First chapter of the book “The Sects before the Bible”
Analysis of biblical texts
(What the author has written in the form of a footnote in his book is in brackets [ ] in this digital edition)
AUTHOR’S NOTE ON THE VERSIONS OF THE SACRED TEXT: Throughout the work I have preferably used my own direct translation from Greek for the New Testament, and from Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old. In the first case I have used the Greek-English New Testament, by Nestlé and Aland, Editio XXVI, Stuttgart 1981, and in the second the Bible Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Editio Minor, Stuttgart 1984. I also quote from the prestigious versions of the Bible common in the Spanish-speaking world and from the sects’ own editions. The following acronyms are those used in relation to the various translations of the Bible: VNM: New World Translation or Bible of Jehovah’s Witnesses; EP: The Holy Bible, from Ediciones Paulinas;BJ: Jerusalem Bible;NC: Colunga Nacre;VP: Popular Version;VM: Modern Version;NBE: New Spanish Bible;RV: Reina-Valera. When no reference is indicated, the translation is mine.
The question of the divinity of Christ has been the continuous battlefield in the history of Christianity. The first attempts to deny it already appear in the Scriptures during the New Testament period, and it has been a rare century since then in which a movement has not emerged that, in one way or another, has not questioned the full divinity of Christ. From the Ebionites to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, passing through the Arians or the Socinians, the small groups that support this thesis number in dozens.
Although some sects, such as Mormons or Adventists, formally adhere to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ [That this adherence is only formal is evident when we discover that Adventists affirm that Christ was the archangel Michael (Questions of doctrine, pp.71-83), and that Mormons maintain that saved men become gods (Doctrines and covenants, 132:37), and that Jesus was the son of Adam, the only God with whom we inhabitants of this planet have to deal (Diary of Hosea Stout, April 9, 1852, vol.2, p.435)], the truth is that most of them deny it in one way or another. Such is the case of the Moonies, the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Children of God. In this chapter we will try to examine the objections taken from the Bible that they present against this doctrine, the biblical teaching on the matter, some examples of rabbinic thought on the divinity of the messiah and the opinion of the first Christians.
1. Objections against the divinity of Christ
Historically, the poverty of the arguments adduced against the divinity of Christ is so considerable that we can say that those listed below constitute practically all of them. As we will have occasion to see, none of the quotes used by the sects violate in any way the biblical teaching of the Trinity and, for the most part, they arise from a lack of precise knowledge about the content of that dogma. Now let’s move on to the texts:
a) Mark 13:32, or Matthew 24:36. The interpretation of the anti-Trinitarians claims that this passage clearly demonstrates that Christ was not God, since he was not omniscient. This makes an error that we will see repeated on several occasions: the inability to distinguish between the human nature and the divine nature of Jesus. It is obvious that the first was, as a human, limited: Jesus got tired, thirsty, suffered pain, his knowledge was limited, etc. Now, like God, he was omniscient. Let’s look at some examples from Scripture: “Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you. In this we believe that we came from God” (Jn 16:30) (VNM).”So he said to him, ‘Lord, you know all things'” (Jn 21:17) (VNM).”…Christ. Carefully hidden in him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2,3). Neither for John nor for the author of the letter to the Colossians, Jesus was a character deprived of omniscience. Quite the opposite: he knew everything and in him were, without exception, all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
b) John 14, 28. The sectarian interpretation of this passage also suffers from a fundamental ignorance of Trinitarian dogma. We insist once again that the person of the Son, the second of the Trinity, has a human nature and a divine nature. The human, logically, is inferior to the divine of the Father; but both divine persons, that of the Father and that of the Son, are equal. It is precisely for this reason that the gospel of John collects the information that the Jews of Jesus’ time wanted to kill him, because he made himself equal to God: “Because of this the Jews really sought to kill him even more, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God” (Jn 5:18-19) (VNM).
c) Revelation 3:14.The anti-Trinitarian interpretation of this passage (one of the most used by the Arians in their day) claims that here Christ is presented as the “first created being.” The truth is that such a statement only demonstrates absolute ignorance of the meaning of the term arche (translated here as “principle”). As a title, as it appears here, the word arché often has the meaning of “prince” or “principality.” In this sense it appears, for example, in Rom 8:38;Eph 1:21;3.10;6.12;Col 1:16;2.10;Tit 3,1, etc). Now, in the book of Revelation, arche is a title that is applied solely and exclusively to God; v.gr., Rev 21,6, as the source (principle) of everything. Therefore, the passage does not say that Christ was the first created being, but that he was the source, the origin, the principle from which the divine creation emanated;That is to say, it is the same creator, as we will have the opportunity to see in the section on that topic in this chapter.
d) Colossians 1,15.Once again we are faced with an erroneous interpretation of a text based on the terminological ignorance of the sects. These interpret the word “firstborn” in the sense of “first created”;Christ, therefore, would be a simple creature. Now this analysis of the passage is erroneous for the following reasons:
1a. Firstborn (protótokos in Greek) is not the same as first created (protiktos in Greek). If Paul had really wanted to express that Christ was a created being, he would have used the verb “create” which he did not do.
2a. The term “firstborn” in the Hebrew language is not equivalent to both the first to be born and the one who possesses certain rights of government, inheritance or royalty. Thus the Bible contains various examples of “firstborn” who were not the first. Thus, in Ps 89:27 (VNM) it is announced that David would be named “firstborn.”David was not familiarly so (in fact we know that he was the youngest in his family), nor was he the first king of Israel (which was Saul), but he was going to have supremacy, with a “birthright.”Another example of the word “firstborn” used in this sense is found in Jer 31:9, where Ephraim is referred to as “firstborn.”Now, if we read the story of Gen 48:13-14, we see that Ephraim was actually the youngest and Manasseh was the firstborn. One more example of this use of the word “firstborn” is found in Ex 4:22, where such a title is applied to Israel. Logically, the intention here is not to point out that Israel was the first nation created (which would not be true), but rather that Israel enjoyed primacy in the eyes of God. Therefore, Paul is not here saying that Christ is a created being, but that he has complete supremacy over creation;In other words, it is the same creator.
3a. The context indicates that Paul considers Christ not a created being, but the creator himself: In fact this is so clear, that the VNM has falsified the Greek original, including words in brackets to hide this revelation. It goes like this, to cite an example, The Holy Bible, from Ediciones Paulinas: “For by himself (Christ) all things were created, those in heaven and those on earth, the invisible and the visible, both thrones and dominions, principalities and powers; absolutely everything was created by him and for him; and he himself exists before all things and all subsist in him” (Col 1,16-17). This fragment of the Christological hymn from the first chapter of Colossians could not be clearer: Christ is not a created being, as the sects claim, but the creator of everything. That is why he exists before everything created, since if he had been a creation he could not have had life before the entire creation, but only from the part after himself. As expected, the VNM falsifies this text to suit their twisted theology and translates (?) like this: “For through him all (other) things were created… All (other) things were created through him and for him. He also is before all (other) things and through him all (other) things were made into existence.”The difference between the original Greek text and the VNM could not be greater: Christ is no longer the creator (“by himself”), but an instrument of creation (“through him”). Nor is he any longer the creator prior to everything created, but rather a created being prior to “all other created things.”The fact of adding words to the text to radically change the meaning that the author of the letter to the Colossians wanted to give is something that does not seem to have weighed on the conscience of the Wachtower and that the majority of its followers ignore. But what love can the Wachtower have for the Bible when it not only does not honestly seek its teaching, but also distorts a translation to provide a basis for its doctrines?
e) Proverbs 8:22.The VNM says this: “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his path, the earliest of his long-ago achievements.”According to the very special exegesis of the Wachtower, which, perhaps without knowing it, is only an echo of that of Arius, the text of Proverbs would be speaking here of Christ, symbolized under the image of wisdom, and would teach that he was created (“produced”). However, such an exegesis is far-fetched for many reasons:
1a. The passage does not say at any time that it is talking about the messiah;It is a beautiful poem in which prosopopoeia is used, that is, the personification of a quality to create a literary effect. In this case wisdom is personified, but it is not mentioned in any passage that she is the messiah.
2a. The context denies that it can refer to Jesus: messianic prophecies (such as Is 52,l3ff.) always contain references that we can recognize in the life of Jesus. Now, here we are told that wisdom built a house (Prov 9, 1a), that she carved seven columns (Prov 9, 1b), that she set the table by mixing the wine and slaughtering meat (Prov 9, 2), etc. It is clear that none of this has any relation to the person of Jesus;but it does make sense if it is interpreted as a poetic personification of wisdom.
3a. The translation “produced me” is not correct;But, as if that were not enough, the passage, as is usual every time Wachtower undertakes translation, is painfully translated. The Hebrew word that is rendered for “produced” is qnh, which means “possessed” or “possessed”, as the Reina Valera version (KJV) or the Nacar Colunga (NC) have translated. In some cases this verb may have a secondary meaning of “to beget”, and this is how the Popular Version (VP) and the Modern Version (MV) have rendered the passage, but it does not seem that in this context it is the most appropriate translation.
Trying, therefore, to deduce from the passage of Prov 8:22 that Christ was created is still exegetical nonsense.
f) John 1:18. Wachtower’s thesis is that, since no one has seen God and Christ was seen, the latter cannot be God. Now, this passage is not talking about a physical vision of God, but a spiritual one. In fact, the Old Testament records several cases of physical vision of God, such as the one recorded in Is 6, lss.or that of Am 9,1, which can be verified in the same VNM.What we are told here is that no one has seen God to be able to fully explain him, but Christ has explained him.
On the other hand, even if the passage implied a physical vision of God, it would not be indicating that Christ was not God, since what his disciples saw was his human envelope, and not his divine nature. In that sense it could be said that no one has seen God, with all the greatness of his glory, because when he was incarnated in Christ, humanity served as a veil to it.
g) Jesus is Michael, the archangel. This doctrine of the Witnesses does not originally belong to them. It originates from an identical doctrine held by Seventh-day Adventists (Questions of Doctrine, pp 71-83). The reason is that initially a good part of the Adventist authors held an Arianizing vision of Christ. When, with the passage of time, this approach varied, opting for a formal recognition of the Trinity, traces of Arianism remained in the theology of the sect led by Ellen White, from which the Wachtower has taken them.
In reality, this objection lacks the slightest basis. Simply put: there is not a single passage in the Bible where it is said that the archangel Saint Michael is Christ.
h) Jesus talks to the Father. Wachtower’s thesis claims that Christ cannot be God, since it is clear how he addresses God. Such a statement only reveals a profound ignorance of the doctrine of the Trinity. This does not teach that the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit are the same person, but rather that they are three different persons and one true God. The dialogue between the Father and the Son, therefore, does not contradict the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather confirms it.
i) Jesus is the Son of God, and not God.In this regard, we recommend reviewing what was stated above in relation to the text of Jn 5:18.
j) Psalm 2,7.According to Wachtower theology, this passage would indicate that there was a time when the Son did not exist and later he did;then it is a created being. Furthermore, the term “beget” should be understood as “create.”The truth is that the formula included in this psalm seems to have been used in the coronation of the kings of Israel. It was intended to indicate that the monarch became “son of Yahweh” in a very special way.
Now, in the case of this psalm, the New Testament has preserved for us the interpretation that the early Church made of it. Let’s see: “But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he became visible to those who had gone up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now witnesses of him to the people. So we are declaring to them the good news about the promise made to the ancestors, that God has completely fulfilled it for us their children by raising Jesus from the dead, just as it is written in the second Psalm: You are my son, this day I have become your Father” (He13,30-33).
For Paul, Psalm 2 did not teach that Christ was a created being, but rather contained the statement that he would one day be resurrected. Naturally we are very free to prefer the interpretation of the Wachtower to that of the apostle of the Gentiles.
Let us say, finally, that the term “beget” neither means “create” nor is it contrary to the teaching of the Trinity. In fact, the Trinitarian Nicene Creed affirms that the person of the Son was “begotten and not created, of the same nature as the Father.”Those of us who believe in the Trinity also believe that Christ was begotten from eternity of the same nature as the Father, but that he was not created. This text would support precisely that thesis, since it does not say that the Son was created, but rather engendered.
Up to this point we have been able to see the null basis for affirming that the Bible denies the divinity of Christ. Now, the fact that there are no arguments against does not necessarily mean that there are arguments in favor. Is there evidence in the New Testament that the early Christians believed that Christ was God?We will dedicate the next few pages to examining this question.
2. According to the Bible, Christ is God, and not a god
Contrary to what most people think (and it is an error often repeated in various publications), Jehovah’s Witnesses do not deny the divinity of Christ, but rather his full divinity. That is, for them Christ is a god (or the archangel Saint Michael), but he is not God. We will try to show in the following pages how the Bible specifically indicates the opposite: Christ is God, and not a god. The reasons, among many others, are the following:
2.1. Christ has titles in the NT that are only applicable to God
God.
The theology of the Witnesses, in reality, is polytheistic. It is based on the fact that there is a great uncreated God (Jehovah), followed by an inferior and created god (Christ) and by a multitude of gods of an even lower category, such as the devil and angels. The teaching of the Bible, on the other hand, is naturally monotheistic: there is only one God, there has been none before nor will there be one after.
“You are my witnesses – is the expression of Jehovah – even my servant, whom I have chosen, so that you may know and have faith in me, and so that you may understand that I am the same. Before me no God was formed and after me there continued without any” (Is 43:10) (VNM).
This passage, known by heart to all Wachtower adepts, since it is from it that they derive their name, contains in its second part a statement that flatly contradicts her teachings. It does not teach that there is a great God (Jehovah), another inferior and created one (the messiah) and a plethora of gods below, but rather that there is only one and no more.
“This is what Jehovah, the King of Israel and his Repurchaser, Jehovah of hosts, has said: I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God” (Is 44:6) (VNM). The statement is clear and forceful;but it clashes head-on with the Wachtower theology, which teaches the existence of several gods.
“I am Jehovah, and there is no other. With the exception of me there is no God…, there is no other; there is no other God” (Is 45,5,14) (VNM).
Naturally, the early Christians believed what Isaiah taught, and not Wachtower theology, which states that there are several gods. And not only did they believe in strict monotheism (one God and no other), but they also affirmed that Christ was that God. Since this is so clear and is equivalent to recognizing that Jehovist theology is a farce, the leaders of the Wachtower have not had the slightest problem in altering the translation of most of the passages where it is said that Christ is God. We are going to analyze some of these now.
a) Romans 9,5. The version of the Greek text says: “The Christ according to the flesh, who is blessed God.”Paul affirms so clearly that Christ is a blessed God, that the VNM has not had the slightest qualms about introducing a word in brackets in the text to distort such affirmation. It goes like this: Christ according to the flesh: God, who is over all, (be) blessed forever. It is enough to remove the sea in brackets from the VNM to have a very clear affirmation of the divinity of Christ.
b) Philippians 2,5ff.”…Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not cling to equality with God.”
Paul puts it clearly: Christ was equal (not inferior) to God, but he did not cling to it, but emptied himself (that is the literal meaning of the Greek term kenosis) to become man and redeem us on the cross. Well, let’s see how this very clear statement has been distorted in the New World version by again adding words that are not in the original: “…Christ Jesus, who although he existed in the form of God, gave no consideration to a usurpation, namely: that he should be equal to God.”
It is enough to compare the VNM with other translations to see how flawed and full of prejudices its working method has been, a method that only sought to defend the sect, and not the teaching of the Bible.
c) Colossians 2,9.”For in him dwells the fullness of divinity bodily.”
Contrary to what the Wachtower teaches, Paul affirms here that Christ is not a god or a mini-god, but that the fullness of divinity dwells in him bodily. Let’s see how the VNM has attempted to veil this glorious truth: “For in him dwells bodily all the fullness of the divine quality.”
Now, this subversion of the text, in the end, only half achieves its objective, because only God can have divine quality;and we have seen in Isaiah that there is only one God. If all the fullness of the divine quality dwells in Christ, it is because he is God, and not a god, as the Wachtower claims.
d) Titus 2,13.”Awaiting the happy hope and manifestation of the glory of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ.”
The text is clear as glass. Paul speaks of the wonderful hope of the Christian believer who awaits the coming of our great God and savior Jesus Christ. Once again the VNM has introduced words into the text to deprive Christ of his full divinity: “While we await the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and our Savior, Christ Jesus.”
With inexcusable impudence, the Wachtower has introduced a word that is not in the Greek text, to leave God on one side and the savior Jesus Christ on the other, when the truth is that the original lavishes both attributes (God and savior) on Christ.
e) Hebrews 1,8.”Concerning the Son: Thy throne, O God, for ever and ever.”
This text is of special relevance because in it it is the Father himself who addresses the person of the Son;and he does so not to call him Michael (like the witnesses or the Adventists) or a god, but God in a full way. As the reader will imagine, also on this occasion the VNM alters the text by adding words: “But regarding the Son: God is your throne forever and ever.”
Deep down, however, this crude falsification says the opposite of what it intends;For who is greater, the throne or he who sits on it?Well, if God is the throne of the Son, it must be at least as great as God.
f) 2Peter 1,1.”…In justice of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
As in Tit 2:13, we are again faced with an affirmation that Christ is God. Let’s see how the VNM renders the passage: “By the justice of our God and the savior Jesus Christ.”
Once again, adding a word that is not in the original, the entire meaning of the phrase is altered, depriving Christ of the attribution that Peter makes to him of his full divinity. However, it is curious that in verse 11 of this same chapter of the first epistle of Peter the same grammatical construction appears;but this time the Wachtower has translated it well (“of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ”), because it does not unite Christ with the title of God. It is shameful to contemplate how there can be people with so few moral scruples as to alter the sacred text in order to more easily defend their doctrines.
g) John 1,1. Without a doubt, this is the best-known forgery of all those that populate the pages of the VNM.It goes like this: “In (the) beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god.”
It is enough to go to the original Greek text to understand that this is a crude trick, consisting of inserting a word that is not in the gospel of John in order to deny the divinity of Christ.
“In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God and God was the Word.”
Naturally, the Greek passage is so clear that Wachtower has been forced to resort to the ungracious method of inventing a grammatical rule to justify the linguistic and theological barbarity that its translation implies. According to Wachtower, in Greek there is no word to indicate the idea of “one”, and, therefore, when a word does not have the definite article (ho, heh, heh, in Greek;el, la, lo, in Spanish) the word “un, una” must be placed before it. This rule is false;but the worst thing is that not even the Wachtower (despite being its inventor) follows it:
a’) In Greek there are words to express the idea of “one, one” without the translator having to supply them. One of them is hey, mia, in (one, one, one), which John uses repeatedly;v.gr.: Jn 1,40;6,8.22;70.71;7,21.50;9.25;10,16.30;11.49-50.52;12,2.4;13,21.23;17,11.21.22.23;18,14.22.26.39;19:34, etc.;the other is you, you (one-year or some-year), which is also used repeatedly in the New Testament. If John had wanted to say that the Word (Christ) was a god, he would certainly have resorted to using eis or tis.
b’) The absence of a definite article is not even replaced by “un” in Wachtower itself. Let us look at the same chapter 1 of the gospel of John as an example. In verse 6 we are told that a man (John the Baptist) was sent by God, and this word goes without a definite article;However, the Wachtower has not translated “representative of a god”, but rather “representative of God”. In verse 12 we are told about how to become children of God. Now, the word God goes without a definite article;but the Wachtower has not translated “sons of a god,” but “sons of God.”In verse 13, once again, the word “God” is devoid of a definite article;but the Wachtower does not translate “will of a god,” but “of God.”We could add more examples;but honestly these seem sufficient to us to show that the “rule” cited by Wachtower not only does not exist, but is not even applied by herself so as not to fall into the most absolute ridiculousness.
c’) The poetic construction of Jn 1,1 does not allow “a god” to be translated. The first eighteen verses of the gospel of John together formed a song (very possibly antiphonal) that was used in the meetings of the early Church. It therefore had a structure (very clear in the first three verses) of special beauty, since each phrase ended with the same word with which the next began: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.”
This construction also revolved its charm (and its impressive vigor) around the fact that the word with which one phrase concluded and the next began had the same value, content and meaning. This is why the “God” at the end of verse 1 could never be “a god”, but rather the word “God”, with the same content and force with which the previous phrase concluded.
Examining the text of Jn 1:1, in the VNM we discover, therefore, not only a lack of minimal knowledge of the language in which the New Testament was written, but also a lack of honesty for which it has had no qualms, once again, in altering Scripture to make it fit its preconceived doctrinal positions.
Let’s conclude with what refers to this text. First, however, I would like to make a brief reference to the origin of this painful translation of the glorious passage of Jn 1:1. When witnesses try to show that they are not the only ones to have translated the passage of Jn 1:1 in this way, they can only (and it is normal) cite a New Testament not edited by them that contains a similar version. I am referring to Greber’s New Testament.[This New Testament by Johannes Greber is cited by the Wachtower to support its translation, to cite an example, in the book Make sure of all things, Brooklyn 1965, 489, and in the pamphlet The Word Who is he? Brooklyn 1962, 5.]
Who was Johannes Greber?The Wachtower has presented him to his followers as a Catholic priest, but this is only half true. Greber was indeed a Catholic priest;but he left the Catholic Church to enter spiritualist circles. His own New Testament is cut on the basis of spiritualist theology and, according to its introduction, it was the spirits who told him how to translate. I quote from it: “Many contradictions between what appears in the ancient scrolls and the New Testament arose and were the subject of his (Greber’s) constant prayers for guidance, prayers that were answered and the discrepancies clarified by the world Spirit of God…His (Greber’s) wife, a medium of the world Spirit of God, was often instrumental in giving the correct answers of the Messengers of God to Pastor Greber.”[In fact, I maintain the thesis that the VNM is nothing more than a blatant copy of Greber’s spiritualist translation, as can easily be seen by comparing both versions. Greber’s can be obtained by requesting it from the Johannes Greber Memorial Foundation, 139 Hillside Avenue, Teaneck, NJ, 07666. USA]
It is still curious that the only author who translated Jn 1,1 as the Wachtower was a former priest who hung up his cassock to marry a medium and who left a version of the New Testament that was not based precisely on the study of the texts, but on the instructions he received in spiritualism sessions.
Does the Wachtower know this?The answer is affirmative. In the Watchtower of February 15, 1956, pages 110-111, it is stated in paragraph 11: “It is very clear that the spirits in which the former priest Greber believes assisted him in his translation.”A similar statement is also contained in the Watchtower April 1, 1983, page 31. [There is an additional historical-theological argument in favor of John wanting to point out the full divinity of Christ when writing the first verse of his gospel. I am referring to the use of the term “Word” to define the pre-existing Christ. This same term was used in the targumim (interpretive commentaries on the Old Testament) in Aramaic to refer to Yahweh. So to say that Yahweh created the heavens and the earth indicates that Memra (the Word) created the heavens and the earth, etc. That same Yahweh, according to John, was the one who had become flesh to save us.]
One might wonder what kind of leaders the Brooklyn sect has. Not only because they are willing to distort the sacred text by adding words that do not appear in it, but because they also dare to invent grammatical rules that do not exist and that they themselves do not respect, seeking as their only support a version of the New Testament that lacks a scientific basis and that, as they confess in their publications, is the work of spirits. All this, let us not forget, to deny the great truth of the incarnation of God in the person of Christ in order to redeem us. Can you really trust an organization like this?
We could now present more falsified texts;But we are going to cite only two more in which the Wachtower, without realizing it, has allowed the apostles in the VNM to call Jesus God. We refer to Jn 20:28 and 1Jn 5:20.”Then he said to Thomas: Put your finger here and see my hands, and take your hand and put it in my side, and stop being a disbeliever and become a believer. In response Thomas said to him: My Lord and my God” (Jn 20:27-28) (VNM).”…Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life” (1Jn 5,20) (VNM).
The experience of Jesus’ bodily resurrection (which witnesses also deny) meant a real spiritual boost for his devastated disciples. Thomas, the one who had doubted, knew from that moment that the Galilean with whom he had shared the previous years was God and Lord. The apostle John stated the same thing years later.
Now all the apostles were Jews. They knew the Scriptures and the words of Isaiah that there was only one God. Either they were wrong in affirming that Jesus was God and called him that when he was only a god (and in that case the Wachtower would be right doctrinally speaking) or they were right in identifying Christ with the God of whom Isaiah spoke: the only God, before whom there was none and after whom there would be no other. If the apostles were right, the Wachtower is tragically wrong. The author of these lines is not ashamed to say that he believes in the apostles, even if that means considering the Wachtower and her doctrines a total farce.
Jehovah.
Precisely as the first Christians saw in Jesus the God of the Old Testament incarnate, they did not hesitate to refer to him in a multitude of texts whose protagonist in the Old Testament was Jehovah.[As the reader surely knows, the vocalization “Jehovah” is completely incorrect. The tetragrammaton (or four letters: YHVH) of one of the names of God in the Old Testament (not the only one, as the witnesses claim);possibly it should be vocalized with “a” and “e”, resulting in the form “Yahveh”. What is certain is that Jehovah was not pronounced. Here we have respected this erroneous vocalization to preserve the force of the arguments in relation to the followers of the Wachtower sect.] As in other cases in the book, an in-depth analysis of the topic would require an extensive monograph;But we will try to at least mention some of the passages as an example.
a) Christ is Jehovah sold for thirty pieces of silver: “Then I said to them: If it is good in your eyes, give me my wages; but if not, abstain. And they proceeded to pay my wages, thirty pieces of silver. At that, Jehovah said to me: Throw it into the treasury… the majestic value with which I have been valued” (Zech 11:12-13).
It is known that the New Testament applies this passage to Christ as a prophecy fulfilled in him. Were the early Christians wrong in saying that Christ was Zechariah’s Jehovah valued at thirty pieces of silver, or are today’s witnesses wrong in denying it?
b) Christ is Jehovah preceded by John the Baptist: “Listen. Someone is crying in the desert: Clear the way of Jehovah. Make straight the highway for our God through the desert plain” (Is 40:3) (VNM).
Isaiah’s prophecy was clear: a voice would appear in the wilderness to herald the coming of Jehovah God. The evangelists saw in the text of the Jewish prophet a prophecy that was fulfilled when John the Baptist preceded Jesus. If John was the voice in the wilderness, Jesus must be Jehovah God. Was Isaiah wrong in prophesying the coming of Jehovah, when in reality only one god came?Were the apostles wrong in considering that the prophecy had been fulfilled, when in reality it was not, because instead of Jehovah a god came, or is the Wachtower wrong because neither Isaiah nor the first Christians were wrong, and, indeed, the one who came was Jehovah God preceded by John the Baptist?
c) Christ is Jehovah pierced: Zec 12:10 constitutes one of the most enigmatic passages in the entire Old Testament. Yahweh (or Jehovah) is addressing the prophet and suddenly announces something that sounds really strange: he would be pierced and in such a situation the children of Israel would see him;Jehovah pierced: “And they will look upon me, whom they have pierced.”
It is known that the first Christians saw in this passage a reference to Christ speared on the cross. Now, were they wrong in considering that the pierced Jehovah was Christ or is the Wachtower wrong in denying it?We greatly fear that if anyone has made a mistake, it was not the apostles;And the glorious prophecy of Is 35:4 surely sounded in their minds: “God himself will come and save you.”
It is a pity that such a glorious truth has been replaced in the Wachtower theology by the spectacle of an archangel who becomes a man to save humanity.
Savior
And if we accept that Christ is not God we would find ourselves with the problem that we have two saviors: Jehovah and Christ. Nothing could be further from biblical thought. Precisely Scripture tells us: “I… I am Jehovah, and there is no savior besides me” (Is 43:11).
Well, the authors of the New Testament say that our savior is Christ (2Tim 1:10). For those of us who believe that Christ is God there is no contradiction;But for Wachtower it is a matter of explaining whether Isaiah was wrong or whether the first Christians did…, unless they recognize that they are the ones who were wrong.
The first and the last
Another title of Jehovah that the authors of the New Testament had no problem applying to Jesus was that of “the first and the last”, which in the Old Testament was addressed to Jehovah (Is 44:6). Thus we are told: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Happy are those who wash their long robes, so that theirs may be the authority (to go) to the trees of life, and that they may gain entry into the city through its gates. Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone who likes lies and deals with it. I,Jesus, I sent my angel to bear witness to you of these things for the congregations” (Rev 22:13-16).
Was the author of Revelation lying and wrong (and also blaspheming) when attributing to Jesus a title of Jehovah, since Christ is only a god, or is the Wachtower theology wrong in this regard?
The creator
Of course, if the first Christians were wrong in their evaluation of who Jesus was, their error reached levels of delirium, because they identified him with the only creator of the universe;and that when the Old Testament points out that God, without any type of collaboration, created everything. Let’s see:
“This is what Jehovah, your Repurchaser and Maker of you from the womb, has said: I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens, I alone, stretching out the earth. Who was with me?”(Is 44,24) (VNM).
“I myself have made the earth and have even created man on it. I…, my own hands have stretched out the heavens” (Is 45:12).
The apostles were Jews, they knew these passages, they knew that God had not used helpers, instruments or intermediaries in his work of creation. If Christ was not God, why did they claim that he had created everything?
“In the beginning existed he who is the Word, and he who is the Word was with God and was God. He was in the beginning with God. Everything was made through him, and without him nothing was made… And he who is the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1,1-3.14a) (EP).
“For by himself all things were created, those in heaven and those on earth, the invisible and the visible, both thrones and dominions, principalities and powers; absolutely everything was created by him and for him; and he himself existed before all things and all subsist in him” (Col 1:16-17) (EP).
Were Paul and John nonsense when they affirmed that Christ was the only creator of the universe, the creator Jehovah, about whom Isaiah wrote, or was Wachtower rather nonsense when he denied it?
The “I Am”
In fact, this awareness that the first Christians had that Christ was the God revealed in the Old Testament to the people of Israel did not arise from their personal speculation, but from the memory of Jesus’ own teachings. Perhaps one of his most categorical statements in this regard was to appropriate the name with which Yahweh appeared before Moses when he entrusted him with his mission to free Israel from the slavery of Egypt. Let’s examine the text directly:
“Moses said to God: Well, I will present myself to the Israelites and tell them: The God of our fathers has sent me to you. But if they ask me: What is his name? What will I answer them? God said to Moses: I am who I am. This is how you will answer the Israelites: I am who has sent me to you” (Ex 3,13-14)(EP).
The text appears clear regarding the description of the episode. Moses questions Yahweh about the name by which he should present the children of Israel, and God answers that that name is “I am.”
Well, Jesus applied that same name to himself: “I have already told you that you will die in your sins, because if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins” (Jn 8:24) (BJ) (Both the translation of Ediciones Paulinas and the New Spanish Bible have stated: “that I am who I am” which perfectly captures the meaning of the original text from my point of view). Jesus’ statement was impressive: if they did not believe that he was the same God who appeared to Moses announcing liberation, they would die in their sins. It is not surprising that this claim radically divided his listeners: some believed (Jn 8:30), others tried to kill him (Jn 8:59).
Naturally, the passages maintain such an obvious relationship with each other that the Wachtower could only alter them in the VNM.Thus the “I Am” of Ex 3:14 is rendered: “I will prove to be”, although the Hebrew says hyh, that is, I am. In the same way, in the VNM, Jn 8:24 is rendered as “I am that one”, although the Greek says ego eimi, that is, “I Am.”
Can anyone doubt that we are not faced with chance, but rather with a methodically pursued policy to remove from the VNM all signs that Christ is God?
the Lord
Another of the titles linked to Yahweh in the tradition of Israel was that of “the Lord.”So closely was it in the minds of the Jews that there was only one Lord and that was Yahweh, that in the translation of the Old Testament into Greek known as the Bible of the Septuagint or Septuagint Yahweh is always replaced by the Greek word kýrios (Lord);and the same thing happened in the synagogue service in Hebrew, where instead of Yahweh God was called Adonai (Lord). With this background it is easy to guess how the Jews who were contemporary with Jesus would understand the statement that he was Lord.
The scope of this statement by the authors of the New Testament has also become so clear to Wachtower that it has committed the unthinkable absurdity of replacing the original word kýrios (Lord) with that of Jehovah in dozens of texts. That this has been intended to deprive Christ of the glory that his full divinity deserves will be made clear by the text of the VNM that, as an example, I reproduce below. It goes like this: “He who observes the day, observes it for Jehovah (in the original, the word is kýrios = Lord). Also, he who eats, eats for Jehovah (in the original kýrios = Lord), for he gives thanks to God; and he who does not eat, does not eat for Jehovah (in the original kýrios = Lord), and yet gives thanks to God. None of us, in fact, lives with respect to himself alone, and none of us dies with respect to himself alone; for whether we live, we live for Jehovah.(in the original kýrios = Lord), as if we die, we die to Jehovah (in the original kýrios = Lord). Therefore, whether we live or die, we belong to Jehovah (in the original kýrios = Lord).alive” (Rom 14, 6-9) (VNM).
It is therefore not true, as Wachtower claims, that by replacing “Lord” with “Jehovah” in the New Testament he makes an attempt to restore the purity of the original text. It is not because not a single manuscript of the New Testament contains the word Jehovah. It is not because it has not always been done consistently (in the case cited above I would say, for example, that Christ is Jehovah, and such a statement would shake the Wachtower theology to its foundations). It is not, because what is really sought is to hide the impressive effect that calling Jesus with the title kýrios (Lord) has in the New Testament, the same title that was given to Yahweh in his time. Therefore, the Wachtower has not sought to make VNM readers understand the message of the New Testament clearly, but rather to consciously and methodically hide from them the wonderful good news that the God of history has been incarnated in Christ to save us.
The saving name
What is so strange then that, contrary to what the Wachtower adepts claim, the first Christians were known not as “Jehovists” or “Jehovah’s Witnesses”, but by the name of the one they believed to be God incarnate: Christ?
Nor is it strange that they considered the saving name to be that of Christ (and yet they never mentioned Jehovah, as the Wachtower claims). Peter himself, the first of the apostles, made it very clear when he was brought before the religious authorities of Israel: “Jesus Christ the Nazarene… This is the stone that was treated by you builders as of no value, which has become the head of the corner. Furthermore, there is no salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Heb 4:10-12) (VNM).
Perhaps Peter was wrong, perhaps it was not true that the name of Jesus is the only one through which we can be saved, perhaps it is not true that there is no salvation in anyone except in Christ, perhaps…;But for the author of these lines, Pedro’s doctrinal authority is incomparably superior to that of the leaders of the Wachtower.
We could still continue with other titles and attributes of Jehovah that the first Christians applied to Christ, but I believe that with what has already been stated, the thesis we wanted to demonstrate is sufficiently proven.
2.2. In the Bible Christ is worshiped not as a god, but as God
Given everything we have seen in section b), it is not surprising that the reverence, adoration and glory that the first Christians directed to Jesus were those of God himself, and not those of a god. Let’s see it.
It is adored
In Old Testament thought the idea of worshiping a being other than God was simply abominable. The divine command established that only Yahweh could be worshiped (Dt 6,13; 10,20), and this is what Jesus repeated to the devil when he asked him to worship him (Lk 4,8). The word used in this text to indicate worship is the Greek verb proskyneo. As expected, the Wachtower has translated proskyneo as worship when referring to the Father, e.g.: Lk 4,8;but when referring to Christ he used it as “pay homage” to hide the fact that he was worshiped by the first Christians. Thus, Mt 28:17 says: “And seeing him they worshiped him (proskýnesan)”.
And Luke 24:52 points out: “And they, worshiping him (proskynesantes), returned to Jerusalem.”
We have other examples of this use of the term “worship” (proskyneo) in relation to Jesus, for example, in Mt 2:2.8 and 11, or Jn 9:38. In all cases, the Wachtower has poured out “paying homage”, hiding the worship of Jesus.
We have had occasion to see before how the Wachtower’s own tricks are not always perfect and that they had overlooked a couple of texts (Jn 20:28 and 1Jn 5:20), in which it is said that Christ is God. The same thing happened in the past with a quote that talks about worshiping Jesus. I am referring to Heb 1:6. The VNM translated like this: “But when he brings his firstborn back into the inhabited land, he says: And let all the angels of God worship him.”
The text made it so clear that the angels themselves worshiped Jesus that in the 1987 edition of the VNM the text was changed. Now he says: “pay tribute to him.”
Behaviors like these make it clear that there is no error of good faith or simple ignorance in the actions of the leaders of the Wachtower. There is a firm and premeditated purpose to deny the full divinity of Christ, even if this requires resorting to lies, translation fraud or the New Testament of a spiritualist. Such behavior, devoid of all ethics, cannot sincerely claim to come from sincere, Christian people who love the Bible and submit to its teachings.
He is honored like the Father
It cannot be argued (as some authors have claimed) that the honor and adoration that was lavished on Jesus was something that came from feverish minds that had not understood him well. The evangelist John points out that such behavior was based on the very words of Jesus. We read in Jn 5:23: “For the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, so that everyone may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father” (VNM).
The Greek expression that the VNM translates as “just as” is kazos, which is equivalent to “in the same way,” “exactly the same.”But how would this be possible if Christ is only a god, and the Father is God?Is it not because it is precisely not like that, because precisely the Father and the Son are God?We believe that this is what emerges not only from the text, but from the context of the New Testament.
Before him the knee bends
Therefore it should not surprise us that the knee is bowed in the New Testament not only before the Father (Eph 3:14) but also before the Son: “… so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those (who are) in heaven and of those (who are) on the earth and of those (who are) under the ground” (Phil 2,9) (VNM).
receive glory
At the bottom of this whole vision of profound adoration of Christ that characterizes New Testament Christianity, what underlies, then, is the awareness that Christ is Yahweh himself, and therefore is worthy of receiving the glory that can only be given to him. That this glory could not be given to anyone else was clear from the Old Testament: “I am Jehovah. That is my name, and to no one will I give my own glory, nor my praise to graven images” (Is 42,8) (VNM) “… to no other will I give my own glory” (Is 48,11) (VNM).
The truth, however, is that John affirms that the glory of Jesus is the same as that of Jehovah. Let’s look at it: “…Jesus spoke these things and went away and hid himself from them. But although he had performed so many signs before them, they did not put faith in him, so that the word of Isaiah the prophet was fulfilled, that he said: Jehovah, who has put faith in the thing heard by us? And as for the arm of Jehovah, to whom has it been revealed? The reason why they could not believe is that Isaiah said again: He has blinded their eyes and made them hardtheir hearts, so that they do not see with their eyes and turn away and I heal them. Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. However, even among the rulers many truly put faith in him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, so as not to be expelled from the synagogue” (Jn 12,36b-42) (VNM).
The gospel of John attempts in this passage to explain why many of the Jews did not believe in Jesus. His thesis is that such an event was already prophesied by Isaiah, who, when he saw the glory of Jesus, announced that the hearts of the Jews would be blinded and their hearts would be hardened. Now, the passage to which John refers is that of Is 6:1-10, in which Isaiah saw… Jehovah himself. There are two possibilities: either John was wrong when he said that the glory of Christ was that of Jehovah and also made a blasphemous error because he attributed something to him that did not belong to him (in which case the Wachtower would be right), or John was aware of what he was writing, since he identified Christ with Jehovah and saw no difficulty in attributing the same glory to him. In that case, however, the Wachtower would be wrong. The author of these lines believes, in his modest understanding, that John the Evangelist is much more trustworthy than the Wachtower.
To a large extent, John’s experience was like Tomás’.He had seen Jesus die up close, very closely, because he was the only one of the twelve who did not hide and who remained at the foot of the cross with Mary and other women. But he also later attended his resurrection, and was able to verify that Jesus’ statements that he himself would be resurrected were faithfully fulfilled: “…Jesus said to them: Tear down this temple and in three days I will raise it up… but he spoke of the temple of his body. However, when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he used to say this; and they believed the Scripture and the saying that Jesus said” (Jn 2,1922) (VNM).
Who could die as a man and then raise that own body from the dead?Perhaps a created god, an archangel, a mini-god, or just God himself, the creator of life?
Let us cite, finally, one more passage in which the Wachtower has sought to deprive Christ of his glory. It is 2Cor 4:4: “In whom the god of the world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers so that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, does not shine.”
The passage is of special importance for several aspects. First of all, it must be noted that Paul indicates a diabolical plan, which consists of Satan, whom the world has actually converted in his god, he has blinded the minds of unbelievers so that they do not see the light that the gospel provides. This gospel is about the glory of Christ. Well, the NM translation takes the glory from Christ to give it to the good news: “Among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ does not pass (to them)” (VNM).
Decidedly, the Wachtower does not know how to alter the sacred text to deprive Christ of his divinity and glory, a task that Paul in this passage attributes to Satan himself.
Secondly, this passage is relevant because it is used by the Wachtower to prove that Christ is a god…, just as the devil is. Now, this text does not claim that the devil is a god, but rather that this world has made him, consciously or unconsciously, such. In the same way, Paul says in Phil 3:19 that many have their belly as God;But that does not indicate that the belly is a god, but rather that some have made it such with their behavior. Therefore, trying to use this passage as a basis on which to support the existence of many gods is an exegetical impossibility.
Finally, the passage refers to Christ as the image of God, something that the Wachtower, always eager to bring the Bible’s water to the mill of its prejudices, interprets in the sense that Christ is an image, but not God himself. The truth, however, is that in Koine Greek, in which this passage was written, the term eikon indicates not plastic representation, but “authorized manifestation.”That is, what the apostle intends to teach us is that Christ is the only authorized and legitimate manifestation of God that we know. Those of us who confess the dogma of the Trinity believe precisely that: that Christ is not a god, but the real manifestation of God.
3. The messiah-God in Judaism
Christianity meant an emotional and spiritual shock of incalculable magnitudes for the people of Israel. Jesus, his family, his first disciples, were Jews. He claimed to be a messiah, but in a way that questioned the existence of the Jewish religious status to its very root, because Jesus also said that “God was his father, thus making him equal to God” (Jn 5:18). As soon as Jesus died, the conflicts between Christianity and Judaism began to intensify again. A few decades later, Jews who were Christians were expelled, this time in a general way, from the synagogues, and Jewish theology itself underwent a profound revision precisely to deprive Christianity of arguments. In this way, Judaism threw overboard a multitude of currents and interpretations that were within it (that the messiah would suffer, that the messiah would be God, etc.), and Christianity, in reaction, began to delimit its opposition to Judaism.[I have outlined this conflict in my article, written in collaboration with Pilar Fernández Uricel, entitled “Anavim, apocalyptics and Hellenists”, in homage to José María Blázquez, Madrid 1990. A more in-depth study of the topic in J. Jocz, The Jewish people and Jesus Christ, Grand Rapids, 1979, where it is clear how Judaism – as it was forged at the time of the writing of the Talmud – was mainly an attempt by the Jews to solidly oppose Christianity.] Notwithstanding the above, some vestiges have been preserved that indicate how the idea that the messiah would be God was common at the time in which Christianity emerged, and that, furthermore, although dimly, such an idea was preserved in some post-Christian circles. Let’s look at some example: “God called him (the messiah) with six names that he says in relation to himself: For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; and the government will be on his shoulder; and his name will be wonderful, counselor, God, strong, eternal father, prince of peace (Is 9:5-6 is being quoted here). So he called him God in a distinctive way” (Iggereth Teman; Rabbi Moses ben Maimon writing to Jacob Alfakhumi).
“What is the name of the king messiah? To this Rabbi Abba bar Kahana replied: Yahweh is his name.” (Midrash Cast 1,51) “God also called the king messiah with his own name (God’s)” (Midrash Thillim 21,2).
It is still paradoxical that these rabbinic texts, written by people who denied that Jesus was the messiah, contained a more correct conception in relation to the messiah than the one propagated by the Wachtower, which claims to be Christian.
4. The messiah-God among early Christians
It goes without saying that early Christianity was also absolutely certain that Christ was God;and not only did he not refrain from proclaiming it, but he insisted on it. It is impossible to mention all the quotes from the first century and the beginning of the second, which are not biblical in this regard, but we are going to record some examples:
a) Ignatius of Antioch (died between 98 and 117): “There is a doctor, in the flesh made God, son of Mary and son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Eph 7:2).
b) Second epistle of Clement (between 100 and 150 AD): “We must feel about Jesus Christ, who is God, who is judge of the living and the dead” (1,1)
c) Justin Martyr (2nd century): “Christ pre-exists as God before the ages” (Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon 48,l) (actually chapters 48 to 108 are dedicated to showing with the Old Testament that the messiah is God and must be worshiped).
d) Athenagoras of Athens (second half of the 2nd century): “We admit one God… God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit who show their power in unity and their distinction in order” (Supplication in favor of Christians, 10).
5. Conclusion
As the reader who enters the rest of the book will have the opportunity to verify, this chapter is by far the longest in the book, and there are reasons for this. The confession that Christ is God constitutes the fundamental stone on which Christianity is based. Unlike other religions, such as Islam or Buddhism, Christianity claims that its founder was God himself. The attack on this key to faith has been a constant in the history of the Church. It was done by the Ebionites in the 1st century, the Gnostics in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the Arians in the 4th century, and since then, the Cathars, the Socinians, the Unitarians, the first Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Children of God, the Moonies and a long etcetera.
Despite everything, the faith of the Church has remained unshakable. The God who created the world, who inspired the Scriptures, who freed the people of Israel from the yoke of Egypt and who guided the prophets, was incarnated in a humble Jewish virgin to die on a cross and redeem us with his precious blood. We look at that cross from which our God incarnated as a carpenter Galileo hung, moved by his love, which did not back down from anything to obtain our salvation. Almost two millennia have passed since then and it remains a great mystery that the Lord of glory, whom the angels and apostles adored, humbled himself as a slave to suffer on our behalf. Maybe it’s that love always has something mysterious and inexplicable;and God’s is not an exception to that principle, but a confirmation. Christ, as the Scriptures teach us, was not a god or the archangel Michael sent by Jehovah to earth to bear the weight of the work of redemption;Nor was he the failed messiah, whose mistakes the Reverend Sun Myung Moon has to correct. No;In that lacerated body God beat and his love for us beat. We only have to worship him humbly and give him the glory that the sects try to dispossess him.
