. In the case of John 8:58, standing before men who already regarded him as demonic and who had told him as much, Jesus declared as we have already noted: `Before Abraham was, I am,' invoking not only the term which Yahweh in the Old Testament had chosen as his own special term of self-identification but claiming also in the process a pre-existence appropriate only to one possessed of the nature of Yahweh." (Reymond, R.L, 2003., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New and Old Testament Witness," [1990], Mentor: Fearn UK, pp.234-235. Emphasis original).

"The `I am' here (8:58) reminds one of the `I am' in 8:24. Basically the same thought is expressed in both passages; namely, that Jesus is God!":

"[Jn 8:58]. Jesus said to them, I most solemnly assure you, before Abraham was born, I am. The Jews had committed the error of ascribing to Jesus a merely temporal existence. They saw only the historical manifestation, not the eternal Person; only the human, not the divine. Jesus, therefore, reaffirms his eternal, timeless, absolute essence. ... Over against Abraham's fleeting span of life (see Gen. 25:7) Jesus places his own timeless present. To emphasize this eternal present he sets over against the aorist infinitive, indicating Abraham's birth in time, the present indicative, with reference to himself; hence, not I was, but I am. Hence, the thought here conveyed is not only that the second Person always existed (existed from all eternity; cf. 1:1, 2; cf. Col. 1:17), though this, too, is implied; but also, and very definitely, that his existence transcends time. He is therefore exalted infinitely above Abraham. See also on 1:18; and cf. 1:1, 2. The `I am' here (8:58) reminds one of the `I am' in 8:24. Basically the same thought is expressed in both passages; namely, that Jesus is God!" (Hendriksen, W., 1964, "A Commentary on the Gospel of John," [1954], Banner of Truth: London, Third Edition, Vol. II., pp.66-67. Emphasis original).

6) "From this time I tell you before it happens, that when it happens you may believe that I AM." (Jn 13:19. LITV)

"The meaning of the phrase in the sense of full deity is especially clear at 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 Ego Eimi. (I AM). ... Jesus is telling them beforehand that when it does come to pass in the future, they may know ... that He is Jehovah!":

"The real problem [for Jehovah's Witnesses] in the verse [John 8:58] is the verb Ego Eimi. Dr. Robertson, who is quoted as authoritative by the NWT (p. 775), states that eimi is `absolute.' [Robertson, A.T., "Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research," BH Publishing, 1947, p.768] This means there is no predicate expressed with it. This usage occurs four times (Jn 8:24, 58; 13:19; 18:5). In these places, the term is the same used by the Septuagint at Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10; and 46:4, 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. The meaning of the phrase in the sense of full deity is especially clear at 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 Ego Eimi. (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' (Ego Eimi), that He is Jehovah!" (Martin, W.R. Klann, N., 1953, "Jehovah of the Watchtower," Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, Reprinted, 1981, p.53. Emphasis original).

"In the case of his `I am' in John 13:19 Jesus himself explicated its implications for his unity with the Father and in turn his own Yahwistic identity":

"In the case of his `I am' in John 13:19 Jesus himself explicated its implications for his unity with the Father and in turn his own Yahwistic identity when he declared in the following verse: `...he who receives me receives him who sent me. [Jn 13:20]' Perhaps these absolute `I am' sayings are the background to Jesus' prayer to the Father in John 17:26: `I have manifested your name to those whom you gave me out of the world.'" (Reymond, 2003, p.236).

"In Isaiah 43:10 [LXX] we read, `In order that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He.' In John 13:19, Jesus says to the disciples, `From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He':

"There seems to be a direct connection between the Septuagint and Jesus' usage of ego eimi. In Isaiah 43:10 we read, `In order that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He.' In John 13:19, Jesus says to the disciples, `From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He.' When one removes the extraneous words (such as the phrase that connects the last clause to the first) and compares these two passages, this is the result: Isaiah 43:10: hina pisteusete ... hoti ego eimi John 13:19: hina pisteusete ... hoti ego eimi Even if one were to theorize that Jesus himself did not attempt to make such an obvious connection between himself and Yahweh (which would be difficult enough to do!), one must answer the question of why John, being obviously familiar with the LXX, would so intentionally insert this kind of parallelism." (White, 1998, p.99).

"Another parallel between the usage of ego eimi in John 13:19 and its usage in Isaiah has to do with the fact that in 13:19 Jesus is telling them the future-one of the very challenges to the false gods thrown down by Yahweh in the passages from Isaiah under consideration":

"Another parallel between the usage of ego eimi in John 13:19 and its usage in Isaiah has to do with the fact that in 13:19 Jesus is telling them the future-one of the very challenges to the false gods thrown down by Yahweh in the passages from Isaiah under consideration (the so-called `trial of the false gods:') This connection is direct in Isaiah 41:4, `Who has performed and accomplished it, calling forth the generations from the beginning? `I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He.' Here the `calling forth' of the generations-time itself-is part of the usage of ani hu. The same is true in John 13:19. In the same chapter of the book of Isaiah referenced above, in verse 22 we read, `Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; as for the former events, declare what they were, that we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming:' That this reference to knowledge of the future would appear in the same section that uses ani hu as the name for God, and that this would be introduced by the Lord himself in the same context in John 13:19 is significant indeed. Hence, though some would easily dismiss the ani hu/ego eimi connection, or ignore it altogether, the evidence is overwhelming that this connection is intended by John himself." (White, 1998, pp.99-100).

7) "⁴... Jesus said to them, Whom do you seek? ⁵They answered Him, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus said to them, I AM! ... ⁶Then when He said to them, I AM, they departed into the rear and fell to the ground. ⁷Then again He asked, Whom do you seek? And they said, Jesus the Nazarene. ⁸Jesus answered, I told you that I AM ..." (Jn 18:4-8. LITV)

"Jesus continually affirmed His deity. When Jewish temple guards, along with Roman soldiers, came to arrest Him the night before His crucifixion, Jesus asked them, ``Whom do you seek?' They answered Him, `Jesus the Nazarene.' He said to them, `I am [ego eimi] He.' ... they drew back, and fell to the ground' (John 18:4-6)":

"Jesus ascribed this title [ego eimi "I AM"] to Himself in other instances as well. Earlier in the same chapter, Jesus declared: `... unless you believe that I am [ego eimi] He, you shall die in your sins' (John 8:24). In Greek the word He does not appear. It simply reads `... unless you believe that I am... ` He told the Jews, `When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [ego eimi] He' (John 8:28). Again the He) is omitted in the Greek. Jesus continually affirmed His deity. When Jewish temple guards, along with Roman soldiers, came to arrest Him the night before His crucifixion, Jesus asked them, ``Whom do you seek?' They answered Him, `Jesus the Nazarene.' He said to them, `I am [ego eimi] He.'... When therefore He said to them, `I am He,' they drew back, and fell to the ground' (John 18:4-6). They were unable to stand before the force of His claim and the force of His person." (McDowell, J. Larson, B., 1975, "Jesus: A Biblical Defense of his Deity," Here's Life Publishers: San Bernardino CA, pp.22-23. Emphasis original).

"John clearly expects his readers to understand that Jesus' words `I am' on these occasions were not mere self-identification ... They were astonishing, even numinous claims to deity that were either blasphemous or true":

"The reactions of those to whom Jesus spoke when he said these things change as one moves through the Gospel. In John 8 alone their reactions run the gamut from confusion to outrage (vv. 25, 27, 59). When Jesus said, `Before Abraham was born, I am' (John 8:58 NASB), his opponents attempted to stone him to death, presumably for blasphemy (v. 59). When soldiers and officials came to arrest him and said they were looking for Jesus of Nazareth, he replied, `I am he,' and they promptly fell to the ground (18:5-6). John clearly expects his readers to understand that Jesus' words `I am' on these occasions were not mere self-identification, like `Yeah, it's me.' They were astonishing, even numinous claims to deity that were either blasphemous or true. Jesus' resurrection from the dead proves, of course, his divine self-naming to be true (John 20:27-28)." (Bowman Komoszewski, 2007, p.177).

8) "⁶¹Again the high priest questioned Him, and said to Him, `Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' ⁶²And Jesus said, `I AM! [ego eimi] ...'" (Mk 14:61-62. LITV)

"[Mk 14:62]. ...Jesus replies with the very Name of God, I am (Ex. 3:14), thus putting Himself on an equality with God ...":

"[Mk 14:62]. It may be significant that Jesus replies with the very Name of God, I am (Ex. 3:14), thus putting Himself on an equality with God, which we know to have been a longstanding grievance on their part (2:7). In Luke, His answer is more ambiguous, though Jesus accepts the title 'Son of God' (Luke 22:70). But the phrase is reported only by Mark; even Matthew, with all his Jewish interests, does not record it [Mt 26:64]. ... although John seems to develop the same point in his gospel on another occasion (Jn. 18:6). Jesus, while accepting the title suggested by the high priest, defines it further in terms of Son of man, His special self-chosen title. This is explained by another 'creative fusion' of Psalm 110:1 with Daniel 7:13. But, if the high priest had ears to hear, there was a solemn warning in this choice of a title, for this is the Son of man vindicated and enthroned, and returning in judgment, as Stephen saw Him before his death by stoning (Acts 7:56). The priesthood stood on trial that day, although the execution of sentence was yet to come, on the terrible day in AD 70 when the priests were cut down by the Roman soldiers at the altar, as they steadily continued with their sacrifices to the last." (Cole, R.A., 1989, "The Gospel According to Mark: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, [1961], Inter-Varsity Press Leicester: UK, Second edition, pp.306-307).

"Then again at the crucial stage of His trial, Jesus being interrogated by the high priest as to His messianic claims, replied 'I am': ..' (Mark 14:62). The savage vehemence that this called forth in the high priest and the company can be explained only if it was understood by them to be a claim to personal deity, a blasphemy in their eyes of such magnitude as to be expiated only by death":

"THE `I AM' Jehovah, the incorrect but well established rendering of the Hebrew consonants YHWH, was regarded by the Jews as too sacred to be pronounced and was replaced by a variety of substitutes, such as `Lord' (Adonai), or `The Name'. We can no longer say with certainty how it was pronounced, but from Exodus 3:14 we know that it was derived from the verb `to be': `God said to Moses "I am who I am"; and He said: Say to the people of Israel "I am" has sent you.' Now on more than one occasion our Lord refers to Himself by using `I am' in a way that points unmistakably to this Old Testament title of Jehovah. In a controversy with the Jews He declared: `Before Abraham was, I am' (John 8:58). Had He been merely a pre-existent Being, then He would have had to say `Before Abraham was, I was'. That the amazing implication of His claim did not escape the Jews is clearly shown by the extreme violence of their reaction in attempting to stone Him to death for alleged blasphemy. Another occasion on which He used it was at the time of His arrest. To His question to His approaching captors `Whom seek ye?', they answered `Jesus of Nazareth', to which He replied, `I am'. The effect that this brief utterance had on them was dramatic: `They went backward and fell to the ground' (John 18:5, 6). The mere literal sense of these words could hardly have produced this extraordinary effect. Then again at the crucial stage of His trial, Jesus being interrogated by the high priest as to His messianic claims, replied 'I am': and you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven' (Mark 14:62). The savage vehemence that this called forth in the high priest and the company can be explained only if it was understood by them to be a claim to personal deity, a blasphemy in their eyes of such magnitude as to be expiated only by death." (Bruce, F.F. Martin, W.J., 1964, "The Deity of Christ," North of England Evangelical Trust: Manchester UK, pp.7-8. Emphasis original).

ii. But "I AM" is the unique self-designation of Jehovah in the Old Testament

1) "And God said to Moses, `I AM THAT I AM; and He said, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you'" (Ex 3:14 LITV).

"The passage in Exod. 3:14 seems to furnish designedly a clue to the meaning of the word. ... I am that I am) (Heb. 'ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh)... In both names ehyeh and Yhwh, the root idea is that of underived existence":

"The passage in Exod. 3:14 seems to furnish designedly a clue to the meaning of the word. When Moses received his commission to be the deliverer of Israel, the Almighty, who appeared in the burning bush, communicated to him the name which he should live as the credentials of his mission: `And God said unto Moses, I am that I am) (Heb. 'ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh), and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you.' In both names ehyeh and Yhwh, the root idea is that of underived existence. When it is said that God's name is He is, simple being is not all that is affirmed. He is in a sense in which no other being is. He is; and the cause of his being is in himself. He is because he is ..." (Unger, M.F., 1966, "Unger's Bible Dictionary," [1957], Moody Press: Chicago IL, Third edition, Fifteenth printing, 1969, p.564. Emphasis original).

"Jehovah's Witnesses' own study Bibles prove that Jesus was claiming to be the I AM. Their 1984 large-print New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures with References has a footnote on Exodus 3:14, admitting that the Hebrew would be rendered into Greek as `Ego eimi'-I am'":

"Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, `I AM WHO I AM.' And he said, `Say this to the people of Israel, `I AM has sent me to you:' ` (RSV) Christians universally recognize that Jesus Christ was claiming to be the Deity when he referred to himself as the I AM: `The Jews then said to him, `You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, `Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am' (John 8:57-58, RSV). Even Jesus' enemies recognized what he was saying. The next verse tells us that, when they heard this, `they took up stones to throw at - him...' (v. 59). The unbelieving Jews viewed Jesus' claim to be the I AM as blasphemy, a crime for which they wanted to stone him to death. ... Jehovah's Witnesses' own study Bibles prove that Jesus was claiming to be the I AM. Their 1984 large-print New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures with References has a footnote on Exodus 3:14, admitting that the Hebrew would be rendered into Greek as `Ego eimi'-I am.' And their 1985 Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures reveals that Jesus' words at John 8:58 are the same: `ego eimi' (footnote), `I am' (interlinear text)." (Reed, D.A., 1986, "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Thirty-first printing, 2006, pp.26-27. Emphasis original).

2) "See now that I, I am He, and there is no other God with Me. I kill, and I keep alive. I wound and I heal, and there is no deliverer from My hand" (Dt 32:39 LITV).

"... God sometimes says simply, `I am he' (in Hebrew, 'ani hu, literally, `I [am] he'). The Septuagint usually translates this statement as `I am' (ego eimi). See now that I, even I, am he [Gk., `that I am,' hoti ego eimi]; there is no god besides me. (Deut. 32:39)":

"`I Am' In normal usage, both inside and outside the Bible, the phrase I am is not properly or technically classified as a name. It is, however, quite commonly part of an act of self-naming. So, for example, the Lord revealed himself to Abraham by saying, `I am God Almighty' (Gen. 17:1). He introduced the Ten Commandments by first introducing himself. `I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery' (Exod. 20:2). At times, God practically punctuates his instructions to Israel with the reminder, `I am the LORD' (for example, thirteen times in Lev. 19:10-37 alone). In addition to these straightforward uses of the words I am in the Old Testament, God sometimes says simply, `I am he' (in Hebrew, 'ani hu, literally, `I [am] he'). The Septuagint usually translates this statement as `I am' (ego eimi). See now that I, even I, am he [Gk., `that I am,' hoti ego eimi]; there is no god besides me. (Deut. 32:39) I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He. (Gk., ego eimi; Isa. 41:4 NASB)... even to your old age I am he. (Gk., ego eimi; Isa. 46:4) We may see some connections between these statements and God's declaration in Exodus 3:14, `I AM WHO I AM:' The Hebrew wording of this statement, 'ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh, can be translated `I am who I am' or `I will be what I will be,' both of which mean much the same thing: God is the self-determining one who is always there, or who will always be there, the one on whom all creatures may and should rely. The Septuagint translates, `I am the being,' that is, `I am the one who is' (ego eimi ho on). Despite frequent criticisms of this translation, it expresses the same point reasonably well: God is the one who simply is, who depends on nothing else, and on whom all else depends.' The `I am (he)' statements in Deuteronomy and Isaiah make much the same point: from first to last, the Lord is the one and only God." (Bowman Komoszewski, 2007, pp.176-177).

3) Isaiah "I [am] he" (Heb. 'ani hu' ; LXX ego eimi) passages

To save space in this already long post, I have below grouped the "I [am] he" (Heb. 'ani hu' , LXX ego eimi) passages in Isaiah together (italics original) followed by quotes applying to them all:

"Who has planned and done it, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I Jehovah am the first and the last; I am He." (Isa 41:4 LITV).

You are My witnesses, says Jehovah; and My servant whom I have elected; that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed; nor shall any be after Me." (Isa 43:10 LITV).

Yea, from this day I am He, and no one delivers from My hand. I will work, and who will reverse it?" (Isa 43:13 LITV).

I, even I, am He who blots out your trespasses for My sake; and I will not remember your sins." (Isa 43:25 LITV).

Even to old age I am He; and I will bear to gray hair; I made, and I will carry; and I will bear and deliver." (Isa 46:4 LITV).

Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel My called: I am He; I am the First; surely I am the Last." (Isa 48:12 LITV).

I, I am He comforting you. Who are you, that you should fear from man? He shall die! And from the son of man? He is given as grass." (Isa 51:12 LITV).

"... John 8:58 deliberately echoes Yahweh's `I am' statements in Isaiah 40-55. ... the Hebrew in each case reads simply ANI.HU (literally, `I [am] he'), which the LXX renders as ego eimi (Isa. 41:4; 43:10; 46:4; 52:6; compare with Deut. 32:39)... the conclusion cannot be avoided that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh":

"Jesus as Jehovah in John 8:58 Among biblical scholars a growing consensus has formed behind the opinion that John 8:58 deliberately echoes Yahweh's `I am' statements in Isaiah 40-55. The NWT obscures the parallels in Isaiah by rendering them `I am the same One' or `I am the same'; but the Hebrew in each case reads simply ANI.HU (literally, `I [am] he'), which the LXX renders as ego eimi (Isa. 41:4; 43:10; 46:4; 52:6; compare with Deut. 32:39). There is evidence, moreover, to show that in the Judaism of Jesus day these words were sometimes used as substitutes for the divine name Yahweh itself, in particular at the Feast of Tabernacles, which from John 7:2 was apparently the occasion of Christ's `I am' sayings in John 8. This suggests that the reason for the anger of the Jews at Jesus absolute use of the expression ego eimi was that on that occasion his language was instantly recognizable as that of Yahweh. ... Considerations such as these have led most scholars to conclude that the closest Old Testament antecedent to John 8:58 is to be found in the Isaianic `I am' sayings. If this is correct, the conclusion cannot be avoided that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh. Notable in this light is Isaiah 45:18, where God says, `I am Yahweh' (Hebrew, ANI HU YHWH), and the LXX translates simply by the predicate absolute ego eimi. " (Bowman, R.M., Jr. , 1989, "The Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1995, pp.120-121. Emphasis original).

"`I am [Ego eimi] ... In fact, in the Old Testament passages the Greek expression, and the Hebrew expressions it translates, appear to function almost like the name of God ... this use of `I am' is probably influenced by, and alludes to, Old Testament passages where God uses the same sort of self-referential language, particularly passages in Isaiah":

"`I am [Ego eimi] ... Other Johannine instances of this absolute form confirm that it functions as an important christological expression. Note the following examples: `Unless you believe that I am, you will surely die in your sins' (8:24); `When you lift up the son of man, then you will realize that I am' (8:28); `When this [what Jesus has foretold] happens, then you will believe that I am' (13:19). Clearly, in all these cases `I am' itself expresses a vital christological claim that can be perceived, and either believed or rejected, with momentous consequences. Yet, equally, to perceive the claim requires some special knowledge of the significance of this `I am' formulation, for it is as strange-sounding and mysterious in Greek as it is in literal translation. ... Indeed, this use of `I am' is probably influenced by, and alludes to, Old Testament passages where God uses the same sort of self-referential language, particularly passages in Isaiah (e.g., LXX Isa. 43:10, 25; 45:18 for uses of Ego eimi). In fact, in the Old Testament passages the Greek expression, and the Hebrew expressions it translates, appear to function almost like the name of God. So in the story of Jesus walking on the water in John 6:16-20, Jesus' use of the expression (v. 20) both identifies him (in the sense of `It is I') and also probably signals readers that this is an epiphanic scene (the same seems to be the case in the Synoptic versions of this story too, in Mark 6:50/Matt. 14:27). This latter connotation is also suggested dramatically in John 18:5-6, where the soldiers sent to arrest Jesus fall to the ground when he utters the expression. A few examples of this sonorous expression appear in the Synoptic Gospels, and they are also clearly intended to have a connotation beyond mere self-identification." (Hurtado, L.W., 2005, "Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, pp.370-371).

"The Hebrew expression most often translated into Greek as Ego eimi is 'ani hu' (`I am He,' Isa. 41:4; 43:10; 46:4), .. `I am [+ predicate]' statements abound especially in religious texts of the ancient world, but the absolute form, Ego eimi, does not occur in classical Greek literature":

"The Hebrew expression most often translated into Greek as Ego eimi is 'ani hu' (`I am He,' Isa. 41:4; 43:10; 46:4), and in one case 'ani Yhwh ('I am Yahweh,' e.g., Isa. 45:18). Other relevant biblical expressions are `I am Yahweh/the Lord' (often with further identifying phrasing; e.g., ... Isa. 44:6, 24). `I am [+ predicate]' statements abound especially in religious texts of the ancient world, but the absolute form, Ego eimi, does not occur in classical Greek literature; it is in fact very difficult to posit any assured uses of the expression in sources prior to (or not influenced by) the New Testament writings except for the uses in the Greek Old Testament such as those cited here (and others, e.g., Deut. 32:39). " (Hurtado, 2005, p.371. Emphasis original).

"The closest and most logical connection between John's usage of ego eimi and the Old Testament is to be found in the Septuagint rendering of a particular Hebrew phrase, ani hu, in the writings (primarily) of Isaiah":

"The closest and most logical connection between John's usage of ego eimi and the Old Testament is to be found in the Septuagint rendering of a particular Hebrew phrase, ani hu, in the writings (primarily) of Isaiah. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew phrase ani hu as ego eimi in Isaiah 41:4; 43:10; and 46:4. In each of these instances the phrase ani hu appears at the end of the clause, and is so rendered (or punctuated) in the LXX (just as in these seven examples in John [Jn 8:24,28,58; 13:19; 18:5,6,8]). The phrase ego eimi appears as the translation of a few other phrases in Isaiah as well that are significant to this discussion. It translates the Hebrew anoki anoki hu as ego eimi in 43:25 and 51:12. Once (52:6) ani hu is translated as ego eimi autos (basically an even more emphasized form). And once (45:18) we find ego eimi kurios for ani Yahweh! This last passage is provocative in that it is in the context of creation, an act ascribed to Jesus by John (John 1:3) and other New Testament writers (Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2-3)." (White, 1998, pp.98-99).

"In John there are seven absolute 'I am' sayings ... It is certainly not accidental that, whereas in the Hebrew Bible there are seven occurrences of 'ani hu' ... The series of sayings thus comprehensively identifies Jesus with the God of Israel":

"The Gospel of John understandably makes a different choice when it places on the lips of Jesus during his ministry another Jesus and the God of Israel of the characteristically Deutero-Isaianic declarations of unique divine identity. The Johannine choice is the concise statement `I am he; in Hebrew 'ani hu; usually translated in the Septuagint Greek as ego eimi ('I am'), the form in which it appears in John's Gospel. This sentence occurs as a divine declaration of unique identity seven times in the Hebrew Bible: once in Deuteronomy, in one of the most important monotheistic passages of the Torah, and six times in Deutero-Isaiah. [Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10, 13; 46:4; 48:12; 52:6] It serves to declare, in the most concise of forms, the uniqueness of God, equivalent to the more common 'I am YHWH'. On the lips of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, its ambiguity, in contexts where it need not be recognized as the uniquely divine self-declaration, enables it to identify Jesus with God, not in a blatantly explicit way which, even in the Fourth Gospel, would be inappropriate before Jesus' exaltation, but in a way which becomes increasingly unambiguous through the series of seven absolute 'I am' sayings (John 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 26, 58; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8). It is certainly not accidental that, whereas in the Hebrew Bible there are seven occurrences of 'ani hu' and two of the emphatic variation 'anoki 'anoki hu' (Isa. 43:25; 51:12), in John there are seven absolute 'I am' sayings, with the seventh repeated twice (18:5, 6, 8) for the sake of an emphatic climax (thus seven or nine in both cases). The series of sayings thus comprehensively identifies Jesus with the God of Israel who sums up his identity in the declaration `I am he'. More than that, they identify Jesus as the eschatological revelation of the unique identity of God, predicted by Deutero-Isaiah." (Bauckham, R., 2009, "Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, pp.39-40).

iii. The Jewish religious leaders understood Jesus' claim to be "I AM" [ego eimi] as His claim to be Jehovah.

"... the next verse [Jn 8:59] states that following these words they picked up stones to stone Him. Why? On the charge of blasphemy-as in the parallel case: `Because thou, being a man, makest thyself God' (John 10: 33)":

"'I AM' John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. The theology of the Watch Tower Society must resist to the bitter end the idea that these texts speak of the same God. For if they do, then that entire theological structure crumbles beyond reconstruction. The most common rendering of John 8:58 is, `Before Abraham was born, I am.' The King James rendering of Exodus 3:14 is: `And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.' ... Besides, the next verse [Jn 8:59] states that following these words they picked up stones to stone Him. Why? On the charge of blasphemy-as in the parallel case: `Because thou, being a man, makest thyself God' (John 10: 33)." (Dencher, T., 1985, "Why I Left Jehovah's Witnesses," [1966], Christian Literature Crusade: Fort Washington PA, Revised, p.152. Emphasis original).

"The Jews [due to the hardness of their hearts - Jn 12:37-40] could not interpret Jesus' claim as other than blasphemy, for which stoning was the proper penalty (Lev 24:16)":

"[Jn 8:58] I am! solemnly emphatic declaration echoing God's great affirmation in Ex 3:14 (see vv. 24,28; see also note on 6:35). Jesus did not say `I was' but `I am,' expressing the eternity of his being and his oneness with the Father (see 1:1). With this climactic statement Jesus concludes his speech that began with the related claim, `I am the light of the world' (v. 12). 8:59 to stone him. The Jews could not interpret Jesus' claim as other than blasphemy, for which stoning was the proper penalty (Lev 24:16)." (Barker, K., ed., 1985, "The NIV Study Bible," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.1614).

"The immediate outraged response of the crowd - they prepare to stone him (8:59) - indicates the enormity of what the expression connotes in the narrative: it is .... (as the crowd judges) blasphemy ...":

"`I Am' Among the other important features of the Johannine presentation of Jesus is a recurrent form of expression that functions to indicate vividly his transcendent significance, `I am [Ego eimi],' used in a variety of statements. In particular, there are in GJohn [Gospel of John] a number sentences in which `I am' is itself the stated claim, and other sentences in which `I am' is followed by predicates that express Jesus' significance. In the preceding discussion of preexistence I cited John 8:58, one of several instances where Jesus applies the expression `I am' in this absolute form (i.e., without a predicate) to himself. The immediate outraged response of the crowd - they prepare to stone him (8:59) - indicates the enormity of what the expression connotes in the narrative: it is either (as the crowd judges) blasphemy or truly expresses an astonishing claim. ." (Hurtado, 2005, p.370).

"The use of ani hu by Isaiah is a euphemism for the very name of God himself. ... That it carried great weight with the Jews is seen in [Jn] 8:59 and their reaction to the Lord's usage of the phrase [of Himself]":

"The use of ani hu by Isaiah is a euphemism for the very name of God himself. Some see a connection between ani hu and Yahweh as both referring to being. That it carried great weight with the Jews is seen in [Jn] 8:59 and their reaction to the Lord's usage of the phrase. If one wishes to say that Jesus was not speaking Greek, but Aramaic, the difficulty is not removed, for the identification would have been just that much clearer!" (White, 1998, p.99).

"When the Jews heard Jesus say, `Before Abraham was born, I am,' they took the statement to mean ... an assertion of deity. To them it was blasphemy, and they picked up stones to cast at Him (Jn 8:59)":

"[Jn 8] A comparison of the use of the phrase, `I am,' with self-revelation of Jehovah in the Old Testament shows that much the same terminology was employed. God, in commissioning Moses (Ex. 3:14), said: `Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.' When the Jews heard Jesus say, `Before Abraham was born, I am,' they took the statement to mean not priority to Abraham, but an assertion of deity. To them it was blasphemy, and they picked up stones to cast at Him (59)." (Tenney, 1976, p.150. Emphasis original).

"His Jewish opponents understood his meaning immediately and they `picked up stones' to stone him to death for blasphemy (see John 8:59)":

"[Jn 8:58] If there had been any uncertainty about Jesus' identity in other passages where he said, `I am' (e.g., 6:35; 9:5; 11:25), there was no confusion here because Jesus is claiming to be the one who was alive before Abraham was, that is, more than 2,000 years earlier. Jesus does not simply say, `Before Abraham was, I was,' which would simply mean that he is more than 2,000 years old. Rather, he uses the present tense `I am' in speaking of existence more than 2,000 years earlier, thus claiming a kind of transcendence over time that could only be true of God. The words `I am' in Greek use the same expression (Ego eimi) found in the Septuagint in the first half of God's self-identification in Ex. 3:14, `I AM WHO I AM.' Jesus is thus claiming not only to be eternal but also to be the God who appeared to Moses at the burning bush. His Jewish opponents understood his meaning immediately and they `picked up stones' to stone him to death for blasphemy ... (see John 8:59). ... [Jn 8:59] Stoning was the prescribed punishment for blasphemy (Lev. 24:16; cf. Deut. 13:6-11; John 10:31-33; 11:8)." (Kostenberger, A.J., 2007, "John," in "The ESV Study Bible," Crossway Bibles: Wheaton IL, p.2041).

"Thus when Jesus said to `the Jews', `before Abraham was born, I am', he was identifying himself with God. ... Jesus' opponents understood the implications of what he said, and because they did not believe in him it appeared to them as blasphemy of the worst sort":

"[Jn 8:58]. ... Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!' ... The words 'I am' (ego eimi) are used in a number of different ways on the lips of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel ... Here they are clearly used in an absolute sense representing the divine name. Thus when Jesus said to `the Jews', `before Abraham was born, I am', he was identifying himself with God. ...[Jn 8:59]. Jesus' opponents understood the implications of what he said, and because they did not believe in him it appeared to them as blasphemy of the worst sort. The evangelist says, At this, they picked up stones to stone him. Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy prescribed in the OT (Lv. 24:14-16, 23; cf. 1 Ki. 21:13-14.). In terms of the law they would have been right to stone him, i.e. unless Jesus was who he claimed to be. Later on 'the Jews' made another attempt to stone Jesus, this time stating explicitly that they were doing so because they were convinced he was a blasphemer (10:31-33). " (Kruse, C.G., 2003, "The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.218-219. Emphasis original).

"Jesus literally said to them, `I AM Jehovah' (I AM), and it is clear that they understood Him to mean just that; for they attempted, as the next verse reveals, to stone Him ... [for] blasphemy":

"John 8:58, `Jesus said unto them ... Before Abraham was [born], I am' (KJV). In comparing this with the Septuagint translation 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 is synonymous with God. Jesus literally said to them, `I AM Jehovah' (I AM), 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) Having a familiar spirit, Leviticus 20:27; (2) Cursing (blasphemy), Leviticus 24:10-23; (3) False prophets who lead to idolatry, Deuteronomy 13:5-10; (4) Stubborn son, Deuteronomy 21:18-21; and (5) Adultery and rape, Deuteronomy 22:21-24 and Leviticus 20:10. Now, the only legal ground the Jews had for stoning Christ (and actually they had none at all) was the second violation, namely, blasphemy." (Martin Klann, 1953, p.52).

"His [Jesus'] meaning [in Jn 8:58] was not lost on his audience, for `they took up stones to throw at him' ([Jn] 8:59). `They understood that Jesus ascribed divine existence to himself and made himself equal with God'":

"His [Jesus'] meaning was not lost on his audience, for `they took up stones to throw at him' ([Jn] 8:59). `They understood that Jesus ascribed divine existence to himself and made himself equal with God.' [Berkouwer, 1954, p.165] ... in all these declarations `the subject of the affirmation is the actual person speaking; it is of himself who stood before men and spoke to them that Our Lord makes these immense assertions, making `I am' also his own name and leading his audiences in the Gospels either to believe in him or to accuse him of blasphemy." (Reymond, 2003, p.236).

My next post in this series is part #9, "3B. Jesus claimed and accepted the titles `Lord' and `God' of Himself."

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

Jesus is Jehovah!: 2C. Jehovah promised that He would come to Jerusalem in Person

2011-11-20T20:17:00.012+08:00

Continuing from part #6, "2B. Jehovah seen in the Old Testament was the pre-incarnate Jesus" with this part #7, "2C. Jehovah

[Above (click to enlarge): "The Procession in the Streets of Jerusalem," (1886-94), by James Joseph Jacques Tissot (1836-1902), Brooklyn Museum: Wikipedia, 4 May 2011. This depicts Jesus' coming to Jerusalem as its King, riding a donkey, as predicted in Zec 9:9 = Mt 21:5; Jn 12:15.]

promised that He would come to Jerusalem in Person." This is part of my series, "Jesus is Jehovah!" by topic, which is based on my morning `quiet time' Bible reading. See the Contents page for more details.

JESUS IS JEHOVAH!
© Stephen E. Jones

Jesus is Jehovah!: Contents

2. JESUS IS JEHOVAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

2C. Jehovah promised that He would come to Jerusalem in Person

i. Israel was warned that Jehovah God was coming

Isa 40:3. A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

This prophecy states that YHWH 'Elohim was coming. Yet it was applied to Jesus' coming by all four Gospels (Mt 3:3; Mk 1:3; Lk 3:4 and Jn 1:23).

"Old Testament passages about Yahweh were directly applied to Jesus ... Isaiah 40:3 says: `In the desert prepare the way for the LORD [Yahweh]; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God [Elohim].' ... fulfilled in the ministry of John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus Christ (Mark 1:2-4)":

"It is also highly revealing that Old Testament passages about Yahweh were directly applied to Jesus in the New Testament. For instance, Isaiah 40:3 says: `In the desert prepare the way for the LORD [Yahweh]; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God [Elohim].' Mark's Gospel tells us that Isaiah's words were fulfilled in the ministry of John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus (Rhodes, R., 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 2006, p.64).

"Old Testament descriptions of God are applied to ... Christ .... Mat. 3:3 = `Make ye ready the way of the Lord'-is a quotation from Is. 40:3 = `Prepare ye ... the way of Jehovah'":

"Old Testament descriptions of God are applied to him. This application to Christ of titles and names exclusively appropriated to God is inexplicable, if Christ was not regarded as being himself God. The peculiar awe with which the term 'Jehovah' was set apart by a nation of strenuous monotheists as the sacred and incommunicable name of the one self-existent and covenant-keeping God forbids the belief that the Scripture writers could have used it as the designation of a subordinate and created being. Mat. 3:3 = `Make ye ready the way of the Lord'-is a quotation from Is. 40:3 = `Prepare ye ... the way of Jehovah.'" (Strong, A.H., 1907, "Systematic Theology," Judson Press: Valley Forge PA, Twenty-fifth printing, 1967, p.309).

"Perhaps the most famous such statement in Isaiah is the following: The voice of one crying in the wilderness: `Prepare the way of the LORD; Make straight in the desert A highway for our God.' (40:3 NKJV) The Synoptic Gospels quote this passage and apply it to John the Baptist preparing the way for the Lord Jesus (Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4-6)":

"Isaiah, then, refers to the future Messiah as Immanuel, meaning `God is with us,' [Isaiah 7:14] and as `Mighty God' cf (Isa. 10:21). These are not the only statements in Isaiah that suggest that the Messiah will be God. Later in the book, Isaiah states repeatedly that God is coming to redeem, restore, and rule over his people (Isa. 40:9-11; 43:10-13; 59:15-20). Perhaps the most famous such statement in Isaiah is the following: The voice of one crying in the wilderness: `Prepare the way of the LORD; Make straight in the desert A highway for our God.' (40:3 NKJV) The Synoptic Gospels quote this passage and apply it to John the Baptist preparing the way for the Lord Jesus (Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4-6). The New Testament teaching that Jesus is God, then, has significant precedent in Isaiah." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, pp.137-138).

"... there is the statement in verse 3 that Jehovah God would be coming. .. Jehovah God was prophesied to come, and John the Baptist prepared the way for Jehovah Jesus":

"ISAIAH 40:3 ...: A voice of one calling: `In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God....' This is a remarkable passage for several reasons. First, there is the statement in verse 3 that Jehovah God would be coming. This found fulfillment when John the Baptist prepared people for the Lord. Jesus Christ. He was the `voice' (cf. Matthew 3:3) preparing the way for Jehovah. Jehovah God was prophesied to come, and John the Baptist prepared the way for Jehovah Jesus. ... the entire chapter is rich in exalting Jehovah Jesus." (Humber, P.G., 1997, "Jehovah Jesus: A Reference Handbook and Study Guide on the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ," Skilton House Ministries: Philadelphia PA, pp.34-35. Emphasis original).

"In Isaiah 40:3 the way of Yahweh is being `made straight' ... in Matthew 3:3 it is the way of Jesus. This sort of identification of Jesus with Yahweh is common in the NT":

"[Mt 3:3] In Isaiah 40:3 the way of Yahweh is being `made straight' (a metaphor using road building to refer to repentance); in Matthew 3:3 it is the way of Jesus. This sort of identification of Jesus with Yahweh is common in the NT (e.g., Exod 13:21 and 1 Cor 10:4; Isa 6:1 and John 12:41; EPs 68:18 and Eph 4:8; Ps 102:25-27 and Heb 1:10-12) and confirms the kingdom as being equally the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Jesus." (Carson, D.A., "Matthew," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1984, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 - Matthew, Mark, Luke," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.102).

ii. Jehovah will come and dwell in Jerusalem

Zec 2:10. "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for behold, I come and I will dwell in your midst, declares the LORD."

"It is clear that Jehovah is the one coming and residing in Jerusalem ... God the Son":

"Zechariah 2:10-12 `Cry out... O daughter of Zion; for here I am coming, and I will reside in the midst of you,' is the utterance of Jehovah... And you will have to know that Jehovah of armies himself has sent me to you. And Jehovah will ... yet choose Jerusalem (NWT). It is clear that Jehovah is the one coming and residing in Jerusalem, not Zechariah as some Witnesses will try to say. But it is also clear that Jehovah of armies has sent Him. A clear case of two Jehovahs in the NWT. The only possible answer is that God the Father is sending God the Son." (Harris, D. & Browning, B., 1993, "Awake to the Watchtower," [1988], Reachout Trust: London, Revised, p.156. Emphasis original).

"For I am coming, and I will live among you,' declares the LORD. .... But who was it who eventually came to `live among' us? Was it, not the Lord Jesus, Jehovah God the Son in human flesh?":

"ZECHARIAH 2:10-11: `Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you,' declares the LORD. `Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you.' This passage clearly indicates the speaker to be `the LORD.' But who was it who eventually came to `live among' us? Was it, not the Lord Jesus, Jehovah God the Son in human flesh? He was indeed sent by `the LORD' (Jehovah the Father), and peoples of `many nations' have been `joined to the LORD.'" (Humber, 1997, p.41. Emphasis original).

iii. Jerusalem's King (who is Jehovah) will come to Jerusalem riding on a donkey

Zec 9:9. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

In Zep 3:15 this coming King was identified as "The LORD" i.e. Jehovah:

Zep 3:14-15. 14 Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem! 15The LORD has taken away the judgments against you; he has cleared away your enemies. The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst; you shall never again fear evil.

"A similar call to exult in Zephaniah 3:14 is linked with a proclamation of the presence of `the King of Israel, the Lord' (3:15) in the city":

"[Zec 9:]9. Rejoice greatly.... shout. A similar call to exult in Zephaniah 3:14 is linked with a proclamation of the presence of `the King of Israel, the Lord' (3:15) in the city. In Zechariah 2:10 there is a call to sing and rejoice because the Lord has promised to come to reside in Jerusalem, and now His arrival is to be accompanied with wild joy." (Baldwin, J.G., 1972, "Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries," Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Reprinted, 2003, p.164. Emphasis original).

The New Testament confirms that Jesus is that King (who is Jehovah):

Mt 21:1-11 (NIV). 1 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away." 4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: 5 "Say to the Daughter of Zion, `See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'" 6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7 They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. 8 A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Hosanna in the highest!" 10 When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, "Who is this?" 11 The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."

Jn 12:12-16. 12The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!" 14And Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it is written, 15 "Fear not, daughter of Zion;behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey's colt!" 16 His disciples did not understand these things at first, but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written about him and had been done to him.

iii. Jehovah (Heb. ha 'adon) will come to His temple (before 70 AD)

Mal 3:1. "Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord (Heb. ha 'adon) whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple ..."

"... the word `Lord' (Heb. ha'adon ) used in verse 1c is singular and is preceded by the definite article. Since 'adon preceded by the definite article always refers to the divine Lord (e.g., Ex 23:17; 34:23; Isa 1:24; 3:1; 10:16, 33) [i.e. YHWH], he is certainly the one being referred to here":

"The Messiah As the Messenger of the Covenant (Malachi 3:1) The revelation of the character and work of the Messiah in Malachi 3 comes as an answer to the grievances of the complainers in the prophet's day who have wearied God with the old saws: `All who do evil are good in the eyes of the LORD, and he is pleased with them.' Their punch line is: `Where is the God of justice [anyway]?' (Mal 2:17). It is as if they are saying, `God must love wicked people because he made so many of them!' But these crybabies will find out soon enough that God means business with evildoers, just as he means business with people who complain about them and in effect hide behind them to vindicate their own deeds of evil. God `will send [his] messenger, who will prepare the way before [him]' (Mal 3:1a). This messenger is a development of the preparer predicted in Isaiah 40:3-5. He is to be identified as John the Baptist, who came in the spirit and the power of Elijah (Mt 3:1-3; Mk 1:3; Lk 1:17, 76; 3:4; Jn 1:19-23). His job was to prepare the people morally and spiritually for the coming of the Messiah. Where, then, is the God of justice? The answer is surprising: `Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; [even] the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come, says the LORD Almighty' (3:1c-e). There are a number of significant matters here. First, the word `Lord' (Heb. ha'adon ) used in verse 1c is singular and is preceded by the definite article. Since 'adon preceded by the definite article always refers to the divine Lord (e.g., Ex 23:17; 34:23; Isa 1:24; 3:1; 10:16, 33), he is certainly the one being referred to here. In fact, that was the Messiah's title in Psalm 110:1 ('The LORD says to my Lord')".(Kaiser, W.C., Jr., 1995, "The Messiah in the Old Testament," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, pp.227-228) .

"Jehovah ... spoke ... that He would be sending His messenger (John the Baptist, Matthew 11:10) to `prepare the way before me' (Jehovah). John actually cleared the way in preparation for ... the Lord Jesus Christ":

"MALACHI 3:1: `See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,' says the LORD Almighty. Jehovah Almighty ('LORD Almighty') spoke and indicated that He would be sending His messenger (John the Baptist, Matthew 11:10) to `prepare the way before me' (Jehovah). John actually cleared the way in preparation for `the messenger of the covenant,' the Lord Jesus Christ. In harmony with Isaiah 40:3 (above), the Lord Jesus is the Jehovah God who was to come." (Humber, 1997, p.44. Emphasis original).

"Jesus ... is called Lord in quotations from the Old Testament where the Old Testament word is Jahweh. In ... Malachi 3:1 ...`the Lord' is Jahweh ... Thus `the Lord,' whose ways John was to prepare, is none other than Jahweh Himself":

"Jesus Is Jahweh Not only is Jesus called God in the New Testament but he is called Lord in quotations from the Old Testament where the Old Testament word is Jahweh. In the prophecy of Zacharias (Luke 1:76) it is said of John the Baptist, `And thou, child, shalt be called Prophet of the Most High; thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways.' It is obvious that Luke understood this prophecy as referring to John as the forerunner of Jesus. But Zacharias was alluding to Malachi 3:1 in which the word `the Lord' is Jahweh. `Behold I will send my messenger and he shall prepare the way before me, saith Jahweh of hosts:' Thus `the Lord,' whose ways John was to prepare, is none other than Jahweh Himself. Paul gives great emphasis to the prophecy of Joel. `Whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved' (Rom. 10:13). It is clear in the context that Paul is calling Christ `the Lord,' but in Joel 2:32, in the phrase, `Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be delivered,' `the Lord' in the Hebrew text is Jahweh. In the Romans 14:10 reference to the judgment of the saints, Paul adds a quotation from Isaiah 45:23. `As I live saith the Lord, every knee will bow to me and every tongue will confess to God:' That Jahweh is the speaker in Isaiah's words is evident from verses 24 and 25. These passages indicate that Christ and God and Jahweh are one." (Buswell, J.O., Jr., 1962, "A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Vol. I, Second printing, 1968, pp.104-105. Emphasis original).

The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society's own New World Translation admits that "the true Lord" [Heb. ha Adon`] in Malachi 3:1 is Jehovah: "... `the [true] Lord' This is the translation of the Hebrew expression ... ha-A-don' ... this prefixing of the definite article before the title a-don' limits the application of the title to Jehovah God. ... Malachi 3:1 Look! I am sending my messenger, and he must clear up a way before me. And suddenly there will come to His temple the true Lord":

"Isaiah 1:24- `the [true] Lord' This is the translation of the Hebrew expression ... ha-A-don', this being the title A-don' ('Lord; Master') preceded by the Hebrew definite article ha. Although there are many lords or masters, this prefixing of the definite article before the title a-don' limits the application of the title to Jehovah God. (See Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, section 126, paragraph d, on pages 404, 405.) In the Hebrew Scriptures this expression ha-A-don' occurs nine times, as listed below: Exodus 23:17 On three occasions in the year every male of yours will appear before the face of the Lord Jehovah. 34:23 Three times in the year every male of yours is to appear before the true Lard, Jehovah, the God of Israel. Isaiah 1:24 Therefore the utterance of the true Lord, Jehovah of armies, the Powerful One of Israel, is: 3:1 For, look! the true Lord, Jehovah of armies, is removing from Jerusalem and from Judah support and stay, 10:16 Therefore the true Lord, Jehovah of armies, will keep sending upon his fat ones a wasting disease, 10:33 Look! The true Lord, Jehovah of armies, is lopping off boughs with a terrible crash; 19:4 `And I will deliver up Egypt into the hand of a hard master, and strong will be the king that will rule over them,' is the utterance of the true Lord, Jehovah of armies. Micah 4:13b and by a ban you will actually devote to Jehovah their unjust profit, and their resources to the true Lord of the whole earth.' Malachi 3:1 Look! I am sending my messenger, and he must clear up a way before me. And suddenly there will come to His temple the true Lord, whom you people are seeking, and the messenger of the covenant in whom You are delighting." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1961, "New World translation of the Holy Scriptures," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, pp.1453-1454).

"In nine places in the Masoretic text, 'A•dhohn' has the definite article ha before it, so limiting application of the title to Jehovah. (... Mal 3:1) (my emphasis):

"The titles 'A•dhohn' and 'Adho•nim' are applied to Jehovah 25 times in the Scriptures. In nine places in the Masoretic text, 'A•dhohn' has the definite article ha before it, so limiting application of the title to Jehovah. (Ex 23:17; 34:23; Isa 1:24; 3:1; 10:16, 33; 19:4; Mic 4:13; Mal 3:1) At all six places where 'A•dhohn' without the definite article refers to Jehovah, it describes him as Lord (Owner) of the earth and so is not ambiguous. (Jos 3:11, 13; Ps 97:5; 114:7; Zec 4:14; 6:5) At the ten places where 'Adho•nim' is used of Jehovah, the immediate context makes certain his identity.- De 10:17; Ne 8:10; 10:29; Ps 8:1, 9; 135:5; 136:3; 147:5; Isa 51:22; Ho 12:14." ("LORD," in "Insight on the Scriptures: Volume 2: Jehovah - ZuZim," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, 1988, p.267. Emphasis original).

But the only Lord who came while the temple of Malachi's day ("slightly before Nehemiah came to Jerusalem in 445 BCE"-Malachi, Wikipedia, 20 November 2011 ) was still in existence (the Second Temple which was built in 516 BC and destroyed in AD 70) was the Lord Jesus Christ:

"To answer these questions, we turn to the next piece of prophetic evidence, coming from the Book of Malachi, written somewhere around 400 B.C.E. (i.e., less than 150 years after the rebuilding of the Second Temple). Here we have a more explicit statement: There was to be a divine visitation at the Second Temple- and for many of our people it would be bad news, not good news, a time of judgment rather than joy. ... Malachi 3:1-5 ...We see from this passage that the Lord (in Hebrew, ha'adon, always used with reference to God in the Hebrew Bible when it has the definite article), preceded by his messenger, would visit the Second Temple, purifying some of his people and bringing judgment on others. That is to say, there would be a divine visitation of great import that would occur in the days of the Second Temple ... the Messiah was to come to the Temple that stood in Malachi's day (and note also that it is called `his Temple'-pointing clearly to the divine nature of the `Lord' spoken' of here). .... the Messiah must have come before the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E.; if not, God's Word has failed." (Brown, M.L., 2000, "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Volume 1: General and Historical Objections," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Eighth printing, 2007, pp.77-78. Emphasis original).

"The true Lord whom the people are seeking and the only one ever to come to the temple, is Jesus. The ... Hebrew for `true lord' is ha-Adon .... The 1970 NWT (p. 1455) explains further that ha-Adon is only ever used of Jehovah God ... Christ is the true Lord, Jehovah":

"Malachi 3:1 This verse and footnote in NWT, 1971 large print edition, gives the Witness all sorts of problems `Look! I am sending my messenger, and he must clear up a way before me. And suddenly there will certainly come to His temple the [true] Lord, whom you people are seeking, and the messenger of the covenant in whom you are delighting. Look! He will certainly come,' Jehovah of armies has said (NWT). Clearly Jehovah is speaking about the true Lord whom He will send. The true Lord whom the people are seeking and the only one ever to come to the temple, is Jesus. The footnote says that the Hebrew for `true lord' is ha-Adon and cites eight other occurrences of the word. The 1970 NWT (p. 1455) explains further that ha-Adon is only ever used of Jehovah God. The nine Scriptures, Exodus 23:17; 34:23; Isaiah 1:24; 3:1; 10:16; 10:33; 19:4; Micah 4:13 and Malachi 3:1 are listed and every one of them links the name Jehovah with true Lord, usually `the true Lord, Jehovah'. Every one that is except Malachi 3:1! The reason is obvious- first, the verse would show that Jehovah was sending Jehovah, but more devastating it would show that Christ is the true Lord, Jehovah." (Harris & Browning, 1993, p.155. Emphasis original).

My next post in this series is part #8, "3. Jesus claimed to be Jehovah: 3A. Jesus claimed to be `I AM.'"

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

Re: `Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I am"'

2011-11-12T21:29:00.013+08:00

Anonymous

Thank you for your comment under my post "Jesus is Jehovah!: Contents." As I briefly responded, I am answering your

[Above (click to enlarge): Some of the "34 mint-condition properties in Brooklyn Heights and Dumbo that the Jehovah's Witnesses spent decades accumulating and now are considering selling as they ponder a headquarters move upstate" which "All told, the portfolio spans 3.2 million square feet-more than the entire Empire State Building-and is worth well over $1 billion." (Amanda Fung, "Hallelujah! Jehovah's Witnesses' land sell-off has Brooklyn dreaming big," Crain's New York Business.com, October 16, 2011). Not bad for a religion that boasts, "we don't pass around the money basket like everyone else" (see below)!]

comment in a (this) separate post. Your words are >bold to distinguish them from mine.

>Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I am."

This is an example of how Jehovah's Witnesses play `Bible ping-pong', that is, "pit one part of Scripture against another part to force the Bible to agree with their [the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's] 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., 1991, "Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses: Why They Read the Bible the Way They Do," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, p.107. Emphasis original).

The correct approach is the Christian one, which is to accept what the Bible teaches, that is, both:

1) 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):

"A Summary of ... Theos, as a Christological Title In light of this overwhelming amount of evidence for Jesus' full, unabridged deity, it is not at all surprising, as noted, that upon occasion the New Testament writers actually refer to him as ... theos, the title normally reserved for the Father. For example, 1. Exactly one week after Jesus' resurrection, in the presence of the other ten disciples, Thomas worshiped him by his acclamation: `[You are] my Lord and my God' (John 20:28). 2. In his letter to the Romans Paul speaks of him as `over all, the ever-blessed God' (Rom. 9:5). 3. In his letter to Titus Paul speaks of Christ as `our great God and Savior' (Titus 2:13). 4. In his farewell address to the Ephesians elders at Miletus, Paul charged: `Be shepherds of the church of God which he bought with his own blood' (Acts 20:28). 5. In his second letter Peter refers to him as `our God and Savior Jesus Christ' (2 Pet. 1:1). 6. In the Letter to the Hebrews God himself is represented as referring to the Son as `God' (Heb. 1:8). 7. In the first verse of his Gospel John informs us: `In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,' [Jn 1:1] and then he writes: `And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us' (John 1:24). 8. In John 1:18, the closing verse of his prologue, John writes: `No one has seen God at any time. But his only [Son, himself] God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.' 9. In 1 John 5:20, John writes: `we are ... in his Son, Jesus Christ. This One is the true God and Eternal Life.' Thus the New Testament intends to teach that Jesus Christ is divine in the same sense that God the Father is divine." (Reymond, R., "A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith," [1997], Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, Second edition, 2002, p.311. Emphasis original);

and

2) Jesus' statement that, "the Father is greater than I":

"You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (Jn 14:28).

Here are some quotes that explain how Jesus can both be God (i.e. share God the Father's God-nature), and yet the Father was greater than Jesus:

"How can the Father be greater if Jesus is equal to God? The answer is that, as a man, Jesus subordinated himself to the Father and accepted limitations inherent with humanity":

"The second supposed counter-example is found in John 14:28, where Jesus said, `My Father is greater than I' How can the Father be greater if Jesus is equal to God? The answer is that, as a man, Jesus subordinated himself to the Father and accepted limitations inherent with humanity. So, as man the Father was greater. Further, in the economy of salvation, the Father holds a higher office than does the Son. Jesus proceeded from the Father as a prophet who brought God's words and a high priest who interceded for his people. In nature of being as God, Jesus and the Father are equals (John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30). An earthly father is equally human with his son, but holds a higher office. So the Father and Son in the Trinity are equal in essence but different in function. In like manner, we speak of the president of a nation as being greater in dignity of office, but not in character." (Geisler, N.L., 1999, "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, pp.130-131. Emphasis original).

"... then Christ could speak of the Father as being `greater than I.' The Son had even become `lower than the angels,' in order to act as the Savior of mankind (Heb. 2:9)":

"John 14:28 `... If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I' (KJV). This is a favorite verse for Jehovah's Witnesses arguing against the deity of Christ. They begin by quoting from the Athanasian Creed: `And in this Trinity none is afore, or after an other; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and coequal.' Then they will read Jesus' words about the Father being greater than the Son, rather than `equal,' as that creed says. Don't let JW's lure you into this trap. Remind them that Jesus was speaking at a time when he had done as stated at Philippians 2:6-7: `Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men' (KJV). Naturally, then, Christ could speak of the Father as being `greater than I.' The Son had even become `lower than the angels,' in order to act as the Savior of mankind (Heb. 2:9)." (Reed, D.A., 1986, "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Thirty-first printing, 2006, pp.79-80).

"When Jesus said, `My Father is greater than I,' [Jn 14:28] `He spoke .... in the form of a servant (Phil 2:7) and as a man, the Son was subject to the Father":

"When Jesus said, `My Father is greater than I,' [Jn 14:28] `He spoke the truth; for in the form of a servant (Phil 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 (vv. 9-11*), He showed forth His deity when He declared, `All authority is surrendered to me in heaven and in earth' (Mt 28:18) ... [and] that `all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father' (Jn 5:23, KJV)." (Martin, W.R. & Klann, N., 1953, "Jehovah of the Watchtower," Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, Reprinted, 1974, pp.44-45. *Typo corrected).

"Christ ... was `positionally inferior' to His Father ... However, in essence and in glory the Son is equal with the Father":

"The Father greater Christ said, `I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I' (John 14:28). Christ here is speaking as a man. We must remember that in the Incarnation our Lord voluntarily limited Himself. While upon earth the Saviour's attributes of Deity were held in abeyance; namely, His omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. The miracles which Christ performed were done through the power of the Holy Spirit. Christ performed His mighty works not as God (which He ever remained) but as man. Even though the attributes of Deity were not fully used by Christ during His earthly ministry, He was still God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16). When the Son of God was upon earth, the Father was indeed greater than the Son. However, it is equally as true that when God's Son walked this fallen world, He was even less than Himself! This truth is made abundantly clear when we recall that Christ `took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, HE HUMBLED HIMSELF, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross' (Phil. 2:7). It would be sheer arrogance for a mere creature to say, `THE ETERNAL FATHER IS GREATER THAN I AM.' In what way was the Father greater than the Son? And we might also ask, `In what way was the Son of God even less than Himself?' Christ here is certainly not comparing His own human nature with the Divine nature of the Father. The context clearly reveals that Christ is speaking words of comfort to His disciples. What Christ is comparing here is His present earthly condition with the celestial glory which would soon be His once again [Jn 17:5]. In other words, Christ is saying here that His glorification and return to the Father would enable Him to bestow greater blessing and greater power unto His disciples. `Greater works than these shall he (the believer) do; because I go unto my Father' (John 14:12). Christ said unto His disciples: `If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I' It is thus clear that while Christ was on earth as a humble servant, He was `positionally inferior' to His Father and for this reason could say: `My father is greater than I' However, in essence and in glory the Son is equal with the Father." (Thomas, F.W., 1972, "Masters of Deception: A Christian Analysis of the Anti-Biblical Teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 1973, pp.16-17. Emphasis original).

"Thus, the Athanasian Creed states that Christ is `equal to the Father as touching his Godhead and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood'":

"Finally, something needs to be said about the question of the submission of the Son to the Father. No trinitarian questions that when Christ was on earth he lived in submission to God the Father. The Father in heaven was exalted while the Son was humble; the Father was greater than Christ (John 14:28). Christ's human nature was not itself divine; the manhood of Christ was created, and therefore Christ as man had to honor the Father as his God. Thus, the Athanasian Creed states that Christ is `equal to the Father as touching his Godhead and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood.' There is no question from a trinitarian perspective that, as man, Christ was in submission to the Father." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., 1989, "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 1990, pp.14-15).

"Jesus specifically said, `The Father is greater [Gk. meizon] than I' not, `The Father is better [Gk kreitton] than I'. The word `greater' is used to point to the Father's greater position (in heaven), not a greater nature":

"John 14:28-'The Father Is Greater than I' .... The Watchtower Society concludes from this that because Jehovah is the `greater' of the two, Jesus cannot be God Almighty. The fact that Jesus is lesser than Jehovah proves that He cannot be God in the same sense that Jehovah is. ... It is critical to recognize that in John 14:28, Jesus is not speaking about His nature or His essential being (Christ had earlier said, `I and the Father are one' in this regard [John 10:30]), but rather about His lowly position in the incarnation. ... Now, it is important that you emphasize the distinction between the Greek words for greater (meizon) and better (kreitton). Jesus specifically said, `The Father is greater than I' not, `The Father is better than I'. The word `greater' is used to point to the Father's greater position (in heaven), not a greater nature. Had the word `better' been used, however, this would indicate that the Father has a better nature than Jesus. This distinction is made clear in Hebrews 1:4, where `better' is used in regard to Jesus' superiority over the angels. The word `better' in this verse indicates that Jesus is not just higher than the angels positionally; rather, He is higher than the angels in His very nature. Jesus is different (better) in kind and in nature from the angels. This distinction between `greater' and `better' can be illustrated in the president of the United States. The president is in a higher position than the rest of us. Therefore, the president is greater (meizon) than the rest of us. However, he is still just a human being-and thus he is not better (kreitton) than the rest of us. Notice that Jesus never used the word `better' regarding His relationship with the Father, for He is not inferior or lower in nature than the Father. Rather, Jesus used a word ('greater') that points to the Father being higher in position only. During the time of the incarnation, Jesus functioned in the world of humanity, and this necessitated Jesus being lower than the Father positionally." (Rhodes, R., 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses", Harvest House: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 2006, pp.146-147. Emphasis original).

"In fact, rightly understood this is a claim of the highest import ... No mere man or angelic being could ever say `God is greater than I'":

"John 14:28. `My Father is greater than I'. This can refer only to the self-imposed limitations of the Son in His incarnation. He has already claimed equality with God (John 5:18), and oneness with Him (John 10:30), but He was not only true God, He was now also true man. In fact, rightly understood this is a claim of the highest import, for only things of the same order of magnitude can be compared. No mere man or angelic being could ever say `God is greater than I', for created and uncreated are of different orders." (Bruce, F.F. & Martin, W.J., 1964, "The Deity of Christ," North of England Evangelical Trust: Manchester UK, p.22. Emphasis original).

>Jehovah God is our almighty God, and Jesus Christ is his son.

First, Jesus is Jehovah, come in the flesh:

"The New Testament writers, convinced that Jesus Christ was God, saw no conflict in ascribing to Jesus Old Testament passages that referred to YHWH (Jehovah)":

"The New Testament writers, convinced that Jesus Christ was God, saw no conflict in ascribing to Jesus Old Testament passages that referred to YHWH (Jehovah). Beginning his Gospel, Mark quoted Isaiah's reference to God: `A voice is calling, `Clear the way for the LORD [Yahweh] in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God' (Isaiah 40:3). Mark interpreted that passage as having its fulfillment in John the Baptist's preparing the way for Jesus (Mark 1:24; compare John 1:23). Paul quoted Joel 2:32, `And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD [Yahweh] will be delivered [saved].' Paul applied that quote to Jesus, writing about Him and saying, `for `Whoever will call upon the name of the LORD will be saved' ` (Romans 10:13). Peter quoted the same verse from Joel. `Every one who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved' (Acts 2:21). Then when the people asked what they had to do to be saved, Peter told them, `Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ ...' (Acts 2:38). Having just stated that calling upon the name of the Lord (Yahweh) was a prerequisite for salvation, Peter tells them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Had Peter not considered Christ God, one would have expected him to tell them to be baptized in the name of Yahweh, which would have been consistent with Jewish practice and belief." (McDowell, J. & Larson, B., "Jesus: A Biblical Defense of his Deity," Here's Life Publishers: San Bernardino CA, 1975, pp.23-24. Emphasis original).

"The New Testament writers show no hesitancy in applying to Christ Old Testament descriptions and privileges that are reserved specifically for Yahweh":

"Old Testament Yahweh Passages Applied to Jesus The New Testament writers show no hesitancy in applying to Christ Old Testament descriptions and privileges that are reserved specifically for Yahweh. For instance, (1) Moses' description of Yahweh as "King of kings" (Deut. 10:17) John applies to Christ (Rev. 17:14; 19:16); (2) the author of Hebrews applies the entirety of Psalm 102:25-27 to him (1:10-12); (3) Proverbs 18:10 provides the background for Peter's assertion in Acts 4:12; (4) Joel's summons to trust in Yahweh (2:32) Paul employs to summon men to faith in Christ (Rom. 10:13); (5) when Isaiah looked upon Yahweh (Isa. 6:1-3), according to John he was beholding the glory of the preincarnate Son of God (John 12:40-41); (6) Isaiah's call to sanctify Yahweh in the heart (8:12-13) Peter applies directly to Christ-he is the one who is to be sanctified as Lord in the heart (1 Pet. 3:14-15); (7) Isaiah's representation of Yahweh as a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall (8:14) Paul applies to Christ (Rom. 9:32-33); (8) Yahweh, whose coming would be preceded by Yahweh's forerunner (Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1; 4:5), is equated with Christ (Matt. 3:3; 11:10; Mark 1:2-3; Luke 1:16-17; 3:4; John 1:23); (9) Jesus himself employs Yahweh's words in Isaiah 43:10 and 45:22 to summon men to be his witnesses and to rest in him (Acts 1:8; Matt. 11:28); (10) Isaiah's description of Yahweh as "the first and the last" (44:6) John employs to describe the glorified Christ (Rev. 2:8; 22:12-13); (11) Yahweh, `before whom every knee shall bow and by whom every mouth shall swear (Isa. 45:23), Paul identifies as Christ (Rom. 14:10; Phil. 2:10); and (12) Yahweh, the pierced One upon whom men would look and mourn (Zech. 12:10), John tells us is the Christ (John 19:37)." (Reymond, 2002, pp.311-312. Emphasis original).

See also my CED blog post, "Jesus is Jehovah!," my series "Jesus is Jehovah in the New Testament," and my new series, "Jesus is Jehovah!" (by topic).

Second, Jesus is "almighty God" in that, following His return back to His former place in Heaven, the Father has given Him all power over all things (my emphasis below):

Mt 28:18. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Eph 1:20-21. that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 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.

Jn 13:3. Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God,

1Cor 15:27. For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet."

Jesus is even called "the Lord God ... who is to come, the Almighty":

Rev 1:7-8. "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

The Father was not "pierced" and it is Jesus "who is to come" not the Father. Also, "the Alpha and the Omega" is "the Almighty" but Jesus is "the Alpha and the Omega":

Rev 22:12-13. "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Third, that "Jesus Christ is his [God's] son" means that Jesus shares God the Father's God-nature, just as a human son shares his father's human-nature.

Even the Watchtower's New World Translation correctly translates the first-century Jewish leaders' understanding that Jesus "calling God his own Father" meant that He was "making himself equal to God":

Jn 5:18 NWT. On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.

>J.W'S don't spin the Bible for enhanced eye candy like all the others do,

That "J.W'S ... spin the Bible" to make it conform to Watchtower doctrine was tacitly admitted by the Watchtower itself in its warning that if JWs "read the Bible exclusively" then they will come to believe what Christianity teaches:

"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those who ... say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such 'Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago ..." ("Serving Jehovah `Shoulder to Shoulder'," Watchtower, Aug 15, 1981, pp.28-29, p.29).

>we simply practice our faith according to the true & pure form of Christianity.

If that were the case then you would be called Jesus' witnesses, which is what even the NWT admits Jesus commanded His followers to be:

"You will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant parts of the earth." (Acts 1:8 NWT).

And if JWism was "the true & pure form of Christianity," the Watchtower Society would not have stated that JWs are "a people, not for the name of Jesus":

"By means of his written Word upon which the light of fulfilled prophecy was shining Jehovah led the remnant to appreciate more the importance and preciousness of his name. They came to appreciate that they were a people, not for the name of Jesus, but for the name of Jehovah ..." ("Of Which God Are You a Witness?" The Watchtower, February 15, 1964, pp.104-111, p.109).

Nor would the Society have reduced in its songbook the number of songs praising Jesus from its 1905 edition where there were "twice as many songs praising Jesus as ... songs praising Jehovah" down to its 1984 songbook, where "Jehovah is honored by four times as many songs as is Jesus":

"In the songbook produced by Jehovah's people in 1905, there were twice as many songs praising Jesus as there were songs praising Jehovah God. In their 1928 songbook, the number of songs extolling Jesus was about the same as the number extolling Jehovah. But in the latest songbook of 1984 [Sing Praises to Jehovah], Jehovah is honored by four times as many songs as is Jesus." (WB&TS, 1988, "Revelation: Its Grand Climax At Hand!," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, p.36).

And in fact this is overstating it. I have read through that 1984 JW songbook, and there are no songs in it praising Jesus! So according to the Watchtower's own New World Translation, by failing to "honor the Son just as they honor the Father," the Watchtower "does not honor the Father who sent him":

Jn 5:23 NWT. "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."

So JWism is not even Christianity, let alone being "the true & pure form of Christianity"!

>Also, we don't pass around the money basket like everyone else.

First, there is nothing wrong with Christian churches in their services passing around a "money basket" to enable those who want to to contribute to the Lord's work. The New Testament records the Apostle Paul directing the churches he founded regarding "the collection for the saints" that "On the first day of every week [Sunday], each of you is to put something aside and store it up":

1Cor 16:1-2. Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.

This became the pattern of Christian giving in the Early Church. Second-century Christian apologist "Justin Martyr indicates (in his Apology, 1. 67-68) that in his time (c. A.D. 150) offerings were brought to the church on Sundays":

"[1Cor ] 16:1 Now about Again an answer to one of the questions of the Corinthians (cf. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1). God's people. His people at Jerusalem (cf. v. 3; Ro 15:26). Galatian churches. The fact that the Galatian and Macedonian churches (2Co 8:1; 9:1-4) are involved, along with the Corinthians, indicates that the collection of this offering was quite widespread. The Jerusalem saints may have become poverty-stricken because of the famine recorded in Ac 11:28 (c. A.D. 44 or 46), or because of the persecution of Jerusalem Christians (cf. Ac 8:1). 16:2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside. Every Sunday each person was to bring what he had set aside for the Lord's work-an amount proportionate to his income. Since it was to be brought on Sunday, the new day for worship (cf. Ac 20:7; Rev 1:10), probably it was collected at the worship service, not at home. Justin Martyr indicates (in his Apology, 1. 67-68) that in his time (c. A.D. 150) offerings were brought to the church on Sundays." (Barker, K., et al., eds., 1985, "The NIV Study Bible," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.1758).

To the same church in Corinth, Paul laid down some principles of ongoing Christian giving in a church context, including it should be "a willing gift, not as an exaction" (or as the KJV put it "give; not grudgingly, or of necessity") "for God loves a cheerful giver":

2Cor 9:5-7. So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to go on ahead to you and arrange in advance for the gift you have promised, so that it may be ready as a willing gift, not as an exaction. The point is this:whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Second, see above Crain's New York Business.com article that the Watchtower's Brooklyn buildings alone are "worth well over $1 billion." Clearly they were paid for by the forced `donations' and `slave labour' of millions of individual JWs.

A commenter to that article answers your boast above that the "Jehovah's Witness religion makes a big deal about it not 'taking collection plates' at assemblies or Kingdom Hall meetings":

"This Jehovah's Witness religion makes a big deal about it not 'taking collection plates' at assemblies or Kingdom Hall meetings. Yet they encourage brainwashed elderly people to leave their estates to its financial holdings and they `guilt goad guilt trip' everyone who is a member to do everything for the corporation for free. A collection plate is nickles and dimes compared to the charitable giving article they publish in the Watchtower suggesting that members donate their estate, jewelry, stocks and investments to the corporation. See the Watchtower of November 2007 and it will show that this is true. Go to a JW convention and see they have `contribution' boxes at every egress.Why settle for some meager chump change in a plate when you can go after the big bucks of an estate? What a religious racket!"

The reference above to "the Watchtower of November 2007" presumably includes the following from that issue, which outlines "Ways ... to give contributions" to the Watchtower Society, including "amount[s] ... place[d] in the contribution boxes," "donations of money sent directly to Watch Tower," "Jewelry or other valuables," the WB&TS "named as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy or a retirement/pension plan," "Bank accounts ... made payable on death to" the WB&TS, donations to the WB&TS of " Stocks and bonds," "Salable real estate," "A gift annuity" and "Property or money ... bequeathed to" the WB&TS:

"WAYS IN WHICH SOME CHOOSE TO GIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WORLDWIDE WORK Many set aside, or budget, an amount that they place in the contribution boxes labeled `Contributions for the Worldwide Work-Matthew 24:14.' Each month, congregations forward these amounts to the office of Jehovah's Witnesses that serves their respective countries. Voluntary donations of money may also be sent directly to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Attention Treasurer's Office, 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York 11201-2483, or to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses that serves your country. Checks sent to the above address should be made payable to `Watch Tower.' Jewelry or other valuables may be donated as well. A brief letter stating that such items are an outright gift should accompany these contributions. CONDITIONAL-DONATION TRUST ARRANGEMENT Money may be placed in trust with Watch Tower for use worldwide. However, upon request the funds will be returned. For more information, please contact the Treasurer's Office at the address noted above. CHARITABLE PLANNING In addition to outright gifts of money, there are other methods of giving to benefit Kingdom service worldwide. These include: Insurance: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania may be named as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy or a retirement/pension plan. Bank Accounts: Bank accounts, certificates of deposit, or individual retirement accounts may be placed in trust for or made payable on death to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, in accord with local bank requirements. Stocks and Bonds: Stocks and bonds may be donated to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania as an outright gift. Real Estate: Salable real estate may be donated either by making an outright gift or, in the case of residential property, by reserving a life estate to the donor, who can continue to live therein during his or her lifetime. Contact the branch office in your country before deeding any real estate. Gift Annuity: A gift annuity is an arrangement whereby one transfers money or securities to a designated corporation that is used by Jehovah's Witnesses. In exchange, the donor, or someone designated by the donor, receives a specified annuity payment every year for life. The donor receives an income-tax deduction for the year in which the gift annuity is established. Wills and Trusts: Property or money may be bequeathed to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania by means of a legally executed will, or Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania may be named as beneficiary of a trust agreement. A trust benefiting a religious organization may provide certain tax advantages." ("The Silver Is Mine, and the Gold Is Mine," The Watchtower, November 1, 2007, pp. 20-21. Emphasis original).

What HYPOCRISY ! The Watchtower Society (and JWs like you) criticise Christian churches for their Biblical financing of their Lord's work by taking up a freewill offering during the Sunday church service. Yet the Society has its "contribution boxes" which amounts to the same thing (I have even been in a Christian church which uses the same method in lieu of a collection). But in addition to its multi-million dollar book-publishing business using `slave labour', the Watchtower Society has many other ways (see above) of sucking money out of its impoverished and enslaved members, which has enabled it to build its multi-billion-dollar empire!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc., Grad. Dip. Ed.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin

Jesus is Jehovah!: 2B. Jehovah seen in the Old Testament was the pre-incarnate Jesus

2011-11-08T19:58:00.004+08:00

Here is part #6, "2B. Jehovah seen in the Old Testament was the pre-incarnate Jesus," of my series, "Jesus is Jehovah!" by topic, which is based on my morning `quiet time' Bible reading.

[Above (click to enlarge): "God Appears to Moses in Burning Bush" (1848), by Eugene Pluchart (1809-1880), St. Isaac of Dalmatia Cathedral, St. Petersburg, Russia: Wikipedia.]

My previous post in this series was part #5, "2A. Plurality in Jehovah was revealed in the Old Testament" See the Contents page for more details.

Jesus is Jehovah!: Contents

2. JESUS IS JEHOVAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

B. Jehovah seen in the Old Testament was the pre-incarnate Jesus

i. No human has ever seen God the Father

The following verses make it clear that no human being has ever seen (or could see) God the Father:

Jn 1:18. "No one has ever seen God ...."

Jn 5:37. "And the Father .... his form you have never seen"

Jn 6:46."not that anyone has seen the Father ..."

1Jn 4:12. "No one has ever seen God ... "

1Tim 6:16. "[God] who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see."

Col 1:15. "He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God ..."

1Tim 1:17. "To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God ...."

ii. Yet in the Old Testament some humans did see God

Gn 32:30. " So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered."

Ex 24:9-10. " Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness."

Jdgs 13:21-22. " The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife.Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God."

Isa 6:1,5. " In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. ... And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"

iii. Who they saw was God the Son, the pre-incarnate Jesus

"... every visible manifestation of God in bodily form in Old Testament times was a preincarnate appearance of the second person of the Trinity-Jesus Christ":

"From a theological perspective, it would seem unlikely that the Angel of the Lord was the Father or the Holy Spirit. Paul tells us that God the Father is invisible (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17) and `lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see ...' (1 Tim. 6:16). John's Gospel tells us that `no one has ever seen God [the Father], but God the One and Only [Jesus Christ], who is at the Father's side, has made him known' (John 1:18, inserts mine). John 5:37 tells us that no one has ever seen God the Father's form. These passages indicate that it was the Son's unique function to make the Father, who has never been seen, known to man. We know that `the One and Only' is Jesus Christ, for John tells us: `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' (1:14, italics added). This One and Only, Jesus Christ, was sent to reveal and manifest the invisible God to the world. ... In view of the above factors, it is safe to assume that every visible manifestation of God in bodily form in Old Testament times was a preincarnate appearance of the second person of the Trinity-Jesus Christ." (Rhodes, R., 1992, "Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.85-86. Emphasis original).

"Who did Isaiah see in Isaiah 6? Who walked with Abraham by the oaks of Mamre (Genesis 18:1)? None other than the preincarnate Jesus Christ, the eternal Logos":

"... John ... in John 1:18 he provides us with a summary statement ... for his prologue. Here's what he wrote: `No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.' (NASB). ... John tells us that no one has seen God at any time. Is this true? Are there not many instances of men seeing God in the Old Testament? Did not Isaiah say that he saw the Lord sitting upon His throne in the temple (Isaiah 6:1-3)? So what is John saying? How can we understand his words? The key is found in the final phrases of verse 18, specifically, `who is at the Father's side.' When John says `no one has seen God at any time,' he is referring to the Father. No man has seen the Father at any time. So how do we have knowledge of the Father? The monogenes `made Him known' or `explained Him .' ... Another important fact to note from this verse is that if indeed no one has seen the Father, then what does this tell us of the Son? Who did Isaiah see in Isaiah 6? Who walked with Abraham by the oaks of Mamre (Genesis 18:1)? None other than the preincarnate Jesus Christ, the eternal Logos. John will develop this thought later in his Gospel, as we shall see when we examine those passages that identify Jesus as Yahweh." (White, J.R., 1998, "The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief," Bethany House: Minneapolis MN, pp.62-63. Emphasis original).

a. Only the "only begotten God," Jesus, has been seen by man

Jn 1:18 (NASB). "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

Jn 14:9. Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Mt 11:27. "All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

b. Jehovah whom Isaiah saw (Isa 6:1-10) was the pre-incarnate Jesus (Jn 12:37-41)

"The only `Him' in the context is Jesus; hence, for John, Isaiah, when he saw Yahweh on His throne, was in reality seeing the Lord Jesus":

"It is not hard to understand why there have been many who have not wished to make the connection that John makes between Jesus and Yahweh. One cannot make this identification outside of a Trinitarian understanding of the Gospel ... If Jesus is identified as ego eimi in the sense of the Old Testament ani hu ["I AM" - Isa 41:4; 43:10; 46:4], then one is left with two persons sharing the one nature that is God, and this, when it encounters John's discussion of the Holy Spirit, becomes the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity! An interpreter who is unwilling to dismiss the words of Scripture as ... nonauthoritative ... or to interpret Scripture in contradiction with itself ... will be hard-pressed to avoid the obvious conclusions of John's presentation. Lest one should find it hard to believe that John would identify the carpenter from Galilee as Yahweh himself, it might be pointed out that he did just that in John 12:39-41 by quoting from Isaiah's temple vision of Yahweh in Isaiah 6 and then concluding by saying, `These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory and he spoke about Him.' The only `Him' in the context is Jesus; hence, for John, Isaiah, when he saw Yahweh on His throne, was in reality seeing the Lord Jesus. John 1:18 says as much as well." (White, 1998, p.100).

"But if we ask the same question of John, `Whose glory did Isaiah see?' he would answer with the same answer-only in its fullness, `Jesus'":

"WHO DID ISAIAH SEE? ... These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. (John 12:37-41). ... what does John mean when he says that Isaiah `said these things because he saw His glory and spoke of Him'? Who is the `Him' to whom Isaiah refers? ... John cites two passages from the book of Isaiah. In verse 38 he quotes from Isaiah 53:1, the great `Suffering Servant' passage that so plainly describes the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. John says the unbelief of the Jews, despite their seeing signs, was a fulfillment of the word of Isaiah in Isaiah 53. He then goes beyond this to assert their inability to believe and quotes from Isaiah 6 and the `Temple Vision' Isaiah received when he was commissioned as a prophet ... (Isaiah 6:1-4). In this awesome vision, Isaiah sees Yahweh (the LORD) sitting upon His throne, surrounded by angelic worshipers. The glory of Yahweh fills his sight. Isaiah recognizes his sin and is cleansed by the Lord, then commissioned to go and take a message to the people. But the message is not one of salvation, but of judgment. ... (Isaiah 6:9-11). John cites the heart of the message of judgment given to Isaiah and sees the hard-heartedness of the Jews, who had seen the miracles of the Lord Jesus and heard His words of grace as the fulfillment of these words. Then John says, `These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him:' ... Therefore, if we ask Isaiah, `Whose glory did you see in your vision of the temple?' he would reply, `Yahweh's:' But if we ask the same question of John, `Whose glory did Isaiah see?' he would answer with the same answer-only in its fullness, `Jesus'.' Who, then, was Jesus to John? None other than the eternal God in human flesh, Yahweh." (White, 1998, pp.136-138. Emphasis original).

"It is therefore quite clear that ... John ... means that, when Isaiah had his vision of the Lord of Hosts in the Temple as described in Isaiah chapter six, it was the pre-existent Word whom he saw":

"We begin, however, with the one passage where John comes out into the open on this subject, even though the passage is to be found in the middle of the Gospel. After that, having shown that John undoubtedly believes the Lord [Jesus] to have appeared in OT times, we can go through the rest of the Gospel in order, prepared to find other allusions where such an assumption illuminates the meaning of the text. John 12.37-41 `Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him; it was that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: `Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?' Therefore they could not believe. For Isaiah again said, `He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.' Isaiah said this because he saw his glory ... and spoke of him.' John begins with a reference to Isaiah 53.1 ... John certainly takes this as a reference to Christ. ... It is therefore quite clear that, when John goes on in verse 41 to say `he saw his glory', he means that, when Isaiah had his vision of the Lord of Hosts in the Temple as described in Isaiah chapter six, it was the pre-existent Word [Jn 1:1,14] whom he saw." (Hanson, A.T., 1965, "Jesus Christ in the Old Testament," S.P.C.K.: London, pp.104-105. Emphasis original).

c. Jehovah of the Exodus was the pre-incarnate Jesus

(1) Jesus is the "I AM" who appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Jn 8:58-59; Ex 3:14)

Jn 8:58-59. "Jesus said to them, `Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.' So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple."

Ex 3:14 God said to Moses, `I AM WHO I AM.' And he said, `Say this to the people of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you."'"

"`I AM' (God's name) in Exodus 3:14 as ego eimi... Jesus purposely used the phrase as a means of pointing to His identity as Yahweh":

"The Septuagint provides us with additional insights on Christ's identity as Yahweh. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that dates prior to the birth of Christ. It renders the Hebrew phrase for `I AM' (God's name) in Exodus 3:14 as ego eimi. On a number of occasions in the Greek New Testament, Jesus used this term as a way of identifying Himself as God. For example, in John 8:24 (NASB) Jesus declared, `Unless you believe that I am [I AM or ego eimi] He, you shall die in your sins.' The original Greek text for this verse does not have the word he. The verse is literally, `If you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.' Then, according to verse 28, Jesus told the Jews, `When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [I AM, or ego eimi] He.' Again, the original Greek text reads, `When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM' (there is no he). Jesus purposely used the phrase as a means of pointing to His identity as Yahweh." (Rhodes, R., 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 2006, pp.63-64. Emphasis original).

"The NT attributes to Jesus many of the perfections of Yahweh (or, Jehovah), the creator/redeemer God of the OT. ... . Supremely significant is the I AM (Ex. 3:14; cf. Jn. 8:58 ...)":

"JESUS' IDENTITY WITH YAHWEH/JEHOVAH The NT attributes to Jesus many of the perfections of Yahweh (or, Jehovah), the creator/redeemer God of the OT. .... Another link is provided by self-designations of God appropriated by Jesus or referred to him. Supremely significant is the I AM (Ex. 3:14; cf. Jn. 8:58; 6:35; 8:12,24; 11:25; 14:6; 18:5f.; Mk. 14:62)." (Milne, B., 1982, "Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Fifth printing, 1988, p.129. Emphasis original).

"Perhaps the strongest claim Jesus made to be Yahweh is in John 8:58, where he says, `Before Abraham was, I am.' This statement claims ... equality with the `I AM' of Exodus 3:14":

"Jesus Claimed to Be Yahweh. Yahweh (YHWH; sometimes appearing in English translations as `Jehovah' or in small capital letters as `LORD') is the special name given by God for himself in the Old Testament. It is the name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14, when God said, `I AM WHO I AM.' ... Perhaps the strongest claim Jesus made to be Yahweh is in John 8:58, where he says, `Before Abraham was, I am.' This statement claims not only existence before Abraham, but equality with the `I AM' of Exodus 3:14. The Jews around him clearly understood his meaning and picked up stones to kill him for blaspheming (cf. John 8:58 and 10:31-33). The same claim is made in Mark 14:62 and John 18:5-6." (Geisler, N.L., 1999, "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, p.129. Emphasis original).

"Jesus literally said to them, `I AM Jehovah' (I AM), and it is clear that they understood Him to mean just that; for they attempted, as the next verse reveals, to stone Him. ... [for] blasphemy":

"John 8:58, `Jesus said unto them ... Before Abraham was [born], I am' (KJV). In comparing this with the Septuagint translation 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 is synonymous with God. Jesus literally said to them, `I AM Jehovah' (I AM), and it is clear that they understood Him to mean just that; for they attempted, as the next verse [Jn 8:59] reveals, to stone Him. ... [for] blasphemy." (Martin, W.R. & Klann, N., 1953, "Jehovah of the Watchtower," Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, Reprinted, 1981, p.52).

But "... the closest Old Testament antecedent to John 8:58 is to be found in the Isaianic `I am' sayings. ... the conclusion cannot be avoided that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh":

"Jesus as Jehovah in John 8:58 Among biblical scholars a growing consensus has formed behind the opinion that John 8:58 deliberately echoes Yahweh's `I am' statements in Isaiah 40-55. The NWT obscures the parallels in Isaiah by rendering them `I am the same One' or `I am the same'; but the Hebrew in each case reads simply ANI.HU (literally, `I [am] he'), which the LXX renders as ego eimi (Isa. 41:4; 43:10; 46:4; 52:6; compare with Deut. 32:39). There is evidence, moreover, to show that in the Judaism of Jesus day these words were sometimes used as substitutes for the divine name Yahweh itself, in particular at the Feast of Tabernacles, which from John 7:2 was apparently the occasion of Christ's `I am' sayings in John 8. This suggests that the reason for the anger of the Jews at Jesus absolute use of the expression ego eimi was that on that occasion his language was instantly recognizable as that of Yahweh. ... Considerations such as these have led most scholars to conclude that the closest Old Testament antecedent to John 8:58 is to be found in the Isaianic `I am' sayings. If this is correct, the conclusion cannot be avoided that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh. Notable in this light is Isaiah 45:18, where God says, `I am Yahweh' (Hebrew, ANI HU YHWH), and the LXX translates simply by the predicate absolute ego eimi. " (Bowman, R.M., Jr., 1989, "The Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1995, pp.120-121. Emphasis original).

(2) Christ is the spiritual Rock who accompanied the Israelites in the Exodus (1 Cor 10:4; Ex 17:1-7; Num 20:7-11)

1Cor 10:4. "and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ."

Ex 17:5-6. "And the LORD said to Moses, `Pass on before the people, taking with you some of the elders of Israel, and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.' And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel."

"Paul places Christ himself in the desert: as the Rock who was with Israel, supplying them with `spiritual water'":

"Christ as Preexistent with Israel On his way toward a final word of prohibition regarding attendance at temple meals ([1Cor ]10:20-22), Paul sets out to establish the Corinthians' spiritual connectedness with biblical Israel, who are seen to have experienced God in a `baptism' and `Lord's Supper' analogous to their own. Thus `our fathers' were `baptized' unto Moses in the cloud and the sea (vv. 1-2), and they too had `spiritual food and drink' in the wilderness-manna and water from the rock (vv, 3-4). But God had not been pleased with them and overthrew them in the desert (v 5), which story is to serve as a warning to the Corinthians (v 6). From there, Paul launches into four specific ways Israel had sinned, which had brought about their demise: idolatry (v. 7); sexual immorality (v 8); testing God (v. 9); and grumbling against God and Moses (v. 10)-all of which sins are being repeated in Corinth. Our present interest is with the two instances where Paul places Christ himself in the desert: as the Rock who was with Israel, supplying them with `spiritual water' (v. 4), and as the one whom Israel thus put to the test (v 9). Both passages reflect not just analogies but, from Paul's perspective, actualities. That is, the same Christ who now supplies the Corinthians with the Spirit, and whom they are testing by going to pagan feasts, had already experienced such `testing' by Israel; and the Israelites had been overthrown in the desert so that they did not reach their goal. It is precisely the presence of Christ in Israel's story that will make all of this work as a warning to the Corinthians." (Fee, G.D., 2007, "Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study," Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, pp.94-95. Emphasis original).

"Despite Christ's supplying Israel with `spiritual' water, they fell in the desert. Paul's point [is] in ... placing the preexistent Christ in Israel's own history":

"1 Corinthians 10:4 In retelling Israel's story, Paul alludes to the double narrative of water from the rock (Exod 17:1-7; Num 20:7-11), and he does so by picking up a rabbinic tradition that `they drank from the (spiritual) rock that followed them.' But he replaces that tradition by interpreting the `spiritual rock' as the presence of Christ himself ... That is, this interpretation is not about how the biblical passage applies in the present but with how the Corinthians are to understand what was actually going on with ancient Israel. ... Paul is insisting that by their idolatrous actions, the Corinthians are in grave danger of repeating Israel's folly. Despite Christ's supplying Israel with `spiritual' water, they fell in the desert. Paul's point in making this association for the church in Corinth-placing the preexistent Christ in Israel's own history-seems clear enough. The Corinthians, too, face the same danger of testing Christ by their idolatry." (Fee, 2007, pp.95,97).

"... and the Rock was Christ'. [1Cor 10:4b] This is an example of ... what A. T. Hanson has called the `real presence' of Christ in Old Testament history":

"When Paul reminds the Corinthian Christians that the Israelites in the wilderness had supernatural food and drink, he has in mind not only the bread from heaven and the water from the rock, but the spiritual and eternal reality to which these pointed. For them, as for the people of God today, Christ was the true source of strength and refreshment: `they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ'. [1Cor 10:4b] This is an example of a further New Testament principle of Old Testament interpretation - what A. T. Hanson has called the `real presence' of Christ in Old Testament history. [Hanson, A.T., "Jesus Christ in the Old Testament," London, 1965, p.7] " (Bruce, F.F., 1968, "This is That: The New Testament Development of Some Old Testament Themes," Paternoster: Exeter UK, p.35).

"Paul ...refers to Christ and sees him as following the Israelites and continually giving them drink. He transfers to Christ the title, 'the Rock', used of Yahweh":

"[1Cor 10:4] When he refers to their spiritual drink Paul adds an explanation, as he did not do with his reference to food. Moses got water from a rock at the beginning and end of the wilderness wanderings (Ex. 17:1-7; Nu. 20:2-13), and this apparently was the origin of a Jewish legend that a rock travelled with the people. Paul may have had this legend at the back of his mind, hut he does not refer to it. He refers to Christ and sees him as following the Israelites and continually giving them drink. He transfers to Christ the title, 'the Rock', used of Yahweh (Dt. 32:15; Ps. 18:2, etc.), a transfer that is significant for Christology, as of course is the clear implication of Christ's pre-existence." (Morris, L.L., 1985, "The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, [1958], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second edition, Reprinted, 1987, pp.139-140).

(3) Christ is Jehovah who was put to the test by the Israelites in the wilderness (1Cor 10:9 ; Num 21:5-6).

1Cor 10:9. "We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,"

Num 21:5-6. "And the people spoke against God and against Moses, `Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.' Then the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died."

"Here, Paul states that some of the Israelites in the wilderness `put Christ to the test,' ...what Paul says here about Christ is what the Old Testament said about the Lord [Jehovah] God: that the Israelites had put him to the test":

"The Israelites and Christ in the Wilderness Paul's rather enigmatic statement about the Israelites in the wilderness probably refers to Christ as having been involved in its earliest history: `For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ' (1 Cor. 10:4). This statement appears to be a reference to Christ's real preexistence ... A few sentences later, Paul warns the Corinthian Christians, `We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents' (v. 9). Here, Paul states that some of the Israelites in the wilderness `put Christ to the test,' and he warns the Corinthians not to make the same mistake. ... Therefore, we should understand Paul to have been affirming that Christ existed during the time of the Israelites' wandering in the wilderness. Moreover, what Paul says here about Christ is what the Old Testament said about the Lord God: that the Israelites had put him to the test (Num. 14:22; 21:5-6; Pss. 78:18-20; 95:9). Once again, the New Testament affirms not only Christ's preexistence but also his divine preexistence." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids M, p.95).

"Paul has no qualms in pointing out that the `Lord' whom they are putting to the test is the same Christ whom Israel tested in the desert and that the Israelites were overthrown because of it":

"1 Corinthians 10:9 The second instance where Paul asserts Christ's preexistence is equally striking. .... Paul's original text reads, `Let us not put Christ to the test ... as some of them tested [him] and were destroyed by the snakes.' This is an allusion to the event in Num 21:4-7,37 where Israel complained against God and Moses about the length, nature, and provisions of their long stay in the wilderness. Although the Numbers text does not have the verb ekpeirazo (put to the test), it does occur in the poetry of Ps 78:18, which refers to the similar events recorded in Num 14, 16, 20. Paul's use of this verb seems to be a deliberate echo of the Septuagint of Deut 6:16, `You shall not put the LORD your God to the test as you put him to the test at Peirasmos' ... As with v. 4, Paul's point in context seems clear. By insisting on their `right' ... to go to the temple meals (see 8:9-10), the Corinthian believers are putting Christ himself to the test, as Paul concludes in 10:21- 22. Thus he is once more tying the situations of Israel and of the Corinthians together christologically. Paul has no qualms in pointing out that the `Lord' whom they are putting to the test is the same Christ whom Israel tested in the desert and that the Israelites were overthrown because of it." (Fee, 2007, pp.97-98. Emphasis original. My transliteration).

(4) Jesus is Jehovah who saved a people out of Egypt and destroyed those who did not believe in Him (Jude 5; Ex 12:51; 13:21; Num 14:20-24; Dt 1:34-39)

Jude 1:5. "Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe."

"...the remarkable statement in the Epistle of Jude, `that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed those who did not believe' [Jude 5]

"Another [example of ... what A. T. Hanson has called the `real presence' of Christ in Old Testament history. [Hanson, A.T., "Jesus Christ in the Old Testament," London, 1965, p.7] is the remarkable statement in the Epistle of Jude, `that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed those who did not believe' [Jude 5] True, the name `Jesus' is not read in all forms of the text: in its place some authorities read `the Lord', others `God' and yet others, giving us no name at all, read `he who saved...' .... But the principle that the more difficult reading is to be preferred points to `Jesus' as the original, and indeed the variety of other readings can best be explained as substitutions for `Jesus'. `Jesus' in this context cannot be understood as the Greek form of Joshua (as in Acts 7:45; Heb 4:8), for Joshua neither led Israel out of Egypt nor destroyed the unbelievers in the wilderness. It was Moses who led his people out of Egypt, but Moses did so under superior leadership. It was the Lord who `brought the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their hosts', [Ex 12:51] it was the Lord who `went before them', [Ex 13:21] and it was by the decree of the Lord that the `evil generation' that came out of Egypt died in the wilderness [Num 14:20 ff.; Deut. 1:34 ff]. While Yahweh stands in the Hebrew text, the Greek version used by Jude, as by other New Testament writers, had Kyrios in its place, and for Greek-speaking Christians to whom Jesus was the kyrios or Lord par excellence it was an easy matter to understand Kyrios in the Greek Old Testament to refer to Him." (Bruce, 1968, pp.35-36).. Emphasis original).

"So it is ... virtually certain that it is to Jesus, in his preincarnate state as the Yahweh of the Old Testament, that he [Jude] ascribes, first, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt and then the destruction of those within the nation who rebelled ...":

"But there is still more that Jude implies about Jesus. For in addition to the six direct references to Jesus by name, there is sound reason to think that he may well have had Jesus in mind when he refers to `the Lord' in verses 5 and 14. ... In the former verse (vs 5), apart from the fact that `Jesus' may well be the original reading instead of `Lord,' [Bruce M. Metzger... affirm[s] that `Critical principles seem to require the adoption of ... Iesous, [Jesus] which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses ... and some significant church fathers] even with the reading `the Lord,' there is every reason to believe that Jesus may still have been Jude's intended referent. Consider the following facts. First, there is no question that Jude employed `Lord' to refer to Jesus four times (vss 4, 17, 21, 25). Second, we have just seen that the almost certain referent of `Lord' in verse 14 is Jesus. And third, this occurrence of `Lord' in verse 5 comes hard on the heels of Jude's certain reference to Jesus in the immediately preceding verse as `our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.' So it is not only possible but also virtually certain that it is to Jesus, in his preincarnate state as the Yahweh of the Old Testament, that he ascribes, first, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt and then the destruction of those within the nation who rebelled; second, the judgment of the angels at the time of their primeval fall; and third, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. And if all this is true, Jude was clearly thinking of Jesus Christ in terms that encompass the Old Testament Deity." (Reymond, R.L., 2003, "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New and Old Testament Witness," [1990], Mentor: Fearn UK, p.484).

"Also, whether the original reading in Jude 5 referred to `Jesus' or `the Lord,' ... this verse likewise portrays the preincarnate Jesus rescuing Israel from Egypt":

"In fact, the conviction that one could find Old Testament passages in which the preincarnate Jesus was manifested is reflected in first-century Christian texts. Most obviously, of course, the New Testament references to Jesus as the one through whom God created all things (1 Cor. 8:4-6; John 1:1-2; Col. 1:15-17) all reflect such a reading of Old Testament statements about the creation of the world. Furthermore, Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 10:4 that the rock from which Israel drank in their wilderness trek `was Christ' must surely be taken as asserting that in his preincarnate mode Jesus was the divine figure who engaged Israel in the Exodus narrative. Also, whether the original reading in Jude 5 referred to `Jesus' or `the Lord,' it is a good bet that this verse likewise portrays the preincarnate Jesus rescuing Israel from Egypt. Further, as we noted in an earlier chapter, John 12:41 asserts that the divine figure seen by the prophet in Isaiah 6:1 was `the Lord' Jesus. These references to passages in Exodus and Isaiah exhibit first-century christological interpretations of Old Testament theophanic passages." (Hurtado, L.W., 2005, "Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, pp.576-577).

My next post in this series is part #7, "2C. Jehovah promised that He would come to Jerusalem in Person."

Stephen E. Jones, BSc., Grad. Dip. Ed.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin

Jesus is Jehovah!: 2A. Plurality in Jehovah was revealed in the Old Testament

2011-10-30T20:11:00.008+08:00

This is part #5, "2A. Plurality in Jehovah was revealed in the Old Testament," of my series, "Jesus is Jehovah!" by topic, which will be based on my morning `quiet time' Bible reading.

[Above (click to enlarge): "Abraham and the Three Angels" [sic](c. 1896-1902), by James Jacques Joseph Tissot (1836-1902), at the Jewish Museum, New York: Global Gallery]

My previous post in this series was part #4, "1C. Quotes by mainstream Christian authors that Jesus is Jehovah." See the Contents page for more details.

Jesus is Jehovah!: Contents

2. JESUS IS JEHOVAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

A. Plurality in God was revealed in the Old Testament
"The Old Testament in several places indicates plurality in the Godhead":

"The Old Testament in several places indicates plurality in the Godhead (Gen 1:1-3, 1:26, 3:22, 11:7,9, Gen 18,19:24, Ex 23:20-23 [cp. 1 Cor 10:4], Is 48:12,16, 63:7-14, Zech 2:8-11, 3:2). As mentioned above, the Bible indicates both the deity of Christ and the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit. These factors, together with the deity of the Father (undisputed), produce a description of the Godhead in trinity. Especially in the New Testament, these three Persons are repeatedly spoken of as cooperating collectively (Matt 3:16-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22, Matt 28:19, Luke 1:35, John 3:34-35, John 14:26, 16:13-15, Acts 2:32-33, 38-39, Rom 15:16,30, 1 Cor 12:4-6, 2 Cor 3:4-6, 13:14 [cp. 1 John 1:3], Gal 4:4-6, Eph 4:4-6, Heb 10:12,15, 1 Pet 1:2)." (Quick, K.R., 1989, "Pilgrimage Through the Watchtower," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.59-60).

i. The usual Hebrew word for "God" ('elohim) is plural
"... the Hebrew names for God- Elohim. .... The im in Elohim is a plural suffix added to the singular noun El ":

"The Old Testament definitely implied the existence of more than one Person within the divine oneness. The first clue is to be found in one of the Hebrew names for God- Elohim. Found in the first verse of the Bible (Gen. 1:1), it is used repeatedly by the Old Testament writers. The im in Elohim is a plural suffix added to the singular noun El. Some have called this literary phenomenon `the plural of majesty,' but isn't God's singular name El majestic enough? In the temptation, Satan enticed Eve: `ye shall be as gods [Elohim]' (3:5). The word `gods' should have been translated `God,' a reference to the God of creation." (Gromacki, R.G., 1974, "The Virgin Birth: A Biblical Study of the Deity of Jesus Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 2002, p.20).

"The very name which is usually employed for designating God in the original Hebrew .... Elohim, is in plural form":

"Nevertheless, despite the fact that the oneness of God is so strongly emphasized, and, as it were, constitutes the first article of Israel's basic law, the distinctions within that unity of the Godhead come to light also as in that revelation His fulness of Being progresses. The very name which is usually employed for designating God in the original Hebrew has a certain significance here. For this name. Elohim, is in plural form, and therefore, although it does not, as was formerly generally supposed, designate the three persons of the divine Being, it does, in its character as an intensive plural, point to the fulness of life and of power which are present in God. It is, no doubt, in connection with this same fact, that God sometimes, in speaking of Himself, uses a plural referent, and by this means makes distinctions within Himself that bear a personal character (Gen. 1:26-27; 3:22; and Isa. 6:8)." (Bavinck, H., 1977, "Our Reasonable Faith: A Survey of Christian Doctrine," [1956], Zylstra, H., transl., Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth printing 1984, p.147).

"... the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is a plural form. This form is, in view of the pervasive monotheism of the Old Testament, a striking stylistic usage, to say the least":

"Yet the church has always believed that the God who reveals himself in Christ is the God who revealed himself to Israel. The Bible may be in two parts, but it does not reveal two Gods. Hence, there must be data in the Old Testament concerning God that are at least amenable to the Christian understanding of God. Given this assumption, theologians have noted, for example, that the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is a plural form. This form is, in view of the pervasive monotheism of the Old Testament, a striking stylistic usage, to say the least. When it occurs in the first creation narrative together with the use of plural pronouns - `Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion' (Gn. 1:26 NRSV) surely it is an intimation that God is not a solitary monad, especially since the creature, who is like him, is a fellowship of male and female." (Jewett, P.K., 1991, "God, Creation, and Revelation: A Neo-Evangelical Theology," Wm. B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, p.269).

ii. In the Old Testament God speaks to Himself using the plural pronouns "us," "our" (Gn 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8)
"A second hint [of "the existence of more than one Person within the divine oneness"] is found in plural pronouns ascribed to God":

"A second hint is found in plural pronouns ascribed to God. God said: `Let us make man in our image' (1:26, italics mine). This usage of the first personal plural pronouns also occurs elsewhere (3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8). To explain them away as joint references to God and His angels or to an editorial `we' is just too simplistic. In fact, both the oneness of God and the plurality of Persons are taught in these passages. After God said: `Let us make man in our image, after our likeness' (Gen. 1:26), Moses wrote: `So God created man in his own image' (v. 27). Isaiah `heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?' (Isa. 6:8). Note the interchange of the singular and the plural in both of these incidents. Since God is one, He can say `I.' Because of the plurality of Persons, He can also say `us.'" (Gromacki, 1974, pp.20-21. Emphasis original).

"The Bible does not say that God was speaking to someone else, that is, to someone other than God. ...We must allow that `us' means at least two!":

"IN THE BEGINNING `In the beginning God created ...' `And God said, Let US make man in OUR image (singular), after OUR likeness (singular) ... So God created man in HIS own IMAGE (singular)' (Genesis 1:1, 26, 27). The Bible does not say that God was speaking to someone else, that is, to someone other than God. Notice how the plural US refers to a singular image and likeness. When they had built the tower of Babel, God said: `Let US go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So THE LORD scattered them abroad ..: ' (Genesis 11:6, 7). We must allow that `us' means at least two!" (Dencher, T., 1985, "Why I Left Jehovah's Witnesses," [1966], Christian Literature Crusade: Fort Washington PA, Revised, p.142. Emphasis and ellipses original).

"... the New Testament relates these verses [Isa 6:8-10] to both the Lord Jesus ... and the Holy Spirit ... thus finding here what will yet accommodate the full revelation of the Holy Trinity":

"[Isa 6:8] ... Us: a plural of consultation (1 Ki. 22:19-23), but the New Testament relates these verses to both the Lord Jesus (Jn. 12:41) and the Holy Spirit (Acts 28:25), thus finding here what will yet accommodate the full revelation of the Holy Trinity." (Motyer, A., 1999, "Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries," InterVarsity Press: Leicester UK, Reprinted, 2005, p.72. Emphasis original. Typo corrected).

iii. Plurality in Jehovah was revealed in the Old Testament
"Abraham addressed three men as `Jehovah', and offered to wash his (or their?) feet!":

"Abraham addressed three men as `Jehovah', and offered to wash his (or their?) feet! Read the account at Genesis 18:1-22. The Watch Tower Society says they were all angels. The only clue given as to whether any of them were angels or not is Genesis 19:1, where two angels arrive at Sodom. Compare this with 18:22. If two of them were angels, Abraham had still seen Jehovah! It is very obvious that if they were all angels they would have all left. Why three angels to represent Jehovah? If the one who remained was also an angel, why did the other two leave? And why doesn't the Bible say that this one was also an angel? Why does it indicate he was Jehovah Himself? If this remaining one were simply. an angel representing Jehovah (as the Watch Tower Society indicates), representing this mean that the other two angels were not representing Him? Yet, if those three angels did represent Jehovah, why three when one would have been sufficient? Could Abraham tell the difference between the representative angel and the non-representative angels?" (Dencher, T., 1985, "Why I Left Jehovah's Witnesses," pp.142-143. Emphasis original).

"Abraham addressed the three as `Jehovah' ... And, when the city of Sodom was destroyed, the New World Translation says ... `Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens'":

"In explaining to Witnesses the fact that Psalm 110 shows God, the Father in heaven, talking to the Son (also God) upon the earth, it may help to invite them to turn to Genesis 18 and 19 in their own New World Translation. There it says that `Jehovah appeared to him' [Abraham] as `three men' or angels (18:1-2). Abraham addressed the three as `Jehovah' (18:3). Two of them left Abraham and went toward the city of Sodom, but Abraham continued to address the remaining individual as `Jehovah' (18:22, 19:1). When the other two reached Sodom and spoke with Abraham's relative Lot, he addressed the two of them as `Jehovah' (19:18). And, when the city of Sodom was destroyed, the New World Translation says at Genesis 19:24: `Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens... .'" (Reed, D.A., 1986, "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Thirty-first printing, 2006, pp.36-37. Ellipses original).

"One Jehovah sends another Jehovah in this account! ... Here we see where there are two persons, both of whom are Jehovah!":

"There are certain descriptions of this Jehovah that the Witnesses are unprepared to accept. One of these is found at Zechariah 2:8-11, quoting here from the A.S.V.: For thus saith JEHOVAH OF HOSTS: After glory hath HE SENT ME unto the nations which plundered you; for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his [Jehovah of hosts'] eye. For behold, I will shake my hand over them, and they shall be a spoil to those that served them; and ye shall know that JEHOVAH OF HOSTS HATH SENT ME. Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for lo, I (Jehovah) come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith JEHOVAH. And many nations shall join themselves to Jehovah in that day, and shall be my people; and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that JEHOVAH OF HOSTS HATH SENT ME (Jehovah) unto thee. The reason the Witnesses cannot accept this portion of Scripture is very obvious: One Jehovah sends another Jehovah in this account! According to them, Jehovah is just one person. Here we see where there are two persons, both of whom are Jehovah! At Zechariah chapter three, one person of Jehovah refers to another Jehovah: Reading verses one and two ([Zec 3:1-2] A.S.V.): `And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary. And Jehovah said unto Satan, JEHOVAH REBUKE THEE, O Satan; yea, Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee ...' At Isaiah chapter forty-eight Jehovah is sent by the Lord God! In verse twelve [Isa 48:12] He says: `I am the first, I also am the last' (A.S.V.). In verse sixteen He says: `Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; from the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it [the beginning] was, there am I [Isa 48:16]: and now THE LORD JEHOVAH HATH SENT ME, and his Spirit.'" (Dencher, 1985, pp.143-144. Emphasis original).

iv. The Angel of Jehovah is God, yet is distinct from God
"Then, there are references to the Angel of the LORD who is identified with, yet distinct from, God ":

"Old Testament For Israel the fundamental unity of God is an axiom, `Hear O Israel: the LORD our God is one' (Dt. 6:4). This insistence on the divine unity was most important because of the idolatrous, depraved polytheism of the surrounding nations. The OT, however, contains intimations of a `fulness' in the Godhead which foreshadow NT trinitarian teaching. First, there are the occasions where God refers to himself in plural terms (Gn. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Is. 6:8); the evangelist John treats the Isaiah passage as a vision of Jesus (Jn. 12:41). Then, there are references to the Angel of the LORD who is identified with, yet distinct from, God (Ex. 3:2-6; Jdg. 13:2-22). The OT also refers to the Spirit of God as God's personal agent (Gn. 1:2; Ne. 9:20; Ps. 139:7; Is. 63:10-14). It speaks of the wisdom of God, particularly in Proverbs 8, as a personalized outgoing of God to the world, and of the Word of God, the creative utterance of God (Ps. 33:6, 9; cf. Gn. 1:26). There are also prophecies which identify the long-awaited Messiah with God (Ps. 2; Is. 9:6f.). This clearly does not amount to the full doctrine of the Trinity, but in presenting plurality within God's unity these OT passages anticipate the fuller NT teaching." (Milne, B., 1982, "Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1988, Fifth printing, pp.59-60. Emphasis original).

"The angel of the Lord thus appears as a manifestation of Jehovah himself, one with Jehovah and yet different from him":

"While any angel sent to execute the commands of God might be called the angel of the Lord (II Sam. 24:16; I Kings 19:5, 7), yet mention is made of an angel under circumstances that justify one in always thinking of the same angel, who is distinguished from Jehovah, and yet is identified with him (Gen. 16:10, 13; 18:2-4, 13, 14, 33; 22:11, 12, 15, 16; 31:11, 13; Ex. 3:2, 4; Josh. 5:13-15; 6:2; Zech. 1:10-13; 3:1, 2), who revealed the face of God (Gen. 32:30), in whom was Jehovah's name (Ex. 23:21), and whose presence was equivalent to Jehovah's presence (Ex. 32:34; 33:14; Isa. 63:9). The angel of the Lord thus appears as a manifestation of Jehovah himself, one with Jehovah and yet different from him." (Gehman, H.S. & Davis, J.D., 1944, "The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Collins: London, 1924, Revised, p.29).

"The older writers discovered intimations of the Trinity in ... the remarkable phenomena connected with the appearances of the Angel of Jehovah":

"It is another question, however, whether there may not exist in the pages of the Old Testament turns of expression or records of occurrences in which one already acquainted with the doctrine of the Trinity may fairly see indications of an underlying implication of it. The older writers discovered intimations of the Trinity in such phenomena as the plural form of the Divine name Elohim, the occasional employment with reference to God of plural pronouns ('Let us make man in our image,' Gen. i. 26; iii. 22; xi. 7; Isa. vi. 8), or of plural verbs (Gen. xx. 13; xxxv. 7), certain repetitions of the name of God which seem to distinguish between God and God (Ps. xlv. 6, 7; cx. l; Hos. i. 7), threefold liturgical formulas (Num. vi. 24, 26; Isa. vi. 3), a certain tendency to hypostatize the conception of Wisdom (Prov. viii.), and especially the remarkable phenomena connected with the appearances of the Angel of Jehovah (Gen. xvi. 2-13, xxii. 11, 16; xxxi. 11, 13; xlviii. 15, 16; Ex. iii. 2, 4, 5; Jgs, xiii. 20-22)." (Warfield B.B., 1958, "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity," in "Biblical Foundations," Tyndale: London, p.86).

"There is also the striking Old Testament phenomenon of the angel of the Lord ... whose title and task distinguish him from God, yet whose presence evokes a response at the human level appropriate only when one is in the presence of God":

"Theologians have also noted the way in which the wisdom of God is personified in the Old Testament as God's Architect and Counselor in creation, the Instructor of the wise who bestows the divine Spirit upon all who seek understanding (Prv. 8). It is this usage that the writers of the New Testament reflect in their view of Jesus as the Logos (Word/Wisdom) who was in the beginning with God and by whom all things were made (Jn. 1:2-3). There is also the striking Old Testament phenomenon of the angel of the Lord, the mysterious messenger of the covenant (Gn. 16:2-13; 22:11, 16; 31:11, 13; 48:15-16; Ex. 3:2, 4-5; Jgs. 13:20-22). Here is One whose title and task distinguish him from God, yet whose presence evokes a response at the human level appropriate only when one is in the presence of God." (Jewett, 1991, p.270).

v. The Word, Spirit and Wisdom of Jehovah are distinct from Jehovah
"... passages in which the Word or Wisdom of God is personified ... point to ... a plurality of persons":

"It is far more plausible that the passages in which God speaks of Himself in the plural, Gen. 1:26; 11:7, contain an indication of personal distinctions in God, though even these do not point to a trinity but only to a plurality of persons. Still clearer indications of such personal distinctions are found in those passages which refer to the Angel of Jehovah, who is on the one hand identified with Jehovah, and on the other hand distinguished from Him, Gen. 16:7-13; 18:1-21; 19:1-28; Mal. 3:1; and also in passages in which the Word or Wisdom of God is personified, Ps. 33:4, 6; Prov. 8:12-31. In some cases more than one person is mentioned, Ps. 33:6; 45:6, 7 (comp. Heb. 1:8, 9), and in others God is the speaker, and mentions both the Messiah and the Spirit, or the Messiah is the speaker who mentions both God and the Spirit, Isa. 48:16; 61:1; 63:9, 10 . Thus the Old Testament contains a clear anticipation of the fuller revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament." (Berkhof, L., 1958, "Systematic Theology," [1932], Banner of Truth: London, British Edition, Third printing, 1966, pp.86-87. Emphasis original).

"A tendency is pointed out to hypostatize [ascribe real existence to] the Word of God ... and ... the Spirit of God":

"The tendency of more recent authors is to appeal, not so much to specific texts of the Old Testament, as to the very `organism of revelation' in the Old Testament in which there is perceived an underlying suggestion `that all things owe their existence and persistence to a threefold cause,' both with reference to the first creation, and, more plainly, with reference to the second creation. Passages like Ps. xxxiii. 6; Isa. lxi. 1; lxiii. 9-12; Hag. ii. 5, 6, in which God and His Word and His Spirit are brought together, co-causes of effects, are adduced. A tendency is pointed out to hypostatize the Word of God on the one hand (e.g., Gen. i. 3; Ps. xxxiii. 6; cvii. 20; cxlvii. 15-18; Isa. lv. 11); and, especially in Ezek. and the later Prophets, the Spirit of God, on the other (e.g., Gen. i. 2; Isa. xlviii. 16; lxiii. 10; Ezek. ii. 2; viii. 3; Zec. vii. 12). Suggestions - in Isa. for instance (vii. 14; ix. 6) - of the Deity of the Messiah are appealed to. And if the occasional occurrence of plural verbs and pronouns referring to God, and the plural form of the name Elohim, are not insisted upon as in themselves evidence of a multiplicity in the Godhead, yet a certain weight is lent them as witnesses that `the God of revelation is no abstract unity, but the living, true God, who in the fulness of His life embraces the highest variety' (Bavinck)." (Warfield, 1958, pp.86-87).

vi. The Hebrew word for "one" ('echad) in "Jehovah our God is one" (Dt 6:4 ASV) can mean a compound unity

The same Heb. word 'echad "one" in "God is one" (Dt 6:4) can be a compound unity. For example the same word 'echad is used of the "one flesh" of husband and wife (Gn 2:24); "one people" comprising many individuals (Gn 11:6; 34:16,22); " one voice" of "all the people" (Ex 24:3); "one cluster of grapes" (Num 13:23); and "one stick" joined to "another stick" making a compound "one stick" (Eze 37:16-17).

" 'ehad ... one ... It stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that oneness ... In the famous Shema of Deut 6:4, `Hear, O Israel ... the LORD is one,' ... the usage of the word allows for the doctrine of the Trinity":

"... 'ehad ... one ... It is closely identified with yahad `to be united' ... It stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that oneness ... in Ex 24:3 `with one voice' expresses that all Israel was involved in entering into the Covenant with Yahweh. The concept of unity is related to the tabernacle, whose curtains are fastened together to form one unit (Ex 26:6, 11; 36:13). Adam and Eve are described as `one flesh' (Gen 2:24) ... In Gen 34:16 the men of Shechem suggest intermarriage with Jacob's children in order to become `one people.' Later, Ezekiel predicted that the fragmented nation of Israel would someday be reunited, as he symbolically joined two sticks (37:17). Once again Judah and Ephraim would be one nation with one king (37:22) ... Diversity within unity is also seen from the fact that 'ehad has a plural form, 'ahadim ... In the famous Shema of Deut 6:4, `Hear, O Israel ... the LORD is one,' the question of diversity within unity has theological implications. Some scholars have felt that, though `one' is singular, the usage of the word allows for the doctrine of the Trinity ... The NT also is strictly monotheistic while at the same time teaching diversity within the unity (Jas 2:19; 1 Cor 8:5-6) ... The lexical and syntactical difficulties of Deut 6:4 can be seen in the many translations offered for it in the NIV. The option `the LORD is our God, the LORD alone' has in its favor both the broad context of the book and the immediate context ... Zechariah employs the text with this meaning and applies it universally ..: `The LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be (the only) one, and His name (the only) one' (14:9 NASB)." (Wolf, H., "'ehad," in Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. & Waltke, B.K., eds, 1980, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," Moody Press: Chicago IL, Twelfth printing, 1992, Vol. I, p.30).

"There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is yachid ... If Moses intended to teach God's absolute oneness as over against a compound unity, this would have been a far more appropriate word":

"Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the Shema, has always been Israel's great confession. It is this verse more than any other that is used to affirm the fact that God is one and is often used to contradict the concept of plurality in the Godhead. But is it a valid use of this verse? On one hand, it should be noted that the very words `our God' are in the plural in the Hebrew text and literally mean `our Gods.' However, the main argument lies in the word `one,' which is a Hebrew word, echad. A glance through the Hebrew text where the word is used elsewhere can quickly show that the word echad does not mean an absolute `one' but a compound `one.' For instance, in Genesis 1:5, the combination of evening and morning comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman come together in marriage and the two `shall become one (echad) flesh.' In Ezra 2:64, we are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though of course, it was composed of numerous people. Ezekiel 37:17 provides a rather striking example where two sticks are combined to become one (echad). The use of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound and not an absolute unity. There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is yachid, which is found in many Scripture passages, the emphasis being on the meaning of `only.' If Moses intended to teach God's absolute oneness as over against a compound unity, this would have been a far more appropriate word." (Fruchtenbaum, A.G., "Jewishness and the Trinity," Jews for Jesus, July 1, 1981).

Messianic Jews interpret 'echad "one" in Deut. 6:4 as being a compound unity:

"Messianic Jews believe in the Shema ... Deuteronomy 6:4: 'Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD' ... The Shema is a confirmation in Torah that Adonai/God is a compound unity ('echad') not as is commonly misunderstood.')" ("Messianic Judaism," Wikipedia, 23 January 2010).

In fact the Messianic Jewish Torah Observant Followers of Yeshua in its Statement of Beliefs cites Dt 6:4 as evidence that "The nature of YHWH is a compound unity" and adds that "Yeshua of Natzeret ... is YHWH who appeared among mankind in the flesh":

"Statements of Belief .... YHWH [the LORD] is our Elohim. He is echad [One]. He alone is YHWH. Deuteronomy 6:4. .... The nature of YHWH is a compound unity expressed in the aspects of Abba [God, the Father], Yeshua [Salvation, Jesus, the Son, Messiah] and the Ruach HaKodesh [the Holy Spirit/Breath] in this age. Matthew 28:19. ... Yeshua of Natzeret [Nazareth] is the Messiah of Israel, the Savior of the world, the King of kings and Lord of lords. He is YHWH who appeared among mankind in the flesh, and now is glorified with all power in Heaven and in Earth, at the right hand of Abba. John 1:12-14, 18." ("Torah Observant Followers of Yeshua - Statement of Beliefs," December 28, 2006).

Therefore, that "God is one" (Jas 2:19; Rom 3:30; 1Cor 8:6; Gal 3:20; Eph 4:6; 1Tim 2:5; Dt 6:4), does not preclude Him from being a compound unity, a tri-unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19; 2Cor 13:14; 1Pet 1:2).

vii Intimations of the Trinity in the Old Testament
"Yet even in the OT we have clear intimations of the Trinity":

"Yet even in the OT we have clear intimations of the Trinity. The frequent mention of the Spirit of God (Gen. 1:2 and passim) may be noted, as also, perhaps, the angel of the Lord in Exod. 23:23. Again, the plural in Gen. 1:26 and 11:7 is to be noted, as also the plural form of the divine name and the nature of the divine appearance to Abraham in Gen. 18. The importance of the word (Ps. 33:6), and especially the wisdom, of God (Prov. 8:22ff.) is a further pointer, and in a mysterious verse like Isa. 48:16, in a strongly monotheistic context, we have a very close approach to Trinitarian formulation." (Bromiley, G.W., "Trinity," in Elwell, W.A., ed., 1984, "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Seventh printing, 1990, p.1112).

"But even in the opening pages of the OT we are taught to attribute the existence and persistence of all things to a threefold source":

"In the Old Testament It can be understood that in ages when revealed religion had to hold its own in the environment of pagan idolatry, nothing that would imperil the oneness of God could be freely given. The first imperative, therefore, was to declare the existence of the one living and true God, and to this task the OT is principally dedicated. But even in the opening pages of the OT we are taught to attribute the existence and persistence of all things to a threefold source. There are passages where God, his Word and his Spirit are brought together, as, for example, in the narrative of the creation where Elohim is seen to create by means of his Word and Spirit (Gn. 1:2-3). It is thought that Gn. 1:26 points in the same direction, where it is stated that God said: `Let us make man in our image, after our likeness', followed by the statement of accomplishment: `So God created man in his own image', a striking case of plural and singular interchanged, suggesting plurality in unity." (Finlayson, R.A., "Trinity," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds. , 1982, "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, Reprinted, 1988, p.1221. Emphasis original).

"There are many scriptural indications for three-in-oneness in the Godhead":

"Scriptural Indications for Three-in-Oneness There are many scriptural indications for three-in-oneness in the Godhead. For example, when God was about to create man, he said: `Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground' (Gen. 1:26, italics added). Though scholars have offered different suggestions as to what may be meant by the plural pronouns in this verse, there is good reason to interpret it as a reference to the Trinity. (Note that the phrase `our image' in this verse is explained in verse 27 as `God's image.') ... After Adam and Eve had been created and fell into sin in the Garden of Eden, God said: `The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever' (Gen. 3:22, italics added). Note that the phrase `like one of us' in this verse refers back to verse 5, `like God.' As is true with Genesis 1:26, this verse supports plurality within the Godhead. Later, when sinful human beings were attempting to erect the Tower of Babel, God said: `Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other' (Gen. 11:7, italics added). Again, plurality within the Godhead. Many centuries later, Isaiah had a vision in the temple in which God commissioned him to service. God asked Isaiah, `Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?' And Isaiah said, `Here am I. Send me!' (Isa. 6:8, italics added)." (Rhodes, R., 1992, "Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, p.27. Emphasis original).

"Although the great emphasis of the Old Testament is the unity of God, hints of plurality in the Godhead are not lacking, nor are suggestions that this plurality is a trinity":

"INTIMATIONS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Although the great emphasis of the Old Testament is the unity of God, hints of plurality in the Godhead are not lacking, nor are suggestions that this plurality is a trinity. It is interesting that God used plural pronouns (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8) and plural verbs (Gen. 1:26; 11:7) to refer to himself. The name for God (Elohim) is plural and may imply plurality, though this is dubious. The plural form is probably used for intensity, rather than for expressing plurality. More definite indications that this plurality is a trinity are found in the following facts: (1) The Lord is distinguished from the Lord. Gen. 19:24 states, `Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven,' and Hosea 1:7 declares, `I will have compassion on the house of Judah and deliver them by the Lord their God' (cf. Zech. 3:2; 2 Tim. 1:18). (2) The Son is distinguished from the Father. The Son speaking through Isaiah the prophet said, `The Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit' (Isa. 48:16; cf. Ps. 45:6f.; Isa. 63:9f.). Ps. 2:7 reads, `Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee.' Jesus is not only called the Son of God (Rom. 1:4), but also the only begotten Son (John 3:16, 18) and his first-born Son (Heb. 1:6). Christ did not become the eternal Son of God at the incarnation; he was the Son before he was given (Isa. 9:6). `His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity' (Mic. 5:2). (3) The Spirit is also distinguished from God. Gen. 1:1 reads, `In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' Then v. 2 states, `The Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.' Note also the quotation, `The Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not strive with man forever' (Gen. 6:3; cf. Num. 27:18; Ps. 51:11; Isa. 40:13; Hag. 2:4f.). (4) Other such matters as the triple use of `holy' in Isa. 6:3 may imply a trinity (cf. Rev. 4:8), as well as the triple benediction of Num. 6:24-26." (Thiessen, H.C. & Doerksen, V.D., 1979, "Lectures in Systematic Theology," [1949], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Revised, pp.90-91. Emphasis original).

My next post in this series is part #6, "2B. Jehovah seen in the Old Testament was the pre-incarnate Jesus."

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