Re: Who is this "Lord" mentioned in Psalm 110:1?

AN

Thanks for your message. As is my stated policy when I get a private message on a topic that is relevant to one of my blogs,

[Above: "... and is seated at the right hand of the Father": Godzdogz:

"The key Scriptural text is Psalm 110:1 - `The Lord says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool"' - which the Church sings in her liturgy every Sunday. Inspired by this, we find nascent expressions of belief in Christ seated at the Father's right in the New Testament letters attributed to St Paul (e.g. Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1). This psalm verse is the most cited Old Testament text in the New Testament and it also has the distinction of being the only one commented upon by Jesus in the Synoptic gospels (Mt 22:41-46; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44). Here, the point being made is that Jesus, the Messiah, is both greater than David and is Lord. As we have seen earlier in this series of posts, to call Jesus `Lord' indicates his divinity."

in this case my JesusisJehovah! blog, I respond publicly via that blog after removing the sender's (your) personal identifying details. Your words are bold to distinguish them from mine. Brief quotes are hyperlinked to fuller quotes towards the end of this post.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 2:54 PM
Subject: jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com

>Greetings respectful sir,

You don't say what your position is, but I assume you are a Jehovah's Witness. Even if you are not, I have responded as though you are, because my posts on this my Jesus is Jehovah! blog are primarily intended for the benefit of Jehovah's Witnesses (existing, former or would-be).

>Can you please explain Psalms 110:1
>
>American Standard Version
Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstol
>
>World English Bible
Yahweh says to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet."
>
>Darby Bible Translation
{Psalm of David.} Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put thine enemies as footstool of thy feet.
>
>Who is this "Lord" mentioned on the above texts?

As I presume you already know, the "Lord" (Heb. adoni) of Ps 110:1 (ASV):

Jehovah saith unto my Lord [Heb. adoni], Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

is identified by Jesus, and the New Testament writers, as "Christ," "Jesus" and "the Son":

Mt 22:41-46. While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." ' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Mk 12:35-37. While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." ' David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" The large crowd listened to him with delight.

Lk 20:41-44. Then Jesus said to them, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." ' David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"

Acts 2:32-35. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." '

Heb 1:13.To which of the angels did God ever say, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"?

Note that the last of these, Heb 1:13, even in the NWT, distinguishes Christ ("the Son" - v.8) from "the angels":

Heb 1:8,13 NWT. But with reference to the Son ... to which one of the angels has he ever said: "Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet"?

Which proves that Jesus is not Michael the archangel, as the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society claims:

"Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth." (WB&TS, 2005, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, p.218).

As do other verses in Hebrews 1 prove that Jesus is not Michael the archangel, "... the author of Hebrews not only separates Jesus from angels [Heb 1:5], he even commands the angels to worship him" [Heb. 1:6] (my emphasis):

"Perhaps the most peculiar Watchtower doctrine is the idea that Jesus is really Michael the archangel. ... The clearest contradiction of such an idea can be found in the book of Hebrews ... where the sacred author asks, `For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son"' (1:5, citing Ps. 2:7) and `When he brings the first-born into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him"' (1:6, citing Deut. 32:43). ... Here the author of Hebrews not only separates Jesus from angels, he even commands the angels to worship him (Heb. 1:6; cf. Rev. 5:13-14, 14:7)." (Evert, J., 2001, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses," pp.72-73).

The writer of Hebrews in Heb. 1:13 quotes Ps 110:1 to prove that Jesus is "greater than the angels" (my emphasis) which includes Michael the archangel:

"[Ps 110:1] ... Now follows God's oracle to David's lord. Sit at my right hand. The authority and power conferred by such an address will be illustrated in the remaining verses of the psalm; but it will take the New Testament to do it justice. a. He is not only greater than David (Acts 2:34., `for David did not ascend into the heavens') but greater than the angels (Heb. 1:13, `to what angel has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand..."?'" (Kidner, D., 1975, "Psalms 73-150," p.393. Emphasis original).

That is because, "In the religious and cultural milieu of Jesus' day, to claim to sit at God's right hand was tantamount to claiming equality with God" (my emphasis):

"Psalm 110:1, in which David says, The LORD [YHWH] says to my Lord ['adoni]: `Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' (ESV) ... Jesus ... is pointing out that ... the Messiah ...would not be a mere Davidic king but would be a universal sovereign, sitting at God's right hand, honored as Lord even by his ancestor David. A careful examination of Psalm 110:1, and Jesus' application of it ... to himself, reveals how remarkable Jesus' claim was and why it seemed to the Sanhedrin to be blasphemous. It was one thing to enter God's presence and yet another to sit in it. But to sit at God's right side was another matter altogether. In the religious and cultural milieu of Jesus' day, to claim to sit at God's right hand was tantamount to claiming equality with God. ... For Jesus to claim that he would sit at God's right hand was akin to claiming ... that he would be entitled to have his head as high as that of the king. Jesus, then, was claiming the right to go directly into God's `throne room' and sit at his side. The temerity of such a claim for any mere human would be astonishing to the Jews of Jesus' day ... The Holy of Holies could be entered only on a specific day in specific ways by one specific person. ... If entrance requirements to the earthly Holy of Holies were so strict, we can imagine what the Sanhedrin priests would have thought about Jesus claiming to have the right to enter God's heavenly presence. After all, the earthly temple was ... a model of the heavenly one ... Jesus was claiming that he was going to enter permanently into the heavenly Holies of Holies and sit down." (Bowman, R.M. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place," pp.243-245. Emphasis original).

Moreover, one of the clearest example's of the New Testament's teaching that Jesus is Jehovah, is a few verses earlier in Heb 1:8,10-11:

But about the Son ... He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end." .

where an Old Testament passage about Jehovah, Ps 102:24-27:

So I said: "Do not take me away, O my God, in the midst of my days; your years go on through all generations. In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.

is applied to Jesus "the Son."

This is clear even in the Watchtower Society's own New World Translation, that Heb 1:8,10-11 NWT:

But with reference to the Son: ... "You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands. They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually; and just like an outer garment they will all grow old, and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed, but you are the same, and your years will never run out."

is a quote of Ps 102:24-27 NWT:

I proceeded to say: "O my God, Do not take me off at the half of my days; Your years are throughout all generations. Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself, And the heavens are the work of your hands. They themselves will perish, but you yourself will keep standing; And just like a garment they will all of them wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will finish their turn. But you are the same, and your own years will not be completed.

in which the Psalmist is addressing "Jehovah":

Ps 102:1 NWT. A prayer of the afflicted in case he grows feeble and pours out his concern before Jehovah himself. O Jehovah, do hear my prayer; And to you may my own cry for help come.

That is, the "words in this psalm [Ps 102:25-27] are addressed to Yahweh (God), but are directly applied to Jesus Christ in Hebrews 1:10-12, thus indicating Christ's full deity" (my emphasis):

"Hebrews 1:10-12 is actually a quotation from Psalm 102:25-27. It is highly revealing that the words in this psalm are addressed to Yahweh (God), but are directly applied to Jesus Christ in Hebrews 1:10-12, thus indicating Christ's full deity. ... Psalm 102:25 says of Yahweh: `In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.' ... the writer of Hebrews directly applies this verse to Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:10)." (Rhodes, R., 1992, "Christ Before the Manger," pp.44,63).

So "What could be said of Yahweh, could be said of Christ" (my emphasis):

"The writer of Hebrews, likewise, used the words of Psalm 102:25-27, which celebrated Yahweh as Creator, equally of Christ (Heb. 1:10-12). .... What could be said of Yahweh, could be said of Christ. If the gospel was God's, then it was also Christ's. If the Kingdom was God's, then it was also Christ's. To have faith is, indiscriminately, to have faith either in God or in Christ, and God and Christ were alike to be praised, thanked, and worshiped." (Wells, D.F., 1992, "The Person of Christ," p.76).

Indeed, "This single passage in Hebrews suffices to prove that Jesus is God-Jehovah-since an Old Testament reference to God is now applied to him" (my emphasis):

"God the Creator (Hebrews 1:10) Psalm 102:24-25 [NWT] reads, `O my God... Your years are throughout all generations. Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself. And the heavens are the work of your hands.' Ask any Witness, `Who are these verses talking about?' Witnesses unanimously assert that they are speaking of Jehovah. And they are right. Verses 1, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 all make it clear - by using the divine name - that the God in question is indeed Jehovah. However, the author of Hebrews takes the Psalmist's words and applies them to Jesus: `But with reference to the Son... `You at [the] beginning O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands' (1:8, 10). This single passage in Hebrews suffices to prove that Jesus is God- Jehovah-since an Old Testament reference to God is now applied to him." (Evert, 2001, p.79. Emphasis original).

For "If the Son was not Jehovah, then it was illegitimate for the writer of Hebrews to quote these words about Jehovah and apply them to Jesus" and "what these verses say about Jesus can only be true of Jehovah" (my emphasis):

"In any case, the next quotation from the Psalms leaves no room for doubt. Continuing to speak about the Son, the writer of Hebrews quotes these words (Heb. 1:10-12 NWT):

You [at] the beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands. They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually; and just like an outer garment they will all grow old, and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed, but you are the same, and your years will never run out.

In the context of Psalm 102:25-27 from which this is quoted, these words are spoken of Jehovah. If the Son was not Jehovah, then it was illegitimate for the writer of Hebrews to quote these words about Jehovah and apply them to Jesus to try to prove that he was greater than the angels. Moreover, what these verses say about Jesus can only be true of Jehovah-namely, that he created the heavens and the earth (cf. Isa. 44:24) and is unchanging and eternal by nature." (Bowman, R.M., 1989, "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 1990, pp.107-108. Emphasis original).

Again (see my "I sincerely believe that Jesus is not Jehovah, but that he is Jehovah God's Son #2", "Main reasons why Jehovah's Witnessism is false" and "Re: `So, Who sent Jesus? if he is Jehovah, did he send himself to earth?', etc" on Isa 45:23 about Jehovah quoted of Jesus in Php 2:9-11) if the Watchtower was consistent in translating Gk. kyrios in the New Testament as "Jehovah" where it is a quote from the Old Testament that refers to Jehovah (Heb. Yahweh) or God:

"How is a modern translator to know or determine when to render the Greek words κυριοσ [kyrios] and Θεοσ [theos] into the divine name in his version? By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then he must refer back to the original to locate whether the divine name appears there. This way he can determine the identity to give to Ky'ri-os and the-os' and he can then clothe them with personality. Realizing that this is the time and place for it, we have followed this course in rendering our version of the Christian Greek Scriptures." (WB&TS, 1969, "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, p.18).

then it would translate Heb 1:8,10 NWT as (my emphasis):

But with reference to the SON: ... And: "You at [the] beginning, O JEHOVAH, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands

>If you had already explained that on your posts please send me the link so I can check it, thanks

I had already explained that in my posts, " Re: Jesus is not Jehovah ... such a thing is unthinkable" (2008) and " Re: Is Jesus Jehovah? Please answer the following #3" (2009). But as it was in conjunction with other issues, I have here expanded on my explanation of Ps 110:1.

The Watchtower claims that, because "Jesus explained that he himself was David's `Lord,' referred to in this psalm. So Jesus is not Jehovah but is the one to whom Jehovah's words were here directed" :

"Is Jehovah in the `Old Testament' Jesus Christ in the `New Testament'? ... Ps. 110:1: `The utterance of Jehovah to my [David's] Lord is: `Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.' (At Matthew 22:41-45, Jesus explained that he himself was David's `Lord,' referred to in this psalm. So Jesus is not Jehovah but is the one to whom Jehovah's words were here directed.)" (WB&TS, 1989, "Reasoning from the Scriptures," pp.197-198).

But this is fallacious. Who was David's "Lord" (Heb. 'adon) but Jehovah?:

Ps 16:1-2. Michtam of David ... O my soul, thou hast said unto Jehovah, Thou art my Lord ...

Ps 35:1,22-23. A Psalm of David. Strive thou, O Jehovah, with them that strive with me ... my God and my Lord.

Ps 38:1,15,22. A Psalm of David ... O Jehovah, rebuke me not in thy wrath ... For in thee, O Jehovah, do I hope: Thou wilt answer, O Lord my God. ... Make haste to help me, O Lord, my salvation.

Ps 51:1,15. ... A Psalm of David ... Have mercy upon me, O God ... O Lord ... my mouth shall show forth thy praise.

Ps 55:1,9 ... Maschil of David. Give ear to my prayer, O God ... Destroy, O Lord, and divide their tongue ...

Ps 59:1,11. ... A Psalm of David. ... Deliver me from mine enemies, O my God ... bring them down, O Lord our shield.

Ps 62:1,12 .... A Psalm of David. My soul waiteth in silence for God only ... unto thee, O Lord, belongeth lovingkindness ...

Ps 69:1,6,8 .... A Psalm of David. Save me, O God ... Let not them that wait for thee be put to shame through me, O Lord Jehovah of hosts ... There is none like unto thee among the gods, O Lord ...

Ps 86:1,3,4,8-9,12,15. A Prayer of David. Bow down thine ear, O Jehovah, and answer me ... Be merciful unto me, O Lord ... For unto thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul ... There is none like unto thee among the gods, O Lord ... All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord ... I will praise thee, O Lord my God ... But thou, O Lord, art a God merciful and gracious ...

That is why Psalm 110:1 was such an unsolvable puzzle to the Jews with their un-Biblical unitarian view of God. They could not understand how Jehovah could be talking to Jehovah. And that is why it is still a puzzle to Jehovah's Witnesses, who also have an un-Biblical unitarian view of God.

The New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus is Jehovah come in the flesh (see above on Ps 102:25-27 about Jehovah quoted of Jesus in Heb 1:8,10-12) and also see my post "Jesus is Jehovah! and my series "Jesus is Jehovah in the New Testament."

Therefore the right approach is not the Watchtower's method of playing Bible verses off against each other (`wresting the Scripture to their own destruction' - 2Pet 3:16), but the Christian approach of trying to see how both can be true: 1. Jesus is Jehovah; and 2. Jehovah was speaking to David's Lord who is Jesus.

The problem is solved within a Christian Biblical trinitarian view of God, where "YHWH is a compound unity ... the Father ... the Son ... and ... the Holy Spirit ..." as Messianic Jews also acknowledge:

"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." ("Torah Observant Followers of Yeshua - Statement of Beliefs," December 28, 2006).

That is, Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, are "Jehovah: the one Triune God":

"That the Lord Jesus Christ is revealed in the New Testament as being Jehovah (Heb. Yahweh) of the Old Testament come in the flesh, does not preclude the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity (Mt 28:19; 2Cor 13:14; 1Pet 1:2): the Father (Dt 32:6; Isa 63:16; 64:8; Mal 1:6) and the Holy Spirit (Lk 4:18 = Isa 61:1; Acts 5:3-4,9; 2Cor 3:17), also being, as revealed in the New Testament, Jehovah: the one Triune God." (Jones, S.E., "Jesus is Jehovah in the New Testament: Index," January 11, 2009).

So to answer your first question, "Can you please explain Psalms 110:1?" Yes, it is Jehovah God the Father speaking to Jehovah God the Son:

"Psalm 110:1... Jehovah's Witnesses ... argue ... that the Lord Jesus must be a mere created being, since Jehovah God is addressing a person distinct from himself. ... Knowledgeable Christians who read this verse will grasp that God the Father is speaking to the Son. " (Reed, D.A., 1986, "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," pp.35-36. My emphasis).

"... Psalm 110 shows God, the Father in heaven, talking to the Son (also God) upon the earth." (Reed, 1986, pp.36-37. My emphasis).

"Psalm 110:1-Jehovah and `My Lord'. ... This verse makes perfect sense within the scope of trinitarian theology. .... Scripture not only teaches that the Messiah would be the Son of David in terms of His humanity, it also teaches that He is God ... Here we have the first person of the Trinity speaking to the second person of the Trinity." (Rhodes, 1993, pp.161-162. My emphasis).

"Psalm 110:1 records a conversation between the Father and the Son ... [who is] God" (Geisler, N.L., 1999, "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," p.130).

>Regards,
>
>AN

My regards to you too. If you are a Jehovah's Witness, I hope you can now see that the Watchtower Society is wrong in its claim that Jesus is Michael the archangel, and that Jesus actually is Jehovah, come in the flesh!

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin

---

"Sitting in the Big Chair (Psalm 110:1) ... Psalm 110:1, in which David says, The LORD [YHWH] says to my Lord ['adoni]: `Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' (ESV) The Hebrew makes it clear that by `the LORD' and `my Lord' two different persons are in view. Jesus identified the second person ('my Lord') as the Messiah when he applied the text to himself. Earlier in Mark, Jesus points out something peculiar about this statement. The Jews typically expected the Messiah simply to be a descendant of David who would prove to be the ultimate human warrior-king. Yet David calls the future Messiah his `Lord:' How, Jesus asks, could the Messiah be David's son and also be his Lord (Mark 12:35-37)? Some modern readers of the Bible have suggested that Jesus was here denying that the Messiah would be a descendant of David, but this really misses the point. Jesus is not denying that the Messiah would be a descendant of David but is pointing out that somehow the Messiah would be much more than that. The Messiah would not be a mere Davidic king but would be a universal sovereign, sitting at God's right hand, honored as Lord even by his ancestor David. A careful examination of Psalm 110:1, and Jesus' application of it (in conjunction with Daniel 7:13) to himself, reveals how remarkable Jesus' claim was and why it seemed to the Sanhedrin to be blasphemous. It was one thing to enter God's presence and yet another to sit in it. But to sit at God's right side was another matter altogether. In the religious and cultural milieu of Jesus' day, to claim to sit at God's right hand was tantamount to claiming equality with God. ... For Jesus to claim that he would sit at God's right hand was akin to claiming, in an `Oriental' cultural context, that he would be entitled to have his head as high as that of the king. Jesus, then, was claiming the right to go directly into God's `throne room' and sit at his side. The temerity of such a claim for any mere human would be astonishing to the Jews of Jesus' day. The priests of the Sanhedrin, to whom Jesus made this claim, could not, as a rule, even go into the inner sanctum of the temple, known as the Holy of Holies. Many of them probably had never been inside it. The Holy of Holies could be entered only on a specific day in specific ways by one specific person. Failure to follow the instructions exactly resulted in death. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies, carrying. the blood of a bull as offering for personal purification and the blood of a ram as offering for atonement for the people. This was followed by a change of garments and ritual washings (Lev. 16). In other words, one entered into God's presence in the temple cautiously. If entrance requirements to the earthly Holy of Holies were so strict, we can imagine what the Sanhedrin priests would have thought about Jesus claiming to have the right to enter God's heavenly presence. After all, the earthly temple was, according to Josephus, viewed as a model of the heavenly one [Josephus Antiquities 3.181-87]. Worse still, though, Jesus was claiming that he was going to enter permanently into the heavenly Holies of Holies and sit down. Jesus might as well have claimed that he owned the place! Indeed, that is what his statement amounted to. As Darrell Bock has put it, Jesus' claim `would be worse, in the leadership's view, than claiming the right to be able to walk into the Holy of Holies in the temple and live there!' [Bock, D.L., "Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels," Baker: Grand Rapids, 2002, p.375]" (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.243-245).

"Perhaps the most peculiar Watchtower doctrine is the idea that Jesus is really Michael the archangel. This teaching is not typically mentioned when introducing the faith to a new recruit, as can be seen in the official overview of beliefs published by the Watchtower. If Witnesses have difficulty explaining any particular doctrine, it is this one. ... The clearest contradiction of such an idea can be found in the book of Hebrews (RSV:CE), where the sacred author asks, `For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son"' (1:5, citing Ps. 2:7) and `When he brings the first-born into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him"' (1:6, citing Deut. 32:43). `Of the angels he says, "Who makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire." But of the Son he says, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever ..." and, "Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of thy hands"' (1:7-8, citing Ps. 104:4, 45:6, and 102:25). Here the author of Hebrews not only separates Jesus from angels, he even commands the angels to worship him (Heb. 1:6; cf. Rev. 5:13-14, 14:7). The first issue of Zion's Watch Tower magazine agreed: `"Let all the angels of God worship him" [that must include Michael] and "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever."' [Zion's Watch Tower, July 1879, p.9. Brackets and italics original]" (Evert, J., 2001, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses," Catholic Answers: El Cajon CA, pp.72-73).

"Jesus Claimed to Be Messiah-God. ... But the Old Testament teaches that the coming Messiah would be God himself. So when Jesus claimed to be that Messiah, he was also claiming to be God. For example, the prophet Isaiah (in 9:6) calls the Messiah, `Mighty God.' The psalmist wrote of Messiah, `Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever' (Ps. 45:6; cf. Heb. 1:8). Psalm 110:1 records a conversation between the Father and the Son: `The LORD (Yahweh) says to my Lord (Adonai): 'Sit at my right hand.' Jesus applied this passage to himself in Matthew 22:43-44. In the great messianic prophecy of Daniel 7, the Son of Man is called the `Ancient of Days' (vs. 22), a phrase used twice in the same passage of God the Father (vss. 9, 13). Jesus also said he was the Messiah at his trial before the high priest. When asked, `Are you the Christ [Greek for `Messiah'], the Son of the Blessed One?' Jesus responded, `I am.... And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.' At this, the high priest tore his robe and said, `Why do we need any more witnesses? ...You have heard the blasphemy!' (Mark 14:61-64). There was no doubt that in claiming to be Messiah, Jesus also claimed to be God (see also Matt. 26:54; Luke 24:27)." (Geisler, N.L., 1999, "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, pp.129-130).

"[Ps 110:1] The first line, after the title, runs literally, `The oracle of Yahweh to my lord'. It is an opening which stamps the next words as God's direct message to His King, on which verses 2 and 3 provide the inspired comment. ... The startling fact that David spoke of a king as my lord (cf. Knox, freely, `the Master I serve') was pointed out, as we have seen, by Christ, who left His hearers to think out its implications, and His apostles to spell them out. ... David here (so to speak) falls down and worships the Man who stands before him (cf. Jos. 5:14). Now follows God's oracle to David's lord. Sit at my right hand. The authority and power conferred by such an address will be illustrated in the remaining verses of the psalm; but it will take the New Testament to do it justice. a. He is not only greater than David (Acts 2:34., `for David did not ascend into the heavens') but greater than the angels (Heb. 1:13, `to what angel has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand..." ?'); b. God exalted Him as emphatically as man rejected Him (Acts 5:30f., `Jesus whom you killed ... God exalted ... at his right hand') c. It is as Saviour and Intercessor that He reigns (Acts 5:31 ; Rom. 8:34., `Christ ... who is at the right hand of God ... intercedes for us') d. ('Sit...') : In token of a finished task, He is seated (Heb. 10:11f., `every priest stands daily ..., offering repeatedly .... But ... Christ ... sat down at the right hand of God') e. (`till ...'): He awaits the last surrender (Heb. 10:13, `to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet'; cf. also 1 Cor. 15:25f.). So this single verse displays the divine Person of Christ, His power and the prospect before Him. Together with verse 4 it underlies most of the New Testament teaching on His glory as Priest-King." (Kidner, D., 1975, "Psalms 73-150: An Introduction and Commentary on Books III - IV of the Psalms," Tyndale Press: London, Reprinted, 2004, p.393. Emphasis and ellipses original).

"Psalm 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (KJV) Jehovah's Witnesses ... open their New World Translation and read the same verse: `The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is... .' They go on to argue (1) that the New World Translation is a superior Bible to use, because it does not have the Lord talking to himself; and (2) that the Lord Jesus must be a mere created being, since Jehovah God is addressing a person distinct from himself. To answer the first argument, it is only necessary to look at the text more closely. It does not say that `the Lord' was talking to `the Lord.' Most translations render the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH as `the LORD' (all capital letters), who is talking to the psalmist's `Lord' (both capital and small letters), the Messiah. .... Knowledgeable Christians who read this verse will grasp that God the Father is speaking to the Son . The second Witness argument-that Jesus cannot be God because `the LORD' spoke to him-is also a faulty one. The New Testament records many conversations between Jesus and the Father, but this does not disprove the deity of Christ. The Bible reveals that the Father is God (John 6:27, etc.) and that the Son is God (Isa. 9:6, John 20:28, etc.), yet there is only one God (1 Cor. 8:4)." (Reed, D.A., 1986, "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Thirty-first printing, 2006, pp.35-36).

"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 ... .' So, unless the Witnesses want to claim that there is more than one Jehovah, they will have to admit that God can be in more than one place at the same time, and that he can hold simultaneous conversations with different people in different places. This should make it easier for them to grasp that the Father can talk to the Son, without calling into question the deity of Christ ." (Reed, 1986, pp.36-37).

"Hebrews 1:10-12 is actually a quotation from Psalm 102:25-27. It is highly revealing that the words in this psalm are addressed to Yahweh (God), but are directly applied to Jesus Christ in Hebrews 1:10-12, thus indicating Christ's full deity. ... Psalm 102:25 says of Yahweh: `In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.' ... the writer of Hebrews directly applies this verse to Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:10). Here we can do no better than to quote Robert Reymond, who in his book Jesus, Divine Messiah: The Old Testament Witness, comments: `We have to acknowledge that, apart from the use to which it is put in Hebrews 1, we probably would not have been quickly drawn to this psalm and to this particular passage in order to find a direct allusion to the divine Messiah. But the writer of Hebrews having done so, we not only can see immediately his rationale for doing so, but are also instructed by his method regarding the correct way to read and to interpret the Old Testament. What he ascribes to Christ by applying these verses in Psalm 102 to Jesus accords perfectly with what Paul (Col. 1:16-17) and John (John 1:3,10-11) teach elsewhere; and here he simply affirms what he himself had earlier affirmed in Hebrews 1:2: "... through whom [the Son] He made the universe." The Christian is thus reminded that the Old Testament Creator is the Son of God who acted as the Father's agent in creation.... We can only guess how many other such references there are to the divine Messiah in the Old Testament corpus.' [Reymond, R.L., Jesus, Divine Messiah: The Old Testament Witness Christian Focus Publications: Fearn, UK, 1990, p.16]" (Rhodes, R., 1992, "Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.44,63).

Psalm 110:1-Jehovah and `My Lord'. ... Psalm 110:1 in the New World Translation reads, `The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: `Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet' (emphasis added). The Jehovah's Witnesses say that since Jehovah is speaking in this verse, and since the `Lord' is a distinct person from Jehovah, then Jesus must not be God Almighty. Reasoning from the Scriptures explains that in Matthew 22:41-45 Jesus claims that He Himself is the `Lord' referred to by David in this psalm. They therefore conclude that Jesus is not Jehovah, but is the one to whom Jehovah's words were spoken. ["Reasoning from the Scriptures," 1989, p.198] ... This verse makes perfect sense within the scope of trinitarian theology. In the broader context of Matthew 22:41-46, we find Christ `putting the Pharisees into a corner' by asking them a question relating to the person of the Messiah. He asked, `Whose son is he?' (Matthew 22:42). They responded, `The Son of David.' Their answer was correct since the Old Testament thoroughly established the Davidic lineage of the Messiah (2 Samuel 7:14). But their answer was also incomplete. Scripture not only teaches that the Messiah would be the Son of David in terms of His humanity, it also teaches that He is God-and it is the latter fact that Christ wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge. Christ, of course, anticipated the Pharisees' half-answer. That's why in the next verse He quoted a Davidic psalm: `The LORD says to my Lord: `Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet' (Matthew 22:43; cf. Psalm 110:1). Now, the words `my Lord' are a reference to David's Messiah. This divine Messiah is invited to sit at the right hand of `the LORD' (God the Father). Here we have the first person of the Trinity speaking to the second person of the Trinity . [Reymond, R.L., "Jesus. Divine Messiah," Presbyterian & Reformed: Phillipsburg NJ, 1990, p.105]" (Rhodes, R., 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 2006, pp.161-162. Emphasis original).

"Is Jehovah in the `Old Testament' Jesus Christ in the `New Testament'? Matt. 4:10: `Jesus said to him: `Go away, Satan! For it is written, `It is Jehovah ['the Lord,' KJ and others] your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.' (Jesus was obviously not saying that he himself was to be worshiped.) John 8:54: `Jesus answered [the Jews]: `If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, he who you say is your God.' (The Hebrew Scriptures clearly identify Jehovah as the God that the Jews professed to worship. Jesus said, not that he himself was Jehovah, but that Jehovah was his Father. Jesus here made it very clear that he and his Father were distinct individuals.) Ps. 110:1: `The utterance of Jehovah to my [David's] Lord is: `Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.' (At Matthew 22:41-45, Jesus explained that he himself was David's `Lord,' referred to in this psalm. So Jesus is not Jehovah but is the one to whom Jehovah's words were here directed.)" (WB&TS, "Reasoning from the Scriptures," [1985], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, Second edition, 1989, pp.197-198. Emphasis original).

"That a linguistic bridge was built early between Christ as kurios and Yahweh seems beyond dispute, and this bridge led naturally to a doctrinal identity between them. What could be said of Yahweh in the Old Testament could equally be said in many instances of Christ in the New Testament, and it was. Thus the words, 'before me every knee will bow, by me every tongue will swear' (Isa. 45:23), spoken of Yahweh, were seen to apply to Christ (Phil. 2:10, 11). The writer of Hebrews, likewise, used the words of Psalm 102:25-27, which celebrated Yahweh as Creator, equally of Christ (Heb. 1:10-12). These usages are, as we have already seen, but a small part of an extraordinary development which was characteristic of virtually the whole of the epistolatory section of the New Testament. What could be said of Yahweh, could be said of Christ. If the gospel was God's, then it was also Christ's. If the Kingdom was God's, then it was also Christ's. To have faith is, indiscriminately, to have faith either in God or in Christ, and God and Christ were alike to be praised, thanked, and worshiped. That being the case, the use of kurios became indistinguishable from the use of Theos in its content." (Wells, D.F., 1992, "The Person of Christ: A Biblical and Historical Analysis of the Incarnation," Bible Scholar Books: Alliance OH, p.76).

Re: `Acts 3:1 says Jehovah is a distinct person from Jesus'

AN

Thanks for your message. As is my stated policy, when I receive a

[Above (click to enlarge): "Moses and the Burning Bush," Arnold Friberg, 1999. The pre-incarnate Jesus was (and is) the "I AM" (Yahweh or Jehovah) who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush in Exodus 3:1-15 (see below).]

private message on a topic relevant to one of my blogs, in this case my Jesus is Jehovah! blog, I am responding publicly via this blog, minus your personal identifying information. Your words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:58 PM
Subject: jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com

Dear Mr Jones
Regarding your blog on http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com:

Please compare Exodus 3:15 on the American Standard Version "And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."

I assume you are a Jehovah's Witness, and that you are (because the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society has trained you to) playing their game of `Bible ping-pong,' that is, playing Bible verses off against each other.

The New Testament has many verses which teach that Jesus of the New Testament is Jehovah of the Old Testament, come in the flesh. Here is a long series of quotes from a leading evangelical "Handbook of Christian Belief" which shows from the Bible, "seven main points" of "JESUS' IDENTITY WITH YAHWEH/JEHOVAH" (emphasis original and my numbering in square brackets):

"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.

[1] 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., "Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief," [1982], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Fifth printing, 1988, pp.129-130).

"[2] God's glory God's glory is the visible manifestation of his majesty (Ex. 24:15-18; 40:34f.; Lv. 9:6,23f.; 2 Ch. 7:1-3; Is. 6:1-4; Ezk. 1:28). In Judaism it served as a reverential substitute for the sacred name itself. God's glory is incommunicable (Is. 42:8; 48:11), yet the NT speaks of Isaiah 6:1f. as the manifestation of Jesus' glory (Jn. 12:41), and of Jesus as the manifestation of the glory of God (1 Cor. 2:8; 2 Cor. 4:4; Heb. 1:3; Jas. 2:1; cf. Jn. 17:5)." (Milne, 1982, p.130).

"[3] God's worship To offer worship to any other being than the LORD God (Yahweh) was for the Jew unthinkably offensive, the most fundamental of all sins (Ex. 20:3-6; Dt. 6:4f.,13-15). Yet the earliest disciples, Jews to a man, directed worship to Jesus. It is this fact which, despite their comparative infrequency, makes the NT ascriptions of deity to Christ so overwhelmingly impressive. Doxologies are ascribed to Christ (Rom. 9:5; 2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 3:18; Rev. 1:5f.); two are addressed to both Father and Son (Rev. 5:13; 7:10). Prayers are addressed to Christ (Acts 7:59f.; 9:13f.; 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20). OT worship passages are transferred from Yahweh to Christ (Is. 8:13f. in Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:7f.; 3:15; the Septuagint version of Dt. 32:43 in Heb. 1:6). Worship is used in connection with Christ: in the Septuagint the common translation of shalah (worship, bow down) is proskyneia. In Jesus' teaching it describes the attitude we should adopt to God alone (Mt. 4:10). The evangelists, however, use the word to describe people's attitude to Jesus (Mt. 2:2,8,11; 14:33; Mk. 5:6; Jn. 9:38). Hence the reaction of the disciples to the risen Christ is typical: `they worshipped him' (Mt. 28:17; Lk. 24:52), a response echoed by the angelic company of heaven: `Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive ... honour and glory and praise!' (Rev. 5:12), an unambiguous assertion of deity." (Milne, 1982, p.130).

"[4] "God's creation That Yahweh created all things and is therefore Lord of all was axiomatic for OT faith (Gn. 1:1f.; Pss. 33:6-9; 148:5f.; Is. 42:5; 48:13; 51:9-16). Yet the NT freely applies this divine function to Jesus. God's creative work had four aspects: (i) God brought the world into being at the first; (ii) he preserves and sustains all things; (iii) he is leading the created universe to its end or goal; (iv) he will bring about the new creation. All four aspects are referred to Jesus. Through him all things came to be (Jn. 1:1,3; Heb. 1:3; cf. Col. 1:16; 1 Jn. 1:1); he is the sustainer and upholder of all things (Mt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3); he is the one in whom the universe is destined to be brought to its goal (Rom. 11:36; Eph. 1:9f.; Col. 1:16); and the `new creation' is nothing other than the realization of the purpose of God in Jesus Christ (Is. 65:17; 66:22 `Behold, I [Yahweh] will create new heavens and a new earth', cf. Jn. 3:5; 20:22; 2 Cor. 5:17; Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:10; 2 Pet. 3; Rev. 21-22)." (Milne, 1982, pp.130-131).

"[5] God's salvation Yahweh is a saviour God, another bedrock of OT conviction. In contrast with other gods, he alone has power to save: `I, even I am the LORD, and apart from me there is no saviour' (Is. 43:11; cf. 45:21; Je. 3:23; 11:12). His deliverance came frequently by way of human `saviours' (Jos. 10:6; Jdg. 2:16,18; 6:14f.), but the forgiving of sins and the raising from death to eternal life are prerogatives of God alone. Yet the NT attributes these to Jesus. At birth he was hailed as the one who `will save his people from their sins' (Mt. 1:21). He claimed the power to grant forgiveness (Mk. 2:7-10; Lk. 7:48) and is seen as the saviour of sinners (Jn. 3:17; Acts 4:12; 5:31; 15:11; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:23; Heb. 7:25; Rev. 1:5). He raised the dead (Mk. 5:35- 43; Lk. 7:11-17,22; Jn. 11) and through him eternal life is given now to all who believe in him (Mk. 10:21; Jn. 3:16; 5:24; 1 Jn. 5:11f.) and will be fully experienced by them in the future (Mk. 10:30; 1 Cor. 15:22f.,54; 1 Thes. 1:10; 2 Tim. 1:10)." (Milne, 1982, p.131).

"[6] God's judgment For the OT Yahweh alone is judge. His holiness and majesty are essentially expressed in his righteous judgments (Dt. 32:4; Ps. 99; Is. 5:16). Certain forms of divine judgment were realized through human agents (Dt. 1:16f.; Is. 10:5; 45:1), but final judgment was God's prerogative (Dn. 7:9f.; Ec. 12:14; Joel 2:31). Once again these uniquely divine functions are both claimed by Jesus and freely attributed to him (Mt. 25:31-46; Mk. 8:38; Jn. 5:22-30; Acts 17:31; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Thes. 1:7-10; Rev. 14:14-20). At the Last Day Jesus will submit `the secrets of men' (Rom. 2:16) to definitive, divine judgment." (Milne, 1982, p.131).

"[7] God's witness One final link between Jesus and Yahweh may be noted. In the OT God commissions his people ` "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD' (Is. 43:10); yet in Acts 1:8 Jesus sends out his apostles with identical words `You will be my witnesses'." (Milne, 1982, p.132).

While we have clearly seen that the NT writers on occasion state straightforwardly that Jesus is God, their mainly Jewish cast of mind expresses the conviction most naturally in terms of Jesus doing what only God could properly do. Their attribution of deity to Jesus Christ is therefore stated less frequently in metaphysical equations (`Jesus is God') than in assertions that he participates in the strictly incommunicable attributes and functions of God. Thus the staggering truth is unfolded: Jesus, the man who walked the streets of Nazareth, sweated in Gethsemane and died on the cross at Calvary, is to be identified with Yahweh, the creator-redeemer God." (Milne, 1982, p.132).

The right approach is to try to see how those many verses which teach that Jesus is Jehovah can be harmonised with those few verses which appear to teach that Jesus is not Jehovah.

There are actually no verses that teach that Jesus is not Jehovah, when it is understood that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, are "Jehovah: the one Triune God" :

"That the Lord Jesus Christ is revealed in the New Testament as being Jehovah (Heb. Yahweh) of the Old Testament come in the flesh, does not preclude the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity (Mt 28:19; 2Cor 13:14; 1Pet 1:2): the Father (Dt 32:6; Isa 63:16; 64:8; Mal 1:6) and the Holy Spirit (Lk 4:18 = Isa 61:1; Acts 5:3-4,9; 2Cor 3:17), also being, as revealed in the New Testament, Jehovah: the one Triune God." (Jones, S.E., "Jesus is Jehovah in the New Testament: Index," January 11, 2009).

That is, "YHWH is a compound unity ... the Father ... the Son ... and ... the Holy Spirit ..." as Messianic Jews acknowledge:

"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." ("Torah Observant Followers of Yeshua - Statement of Beliefs," December 28, 2006)

Acts 3:13 "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him." By reading this we can conclude : 1) The name of the God of Abraham , Isaac and Jacob is Jehovah.

It doesn't say "Jehovah" in Acts 3:13. In fact nowhere in the New Testament is the word "Jehovah" for the simple reason that it is all Greek and "Jehovah" is an English translation of the Hebrew YHWH.

2) That God ( Jehovah ) had glorified Jesus as said on Acts 3:13, and also calls Jesus his Servant, so therefore Jehovah is a distinct person from Jesus

Again, it does not say "Jehovah" in Acts 3:13. You are reading into the New Testament what the Watchtower tells you is there, even when it is not.

On Matthew 22:31-32 Jesus repeated the same sentenced said in Exodus ( God of Abraham , Isaac and Jacob ) and he was clearly speaking about another person, not about himself.

First, it is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity that God the Father is "another person" from God the Son. Even the Watchtower admits this, that "the trinity doctrine means that there are three persons in one God: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost":

"Be sure each understands just what the other means by his use of a term or expression. For example, someone may say, `You don't believe in the doctrine of the trinity.' Now, the trinity doctrine means that there are three persons in one God: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, all coequal and coeternal." (WB&TS, "Qualified to be Ministers," [1955], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, Revised, 1967, p.198).

"How Is the Trinity Explained? ... 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.' ... Thus, the Trinity is considered to be `one God in three Persons.' Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for eternity." (WB&TS, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 1989, Reprinted, 2006, pp.3-4. Emphasis original).

"According to the teaching of the Trinity, there are three persons in one God, that is, there is `one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.'" (WB&TS, "You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth," [1982], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, Second edition, 1989, p.39).

Second, since no one has seen, or even can see, God the Father, "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":

"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).

Which includes when Yahweh (or Jehovah) spoke to Moses out of the burning bush in Exodus 3:1-15, and therefore includes Exodus 3:6, the verse quoted by Jesus in Matthew 22:31-32.

Third, therefore in Matthew 22:31-32:

"But about the resurrection of the dead-have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'[Ex 3:6]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

where Jesus is quoting Exodus 3:6:

"Then he [God, YHWH] said, `I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.' At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God."

Jesus was not "clearly speaking about another person, not about himself." It was in fact the preincarnate Jesus, who stated He was the "I AM," who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush:

"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.62-64).

"Jesus Claimed to Be Yahweh. ... 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).

"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. ... Now, the only legal ground the Jews had for stoning Christ (and actually they had none at all) was ... blasphemy [Leviticus 24:10-23]." (Martin, W.R. & Klann, N., "Jehovah of the Watchtower," 1953, Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, Reprinted, 1981, p.52).

"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." (Reed, D.A., 1986, "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Thirty-first printing, 2006, pp.26-27. Emphasis original).

"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." (Bruce, F.F. & Martin, W.J., 1964, "The Deity of Christ," North of England Evangelical Trust: Manchester UK, pp.7-8. Emphasis original).

You say that you are Evangelical Christian , but almost all ( 98% ) of the Evangelical Christians that I know in my country and also overseas say that the name of the Father is Jehovah,

I agree with that "98%". I also "say the name of the Father is Jehovah." But see above that "name of the Father is Jehovah" does not preclude the name of the Son and Holy Spirit also being Jehovah, the one triune God.

except a Evangelical Christian's denomination called "Only Jesus" or the "Oneness Pentecostals" that say that there is only Jesus ( not Jehovah and not holy ghost) and Oneness theology denies the Trinity. as said on http://www.carm.org/oneness-pentecostal-theology.

Any "theology" that "denies the Trinity" is not Christian, let alone Evangelical.

As you can see, the Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only religion that believes that Jehovah is the father, Evangelical Christians also do, and many other religious groups too believe that.

Both "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "Evangelical Christians" (like me), and in fact all Christians, believe that Jehovah is the Father. But "Jehovah's Witnesses," unlike "Evangelical Christians" and all Christians, deny that the Son and the Holy Spirit are also Jehovah, the one triune God.

But I see on your posts that you only focus on the JW's , you might say that your intentions are good and you want to save those "fake Jehovah's Witnesses" and "open their eyes"

Yes, my intentions are good and I do want to help save those "fake" `Jehovah's Witnesses' (because they worship a fake `Jehovah' of the Watchtower's creation, not the true Jehovah of the Bible) by helping to open their eyes.

but I see also kind of "hate" towards JW's and when love is replaced by hate nothing comes out good no matter the "good intentions" that might have.

No. The Watchtower has `brainwashed' you, and Jehovah's Witnesses generally, into perceiving Christian love for Jehovah's Witnesses as "hate." As ex-JW elder David Reed points out from his own experience, "one of the first lessons taught by the Witnesses usually includes a warning against relatives [and anyone] who may try to stop the study" as being "an instrument of Satan the devil":

"So, the main point to remember when a loved one first starts getting involved with Jehovah's Witnesses is to avoid delay. .... The need for speed is highlighted by the fact that one of the first lessons taught by the Witnesses usually includes a warning against relatives who may try to stop the study:

How might Satan even use friends and relatives to discourage us? You can be sure that Satan the Devil does not want you to have this knowledge, and that he will do all in his power to stop you from getting it. How will he do this? One way is by seeing to it that you receive opposition, perhaps in the form of ridicule... . It may be that even close friends or relatives will tell you that they do not like your examining the Scriptures. Jesus Christ himself even warned: "Indeed, a man's enemies will be persons of his own household... ." ... But if you give up a study of God's Word when opposition comes, how will God view you? (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, Watchtower Society, 1982, p. 23)

If the new student accepts this argument, chances of stopping the study dim immediately. If you come along at this point with objections, you already have two strikes against you: (1) you appear to be an instrument of Satan the devil, so the arguments you present are viewed with suspicion and skepticism; and (2) by fulfilling the Witnesses' prophecy that a close friend or relative would oppose the study, you have made them appear to be true prophets." (Reed, D.A., 1989, "How to Rescue Your Loved One from the Watchtower," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1990, p.23).

The JW convert does not realise it, but once he internalises the Watchtower's viewpoint that anyone who opposes its teaching is "an instrument of Satan the devil," then he is under the Watchtower's mind-control, with no alternative but to increasingly believe whatever the Society tells him.

But if I and other Christians who take the time, trouble and expense to minister to Jehovah's Witnesses, really hated Jehovah's Witnesses , we would leave them alone, because we believe that they are being blindly led by their Watchtower "blind guides" (Mt 15:14) into "a pit" which is a conscious, eternal punishment in Hell (e.g. Mt 25:46; Jude 1:7).

And what's more, that punishment in Hell will be worse for Jehovah's Witnesses, than for non-Christians generally, because Jehovah's Witnesses read the Bible, and are aware through their training of Christian doctrines, and are told Bible truths by Christians, e.g. that Jesus is God the Son (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), not Michael the archangel, but they chose to reject those Christian Bible truths, and to believe the Watchtower's untruths. Jesus stated the basic principle that the severity of punishment in Hell in the next life is directly proportionate to the amount of truth available to a person in this life:

Mt 11:21-24. 21"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.[Hades] If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

Lk 12:48. "But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

Regards AN

It is because I love you AN (along with all JWs), I will pray for you, that you will read for yourself what the Bible says about Jesus being Jehovah in the above linked verses in this post, and also in my "Jesus is Jehovah!" post on my CED blog (before I started this JiJ! blog), and in my series "Jesus is Jehovah in the New Testament."

If you ever do become a Christian, i.e. you accept that Jesus is Jehovah come in the flesh, let me know. But if you die a Jehovah's Witness, or leave the JWs but remain a non-Christian (or are alive as one or the other at Jesus' coming, when it will be too late), then I assume that much of your punishment in eternity will be the self-torment of endlessly regretting that you rejected what Christians (like me) told you, including who Jesus is - Jehovah come in the flesh, and what the Watchtower Society is - a "false prophet" who comes in "sheep's clothing, but inwardly" is a "ferocious" wolf - Mt 7:15).

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin

The Watchtower on John 1:1 #1: "the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God."

This is part #1 of my new series, "The Watchtower on John 1:1."

[Above: Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916), founder of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Wikipedia:

"... Russell admitted that at most he had attended school only seven years of his life ... and that he had left school when he was about fourteen years of age ... that he knew nothing about Latin and Hebrew, and that he had never taken a course in philosophy or systematic theology, and had never attended schools of higher learning ... that he never claimed knowledge of the Greek language..." ("Charles Taze Russell: Qualifications," Wikipedia"Charles Taze Russell," Wikipedia, 2 February 2010).]

I had originally planned to post a brief one-page refutation of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society's arguments against the third clause in John 1:1 (John 1:1c), "and the Word was God" (as it is translated in the NIV and the overwhelming majority of mainstream Bible translations), and for the Watchtower's "the Word/Logos was a god" (as it is today translated only in the Society's New World Translation).

This was to be the start of my "Watchtower Errors by Bible Verses" but as I compiled an index of the Society's various arguments on John 1:1c, it grew too large (up to 1975 it was 40+ arguments) for a one-page post! So I had reluctantly decided to abandon the project when today (15 February) a JW (?) under a pseudonym commented on my post, Re: `So, Who sent Jesus? if he is Jehovah, did he send himself to earth?', etc about a (his?) forthcoming book, "What About John 1:1?" which is against "that God is a Trinity, and that Jesus is the second person of this triune God" with particular reference to "the third clause of John 1:1 as something different from the typical, Trinitarian influenced rendering [sic], `and the Word was God.'" I thanked him for his comment which had "given me the incentive to now proceed with my series"!

My approach will be generally to work through the Watchtower Society's various arguments about John 1:1c in the Society's (including its ancestor the International Bible Students Association) books that I own, in chronological order from the earliest to the latest, quoting the Society's own words, and where possible using them in the title of each post. However, I will also occasionally use CD and Internet sources for important quotes that I don't have in hardcopy. Excerpts of quotes will be linked to the full quotes towards the end of each post.

The first time (as far as I am aware), that the Watchtower's Society, in the person of its founder Charles Taze Russell, claimed that John 1:1c should be translated "the Logos was a God" or "the Word was a God" (as well as John 1:1b "the Logos was with the God) was in 1893:

"`THE WORD WAS A GOD' `In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God. The same was in the beginning with the God. All things mere made by him [the Logos], and without him was not anything made that was made.'-John 1:1-3. ... We adopt the word Logos as one of our Lord's many names. ... Another difference between the above translation and the common version, is the addition of the italicized words a and the. These are supplied in order to give the reader the true sense of the Greek text. In which the presence or absence of the Greek article is very important. In the above translation the represents the article, while a shows that the article is lacking. In the above translation the represents the article, while a shows that the article is lacking. With this translation verified and appreciated (as can be done by consulting any Greek Testament or any Greek scholar) ..." (Russell, C.T., 1893, "The Word was a god," Zion's Watch Tower, April 15. Square brackets and emphasis original).

Russell repeated in 1898 that, "The first verse of John's Gospel" should be rendered "the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God":

"The first verse of John's Gospel is a marked instance of the use of theos in referring to Jehovah's Logos, his Only Begotten Son ... But the critical Greek student should find no difficulty in distinguishing between these two Gods ... for this distinction is clearly shown by the use of the Greek article before theos in referring to Jehovah, and the absence of that article when theos is used in referring to the Logos. The effect of this, expressed in our English language, would render the passage thus:- `In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God ...' This translation will not be disputed by any Greek scholar ..." (Russell, C.T., 1898, "The True Light That Lighteth Every Man ," Zion's Watch Tower, December 15).

Note that Russell stated that there were "two Gods" (capital "G"), "Jehovah" and his "Son," which is polytheism, i.e. the belief in more than one true god (my emphasis below):

"polytheism ... the belief in or worship of more than one god." ("polytheism," Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 5 February 2010).

"pol•y•the•ism ... the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods." ("polytheism," Dictionary.com, 19 February 2010).

"poly•the•ism ... belief in or worship of more than one god." ("polytheism," Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 19 February 2010).

"Polytheism is the belief in and/or worship of multiple deities, called gods and/or goddesses." ("Polytheism," Wikipedia, 18 February 2010).

So Jehovah's Witnesses who today follow Russell in his belief in "two Gods": Jehovah the "Almighty God" or "the God" and Jesus the "mighty god" or "a god":

"... God's Son, the Word, was and is `a god' (El) ... whereas Jehovah ... is `the God' (Elohim) ... He [Jesus] is a `mighty god', but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah. (Isaiah 9:6)." (WB&TS, 1943, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," p.47).

"Jesus is a god. ... Christ is called `The mighty God' at Isaiah 9:6, `a god' at John 1:1 (NW) ... Jehovah is not the only god ... The very fact that he is called the Almighty God indicates that there are other gods not so mighty, not almighty like him." ("Watchtower, September 1, 1955, p.543).

"Jesus is a god, a mighty god, and so is Jehovah a God, a mighty God. But additionally, Jehovah is the mighty God and also the God Almighty.." ("Watchtower, September 15, 1961, p.551. Emphasis original).

are "polytheists" because they believe in the existence of more than one true god.

Specifically, by rendering "John 1:1" in "the Society's New World Translation" as "and the Word was a god" that "little addition `a,' makes John to say that Jesus was `a god,' a second, though inferior deity, and distinct from `the God'" which is "polytheism, `the belief in or worship of a plurality of gods' (my emphasis):

"At John 1:1 the Society's New World Translation reads, `In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.' `A god?' Yes, suddenly the seemingly insignificant article `a' takes on new relevance. The little addition `a,' makes John to say that Jesus was `a god,' a second, though inferior deity, and distinct from `the God.' Such an interpolation forces the apostle to polytheism, `the belief in or worship of a plurality of gods.' [Webster's Dictionary] While this alone should be enough for even a Witness to reject the translation, the Society argues that `a god' is the preferred translation since the Greek text does not say `the god.'" (Magnani & Barrett, 1985, pp.185-186. Emphasis original).

Which also contradicts Isa 43:10 (from where the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" came), where Jehovah states, "Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none" (NWT):

"The Jehovah's Witnesses took their name from Isaiah 43:10, but the Watchtower seems to have forgotten what the verse said they were supposed to be witnesses of, when they mistranslated John 1:1. `Understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10 NASB)." (Magnani & Barrett, 1985, p.185).

"Although Jehovah clearly said, `Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10) ... Jehovah's Witnesses, will not believe Him " (Magnani & Barrett, 1985, pp.123-124).

But "There is no way John could have meant that Jesus was a god," i.e. "another god," because "John was a Jewish Christian, a monotheist" who "did not believe there were any other gods" (my emphasis):

"The common pagan opinion was that the world is populated by many gods. Such people who believe in the existence of more than one god are called polytheists. ... Jehovah's Witnesses are polytheists ... Jehovah's Witnesses translate John 1:1, `In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.' Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus (the Word) is the God, but another god! There is no way John could have meant that Jesus was a god. John was a Jewish Christian, a monotheist! He did not believe there were any other gods! That is why most recognized translations will read `and the Word was God." (Magnani, D. & Barrett, A., 1985, "The Watchtower Files," pp.123-124. Emphasis original).

In Zion's Watch Tower of April 1, 1902, Russell again repeated his rendering of John 1:1, "the Logos with the God, and the Logos was a God":

"Similarly, our context declares, that in his prehuman condition our Lord Jesus was from the beginning the head, the chief of all his Father's creatures, works, arrangements. `For by him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible, and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him; and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.' (Col. 1:16, 17) This agrees also with the statement of John's Gospel (1:1), 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos with the God, and the Logos was a God: the same was in the beginning with the God. All things were made by him; and without him was not one thing made that was made.'" (Russell, C.T, 1902., "God First-His Appointments," Zion's Watch Tower, April 1. Emphasis original).

As can be seen from the three Zion's Watch Tower quotes above, Russell claimed that "this translation [could be] verified ... by consulting ... any Greek scholar" and "This translation will not be disputed by any Greek scholar." But this was a falsehood. There was then, and is to this day, no "Greek scholar" of any standing who has supported Russell's "the Logos/Word was a God" translation, and as we shall see, this translation has been disputed by many Greek scholars.

Moreover, Russell was in no position to evaluate the "Greek [New] Testament" because in a 1913 court case, Russell had to admit under oath that he could not even identify the letters of the Greek alphabet!:

"In June, 1912, the Rev. Mr. J. J. Ross ... published a denunciatory pamphlet about Russell ... Russell sued Ross for libel. In the trial, which took place the following year, Russell was proved to be a perjurer. When asked by Attorney Staunton, Ross's lawyer, whether he knew the Greek alphabet, Russell replied, `Oh, yes.' When he was further asked to identify the Greek letters on top of a page of the Greek Testament which was handed him, he was unable to do so, finally admitting that he was not familiar with the Greek language." (Hoekema, A.A., 1963, "Jehovah's Witnesses, pp.13-14).

So clearly Russell's claim that John 1:1 means, "the Logos/Word was a God," was not based on his scholarly evaluation of the Greek New Testament text of John 1:1, but on his personal prejudice against the Trinity:

"The Trinity. Russell believed in the divinity of Christ, but differed from orthodoxy by teaching Jesus had received that divinity as a gift from the Father, after dying on the cross. He also taught that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but the manifestation of God's power." ("Charles Taze Russell: Theology and teachings," Wikipedia, 2 February 2010).

In 1902, a Professor William G. Moorehead of United Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Xenia, Ohio, published a widely-circulated tract called "Brief Review of Millennial Dawn" (the latter being the original title of Russell's Studies in the Scriptures) in which he explained from the original Greek what was wrong with Russell's rendering of John 1:1, "the Logos was with the God" as published in the April 1, 1902 Zion's Watch Tower. Under pressure to respond, Russell actually published Morehead's critique in the September 15 Zion's Watch Tower. Moorehead made four key points, as follows (emphasis original below):

1. In New Testament Greek, "the subject generally takes the article while its predicate omits it." So in John 1:1c, the Greek, kai theos en ho logos - "and God was the Word," logos has the article ho "the" showing it is the subject; and theos "God" has no article, showing it is the predicate:

"Nor is this all. One of the commonest rules of Greek Grammar as touching the use of the definite article the is this: in a simple sentence the subject generally takes the article while its predicate omits it. Jno. 1:1, third clause, is a simple, definite statement with a subject and a predicate; the subject is, `the Word' (Logos) and its predicate is unquestionably is, `God.' and hence the latter word does not take the article. Will some one kindly loan these gentlemen a Greek Grammar?" (Moorehead, 1902b, "A New Rendering of John 1:1," Zion's Watch Tower, September 15).

2. That theos ("God") without the article ho ("the") does not therefore mean "a God" is evident in that, "In this, same first chapter of John four times [Jn 1:6,12,13, 18], the Greek word God is found without the definite article the" but it is not translated "a god":

"But let us follow the example of the above queer rendering of Jno. 1:1, and apply the method to other places of Scripture. In this, same first chapter of John four times the Greek word God is found without the definite article the. Let us read these and hear how they sound: verse 6. `There was a man sent from a God whose name was John.' verse 12, `But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the children of a God:' verse 13. `Which were born ... of a God:' verse 18 `No man hath seen a God at any time.' Quite recently I read the eighth chapter of Romans through in the original, and found that ten times the apostle uses the name without the article, and in each instance the name is employed to designate the Supreme God. Let us read but one verse with Dawn-ist translation inserted: verse 14. `For as many as are led by the Spirit of a God, they are the sons of a God.' How does it sound, brethren? ... silly nonsense ..." (Moorehead, W.G, 1902a).

3. There "is a Greek adjective that expresses exactly the idea of a ... god-like being ... the word theios" which "John might have used ... to convey the idea that Christ in his pre-incarnate state was like a God" but "John does not use this term":

"Furthermore, there is a Greek adjective that expresses exactly the idea of a divine or god-like being, but who is not necessarily himself God. It is the word theios. This word John might have used had he wished to convey the idea that Christ in his pre-incarnate state was like a God. But John does not use this term, instead he employs the supreme title of God and applies it most emphatically to the Lord Jesus Christ in his eternal pre-existent state." (Moorehead, 1902c).

4. If "John had inserted the article the before the term God in the third clause of the verse," i.e. kai ho theos en ho logos , "the God was the Word," then the "distinction of the Persons in the Trinity would have been obliterated". Or if John had written, kai ho logos en ho theos, "and the Logos was the God," then that would mean "The Son is the Father":

"Once more, if John had inserted the article the before the term God in the third clause of the verse, then the word would have embraced the entire Godhead, and a distinction of the Persons in the Trinity would have been obliterated. Had he written (to follow again the example of the Dawn translation), `and the Word was the God.' then Christ would have been the whole of the Trinity. He might as well have written, `The Son is the Father,' for that would have been the exact equivalent." (Moorehead, 1902d).

But two years later in 1904, Russell the Greek-illiterate, was unrepentant. He simply ignored Prof. Moorehead's correct explanation of the Greek grammar of John 1:1c, and again asserted that "the Greek article does not appear before the word translated God, and hence the thought in the statement is a God, as in contrast with the previous statement, the God":

"A GOD, WITH THE GOD ... But the whole matter is still more clearly seen when we take the literal reading of the Greek, because in it the Greek article appears before the word rendered God, which would make the translation into English properly read. `And the Word was with the God.' ... The next statement, `And the Word was God,' is not to be understood as contradicting the statements previously and elsewhere made, but the distinction is considerably lost in the translation. We explain, therefore, that here the Greek article does not appear before the word translated God, and hence the thought in the statement is a God, as in contrast with the previous statement, the God. Thus understood the passage would properly read, `The Word was with the God and the Word was a God.' ... " (Russell, C.T., 1904, "The Life and Light of Men," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XXV, No. 24, December 15. Emphasis original).

In this Russell again effectively confirmed, that he (like all his Jehovah's Witness followers down to the present), was indeed a polytheist, believing in two true gods: "A GOD, WITH THE GOD," "a God ... in contrast with ... the God," "a god-not the Father, not the God, not Jehovah," "the Word, which was a God, was in the beginning ... with the God," "the Word as a God was with the God, and that therefore they were two and not one ...":

"A GOD, WITH THE GOD ... We explain, therefore, that here the Greek article does not appear before the word translated God, and hence the thought in the statement is a God, as in contrast with the previous statement, the God. ... The thought in our text, then, is that the Word of God ... was-in very fact a god-not the Father, not the God, not Jehovah, but `The Son of the Highest.' ... The second verse reiterates and thus emphasizes the statement that the Word, which was a God, was in the beginning (before the creation of others) with the God. If anyone were in danger of misunderstanding the statement of the first verse that the Word was a God, if in any danger of thinking of this as signifying that the Word was- the God, the second verse would correct the error by showing that the Word as a God was with the God, and that therefore they were two and not one in person." (Russell, 1904, Emphasis original).

As we shall see in future posts in this series, these same criticisms (and others) have been made by other Greek scholars down through the years, but the Watchtower Society, which never has had in its membership any recognised Greek (or Hebrew) scholars, has had to resort to pseudoscholarship, fallacious arguments, misquoting and even dishonesty to maintain its false, "the Word was a god" translation.

The bottom line is that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society's "the Word was a god" translation of John 1:1c is, in the final analysis, based on the anti-Trinitarian prejudice of its founder Charles Taze Russell, who was so ignorant of New Testament Greek that he could not even identify the letters of the Greek alphabet! So in this, Russell and the Watchtower Society which blindly follows him, are "Blind guides" and they and their "blind man" Jehovah's Witness followers "both will fall into a pit":

Mt 15:14 NWT. "LET them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

To be continued in: "The Watchtower on John 1:1 #2: Emphatic Diaglott: `and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.'"

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin

---

"In June, 1912, the Rev. Mr. J. J. Ross, pastor of the James Street Baptist Church of Hamilton, Ontario, published a denunciatory pamphlet about Russell entitled Some Facts about the Self-styled `Pastor,' Charles T. Russell. [Martin, W.R. & Klann, N.H., "Jehovah of the Watchtower," Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1959, p.18] Russell sued Ross for libel. In the trial, which took place the following year, Russell was proved to be a perjurer. When asked by Attorney Staunton, Ross's lawyer, whether he knew the Greek alphabet, Russell replied, `Oh, yes.' When he was further asked to identify the Greek letters on top of a page of the Greek Testament which was handed him. he was unable to do so, finally admitting that he was not familiar with the Greek language. [Ibid., p.20] Russell, furthermore, had previously claimed to have been ordained by a recognized religious body. Staunton also pressed him on this point, finally asking him point-blank, `Now, you never were ordained by a bishop, clergyman, presbytery, council, or any body of men living?' Russell answered, after a long pause, `I never was.' [Ibid., p.22] In this trial, therefore, Russell's deliberate perjury was established beyond doubt, and the real character of the man looked up to by his followers as an inspired religious teacher was clearly revealed." (Hoekema, A.A., 1963, "Jehovah's Witnesses," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1972, Reprinted, 1990, pp.13-14).

"The common pagan opinion was that the world is populated by many gods. Such people who believe in the existence of more than one god are called polytheists. ... Although Jehovah clearly said, `Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10), some pseudo-Christian groups, like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, will not believe Him. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are polytheists. Mormons themselves hope to become gods. Jehovah's Witnesses translate John 1:1, `In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.' Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus (the Word) is the God, but another god! There is no way John could have meant that Jesus was a god. John was a Jewish Christian, a monotheist! He did not believe there were any other gods! That is why most recognized translations will read `and the Word was God." (Magnani, D. & Barrett, A., 1985, "The Watchtower Files: Dialogue With a Jehovah's Witness," Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, pp.123-124. Emphasis original).

"The Jehovah's Witnesses took their name from Isaiah 43:10, but the Watchtower seems to have forgotten what the verse said they were supposed to be witnesses of, when they mistranslated John 1:1. `Understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10). Strikingly similar to this Old Testament revelation are the words of Jesus, `Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins' (John 8:24). ... For the Watchtower Society, the issue of the deity of Christ has always been a choice item of discussion. While ready to debate with Christians on most issues, John 1:1 becomes a special delight-especially since the Society has published their own translation of the Bible. At John 1:1 the Society's New World Translation reads, `In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.' `A god?' Yes, suddenly the seemingly insignificant article `a' takes on new relevance. The little addition `a,' makes John to say that Jesus was `a god,' a second, though inferior deity, and distinct from `the God.' Such an interpolation forces the apostle to polytheism, `the belief in or worship of a plurality of gods.' [Webster's Third New International Dictionary Encyclopaedia Britannica: Chicago, 1966, Vol 11, p.1761] While this alone should be enough for even a Witness to reject the translation, the Society argues that `a god' is the preferred translation since the Greek text does not say `the god.'" (Magnani & Barrett, 1985, "The Watchtower Files, pp.185-186. Emphasis original).

"The Millennial Dawn people may perhaps ask: `but is not our translation of the verse exactly literal?' Yes, surprisingly literal. The reader who is not acquainted with the Greek may be here informed that the definite article the is very often attached (not always) to the term God in the original of the N. T. Its use there is idiomatic. Our English forbids it save in certain well-defined cases, as e. g. `The God of Abraham,' etc.. Its presence or absence in each is governed by the genius of the two tongues respectively. But let us follow the example of the above queer rendering of Jno. 1:1, and apply the method to other places of Scripture. In this, same first chapter of John four times the Greek word God is found without the definite article the. Let us read these and hear how they sound: verse 6. `There was a man sent from a God whose name was John.' verse 12, `But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the children of a God:' verse 13. `Which were born ... of a God:' verse 18 `No man hath seen a God at any time.' Quite recently I read the eighth chapter of Romans through in the original, and found that ten times the apostle uses the name without the article, and in each instance the name is employed to designate the Supreme God. Let us read but one verse with Dawn-ist translation inserted: verse 14. `For as many as are led by the Spirit of a God, they are the sons of a God.' How does it sound, brethren? This silly nonsense is matched only by the Reims version of Heb. 11:21. `By faith Jacob when `he was a dying ... adored the top of his staff.'" (Moorehead, W.G, 1902a, "A New Rendering of John 1:1," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XXIII, No. 18, September 15. Emphasis original).

"Nor is this all. One of the commonest rules of Greek Grammar as touching the use of the definite article the is this: in a simple sentence the subject generally takes the article while its predicate omits it. Jno. 1:1, third clause, is a simple, definite statement with a subject and a predicate; the subject is, `the Word' (Logos) and its predicate is unquestionably is, `God.' and hence the latter word does not take the article. Will some one kindly loan these gentlemen a Greek Grammar?" (Moorehead, W.G., 1902b. Emphasis original).

"Furthermore, there is a Greek adjective that expresses exactly the idea of a divine or god-like being, but who is not necessarily himself God. It is the word theios. This word John might have used had he wished to convey the idea that Christ in his pre-incarnate state was like a God. But John does not use this term, instead he employs the supreme title of God and applies it most emphatically to the Lord Jesus Christ in his eternal pre-existent state." (Moorehead, W.G., 1902c. Emphasis original).

"Once more, if John had inserted the article the before the term God in the third clause of the verse, then the word would have embraced the entire Godhead, and a distinction of the Persons in the Trinity would have been obliterated. Had he written (to follow again the example of the Dawn translation), `and the Word was the God.' then Christ would have been the whole of the Trinity. He might as well have written, `The Son is the Father,' for that would have been the exact equivalent." (Moorehead, W.G, 1902d. Emphasis original).

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God. The same was in the beginning with the God. All things mere made by him [the Logos], and without him was not anything made that was made.'-John 1:1-3. The Apostle gives us in these words a brief statement of our great Redeemer's pre-human history. We adopt the word Logos as one of our Lord's many names. Dr. Adam Clarke also advocates its use in this manner, saying, `This term [Logos] should be left untranslated, for the very same reasons why the names Jesus and Christ are left untranslated. As every appellative of the Saviour of the world was descriptive of some excellence in his person, nature or work, so the epithet Logos, which signifies a word spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason or the faculty of reasoning, is very properly applied to him.' Another difference between the above translation and the common version, is the addition of the italicized words a and the. These are supplied in order to give the reader the true sense of the Greek text. In which the presence or absence of the Greek article is very important. In the above translation the represents the article, while a shows that the article is lacking. With this translation verified and appreciated (as can be done by consulting any Greek Testament or any Greek scholar), these verses, long doubtful and obscure to so many, become luminous." (Russell, C.T., 1893, "The Word was a god," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XIV, No. 8, April 15. Square brackets and emphasis original).

"The first verse of John's Gospel is a marked instance of the use of theos in referring to Jehovah's Logos, his Only Begotten Son, `the beginning of the creation of God.' (Rev. 3:14) But the critical Greek student should find no difficulty in distinguishing between these two Gods, and noting that the one is distinctly referred to as the superior of the other, for this distinction is clearly shown by the use of the Greek article before theos in referring to Jehovah, and the absence of that article when theos is used in referring to the Logos. The effect of this, expressed in our English language, would render the passage thus:- `In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God. The same was in the beginning with the God.' This translation will not be disputed by any Greek scholar.; and it sets at rest all ground for dispute respecting the primary relationship between the Father and the Son." (Russell, C.T., 1898, "The True Light That Lighteth Every Man," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XIX, No. 24, December 15).

"Similarly the Almighty did not inquire of the angels whether or not they would accept the glorified Jesus as their Lord; he autocratically elevated our Lord Jesus, because of his implicit obedience even unto death, even the death of the cross, as the Apostle declares, `Wherefore [on account of his obedience unto death] God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow ... and every tongue confess ... to the glory of God the Father.' Similarly, our context declares, that in his prehuman condition our Lord Jesus was from the beginning the head, the chief of all his Father's creatures, works, arrangements. `For by him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible, and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him; and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.' (Col. 1:16, 17) This agrees also with the statement of John's Gospel (1:1), 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos with the God, and the Logos was a God: the same was in the beginning with the God. All things were made by him; and without him was not one thing made that was made.'" (Russell, C.T., 1902, "God First-His Appointments," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XXIII, No. 7, April 1. Emphasis original).

"A GOD, WITH THE GOD In the beginning the Word was alone with the Father, the Apostle declares. But the whole matter is still more clearly seen when we take the literal reading of the Greek, because in it the Greek article appears before the word rendered God, which would make the translation into English properly read. `And the Word was with the God.' Here we see most clearly and beautifully the close relationship existing in the very remote past between the heavenly Father and the heavenly Son, between the Almighty God and his only begotten Son, in whom centered all the divine purposes and through whom he was pleased to manifest every feature of the divine power and glory. The next statement, `And the Word was God,' is not to be understood as contradicting the statements previously and elsewhere made, but the distinction is considerably lost in the translation. We explain, therefore, that here the Greek article does not appear before the word translated God, and hence the thought in the statement is a God, as in contrast with the previous statement, the God. Thus understood the passage would properly read, `The Word was with the God and the Word was a God.' Ah, now we have it clearly! The word god signifies mighty one, and in the Scriptures is used not only respecting the Father but also respecting the Son, also in reference to the angels, and in one instance when referring to men, influential men-the seventy elders of Israel whom Moses appointed or designated elohim, that is gods, mighty ones. The thought in our text, then, is that the Word of God, the Only Begotten of the Father, the beginning of the creation of God, was created on a nobler and higher plane of being, endued with grand qualities, so that he was-in very fact a god-not the Father, not the God, not Jehovah, but `The Son of the Highest.' The Apostle Paul clearly sets forth this matter, saying, `To us [Christians] there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ.'-1 Cor. 8:6. The second verse reiterates and thus emphasizes the statement that the Word, which was a God, was in the beginning (before the creation of others) with the God. If anyone were in danger of misunderstanding the statement of the first verse that the Word was a God, if in any danger of thinking of this as signifying that the Word was- the God, the second verse would correct the error by showing that the Word as a God was with the God, and that therefore they were two and not one in person." (Russell, C.T., 1904, "The Life and Light of Men," Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. XXV, No. 24, December 15. Emphasis original).

"By remembering that the word `god', according to the Hebrew, means `mighty one' or `one who is before (others)', and by remembering the Son's power and position with reference to all the rest of creation, it is easily grasped that God's Son, the Word, was and is `a god' (El), or `mighty one', pre-eminent above other creatures, whereas Jehovah, the Producer of the Word, is `the God' (Elohim), without beginning and `from everlasting to everlasting'.' By referring to John 10:34-36 you will note that Jesus quotes from the law at Psalm 82:6 and says: `Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?' If those mighty men of earth against whom God directed his word of condemnation could be called `gods', much more could and do the true Scriptures speak of God's Son, the Word, as `a god'. He is a `mighty god', but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah. (Isaiah 9:6). Certainly, then, John 1:1-3, according to its original Greek text, is no proof that Jehovah God and his Son are `one in person, equal in power and glory', as religious catechisms say without Scripture proof." (WB&TS, 1943, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, p.47).

"Trinitarians point to John 20:28 as proof that Jesus is God. There Thomas said (NW): `My Master and my God! [Gk.ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou - "the Lord of me and the God of me"]' How can this argument be answered?-F. W., Philippine Republic. Jesus is a god. `God' means a strong one. Christ is called `The mighty God' at Isaiah 9:6, `a god' at John 1:1 (NW), and `the only- begotten god' at John 1:18 (NW). Jehovah is not the only god or strong one. The very fact that he is called the Almighty God indicates that there are other gods not so mighty, not almighty like him. So Thomas could call Jesus God, but not THE God, and three verses later Jesus is called `the Son of God,' as we read (NW): `But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.' So there was no objection to John's reporting that Thomas addressed Jesus as a deity, and certainly John does not say that Thomas' address to Jesus was to make us believe that Jesus was The God, but says it was to make us believe Jesus was God's Son. In this same chapter (20:17, NW) Jesus said: `I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.' He was not ascending to himself [Straw Man Fallacy!]." ("Questions From Readers," Watchtower, September 1, 1955, p.543. Emphasis original. Words in square brackets mine).

"The title `Mighty God' applied to Jesus Christ at Isaiah 9:6 is also used to prove that Jesus is God, because Isaiah 10:21 and Jeremiah 32:18 speak of Jehovah God as `mighty God.' But here again too much is read into the texts. Only the superlatives and the infinites can dogmatically be limited to Jehovah, such as `the Most High.' Jesus is a god, a mighty god, and so is Jehovah a God, a mighty God. But additionally, Jehovah is the mighty God and also the God Almighty. The term in the Hebrew, el gibbór, `mighty God,' is not limited to Jehovah, but the term el Shaddái, `God Almighty,' is.-Gen. 17:1." ("What Does the Bible Teach About the Divinity of Christ?," Watchtower, September 15, 1961, p.551. Emphasis original)