Tag: nwt

Jesus’ Ἐγώ εἰμι, Egō Eimi (“I Am”) Declarations- John 8:58

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Ἐγώ εἰμι, Egō Eimi (“I Am”)

Matt. 14:27: “But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘Take courage, it is I [egō eimi, ‘I am’]; do not be afraid’” (NASB et seq.).  

Mark 6:50: Same Greek phrase as in Matt. 14:27: ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε, egō eimi, mē phobeisthe (lit. “I am, do not be afraid”).  

John 6:20: Same Greek phrase as in Matt. 14:27 and Mark 6:50.    

John 8:24: “…for unless you believe that I am [egō eimi], you will die in your sins.”

John 8:28: “So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [egō eimi]. . . .”

John 8:58: “Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am [egō eimi].”

John 13:19: “From now on I am telling you before it happens, so that when it does happen, you may believe that I am He [egō eimi].”

John 18:5, 6 (repeat by narrator), 8: 5 “They answered Him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He said to them, ‘I am He’ [egō eimi]. And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. 6 Now then, when He said to them, ‘I am He’ [egō eimi], they drew back and fell to the ground. . . . 8 Jesus answered, ‘I told you that I am He; [egō eimi] so if you are seeking Me, let these men go on their way.’” Note, in 13:19 and 18:5, 6, 8, the pronoun “He” was added by translators – indicated by italicization.

 Jesus’ unpredicated ἐγώ εἰμι, egō eimi (“I am”) Jesus’ unpredicated[1] egō eimi (“I am”) claims are some of the clearest affirmations of the Son’s deity and eternality. As mentioned below, in the OT, this title was a reoccurring claim of YHWH alone denoting His eternal existence (Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; and 46:4). So of course, virtually all unitarian groups  (esp. Muslims, Oneness advocates, and JWs) deny this truth of the distinct person of the Son, Jesus Christ as being coequal coeternal and coexistent with God the Father (and the Holy Spirit).

However, as pointed out repeatedly, even if one rejects Jesus’ “I am” claims as claims of deity, the deity of Christ, the Son of God, are well established in the content of John’s literature (John 1:1, 3, 10, 18; 3:13; 5:17-18; 6:20; 9:38; 10:27-30; 17:5; 20:28; 1 John 1:1-2; 5:20; Rev. 1:7-8, 17; 2:8; 5:13-14; 22:13).        

In John 8:24, Jesus declared, “. . . for if you should not believe that ‘I am’ [egō eimi] you will perish in your sins” (lit. trans.). Some standard translations add either a predicated clause or the pronoun “He” after the “I am” phrase (cf. KJV, NIV, AMP[2] et al.). However, all extant NT Greek manuscripts containing John 8:24 have no stated predicated clause or predicate such as “He” after the Greek phrase egō eimi. This is true of all Jesus’ egō eimi affirmations.[3]

Additionally, there is clear textual and contextual justification to support that Jesus’ claims of being the unpredicated “I am” and thus, true God and true man. Any added predicate is merely a decision made by the Bible translator. Although the unpredicated divine declaration, “I am,” in John 8:58 is accepted universally as a divine claim among most biblical scholarship (esp. in light of v. 59), not all scholars agree that 8:24 is a divine claim, which is reflected in various translations.

Some translations, however, see the “I am” claim in 8:24 in the same sense as in John 8:58—namely, an unpredicated divine title, such as the NASB 2020 ed. Also note, the ISV 2008 ed. reading: “That is why I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you’ll die in your sins” (caps. theirs); and the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2010 ed.: “I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for unless you shall believe that I AM THE LIVING GOD, you shall die in your sins” (caps theirs). In fact, this translation translates every one of Jesus’ egō eimi phrases as, “I AM THE LIVING GOD.” So Vincent sees 8:24, 28, 58; and 13:19 as a “solemn expression of’ Jesus’ ‘absolute divine being’” (Word Studies).   

It should also be noted that these particular occurrences of Jesus’ “I am” claims are not syntactically the same as other claims, which include the phrase “I am,” such as, “I am the door,” “I am the shepherd,” “I am the bread,” etc., which all contain a clear and stated predicate contra the several unpredicated “I am” statements of Christ. Thus, the burden of proof would rest on the one attempting to show otherwise.

Sometimes, JWs appeal to John 9:9 where the blind man uttered, “I am” (egō eimi). However, the clause is neither syntactically nor contextually equivalent to the unpredicated egō eimi statements of Christ in the gospels. – See our article on John 9:9 and the JWs – also see The NWT and John 8:58

 

The Egō Eimi OT Septuagint (LXX) Background

Many associate Jesus’ egō eimi (“I am”) declarations with God’s declaration to Moses in Exod. 3:14: “God said to Moses, ‘I am that I am.’”[4] Although, the phrase in the Greek LXX of Exod. 3:14 (egō eimi ho ōn, “I am the One”) is not syntactically equivalent to Jesus’ unpredicated egō eimi claims, it does denote the same semantic: YHWH’s eternal existence.[5]     

Notwithstanding, there are places in the OT, where YHWH alone claimed to be the unpredicated egō eimi, which were syntactically equivalent to that of Jesus’ egō eimi claims— clearly denoting His eternal existence (Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; and 46:4, from the Hebrew, ani hu). Further, in Isa. 41:4, YHWH’s claim of being the “I am” is joined with His claim to be “the first, and with the last” (cf. 44:6; 48:12). While in the NT, only Christ claimed to be “the first and the last” (Rev. 1:17, 2:8; 22:13). Hence, when Jesus claimed to be the unpredicated egō eimi, in John 8:58, for example, which was sandwiched between other divine implications and syntactical features,[6] the Jews, against the backdrop of the LXX, clearly recognized the semantic force of what Christ was claiming: “They picked up stones to kill Him” (John 8:59).

This was a legal stoning according to Jewish law (Lev. 24:16). In fact, the Jews understood and responded in the same way (wanting to kill Christ), when Jesus made other unique claims of deity—as in Mark 14:61-64- claim: Son of God and Son of Man, “coming with the clouds of heaven”; John 5:17-18– claim: Son of God, “making Himself equal with God”; John 10:26-33- claim: giving eternal life to the His sheep, being essentially one (hen) with the Father, and being the Son of God.

 Marked Progression. Christ’s claims of being the “I am” were not isolated. In John 8, in which most of Jesus’ “I am” claims were recorded, there are many additional claims of Christ as to His preexistence and deity (cf. 8:12, 19 [esp. the “I am” clams in vv. 24, 28, 58], 40, 51), which led up to His crowning claim of being the absolute, “I am,” that is, I am the Eternal One who spoke to Moses in the burning bush. It is when we examine all the “I am” statements do we see the consequence of His claim. Thus, contextually, Jesus’ “I am” claims were unambiguous claims of being the eternal God, the YHWH of Deut. 32:39 et al. And the Jews knew this—for they wanted to kill Him for blasphemy (John 8:59)!  

 

Conclusion

The unambiguous claims of Christ to be ontologically equal with God, God in the flesh, and yet distinct from the Father are abounding both in the OT (esp. as the angel of the LORD) and in the NT (e.g., Exod. 3:6, 14; Matt. 12:6; 14:27-33; Mark 6:50; 14:61-64; John 8:24, 58 et al.; 3:13; 5:17-18; 10:26-30; 17:5; Rev. 1:8, 17; 2:8; 5:13-14; 22:13 et al.)    

However, as pointed out repeatedly, Even if one rejects Jesus’ “I am” claims as claims of deity, the deity of the Son of God are well established in the content of John’s literature (John 1:1, 3, 10, 18; 5:17-18; 8:24, 54 et.; 9:38; 6:20; 10:27-30; 17:5; 20:28; 1 John 1:1-2; 5:20; Rev. 1:7-8, 17; 2:8; 5:13-14; 22:13 et al.).  When Jesus declared He was the “I am” at John 18:5, 6 (repeated by the narrator), and verse 8, we read that the “fearless” Romans soldiers “fell to the ground.” What would cause Roman soldiers to fall to the ground? So powerful were Jesus’ divine pronouncements that it caused His enemies to shudder to the ground.  

Believing that the person of the Son, Jesus Christ, is truly God and that His cross work is the very ground of justification (apart from works), is essential for salvation.

  

“You will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you’ll die in your sins” (John 8:24, ISV).

Notes 

[1] Unpredicted, i.e., no supplied predicate modifying the subject, “I am.”      

[2] However, in Mark 6:50; John 6:20, the Amplified trans. reads: “Take courage! It is I (I AM)! Stop being afraid.”

[3] Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20; 8:24; 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8.

[4] Hebrew, ehyeh aser ehyeh.  

[5]. In Exod. 3, the angel of the LORD (viz., the preincarnate Son) appeared to Moses and spoke to him from the burning bush (v. 2). He had identified Himself to Moses as YHWH and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (vv. 4, 6). In response to Moses’s question regarding His “name” (v. 13), verse 14 of the LXX reads: “And God spoke to Moses, saying, ‘I am the Being’” (Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, egō eimi ho ōn). As mentioned, this phrase is not an exact syntactical parallel to Jesus’ unpredicated egō eimi claims (John 8:24, 28, 58 et al.), but the semantic consequence is the same—namely, expressing eternal existence. Also note, the articular participle ho ōn (“the one being, existing”) follows the egō eimi phrase in Exod. 3:14. The present tense participle ōn (from eimi, “I am, exist”)—linguistically denotes, “existing, being, subsisting” (context and grammatical features determine its durational aspect). Thus, with the article, “the One who is always, timelessly existing.” So the egō eimi phrase is intensified by the subsequent articular participle: “I am the One being, timelessly existing.”   

In warranted contexts, the articular participle can denote timeless, eternal existence. It is used of God the Father in Rev. 1:4 and the Son in 1:8 (and Father or Son in 4:8). However, aside from Rev. 1:8, the articular participle is applied specifically to the Son at John 1:18: “… the one and only God who is [ho ōn, lit., ‘the One who is always, timelessly existing’] in the bosom of the Father. . . .”); 3:13 (M, TR); 6:46; and Rom. 9:5. In these passages, the articular participle denotes the Son’s timeless existence. Regarding John 1:18, Robert Reymond remarks, “The present participle ὁ ὢν [ho ōn] . . . indicates a continuing state of being: ‘who is continually in the bosom of the Father’” (Systematic Theology, 1998, 303). So Vincent sees the articular participle in John 1:18 as “a ‘timeless present’ expressing the inherent and eternal relation of the Son to the Father.” The anarthrous participle ōn (“being, subsisting”) can also carry this linguistic force. Robertson observes the participle in Heb. 1:3 [hos ōn, “who is”] as denoting “Absolute and timeless existence (present active participle of eimi) in contrast [as pointed out above] with γενόμενος [genomenos] in verse 4 like ἦν [ēn] in John 1:1 (in contrast with ἐγένετο [egeneto] in 1:14) and like ὑπάρχων [huparchōn] and γενόμενος [genomenos] in Php 2:6f” (Robertson, Word Pictures). Therefore, although the phrase in the LXX of Exod. 3:14 (egō eimi ho ōn) is not an exact syntactical equivalent to John 24, 28, 58 et al., it is semantically equivalent YHWH claim of eternal existence. Whereas the exact syntactical parallel (i.e., the unpredicated egō eimi) is found in the LXX of Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; and 46:4—, which are exclusively applied to YHWH.

[6] To laser light His eternal existence as God, in John 8:58 for example, Jesus asserted a sharp verbal contrast between Abraham, who had a beginning denoted by the aorist verb, genesthai (“was born.” from ginomai, “to come to be”), and His eternal existence denoted by the present indicative verb, eimi (“am,” as in egō eimi, “I am”). Thus, a “came to be” vs. “I am always being” contrast. The same verbal contrast can be seen in the prologue of John, where the imperfect verb ēn (“was,” from eimi) denoting the Word’s unoriginate eternal existence, which is exclusively applied to the Word in verses 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10. This verb is contrasted with the aorist egeneto (“became”) which is also from ginomai, which refers to all things that came into existence or had a starting point (e.g., the creation, vv. 3, and 10; John the Baptist, in v. 6). It is not until verse 14 that egeneto is applied to the Word (pertaining to His incarnation): Kai ho Logos sarx egeneto, “And the Word became [ginomai] flesh.” The same verbal contrast (Christ as eternal vs. created things) is found in Hebrews  1:3-4, where the present tense participle ōn (“always being”) is set in contrast with the aorist epoiēsen (“He made”) in verse 2 and participle ōn being in contrast with the aorist genomenos (“having become”—referring to the incarnation) in verse 4.

And the same in Philippians 2:6-7 where the present participle huparchōn (“existing/always subsisting”) in verse 6 is set in contrast with the aorist verbs, ekenōsen (“emptied”) labōn (“by taking”), genomenos (“having been made”) and heuretheis (“having been found”) verses 7 and 8. In each case, there is an outstanding contrast between the eternal preincarnate Son and all things created. See also 2 Corinthians 8:9 where we find a syntactical parallel with Philippians 2:6-7—viz., participle vs. aorist. Participles— ōn, “rich being” (2 Cor. 8:9) – huparchōn, “in the nature of God being (Phil. 2:6). Aorist indicatives— eptōcheusen, “He became poor” (2 Cor. 8:9) – ekenōsen, “emptied Himself” (Phil. 2:7). Hence, Paul in 2 Corinthians 8:9, “that You, through His poverty [i.e., His incarnation], might become rich” (in glory and righteousness). Also, the same linguistic contrast is found in the LXX of Psalm 90:2 (89:2)—namely, the aorist ginomai is set in contrast with present indicative eimi:

Before the mountains existed [or “were born,” genēthēnai, the aorist of ginomai], and [before] the earth and the world were formed [plasthēnai, the aorist infinitive of plassō], even from age to age, You are [ei, the second person present indicative of eimi].     

 

Most utilized Unitarian (esp. JWs) Objections to the Trinity

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Never was there a more deceptive doctrine advanced than that of the Trinity. It could have originated only in one mind, and that the mind of Satan the Devil (Reconciliation [Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1928], p. 101).

Since the beginning of human history, the nature of God (i.e., how He revealed Himself) has been furiously attacked (esp. ontological monotheism).[1] Though, one of the first heresies that emerged in first century church was that of the Judaizers.[2] And the second heresy that the early church dealt with was that of the Gnostics.[3] Both of which were thoroughly refuted by the apostles in there writings.[4]

Jesus was clear on the subject: eternal life is to have “knowledge” of the true God (cf. John 17:3; 8:24; 1 John 5:20). And Scripture presents that there is one true God who revealed Himself in three coequal, coeternal, and coexistent *distinct* persons—thus, God is Triune. The biblical data is undeniable. But many today (and historically) deny, in some way, shape, or form, the doctrine of the Trinity. We are not speaking of some peripheral, non-essential doctrine here: The belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is essential to ones salvation, for it is how God revealed Himself—the very nature or essence of His essential Being, the only true God.

If one removes the Son from the Trinity (in any way), the Son is reduced to either to a created being (as with, for example, Oneness believers and Jehovah’s Witnesses [JWs]) or the Son becomes a “separate” God (as in Mormonism). The Trinity is the biblical explanation of how there is one God and yet the Son is presented as both Creator[5] and “God” (theos)[6] distinct from the Father and Holy Spirit who are likewise presented as God.[7]

 

Main Objections to the Trinity 

 

1) The term “Trinity” is not found in the Bible.

2) The Trinity teaches three Gods.

3) The Trinity was invented in the fourth century (viz. at the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325) and thus, it is not taught in the Bible.

First objection. This argument is nonsensical for many reasons. It is true that the exact word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible. If the individuals using this argument were consistent, then, they would not believe that God is “1 person” either, because the word “unitarian” does not appear in the Bible. In point of fact, Christians today (as well as the early Christian church, as noted above) use the doctrinal term Trinity to describe God because it simply adequately denotes the teaching and concept of a triune multi-personal God presented throughout Scripture. Consider that the terms: incarnation, coequal, coeternal (with the Father), and the phrases: hypostatic union, God the Son, substitutionary atonement, etc., which are all true of Christ, do not appear in the Bible. Also, the terms omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, self-existent, etc., which are all ascribed to God, do not appear in the Bible; however, the teachings or concepts of these doctrinal words and phrases do. They are clearly expressed in the biblical content.

Here are some of the doctrinal (nonbiblical) words mentioned above with their corresponding biblical passages expressing the teachings and concepts of these words:

Incarnation. This defines the teaching of God the Son becoming flesh – John 1:14 et al. God the Son (Mark 14:61-64; John 1:1, 18; Heb. 1:8, 10; 1 John 5:20 et al.). Hypostatic union of Jesus Christ. This describes the two natures of Christ, God and man (John 1:14; 1 Cor. 2:8; Phil. 2:6-7-8; 2 Tim. 2:8). The Son’s coequality and coeternality with the Father (Gen. 19:24; John 1:1c; 5:17-18; 10:30-33; 17:5; Heb. 1:3, 6, 8-12; Jude 1:4; Rev. 1:8, 5:13-14; 22:13).

Substitutionary atonement. This describes Jesus’ atoning cross work as a literal substitution for and on behalf of the elect (John 6:37-39; 10:17; Mark 10:45; Rom. 8:32; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:25; 1 Tim. 2:6).

Omnipresent. An attribute ascribed to God (Ps. 139:6-10; John 14:23 et al.).Although there are many more doctrinal words that can be mentioned that are not contained in the Bible, they all do indeed express the biblical teachings and concepts they represent.

Second objection (The Trinity = 3 separate Gods.): To say that the Trinity teaches three Gods is a gross misrepresentation of the doctrine. As noted, the very foundation of the Trinity is monotheism—namely, the Bible teaches that there is only one true God.
 
Three Gods/gods is not biblical trinitarianism rather, it is polytheism (many true Gods/gods. Or henotheism (hen, “one” Theos, “god”), which is the belief that although many true Gods/gods exist, worship and devotion is to only one God. Hinduism and the LDS Church, that is, Mormonism hold to this view. Mormons acknowledge the existence of many true Gods of other planets, but they only worship and the God for this planet. See our article: Are Mormons Christians? Contra to the many “true” Gods of Mormonism, both the OT and NT condemns that (Exod. 20:5; Isa. 43:10; 45:5; Mark 12:28-29; 1 Tim. 2:5 et al.). As shown above, the Bible teaches that there are three distinct persons who share the nature of the one true God. Or, there is one true God (one Being) who is revealed in three coequal coeternal coexistent distinct persons—the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As delineated above, the three biblical propositions or truths affirm the Trinity.

1. There is one true eternal God (viz., one Being).

2. There are three persons referred to as God, YHWH, and the Creator of all things— the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

3. These three persons are distinct from each other.

Third objection (The Trinity wasn’t invented until the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325). First, the issue at the Council of Nicaea was not the Trinity, that had already been established in the early church decades before Nicaea. In point of fact, there are no primary source documents that came out of Nicaea that even mention the term “Trinity” or specifically discuss it. Instead, the Council primarily addressed the heretical teachings of Arius who openly taught that the Son was created, “a god,” but not “Almighty God,” similar to what the JWs teach. Arius taught that Jesus was of a “different substance” than that of the Father in direct opposition to the orthodox position, which taught that Jesus was of the “same substance” (homoousios, viz. coequal, consubstantial) as that of the Father, but not the same person. So, the chief issue at Nicaea was the question of the ontological relationship between the Father and the Son—not the Trinity per se

See Was the Trinity Conceived in the 4th Century?

 

NOTES

[1] Ontological (by nature) monotheism (one God) is the doctrine that there exists only one God by nature (cf. Deut. 4:35; Jer. 10:10-11). Mormons, although, claim that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are “one God,” but only in the sense of “unity,” not one in essence. But, as they assert, these three are three “separate” Gods, with the Father as the head God in whom they worshiped alone—thus, the Mormon view of the Godhead. But whether one or more Gods are worshiped is irreverent, the question is: how many true Gods exist? The fact that the Mormons believe that many “true” Gods exist, therefore, categorizes the Mormon people as overt polytheists (the belief in many true Gods) and hence, non-Christian. Not only in the OT, but in the NT as well, strict monotheism was strongly asserted (e.g., Mark 28:29; John 17:3; 1 Tim. 2:5).

[2] Simply, the Judaizers taught that one had to practice the OT law, rituals, ordinances, etc. (esp. circumcision), to obtain salvation. And this, was the primary reason as to why Paul wrote to the Galatians.

[3] The Gnostics (from gnōsis, meaning “knowledge”) held to a dualistic system: spirit was good and all “matter” (esp. flesh) was inherently evil; some even taught that “matter” did not exist; it was illusory—as with the theology of Christian Science today. Both the Apostle John and Paul specifically refuted this teaching (esp. in Col. and 1 & 2 John).

[4] As seen above.

[5] E.g., Isa. 9:6; John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17)

[6] E.g., John 1:1, 18; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:3, 8-10

[7] Of course, the OT and NT teaching of “one God” (i.e., monotheism) does indicate or equate “one person” as *unitarian* groups such as Jews, Muslims, JWs, Oneness Pentecostals, etc. presuppose. Monotheism simply means “one God” (viz. “one Being”). To argue that “one God” equals “one person” is to argue in a circle. It assumes what is meant to be proven.

 

The Jehovah’s Witnesses

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Jehovah’s Witnesses[1]

 

Main Watchtower Theological Distinctives:

  • They reject the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
  • They reject the full deity of Jesus Christ.
  • They reject the deity and personally of the Holy Spirit.
  • They reject the “physical” resurrection of Jesus Christ.
  • They reject that justification is through faith alone.
  • They reject the biblical concept of God’s wrath (viz. hell) for the unregenerate

JW’s teach that they are the only “true” Christians and that the WT is God’s sole channel of communication on earth.

Even though the theology of the WT is clearly false, when Christians engage in dialogue with JWs (esp. on the Trinity and the deity of Christ) too often they become intimidated and, within minutes, doctrinally confused! For in dialogue, the JWs generally aim to dominate the conversation by “proving” his or her position by rapid-firing a host of biblical passages—most of which are wrenched out of context. Typically, they do not allow time for any meaningful exegetical discussion of each passage presented; they merely cite them—and at times, in one breath!

The problem is that many Christians who desire to reach out to JWs lack the basic knowledge of their own theology to provide a clear biblical affirmation and response to the assertions of the JWs. So, if your desire is to witness to the JWs, the first thing that you must do is to learn the basics of your own faith, then, the basics of what JWs believe.

If you can biblically communicate central doctrines such as the Trinity, deity of Christ, and salvation through faith alone, even without exhaustively understanding every doctrine of the WT, you can confidently and adequately defend and affirm the person and finished work of Christ—namely, the gospel.

 

The Jesus of the JWs, near identical to what Arius taught, is “a god” (John 1:1; NWT[2]), but not God almighty. They teach that Jesus was Michael, the created, archangel being the “firstborn” of Jehovah’s works. They even use some of the same passages as did Arius to prove their position (e.g., Prov. 8:22; Col. 1:15; Rev. 3:14) in the same erroneous way.

 As said, it is because of their prior theological commitment of unitarianism (God as one person) that they deny that Jesus Christ is truly God.[3] Further, the JWs deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. According to the JWs, Jesus did not die on a cross, but rather was impaled on a torture stake as a sacrifice for sins, but only as a “ransom payment” for the sins of Adam.[4] In this view, the biblical teaching of the atonement is wholly robbed and denied of its efficacy.

Response: The chief heresy of the JWs is the denial of the Trinity and thus, a denial of Jesus Christ as God in the flesh. As seen, the deity of the Son is a constant theme in the NT (as seen above). Unless one believes that the Son is the “I am,” that is, I am the eternal God;[5] he or she will die in his or her sins (John 8:24).

Aside from Proverbs 8:22 (appendix A below, )W,[6] most JWs appeal to Colossians 1:15 First We also saw the vast number of passages that clearly identified Jesus as YHWH, not merely in representation, but rather in an ontological sense. And many of these OT references were not merely speaking of the Son in prophecy, but rather in actual preexistence, that is, personally interacting with others (e.g., Gen. chaps. 18-19; the angel of the LORD references, as shown above; Dan. 7:13-14). Additionally, specific titles and attributes were applied to Jesus in the NT, which were either exclusively applied to YHWH/God in the OT or unequivocally signified the Son’s ontological identification as truly God. For example,   

 

The person of Jesus Christ is presented as: 

  • “Lord over all” (Acts 10:36).
  • Son of God (Mark 1;1; 14:61-14; John 5:17-18).
  • Son of Man ( 7:13-14; Mark 10:45; 14:61-64; John 6:53; 8:28; 9:35-37 et al.).
  • “God over all” (Rom. 9:5, NET).
  • “The Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8; cf. 1 Sam. 15:29; Acts 7:2).
  • Always existing (subsisting) in the nature of God (Phil. 2:6).
  • Always dwelling all the fullness of Deity in bodily form (Col. 2:9).
  • The Creator of all things (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:10-12).
  • “Savior” (Titus 2:13-14; 2 Pet. 3:18; cf. Isa. 45:21; Hosea 13:4).
  • The only means of salvation (faith in Him, apart from works; John 3:14-18; 6:47; 11:25-26; Rom. 4:4-8; 5:1; 8:1; Eph. 1:4-5; 1 John 5:12 et al.).
  • The Monogenēs Theos (“unique, one and only, God”).    
  • “The great God” (Titus 2:13; cf. 2 Pet. 1:1- Ps. 95:3).
  • The Ho ōn (“who is,” lit., “The One, timelessly existing” (John 1:18; Rom. 9:5; Rev. 1:8).
  • “The only Master and Lord” (Jude 1:4).
  • “The true God” (1 John 5:20; cf. 2 Chron. 15:3; Jer. 10:10).
  • The YHWH of Psalm 102-25-27 (cf. Heb. 1:10-12); Isaiah 6:1-10 (cf. John 12:39-41); Isaiah 8:12-13 (cf. 1 Peter 3:14-15); Isaiah 45:23 (cf. Phil. 2:10-11); Joel 2:32 (cf. Rom. 10:13) et al.

 

The Father directly addressed the Son as, 

  • “The God” whose throne is eternal (Heb. 1:8-9) and the “Lord” (viz., the YHWH) of Psalm 102:25-17, the unchangeable Creator (Heb. 1:10-12; cf. John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17).

 

Jesus claimed to be,  

  • Son of God (John 5:17-18; 17:5; Mark 14:61-64 et al.).
  • “Son of Man” (Dan. 7:13-14; Mark 10:45; 14:61-64; John 6:53; 8:28; 9:35-37 et al.).
  • The “I am” (Mark 6:50; John 8:24, 28, 58 et al.; cf. Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; 46:4).
  • “Equal with God” (John 5:17-18; 10:30-33).
  • “The Alpha and Omega” and the “First and the Last” (Rev. 1:8, 17; 2:8; 22:13; cf. Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12; cf. Dan. 7:14).

Jesus was, 

  • Worshiped in a religious context, thus, as God: (Matt. 14:33; John 9:38; 1:6; Rev. 5:13-14).
  • Preexisting together with the Father, and shared glory with Him, “before the world existed” (John 17:5).

 

JWs neither confess that Jesus is YHWH nor do they believe that He was physically resurrected from the dead: “This [the Son] is the true God and life eternal” (1 John 5:20).

 

APPENDEX A Proverbs 8:22

 

The NWT reads: “Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way. The earliest of his achievements of long ago.” The JWs are taught that this passage teaches that Jesus was created. In refutation: .

  1. Even if the passage was referring to Christ, as some see it, it does not support the JW unitarian position that Christ was created. As seen, the Scripture positively affirms the eternal preexistence and true deity of the person of the Son (Dan. 7:13-14; John 1:1,3, 18; 8:24, 58 et al., 17:5; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:10-12; Rev. 1:8; 22:13).
  2. The context of chapters 1-9 is wisdom, which is personified as a female (cf. 8:2; 9:1, 2, 3). It would be problematic to apply a female personification to the Messiah. Nowhere in the OT nor NT is this exampled.
  3. Since chapters 1-9 are contextually speaking of wisdom, then the reading: “Jehovah produced [created] me as the beginning of his way,” would prompt the question to JWs: Was there a time when Jehovah was without wisdom? Moreover, note that the phrase in 8:23: “From everlasting I was established” denotes eternality (similar phrase in Ps. 90:2). So, even if 8:22 is a description of Christ, it actually proves that He is eternal.
  4. The word translated “produced” (“Jehovah himself produced me”) is from the Hebrew term quanah. While qanah carries several meanings, the primary meaning is to acquire, buy, purchase, possess as seen especially throughout the book of Proverbs (1:5; 4:5; 15:32; 16:16; 17:16; 19:8; 20:14, etc.). The meaning of “create,” although possible (cf. BDB, Thayer), is rarely used in this way. The TLOT Lexicon points out that the Hebrew term may be used “in relation to birth cf. Psa 139:13 [“formed”] and perhaps Prov 8:22.” In this sense, Proverbs 8:22 may be speaking of the birth of Christ (incarnation, viz. His humanity, not deity), same sense is found in Psalm 22:10: “I was cast upon You from birth; You have been my God from my mother’s womb.”

 

Notes 

[1] The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is the corporate name for the JWs.

[2] As mentioned above, the NWT (The New World Translation) is the biblical translation of the JWs, published by the Watchtower.  

[3] In the Watchtower publication, Should you Believe in the Trinity?, the JWs are repetitiously taught that Jesus was merely “a god” who had a beginning as a created angel:

The Bible is clear and consistent about the relationship of God to Jesus. Jehovah God alone is Almighty. He created the prehuman Jesus directly. Thus, Jesus had a beginning and could never be coequal with God in power or eternity (Should you Believe in the Trinity?: Is Jesus Christ the Almighty God? [Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989], 16).

[4] The Watchtower position is clear: “Since one man’s sin (that of Adam) had been responsible for causing the entire human family to be sinners, the shed blood of another perfect human (in effect, a second Adam), being of corresponding value, could balance the scales of justice” (Reasoning from the Scriptures [Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989], 308).

[5] In the LXX, there are several places where YHWH claims to be the (unpredicated) egō eimi (“I am”; Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; and 46:4), as seen, Christ made the same claims of Himself (Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8).]  

The term “Jehovah” and the Jehovah’s Witnesses

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

 

The JWs are taught that the term “Jehovah” is the *true* name of God.[1] Further, they assert that the term “Jehovah” was actually removed from the original Greek NT and thus faithfully restored by the NWT.[2] However, consider the following statements made by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (i.e., the organization of the JWs; hereafter WT):

The WT acknowledges that “Jehovah” is not the true pronunciation of God’s name.

While inclining to view the pronunciation “Yah.weh” as the more correct way, we have retained the form “Jehovah” because of people’s familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton JHVH (NWT, 1950 ed., Foreword, p. 25 [note: This admission was removed from the 1961, 1970, 1984 editions of the NWT]).

 

The WT acknowledges that most Hebrew scholars prefer “Yahweh” as the true pronunciation:

Yes, many Bible scholars acknowledge that “Yahweh” more nearly represents the Hebrew pronunciation of the Divine Name (WT,[3] July 15, 1964, p. 423).

Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation (Aid To Bible Understanding, 1971, 885).

“Jehovah” is the best known English pronunciation of the Divine name, although “Yahweh” is favored by most Hebrew scholars (Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, vol. 2, p. 5).

The WT acknowledges that the exact pronunciation of God’s name is unknown:

Yet no one today actually can say with certainty how Moses, for example, pronounced the Divine name (WT, May 1, 1978, p. 12).

Due to religious disuse, the original pronunciation of the Hebrew has been lost . . . there is no way of knowing what pronunciation is correct (WT, December 1, 1983, p. 5).

The WT acknowledges that the pronunciation “Jehovah” was originally a “blunder”:

As to the Old Testament name of God, certainly the spelling and pronunciation “Jehovah” were originally a blunder (The Bible in Living English, 1972, p.7).

 

The WT acknowledges that the pronunciation “Jehovah” originated not until the thirteenth century A.D.:

The first recorded use of this form [Jehovah] dates from the thirteenth century C.E. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish [Roman Catholic] monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book Pugeo Fidei of the year 1270 C.E. (Aid To Bible Understanding, 1971, p. 884-5).

But “Jehovah” did not appear until Martine’s 1381 ed. In the earlier eds. he used Yohoua.

The WT acknowledges that there is no NT Greek manuscript that contains “the divine name”:

One of the remarkable facts, not only about the extent manuscripts of the original Greek text, but of many versions, ancient and modern, is the absence of the Divine name (NWT, 1950 ed., Foreword, p. 10; the same quote is found in the Awake magazine, 1957, January 8, 25).

No ancient Greek manuscript that we possess today of the books from Matthew to Revelation contains God’s name in full (The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, 1984, p. 23).

 

The fact is, “Jehovah” is not and has never been God’s name. As seen above, the WT acknowledges this fact.

Here’s the point: God was known by many names. In the OT, for example, God is called, “Yahweh” (YHWH, “LORD”, Deut. 6:4); “LORD God” (Gen. 1:4); “Lord” (Adonai, Isa. 6:1); “God” (Elohim, Gen. 1:1); “God of Abraham” (Gen. 26:24); “God of Daniel” (Dan. 6:26); “God of Israel” (Num. 16:9); “Glory of Israel” (1 Sam. 15:29); “God of heaven” (Dan. 2:44); “Creator” (Isa. 40:28); “Everlasting God” (Isa. 40:28); “I am” (egō eimi in the LXX;[4] Deut. 32:39; 43:10); “First and the Last” (Isa. 44:6); “mighty God” (Isa. 10:21); “God of gods,” “Lord of lords” (Deut. 10:17); “Holy One” (Isa. 40:25); “Rock of Israel” (Isa. 30:29); and many other names and titles were used to refer to God in the OT.

And in the NT, God[5] is referred to as “Father” over 250 times. Jesus refers to Him as “Father” about 179 times. The apostle Paul (and other apostles) also refers to God as “Father” (Abba in Rom. 8:15 and Gal. 4:6). But not once did any NT author use the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (“YHWH”) to refer to God.

Note: the manuscript evidence indicates that the NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew nor Aramaic—thus, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is not found in any of over 5,800 NT manuscripts. When citing passages from the OT, the NT authors used kurios (“Lord”) to translate YHWH. As well, the LXX primarily used kurios to translate the Tetragrammaton.

To recall:

1. The term “Jehovah” was the invention of a Catholic monk (Raymundus Martini) in A.D. 1202.

2. “Jehovah” is a mispronunciation and an incorrect transliteration of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (YHWH) to which virtually all biblical scholars concur.

3. God was referred to by many names and titles: There is no passage in the OT or NT that commands the people of God to call Him by a specific name—and definitely not “Jehovah.” In fact, Jesus normally used “Father” and sometimes kurios (“Lord”; e.g., Luke 10:21) to refer to God (His Father).

4. When citing passages from the OT, the NT authors used kurios (“Lord”) to translate YHWH (e.g., Rom. 10:13). Note: most of the OT quotations in the NT were from the Greek LXX where kurios, not YHWH was used.

5. As seen, even the WT agrees with point 1 and 2 above.

Since the JWs believe that the “true name” of God (“Jehovah” as they assume) is essential in honoring Him, then, why would they mispronounce and mistransliterate (as the WT admits) the Tetragrammaton—YHWH?

*Witnessing Tip*

Romans 10:13 reads (Paul here quoting from Joel 2:32): “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved” (NWT). Ask the JW: “If “Jehovah” is not the true and correct name (as agreed by the WT), how can a JW be saved since he or she calls on the wrong name?[6]- See, Jesus as YHWH and the erroneous assertions of the JWs.

Contrary to the JW’s false and fixed notion regarding the term “Jehovah,” Jesus Christ instructed His followers: “After this manner therefore pray ye: ‘Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. . . .’” (Matt. 6:9; KJV).

Remember, it is not merely the mispronunciation of YHWH that condemns JWs (for many Christians use the term “Jehovah”), but rather it is their denial that Jesus IS YHWH that condemns them before God (cf. John 8:24).

 

NOTES

[1] The term “LORD” in the English OT is translated from YHWH (viz. Tetragrammaton, lit., “word with four letters”). Original Hebrew had only consonants—no vowels, though, vowels were verbally pronounced (thus, “Yahweh” as most scholars coincide). Vowels were added to the written text by the Masoretes (cf. Masoretic Text) around the ninth century A.D.

[2] The WT’s New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is the translation that the JWs use. Prior to the NWT (1950), the WT distributed and utilized the Kings James Version. However, in order to stay coherent to WT doctrines, the NWT departed from the translational norm of the KJV. The brunt of the translational deviations reflect the theological distinctives of the WT (e.g., Matt. 25:46: “everlasting cutting-off”; John 1:1: “a god”; Col. 1:16-17: the insertion of “other” four times in order to teach that Christ was not the Creator of ALL THINGS as the original Greek [grammar/context] indicates (but in John 1:3, the NWT did not add “other”); Col. 2:9: “divine quality” and, of course, the NWT inserted “Jehovah” (in the NT)—some 237 times).

[3] I.e., The Watchtower magazine.

[4] LXX is the abbreviation for the Septuagint (meaning “seventy,” i.e., the traditional number of scholars that translated the OT Heb. into Greek). The NT authors primarily used the LXX when citing the OT. Also note, the LXX was used exclusively in the book of Hebrews.

[5] I.e., God the Father.

[6] Note on Romans 10:13:

The phrase “Jesus as Lord” (Kurion Iēsoun [Κύριον Ἰησοῦν], lit., “Lord Jesus”) in Romans 10:9 is clearly the antecedent to the occurrences of the pronoun “Him” and “Lord” following up to verse 13:

9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

11 For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;

13 For “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD [YHWH] WILL BE SAVED” (from Joel 2:32).

“Jesus as Lord” is the object of salvation from verse 9-13. Throughout these passages, it is the same “Him” and same “Lord” beginning in verse 9. To say that the “Lord” in verse 9 is a different “Lord” than in verse 13 completely breaks the flow of the passages. The Lord that one confesses (v. 9) is the same Lord that one calls upon for salvation (v. 13). In verse 13, Paul cites Joel 2:32: “whoever calls on the name of the Lord [Heb. YHWH] will be delivered.” Just as he does in Philippians 2:10-11, Paul cites a passage referring to YHWH and applies it to Jesus. Thus, whoever confessing and calls upon Jesus as Lord, that is, Jesus as YHWH will be saved.

In fact, there are many places where the NT authors cite OT passages referring to YHWH and apply them to Jesus Christ. This is a great way to share the truth about Jesus to JWs. For example, compare Psalm 102:25-27 with Hebrews 1:10-12; Isaiah 6:1-10 with John 12:39-41; Isaiah 8:12-13 with 1 Peter 3:14-15; Isaiah 45:23 with Philippians 2:10-11; Joel 2:32 with Romans 10:13. The most productive way to use this witnessing tactic is to first take the JW to the OT passage first, then have him read the NT passage where the author cites the OT passage and applies it to Jesus.

 

Jesus as YHWH and the erroneous assertions of the JWs.

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Romans 10:13: “Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved” (Rom. 10:13 NWT).

10:13 cannot be disconnected from verse 9 in that the same “Lord” in verse 9 is the same Lord in verse 13 (from Joel 2:32) calling upon Christ as YHWH.

JW are taught that the term “Jehovah” is the *true* name of God (see, The term “Jehovah” and the  JWs).

Further, they assert that the term “Jehovah” was actually removed from the original Greek NT and thus faithfully restored by the NWT. Except, of course, when the OT passages is referring to Jesus Christ, they do not follow their own rule. For example, the phrase “Jesus as Lord” in Romans 10:9 is clearly the antecedent to the occurrences of the pronoun “Him” and “Lord” following up to verse 13:

9 that if you confess with your mouth ‘Jesus as Lord’ [Κύριον Ἰησοῦν], believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

11 For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;

13 For “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD [YHWH] WILL BE SAVED” (cf. Joel 2:32).

“Jesus as Lord” is the object of salvation from verse 9-13. Throughout these passages, it is the same “Him” and same “Lord” beginning in verse 9. To say that the “Lord” in verse 9 is a different “Lord” than in verse 13 completely breaks the flow of the passages. The Lord that one confesses (v. 9) is the same Lord that one calls upon for salvation (v. 13). In verse 13, Paul cites Joel 2:32: “whoever calls on the name of the Lord [Heb. YHWH] will be delivered.” Thus, whoever confessing and calls upon Jesus as Lord, that is, Jesus as YHWH will be saved.

In fact, there are many places where the NT authors cite OT passages referring to YHWH and apply them to Jesus Christ. This is a great way to share the truth about Jesus to JWs. For example, compare Psalm 102:25-27 with Hebrews 1:10-12; Isaiah 6:1-10 with John 12:39-41; Isaiah 8:12-13 with 1 Peter 3:14-15; Isaiah 45:23 with Philippians 2:10-11; Joel 2:32 with Romans 10:13. The most productive way to use this witnessing tactic is to first take the JW to the OT passage first, then have him read the NT passage where the author cites the OT passage and applies it to Jesus.

In v. 9, Jesus is called “Lord.” And from vv. 9-13, all pronouns refer grammatically to Jesus (i.e., “Him” in vv. 9, 11, 13, and 13 refer to the closest named person: “Jesus”).

Therefore, Paul in v. 13 sees Jesus as the Yahweh of Joel 2:32 (“whoever calls on the name of the LORD [YHWH] will be delivered”; NASB) whereby those confessing Jesus as YHWH will be saved (cf. v. 9). 

When using this way of showing that Jesus is the “Jehovah” of the OT (distinct from the Father, though) have the JW read the OT passage first. Then, after agreeing that “Jehovah” is being referred to, have he or she read the NT passage in which the NT author applies the OT passage to Christ Jesus.