JWD220002012

Jehovahs Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics
Elihu Books
26165 Cottonwood Street
Murrieta, CA 92563
www.elihubooks.com
Copyright 2000, 2012 by Greg Stafford
Digital Version (Revised Second Edition): 2012.
Except for brief quotations embodied in printed reviews or critical articles, no

part of this publication may be reproduced, shared, stored in a retrieval system
or computer of any kind, transmitted in any form or by any means (printed,
written, photocopying, visual, electronic, audio, or otherwise), without the
prior written permission of the author.
Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations from the Old and New Testaments
of the Bible are from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures With
References, Revised, Copyright 1984. At times, however, the author will
present his own translation of biblical and other ancient, related texts.
*Portions of this book have at times been separately released by the author for
review. Only the official printed and digital forms of this book contain the
actual editions of the contents of this book.
Publishers Cataloging-in-Publication
(Provided by Quality Books, Inc.)
Stafford, Greg G.
Jehovah's Witnesses defended : an answer to scholars
and critics / by Greg Stafford. 2nd ed., rev. (digital version)
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
LCCN: 2012941543
ISBN-13: 978-0-9659814-6-0
ISBN-10: 0-9659814-6-0
A previous edition of this book was cataloged as follows:
1. Jehovah's Witnesses--Doctrines. 2. Jehovah's
Witnesses--Apologetic works. I. Title.
BX8526.S69 2000 289.9'2
QBI99-1280
"Be Wise, my son, and make my heart
rejoice, that I may make a reply to him that
is taunting me."Proverbs 27:11 NWT
Introduction to the Revised and Digital Editions vii
Page 55, first paragraph, line 7: add an apostrophe is added after

Trinitarians;
Page 55, second paragraph, line 6: are is changed to is;
Page 55, third paragraph, line 6: site is changed to cite;
Page 62, first full paragraph, line 7: of is added after uses;
Page 69, last paragraph, line 4: the second use of that is corrected to
the;
Page 73, second-to-last paragraph, line 4: a closing bracket had been

added after Trinitarians;
Page 75, last paragraph, first word in the first line: Trinitarians is
corrected to Trinitarians;
Page 77, second-to-last paragraph, line 4: mean is corrected to

means;
Page 78, note 40, line 5: pages is corrected to page;
Page 79, second-to-last paragraph, line 7: a is added after as;
Page 83, first full paragraph, line 4: translations is corrected to

translation and show to shows;
Page 90, first full paragraph, line 11: are is corrected to is;
Page 104, first full paragraph, line 3: we is added after this;
Page 110, second full paragraph, line 2: s is added to counterpart;

line 3: IN is corrected to in;
Page 120, final paragraph, second-to-last line: Trinitarians is

corrected to Trinitarians;
Page 128, only non-block-quote paragraph, line 3: nor is revised to

or;
viii Jehovah's Witnesses Defended
Page 137, note 18: the closing double quotation mark after Bsac is
moved to after 20:28;
Page 145, last paragraph, line 8: second that is deleted;
Page 146, second-to-last paragraph, line 1: interprets is revised to

applies;
Page 146, note 49: Idbi. is corrected to Ibid.;
Page 149, first paragraph, line 4: closing double quotation marks are
added after words;
Page 149, first paragraph, last line: note 58 is moved to the end of the
quote in line 4;
Page 149, note 58: page 157 is corrected to 158;
Page 149, note 60, line 1: the first the is corrected to that;
Page 153, note 73: the parenthetical reference is corrected to (Chapter

2, pages 96-128);
Page 155, final paragraph, line 6: of is added after form;
Page 156, second complete paragraph, line 6: Whites is corrected to

Whites;
Page 156, second complete paragraph, final sentence: that before

they is deleted;
Page 159, note 93, line 9: we of the subject is deleted;
Page 177, paragraph beginning with Indeed, line 4: Isaiah 53:13 is

corrected to Isaiah 52:13;
Page 185, line 3 from the top: a period is added after judgment;
Page 185, line 4 from the top: (compare Isa 26:21.) is corrected to
(Compare Isa 26:21.);
Introduction to the Revised and Digital Editions ix
Page 187, paragraph beginning with Also, line 3: the period after
Scriptures is a comma;
Page 187, paragraph beginning with Also, line 3: Nor is corrected

to nor;
Chapter 4, odd-page header: odd-page header is corrected to Jesus

Relationship with God;
Page 205, line 10 from the top of the page: the first use of is is
deleted;
Page 216, first full paragraph, line 4: the final m is corrected to <;
Page 234, note 107, last sentence: the example of qohelet in

Ecclesiastes 1:1 is deleted;
Page 234, note 107, last sentence: the use of agape (love) in 1 John
4:8 is added;
Page 240, first paragraph, line 8: uses is corrected to use;
Page 253, note 26, line 2 from the bottom: the period after beginning
is corrected to a comma;
Page 338, par. beginning with Before we, line 2: the apostrophe used
with PNs is deleted;
Page 338, note 88: M.A. thesis is added to the parenthetical

reference;
Page 339, last par., line 3: cannot is added after we;
Page 370, note 14, last line: the ???? is corrected to 326-330;
Page 406, par. 4), line 8: closing double quotation marks are added
after God;
Page 436, par. beginning with Of course, line 6: that is corrected

with such;
x Jehovah's Witnesses Defended
Page 453, par. beginning with, Further proof, line 6: know is

corrected with known;
Page 502, first block quote paragraph, line 1: a is added after in;
Page 504, par. beginning with, At least, second-to-last line:

persons is corrected to person;
Page 511, par. beginning with In the, third line from the bottom:
verses is corrected to verse;
Page 545, first par., line 2: Manuel is corrected to Manual;
Page 545, first par., fourth line from the bottom: ???? is corrected to
266-273.
Foreword
Kebra Negast means in classical Ethiopic "The Glory of

the kings." It is also the name of a holy book of the Ethiopians. It
tells us that Solomon had relations with the Queen of Shebaand
tells us that their offspring became the forefather of the Ethiopian
emperors, a dynasty that ended with Haile Selassie ("The Holy
Trinity"). There is no way to establish the accuracy and
historicity of the book, yet Ethiopic school children are taught to
believe its contents. "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Ever
Merciful" are the first words of the Quran. There is no way to
establish that the contents of the book really come from God; to
the contrary, it can be shown that some of its expressions clash
with established facts. Yet children are taught to recite its verses
in the mosques, and millions of adults base their lives on its
teachings.
Unfounded traditions are also widespread in Christendom.
While the Bible can be shown to be a reliable, true, and unified
"library," through the centuries Bible-professing denominations
and sects by the thousands have arisen, all of them telling their
adherents to believe their teachings. In the midst of this
conglomerate of faiths Jehovah's Witnesses for more than one
hundred years have preached the good news of the kingdom, and
have questioned the basic teachings of Christendom. This has not
gone unnoticed in Christendom. In fact, in the last two decades a
host of articles and books attacking and misrepresenting
Jehovah's Witnesses have been published. In this environment the
book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended has been born.
Greg Stafford shows he has zeal for the truth, yet he is not
carried away into dogmatism, for he remains focused upon
delivering logically sound argumentation. So even though the
book is apologetic in nature, he still manages to present his case
in a balanced way. Both Witnesses and critics should find that
time spent reading his book is truly worthwhile. The author has a
very good command of Greek, a language that the author uses
extensively in his arguments. His (more limited) use of Hebrew
xii Jehovah's Witnesses Defended
also reflects an accurate knowledge of that language. Impressive

indeed is the breadth of the quotationsquotations that include
"church fathers" from the second, third, and fourth centuries, and
discussions by grammarians and commentators of the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries. In addition to a lucid discussion of the
grammar and syntax of each key passage, the strength of the book
is the stress placed upon the context. In the discussion of ego eimi
in John 8:58, for instance, all other occurrences of the words are
compared, and this lends credence to his linguistic conclusions.
He also has a keen eye for nuances, something which is seen in
the footnotes; they should not be neglected. I found note 15 on
page 9 of the author's work to be particularly interesting.
The book will benefit any reader with an interest in the
question "Who is Jesus Christ?" A principal part of the book
discusses different sides of this question. Also interesting is the
48-page chapter "The Watchtower and False Prophecy." Here the
true position of Jehovah's Witnesses as to interpretation of
prophecies is established by use of quotes, and in the process a
widespread misunderstanding is cleared away. After chapter 7 we
find an excursus about the Greek article, which linguists and
grammarians will find provocative. The author takes into
consideration all earlier work on the question of the validity of
what has come to be known as "Granville Sharp's rule." Stafford's
discussion is of such high caliber that any future study in the field
cannot afford neglecting it.
Because of the nature of the arguments, some parts of the
book may be rather difficult for some persons. However, this
should be taken as a challenge to increase one's understanding of
the Bible and the languages in which it was written. Some
chapters may be studied several times, and as a whole the book
can be used as a work of reference. It is a pleasure for me to
recommend the book to any sincere student of the Bible, and I am
sure it will bring kebr negus, glory to the king, Jesus Christ, who
is the chief defender of his Father Jehovah.
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
Introduction
It is an easy thing for someone who encounters a view that

differs from his or her own to try and find some fault with the new
view, particularly, it seems, if it is of a religious nature. Indeed, in
today's American society there appears to be an even greater
tendency to avoid any discussion of different religious viewsa
sad commentary indeed on a large part of our society. Those of us
who are interested in discussing the Bible and related issues (such
as mankind's future) must not become desensitized to the
faithlessness and apathy that we see is surrounding us.
Unfortunately, many individuals and organizations who do show
an interest in spiritual matters spend far too much time attacking
personalities who either have made mistakes or have professed
some particular viewso that the result is little or no progress
towards resolution of really important issues. It is unfortunate that
some groups prefer blurring these issues rather than bringing them
into focus.
My being one of Jehovah's Witnesses for the past nine years
has given me the privilege of speaking with individuals from
many different faiths, and I have found one very outstanding
thing: Too many people are woefully misinformed about the
teachings of different religious groups. The reason for this, in my
opinion, is two-fold: 1) Imprecise and often misleading
information about religious (and other) groups is far too easy to
obtain; 2) those who obtain this information just simply do not
care enough to check the information for accuracy and
completeness. Perhaps they are too busy with other pursuits to
care enough.
The purpose of this book is to put before the scholarly
communityindeed, to put before all those interested in religious
studiesa more complete discussion of controversial matters
relating to Jehovah's Witnesses and the New World Translation of
the Holy Scriptures. For far too long the Witnesses and their
beliefs have been misrepresented in scholarly publications, and
xvi Jehovah's Witnesses Defended
this in turn has spread through other mediums. The consequence

has been a dimming of the light that might otherwise result from
discussions that are free from erroneous presuppositions. Granted,
the Witnesses are not perfect; we have never said that we were. In
fact, Chapter 9 of this book explores some of the better known
mistakes the Witnesses have made in relation to their
interpretation of Bible prophecy. But such errors hardly justify the
kind of criticism they have received.
Some parts of this book are rather technical, and the use of
footnotes (sometimes lengthy) throughout the publication may
seem intimidating to one who is not familiar with the issues
discussed here. For this reason, an attempt has been made to
explain, in the body of the text (usually in parentheses), most of
the technical terms used, but without unnecessarily cluttering the
main text itself. A work of this sort necessarily involves the use of
scholarly terminology that, again, may tend to put off those who
are unfamiliar with some of the more nuanced arguments. Still,
there are times when "the use of specialized terminology is
essential if misunderstanding is to be avoided."1
Abbreviations are kept to a minimum. In fact, except for the
frequent use of "ibid." (an abbreviation for the Latin, ibidem,
meaning, in this work, the same book or article previously cited)
there is little use made of abbreviated, technical terms that might
require explanation beyond that given in the surrounding text.
Footnotes are used instead of endnotes; so, the reader need not
jump from one page to another. I will make frequent use of
brackets [ ] to signal my incorporation of explanatory material in
my quotation of someone else's work, although there are times
(very few) when bracketed comments are original to the work
quoted.
This book is, as its subtitle states, an answer to scholars and
critics. Thus, some of the content may seem difficult for those
readers who do not read Greek or Hebrew, let alone understand
certain features of the languages. For this reason, I have provided
a transliteration and translation for important Greek and Hebrew
1
John Lyons, Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995), xv.
Introduction xvii
texts. This is important in terms of understanding the issue under

discussion. The transliteration scheme is simple because it was
designed to provide an approximate vocalization; it is not
completely accurate in terms of the Erasmian system of
pronunciation so common in Greek grammars today, which is
itself suspect.2 Diacritical marks, such as those used to distinguish
long vowels from short vowels, are not used throughout the book.
In fact, such marks are used only briefly in Chapter 1, where the
pronunciation of the divine name is discussed. For the most part,
translations of the original languages, unless otherwise specified,
are from the 1984 Reference Edition of the New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures. However, my own translations
are sometimes provided in footnotes and parenthetical
explanations.
The Bible is filled with wonderful promises of life and
hope. Unfortunately, since its beginning, Christianity has had to
combat teachings that were not taught by its founder. Thus, early
followers of Jesus had to "put up a hard fight for the faith." (Jude
3) In defending the "faith," however, the early Christians clothed
themselves with mildness and deep respect. (1Pe 3:15) It is with a
similar spirit that one issue of The Watchtower expressed a need
"to come to the defense of Jehovah God," making use of "every
opportunity to bear witness to Jehovah's name and Kingdom."3
I do not hold that every conclusion I have put forward in
this publication is rightly above criticism. That would be naive. I
have confidence, nevertheless, in the positions defended herein,
and I have endeavored at all times to encourage balance and an
absence of diatribe in discussions of controversial subject matter
between ourselves (Jehovah's Witnesses) and our detractors. I
have no doubt that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society could
produce a publication far more technically oriented than mine,
and that it be one that also very ably defends the beliefs of
Jehovah's Witnesses and the New World Translation. But I realize
the Society's efforts are rightly concentrated on helping people
2
See Chrys C. Caragounis, "The Error of Erasmus and Un-Greek
Pronunciations of Greek," FN 8 (November, 1995), 151-185.
3
"Meeting the Challenge of Loyalty," The Watchtower, 15 March 1996, pars.
7, 8, p. 16
xviii Jehovah's Witnesses Defended
who have little or no exposure to the precious truths found in the

Bible, so that such ones can understand what God requires of
them, and that they may rejoice even in this day and age in their
doing God's will.
I believe we can discuss the issues to such an extent and in
such a way that honest-hearted ones will eventually see the truth.
As far back as July, 1880, one issue of Zion's Watch Tower and
Herald of Christ's Presence (see on the reprint page 119 the brief
article entitled, "Set for Defense"), stated: "It is as necessary to
expose an error taught by one as by a thousand. We have never
found fault with any one for specifying what in our teaching was
supposed to be error, and for endeavoring earnestly to show
wherein we were wrong. All we ask for is fairness and candor.
What we ask for ourselves we desire to give to others." This book
is a defense, and, thus, necessarily involves a measure of conflict.
But I sincerely hope that readers of my book will find throughout
its pages "fairness and candor"and an able defense of Jehovah's
Witnesses and of the hope within them.
1
"Jehovah" and Jehovahs Witnesses
Jehovahs Witnesses are well known for their use of the divine
name. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus made the name of
God manifest to his followers (John 17:6, 26). Following Jesus
example, it would seem appropriate Christians would likewise make
Gods name known to others, especially to those who do not know
what the name is. But what does it mean to "make Gods name
known"? Does this involve the actual use and pronunciation of the
name itself? Or is the word "name" used simply as a reference to
Gods character?
There is no disputing the fact that Gods name appears
thousands of times in the Hebrew Old Testament. Why, then, do so
few modern Bible versions contain some form of the divine name in
their translations of the Hebrew Scriptures? What about the New
Testament? Is there evidence that some form of the divine name was
actually used by the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures (New
Testament [NT])? These are some of the questions that we will
consider in our opening chapter. But before we answer these
questions there is another, related matter involving the divine name
that must be discussed, which continues to be the subject of great
misunderstanding: the pronunciation of Gods name.
Pronouncing the Divine Name

"Jehovah" or "Yahweh"? Jehovah is an acceptable
pronunciation of the divine name. It preserves the essential elements
of the tetragrammaton (hwhy). The most widely known form of the
divine name in English is "Jehovah," a form linguistically
2 Jehovahs Witnesses Defended
widespread because of Christendoms missionary-translators of the

Bible and the modern use by Jehovahs Witnesses. This form has
three syllables ("Je-ho-vah") whereas most authorities say that the
original Hebrew pronunciation was only two syllables ("Yah-weh").
Ron Rhodes, and Evangelical Christian apologist, argues that
his primary point of contention with Jehovahs Witnesses is not the
word "Jehovah" itself, since, as he says, "Some evangelical
Christians use the term as well." Yet, in his discussion of the divine
name he is quick to note that "the term Jehovah is not actually a
biblical term," and "there is no justification for the term Jehovah."1
Others who have studied this issue offer a much different opinion.
For example, regarding the use of Jehovah for hwhy (Hebrew:
YHWH), Hebrew scholar Francis Denio states:
Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah

misrepresents Yirmeyahu ["Jeremiah"]. The settled connotations
of Isaiah and Jeremiah forbid questioning their right. Usage has
given them the connotations proper for designating the
personalities which these words represent. Much the same is true
of Jehovah. It is not a barbarism. It has already many of the
connotations needed for the proper name of the covenant God of
Israel. There is no other word which can faintly compare with it.
For centuries it has been gathering these connotations. No other
word approaches this name in the fulness [sic] of associations
required. The use of any other word falls so far short of the
proper ideas that it is a serious blemish in a translation.2
According to Denio, then, "Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no

more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu." Does this mean that
"Jeremiah" is not actually a "biblical term," as Rhodes would have
it? In the nearly twenty years I have spent researching and
discussing this issue with thousands of people I have yet to find
anyone argue this way, likely for the simple fact that "Jeremiah," like
"Jehovah," represent, in English, the actual Hebrew words written
1
Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovahs Witnesses
(Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 1993), 50-51.
2
Francis B. Denio, "On the Use of the Word Jehovah in Translating the Old
Testament," JBL 46 (1927), 147-148 (emphasis added).
"Jehovah" and Jehovahs Witnesses 3
long ago.3 But is "Yahweh" the true, original Hebrew/Jewish

pronunciation of the divine name?
George Buchanan has written in support of a three-syllable
form of the divine name in Hebrew. In a published article he argues
against the pronunciation "Yahweh," stating: "Anyone who cares to
check the concordances will find that there is no name in the entire
Scriptures that includes the Tetragrammaton and also omits the
vowel that is left out in the two-syllable pronunciation
[=Yahweh]."4
Several years earlier Buchanan wrote a similar, more detailed
defense of the original, three-syllable form of the divine name. In
this article Buchanan points out that there was only one group in
antiquity to pronounce the divine name similar to the popular form,
"Yahweh." Theodoret (fifth-century CE theologian) claimed the
Samaritans pronounced the divine name as Iabe (see below for more
on Greek forms of the divine name).5 But "all other examples [from
antiquity] maintain the middle vowel."6
Buchanan also points out that "the name Yahweh does not
even sound Semitic" when compared with other forms of the divine
name, in certain sections of the Bible. He offers examples from
Exodus 15 with "Yahweh" and "Yahowah" in the same sentences.
Those with "Yahowah" sound "smooth and poetic," while those
3
Those who continue to claim the divine name is "oftentimes badly mispronounced
as Jehovah" (James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian
Belief [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany, 1998], 197, note 1 in his Chapter Three) show
that they do not understand the issues involved in using the Anglicized, three-syllable form
"Jehovah" instead of the far less accurate, two-syllable Hebrew approximation "Yahweh." It
is indeed unfortunate that this type of misinformation continues to circulate in widely read,
recent publications.
4
George W. Buchanan, "How Gods Name Was Pronounced," BAR 21.2 (March-
April 1995), 31. David Thomas ("A Further Note on YHWH," BT 44.4 [October 1993],
444-445) also argues for a three-syllable pronunciation: "It is sometimes argued that the
form Jehovah is a made-up composite form which bears little resemblance to Yahweh,
the presumed Hebrew pronunciation. . . . If we accept Yitschak = Isaac without any
problem, this appears to be straining at a gnat."
5
George W. Buchanan, "Some Unfinished Business With the Dead Sea Scrolls,"
RevQ 13.49-52 (1988), 416. See also A. Lukyn Williams, "The Tetragrammaton
Jahweh, Name or Surrogate?" ZAW 54 (1936), 264, who also refers to Epiphanius (c.
315-403 CE) list of divine names which includes Ia and Iabe (see figure 1.1).
6
Buchanan, "Some Unfinished Business With the Dead Sea Scrolls," 416.
with "Yahweh" "sound rough and unrythmical."7 Buchanan

concludes:
The accumulated data points heavily in the direction of a three

syllable word, whose middle syllable was h or h. The first two
syllables were Yah or Yah that were sometimes abbreviated to
Y. For poetry, liturgy, and some other reasons, the name Yh
was also used. Only from Theodorets Greek spelling of the
Samaritan use of the term is there any basis for the pronunciation
Yahweh or Jahveh. This is hardly enough to overpower all of
the other exhibits.8
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek forms of the divine name.

In the above quote from Buchanan we can see that the early support
for "Yahweh" is quite limited, and relates primarily to a Greek
spelling of the divine name that is supposed to represent the
pronunciation of the Samaritans, not the Jews. Figure 1.1 below lists
all the relevant Greek forms of the divine name, and their
equivalents in Hebrew/Aramaic. By "relevant" I mean those forms
of the name associated or generally associated with the ancient
Jewish use of the divine name.
While forms of the divine name found in Gnostic literature are
sometimes the same as those found in reference to Jewish usage
(such as Iao), novel Greek forms of the divine name found in
Gnostic sources are not listed in figure 1.1, as they are not
considered relevant in understanding the ancient Jewish
pronunciation of the divine name. The Greek forms used in
reference to the Samaritan use of the divine name are also not listed
in figure 1.1, for reasons given below.
7
Ibid., 418.
8
Ibid., 419. Laird Harris, "The Pronunciation of the Tetragram," in The Law and
the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis,
ed. John H. Skilton (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing,
1974), 220, believes that the form "Yahweh" is an "incorrect hybrid form with an early
w and a late -eh." Harris himself believes (page 224) that "the syllable division ya ho wi
hu is the most likely," and that if the divine name is actually a noun [Harris does not
believe that the divine name is necessarily related to the verb haw(y)ahibid., 218-
222] it "would have ended up as Jahoweh, a form accidentally similar but remarkably
like the hybrid form Jehovah!"
Introduction to the Revised Second Edition
and Digital Edition
The content of the Second Edition of this book, published in
2000, is essentially unchanged in this revised, digital edition. In
addition to the errata listed below, the first part of Chapter 1 and
small parts of other chapters have been rewritten in minor areas
with some new paragraphing as well, in order to accommodate the
conversion of the original, printed Second Edition to this current
revised format, and to make for a better read in places.
No significant content was changed in any of these areas,
except for the changes listed below.
A copy of the actual February 3, 1979, letter from Edwin H.
Palmer has been used in place of my original transcription of the
letter (see page 16).
Throughout several chapters I have deleted unnecessary
instances of that, and in many instances I have replaced thus
with so or therefore.
Links have been added to: page 6, note 15, and to page 9,
note 25.
Other than these corrections and revisions, this digital
version contains the text, the wording, and most of the formatting
presented in the original printed Second Edition (2000).
Errata
Page 5, note 12: page 7 is corrected to page 8;
Page 7, note 17: note 16 is corrected to note 15;
Page 21, second line from the top of the page: could is corrected to
cloud;
Page 34, last paragraph, third line from the top: the interpretation
that is changed to interpreting;
Page 34, first full paragraph, line eight: a period (.) is added after the
closing parens;
Figure 1.1
Greek Forms of the Divine Name and their Corresponding
Hebrew/Aramaic Forms
HEBREW /
GREEK GREEK / HEBREW
SOURCE ARAMAIC
FORMS PRONUNCIATION
FORMS
4QLXXLevb, Origen,
Ia = "Ya-ho" or "Ye-ho" (see
Diodorus Siculus,9 Iaw ohy note 23)
Tertullian10
Iaia = (?) a combination of
"Ya-ho" or "Ye-ho" and
Iawia11 Hy+why "Yah"
Origen
Ia = (?) "Yah," where the
Iah hy Greek eta (h) is probably
an attempt to represent the
Hebrew hey (h)
Clement of Alexandria Iaou12 Why Iaou = "Ya-hu" or "Ye-hu"
9
Diodorus was a contemporary of Julius Caesar and Augustus. In the LCL series of
Diodorus works (vol. 1, 321) Diodorus speaks about how, among the Jews, Moses
"referred his laws to the god who is invoked [ejpikalouvmenon] as Iao [ *Iawv]."
10
In his Against the Valentinians (ANF 3, chap. 14, page 511) Tertullian seems to
accept the view that Iao is found in the Scriptures (Iao in scripturis).
11
In Contra Celsus 6.32 Origen refers to those involved in the magical arts who
took the name Ia "from the Hebrew scriptures," which is the "name used by the
Hebrews" (ajpoV deV tw'n &Ebrai>kwn grafw'n toVn *Iawi?a par* &Ebraivoi"
ojnomazovmenon). See Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1980), 349. The form Iaoia is listed in the main text of
Paul Koetschaus Origenes Werke (Leipzig, 1899). Chadwick (Origen: Contra Celsum,
note 1) cites both Ia and Iaia as Greek forms of the divine name used in this citation.
Thus, both forms are here listed as having been associated with the usage of the
"Hebrews" in the ancient world.
12
Some claim that Clements reference to the divine name (source listed on page 8)
was Iaoue (Iaoue = [?] "Ya-hu-eh" or "Yah-weh"). The reading in figure 1.1 is based
on the reading in Mignes text.
Origen, Aquila,13
Symmachus,
Theodotion,
Ia hy Ia = "Yah"
Theodoret, Epiphanius
Porphyry14 Ieuw ? Ieu = (?) "Ye-hu-o "
The Greek form Iabe (Iabe) is not listed in the chart because
those who make reference to it (Theodoret and Epiphanius) do not
use it in reference to the Jewish pronunciation of the divine name.
In fact, Theodoret uses Iabe in reference to the Samaritan
pronunciation, but in the very same sentence he contrasts it with
the reported Jewish pronunciation *Iav ("Ya[h]")!15 It is indeed
unfortunate many scholarly publications and resources refer to
Theodorets use of Iabe as evidence the Jews pronounced the
divine name "Yahweh," when in fact Theodoret can be used to
show that the Jews did not use any such pronunciation.
There is one other reference to the divine name that may
involve a Greek form. Josephus refers to the inscription of the
13
Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint, 2d ed.
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 73, states that Aquila and Symmachus use Ia in their
translations of Ps 67(68):5 and Isa 12:2. Aquila also uses it twice in Isa 38:11.
Theodotion uses Ia in Ps 67(68):5, Isa 12:2 and twice in Isa 38:11. The fifth column of
Orgiens Hexapla also uses Ia in Ps 67(68):5.
14
Porphyrys use of Ieu is found in Theodoret and Epiphanius, according to A.
Tholuck, "On the Hypothesis of the Egyptian or Indian Origin of the Name Jehovah,"
Biblical Repository 4.13 (January, 1834), 97-98; see also D. N. Freedman and M. P.
OConner, "YHWH," TDOT 5, 509, note 122.
15
See the critical edition by Natalio Fernndez Marcos and Angel Senz-Badillos,
Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones in Octateuchum (Madrid, 1979), 112, which reads
(15.17-18): kalou'si deV aujtoV samarei'tai meVn *Iabev, ijoudai'oi deV *Iav. The
translation of which is, "The Samaritans pronounce it [the tetragrammaton mentioned in
15.15] Iabe, but the Jews pronounce it Ia." One of the variants listed for Ia is Aijav
(Aia ["A-i-a," "A-ia," or "Ai-a"]), which Williams ("The TetragrammatonJahweh,
Name or Surrogate?" 264) says the Samaritans pronounced Iabai, and which probably
refers to the ehyeh of Ex 3:14. That Jews of the first several centuries BC/CE were not
pronouncing the tetragrammaton by Aia seems reasonable to conclude from both the
lack of correspondence between this form and the three- or four-letter form of the
divine name and because this same form is used in the LXX for "Ahijah" (Neh 10:27
[LXX: 2 Ezra 20:27]). It is unlikely Jews of this time, in almost any location, would use
this same name for their God. [For more information on forms of the divine name as it
is used in other earlier sources, see under D, Divine Name, in the Elihu Books
Topical Index (link: http://www.elihubooks.com/content/topical_index.php.]
divine name on a "golden crown" worn by the high priest "on the
seventh days and new moons, and if any festivals belonging to our
nation, which we celebrate every year, happened."16 He says that
on the crown "were embossed the sacred letters, to wit, four
vowels [phnenta tessara]." What is most interesting about this
reference is Josephus speaks of "four vowels," not four consonants
or even four letters.17 The Greek word for "vowels" here is
phnenta, which is used frequently in reference to vowels (with
and without the article), but not consonants.18
In a note to his translation of the text, Thackeray also finds it
curious Josephus would refer to four vowels. He suggests Josephus
was "perhaps thinking of a Greek form (*Iauev [Iaue])."19
(Thackerays suggested Greek form is based on an assumed
pronunciation ["Yahweh"] for the tetragrammaton.) But are we to
understand that Josephus acknowledged that a Greek form of the
divine name was written on the crown of the high priest? If this is
the case, then this would suggest a significant shift in the special
sanctity accorded to the ancient Hebrew/Aramaic forms of the divine
name, to an accepted Greek version employing four vowels.
In this connection we might consider what Clement of
Alexandria (c. 150c. 220 CE) said regarding those who enter the
Most Holy: "Further, the mystic name of four letters which was
affixed to those alone to whom the adytum was accessible, is called
16
War of the Jews, 5.230 (Whistons translation); page 273 of LCL 3 (Thackeray).
17
For example, Theodoret (see source in note 15) refers to the divine name as
consisting of "four letters" (tw'n tessavrwn stoiceivwn). This is apparently not specific
to vowels or consonants, but simply "letters" (see G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek
Lexicon [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961], 1260, under stoicei'on).
18
Plato, Laws 701a, uses it for those who became "noisy" (phnent' egenonto). In
Plato's Cratylus 424c Socrates twice refers to "vowels" (ta phnenta ... phnenta . . .
tn phnentn) as opposed to "the consonants or mutes" (ta . . . aphna kai
aphthonga). In Sophist 253a we have another reference to "vowels" (ta . . . phnenta)
in contrast to "other" letters of the alphabet. Philebus 18b discusses "the vowel sounds"
(ta phnenta) as distinct from "mutes" (ta aphthonga) and "semi-vowels" (ta mesa).
In Xenophon, Memorabilia 2.7.13, phnenta is used in reference to the "speech" of
beasts. Aristotle, Metaphysics 1016b, 20, writes, "But the unit is not the same in all
classes, for in one it is the quarter-tone, and in another the vowel or consonant" (entha
men gar diesis entha de to phnen aphnon). In Metaphysics 1041b, 15 reference is
again made to phnen kai aphnon ("vowel and consonant"). See also Metaphysics
1054a, 1; 1093a, 10; Poetics 1456b, 25 (twice); 1458a 1, 10, 15.
19
LCL 3, 273, note "j."
Jave [ *IaouV, Iaou], which is interpreted, who is and who shall be

[oJ w]n kaiV oJ ejsovmeno", ho on kai ho esomenos]. The name of God,
too, among the Greeks contains four letters."20 It seems that in
telling us the name by which God is called among the Jews, Clement
gives us the name of God as used among the Greeks, Iaou. The form
Iaou may be an attempt to use a Greek form that for Clement
represents the popular Jewish usage, and he simply neglects to
mention the form used among the Greeks.
The Greek form Clement gives corresponds to one way of
saying the three-letter form ("trigrammaton") of the divine name, why
(which does not have the fourth letter commonly associated with
the divine name, the letter h [hey]). G. R. Driver lists this three-
letter form as being in the word-final (suffix) position in Hebrew
names in the early part of the seventh century BCE, and in the
word-initial (prefix) position as early as the late sixth century
BCE.21 He also notes the form why is found on its own in Aramaic
papyri of the fifth century BCE, fifth or fourth century BCE "jar-
handles . . . found at Jericho and Jerusalem," and on a coin
"issued probably between 405 and 380 [BCE], in Phoenicia and
Philistia."22
The only conclusions that can be safely deduced from the
Greek forms of the divine name attributed to Jewish usage, are
that the "bigrammaton" (two letters) form hy ("Yah") corresponds
with the Greek form Ia ("Ya[h]"), and the trigrammaton why ("Yaho"
or "Yeho") corresponds with Iaw ("Ia[h]o" or "Ie[h]o"). "Yeho" is a
possible pronunciation for the Greek Iao because there are times
when the Hebrew "e" sound is transliterated with the Greek "a"
sound, and this may have happened with the divine name in its
Greek forms.23 But we are still left without a clear-cut corresponding
20
ANF 2, 452.
21
G. R. Driver, "The original form of the name Yahweh: evidence and
conclusions," ZAW (1928), 19. See also Freedman and OConner, "YHWH," 508.
22
Driver, "The original form of the name Yahweh," 22-23.
23
At times the Greek vowel a transliterates the Hebrew short "e" sheva as in /Wlb|z+
("Zebulun" [also /l|Wbz+ and /WlWbz+]) which in Greek is transliterated Zaboulwvn. Other
texts where the sheva is transliterated in proper names with the Greek alpha include
*Iadihvl for la@u^yd]y+ ("Jediael" [1Ch 7:6]) and *Iai>hl for la@yh!y+ ("Jehiel" [Ezra 10:26]).
Therefore, the Greek forms Ia and Ia could represent the Hebrew/Aramaic
pronunciations "Yeh" and "Yeho," respectively.
Greek form for the tetragrammaton (four-letter form) hwhy. Still, it

appears certain that a legitimate Greek representation of the
tetragrammaton would definitely have had more than three letters, or
possibly three letters with an unwritten but pronounced final
aspirant ("ah").
If we use the two- and three-letter forms of the divine name as
guides to the pronunciation of the full four-letter form (the
tetragrammaton) they point in the direction of "Ya-ho-ah" or "Ye-
ho-ah." The final h (hey) may have purposefully been left without
representation in the Greek forms of the divine, as the Greeks did not
have an equivalent for hey, which likely represented an aspirant
sound at the end of the word.24 Of course, the Jews might have used
a form such as Iewa ("Ye-ho-ah") which we find in some Greek
papyri of the third century CE,25 where the a at the end of the word
naturally gives rise to a final aspirant. But as far as we know they
did not; they only transliterated as far as the first two syllables of the
divine name, corresponding to the three-letter form (why).
If we take the final hey of the full form of the divine name as
representing an aspirant it would be quite in line with the use of
theophoric suffixes in Hebrew names. Indeed, there would seem to
be no good reason to take it in any other sense when adding it to
what appears to be the best Greek transliteration (Iao) of the three-
letter form why. This would result in "Ya-ho-ah"/"Ya-ho-eh" or "Ye-
ho-ah"/"Ye-ho-eh" for Jewish usage. However, even though we can
piece the evidence together to show that "Jehovah" more accurately
represents the phonetics of the ancient Jewish pronunciation than
"Yahweh," though in an Anglicized form, the Witnesses are not
24
It is worth noting in this connection the reference in Irenaeus work Against
Heresies (ANF 1, 412-413), where he refers to different meanings for the Greek form
of what is presumed to be the divine name. He says it has one meaning "when the last
syllable is made long and aspirated," (namely, according to Mignes text, "Jawth"), and
another meaning "when it is written shortly by the Greek letter Omicron" (namely,
"Jaoth"). This reference does not seem to involve a final aspirant corresponding to the
use of the final hey of the divine name in Israelite proper names, and Irenaeus use of
"th" (= the Greek letter theta q) is not traceable to anything in the Jewish tradition
concerning the spelling of the divine name.
25
See Pap. gr. CXXI 1.528-540 [listed under D, Divine Name, in the Elihu
Books Topical Index: http://www.elihubooks.com/content/topical_index.php].
dogmatic about how the divine name was pronounced by the

ancients:
Most names change to some extent when transferred from one

language to another. Jesus was born a Jew, and his name in
Hebrew was perhaps pronounced Yeshua, but the inspired writers
of the Christian Scriptures did not hesitate to use the Greek form
of the name, Iesous. In most other languages the pronunciation is
slightly different, but we freely use the form that is common in
our tongue. The same is true of other Bible names. How, then,
can we show proper respect for the One to whom the most
important name of all belongs? Would it be by never speaking or
writing his name because we do not know exactly how it was
originally pronounced? Or, rather, would it be by using the
pronunciation and spelling that are common in our language,
while speaking well of its Owner and conducting ourselves as his
worshipers in a manner that honors him?26
Should we only use those names whose true, ancient

pronunciation is known to us? The New World Translation uses
"Jehovah" as the most recognizable form of the divine name that
appears nearly 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, realizing that
to do otherwise "would be a serious blemish in a translation." If
others object to pronouncing the name because our vocalization of
that name is different from what we may have heard in ancient
Israel, then we should rightly question the use of all names from the
Hebrew and Greek Bible, as they appear in their Anglicized forms
today. Indeed, even the pronunciation of words in the original
languages is not as certain as some people seem to think.
Thus, if lack of true (ancient) pronunciation is all that is needed
to justify removal of the divine name, or a refusal to use it, then what
should we do with the name "Jesus"? Peter tells us, "There is not
another name under heaven that has been given among men by
26
Reasoning from the Scriptures (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
1989), 196. The Watchtower and Awake! magazines, however, have taken a more firm
position as to how the divine name should be pronounced. Recent articles in each magazine
favor the view that the divine name was originally pronounced with three syllables, not two.
See "Jehovah or Yahweh?" The Watchtower, 1 February 1999, 30-31; and
"Identifying the Only True God," Awake! 8 February 1999, 7-8.
which we must get saved." (Ac 4:12) Since there is no way we can
be certain we are pronouncing the name "Jesus" exactly as it was
pronounced in Hebrew or Greek, then should we refrain from using
or pronouncing it in any of our modern languages?27
Even if we were to concede that the English pronunciation
"Jehovah" does not approximately reproduce the phonemes that
comprised the original Hebrew pronunciation of Gods name, this
still would not, as noted earlier, make "Yahweh" a more acceptable
pronunciation. Those who are against the use of Gods name build a
specious argument when they say, "For us not to pronounce the
divine name in the way that Moses pronounced it is for us to
dishonor Gods name; therefore, we do better not to try writing in
any language a spelling of the divine name, for we only invite
mispronunciation of it."28
Those who argue this way fail to grasp the significance of the
biblical teaching that Jehovah is the author of the first language
divisions existing in human speech. (Ge 11:7) There is no reason to
believe that each of the languages that God authored at the Tower of
Babel was making linguistic use of the entire set of phonics
comprising human speech. So, it is not a far-fetched thing for us to
suppose that ever since the Tower of Babel many languages have
come and gone, and in each of them there has been no linguistic use
27
The problems relating to the pronouncing of ancient Greek are discussed in detail
by Chrys C. Caragounis, "The Error of Erasmus and Un-Greek Pronunciations of
Greek," FN 8 (November, 1995), 151-185, who on page 154 states that the Erasmian
system of pronunciation is "nothing but a chaotic democracy of un-Greek
pronunciations of Greek, each conceived according to what is deemed natural in the
speakers own tongue." On page 157 of this article, a chart shows that h (eta), the
second letter in the Greek name for "Jesus," is among those letters whose pronunciation
is in dispute.
28
In his book The Jehovahs Witnesses New Testament, 2d ed. (Phillipsburg, New
Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), 26-27, Robert Countess argues that because
different vowel pointings of certain Hebrew words can result in distinct meanings, we
should not take chances with an uncertain vowel pointing of the Hebrew name for God.
He cites the Hebrew consonants dv, which with various pointings can mean "breast" or
"demon." He then concludes: "If it be an impropriety to mispronounce someones name
or to call a breast a demon, then how much more of an impropriety to vocalize
incorrectly the name of the true God?" What he fails to notice is there are no other
Hebrew words with the same consonants as the tetragram! So no combination of
vowels with the consonants of the divine name will result in a blasphemous reference to
God.
of every one of the sounds reproduced by an ancient Hebrews

pronunciation of YHWH.
Will we say God has made it practically impossible for
meaningful transliteration of His name to exist in those languages
that history shows he authored? If someone answers "Yes," then this
line of reasoning would have the effect of making God out to be One
who did not really mean what He is on record as having said at
Exodus 9:15, 16: "For by now I could have thrust my hand out that I
might strike you and your people with pestilence and that you might
be effaced from the earth. But, in fact, for this cause I have kept you
in existence, for the sake of showing you my power and in order to
have my name declared in all the earth."
We believe it is highly unlikely Jehovah God settled for
something less than that meaningful pronunciation of His personal
name was upon the lips of His Canaanite enemies when they were
obliged to admit the identity of the very One who defeated the gods
of ancient Egypt. According to the Bible, Jehovah God will do as
much again when prophecies in Ezekiel are fulfilled. For example:
"And I will bring myself into judgment with him, with pestilence
and with blood; and a flooding downpour and hailstones, fire and
sulphur I shall rain down upon him and upon his bands and upon
the many peoples that will be with him. And I shall certainly
magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before
the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am
Jehovah" (Eze 38:22, 23).
The Divine Name in the Text of Scripture

Use in Old and New Testament manuscripts. According
to one source the Hebrew name for God, often referred to as the
tetragrammaton or the tetragram (hwhy), occurs 6,828 times in what
is commonly referred to as the Old Testament (OT), the collection of
Hebrew/Aramaic writings from Genesis to Malachi.29 This word
occurs more often than any other name or title in the OT. In addition
29
Francis I. Andersen and A. Dean Forbes, The Vocabulary of the Old Testament
(Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico Roma 1989), 330.
to the full four-letter form of the divine name, there are another
forty-nine occurrences of the abbreviated form yah (hy),30 and at
least five acrostic occurrences.31
In view of the above, no one questions the appearance of the
divine name in the text of the Old Testament. Why, then, do so few
English (and other language) translations use anything other than the
common surrogates "Lord" or "God," usually in all capitals? If the
divine name is in the text, why use titles that in no way approximate
the full meaning of the name, as these surrogates are used, in their
original Hebrew forms, of persons other than Jehovah?
We know the Qumran community discouraged the use of Gods
name from about the second century BCE onward.32 Eventually, use
of the divine name became more infrequent, though it likely
continued to be used through the second century CE in the Temple
and in greetings.33 Of course, Jewish literature continued to use the
divine name in a variety of documents, though there are cases, such
as Aquilas Greek translation of the OT, where a variant form of the
divine name was used to protect against possible misuse of the true
name (see note 111; compare note 109).
But, again, since the divine name occurs in the Hebrew text of
the OT, why do so many modern translations replace it with titles
(whether they are quasi-proper names or not) that are used of
individuals other than Jehovah? To put it another way, why are
many non-Jewish translators following an ancient Jewish, unbiblical
superstition? Perhaps we would be in a better position to answer this
question after considering George Howards theory regarding the
divine name and the New Testament:
The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament

and its replacement with the surrogates kyrios and theos blurred
the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord
Christ, and in many passages made it impossible to tell which
one was meant . . . Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and
30
Ibid., 329.
31
Two reverse (Es 1:20; 5:13) and three regular acrostics (Es 5:4; 7:7; Ps 96:11).
32
P. W. Skehan, "The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll, and in the
Septuagint," Bulletin for the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies 13 (1980), 15. See note 61 below.
33
See page 50, note 124.
replaced by the surrogate Lord, scribes were unsure whether

Lord meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures
were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible
to distinguish between them. Thus it may be that the removal of
the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later
Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church
of the early Christian centuries.34
Whether Howards theory about the removal of the divine name

from NT manuscripts is correct or not can only be evaluated in light
the evidence we possess, some of which we will consider below.
However, in the opinion of this author, the primary reason for the
removal of the divine name from the OT text of our English and
other modern language translations of the Bible, is so the Bibles
distinction between God and Christ is "blurred."
The Jewish practice of substituting the divine name with "Lord"
or "God" in the OT, which "reflects a device of theologians in post-
biblical times by which the utterance of the name of God was to be
avoided,"35 helps further this end, and maintain the blur. This may
be why this superstition is often appealed to by various translators as
a basis for substituting the divine name in their translations of the
OT. This substitution in OT texts eliminates a potential problem
when readers of their NT translations check the cross references to
quotations found in various NT passages.36
34
George Howard, "The Name of God in the New Testament," BAR 4.1 (March
1978), 15.
35
Julian Obermann, "The Divine Name YHWH in the Light of Recent Discoveries,"
JBL 68 (1949), 304. Obermann (page 305) also observes "nowhere is this word
[YHWH] found employed as synonymous with those terms [God/Lord] in a
grammatical sense, and hardly ever in a semantic sense."
36
See, for example, the "Principles of Translation" section in the front matter of the
NASB (1960-1977 editions), and the note "To the Reader" in the NRSV (1989, page
xv). In The Making of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991), 83, Walter Harrelson, vice-chairman of the translation committee,
writes (with my underlining): "We did not consider long enough, perhaps, the question
whether there might be a more suitable term than LORD for the Tetragrammaton. We
did briefly consider the term chosen by James Moffatt in his translation of the Bible,
the Eternal, but there was no real support for its adoption. We talked of using the
Sovereign, but that seemed no more suitable than the LORD. We needed the
Creator for those occurrences of just that term in the Hebrew. Finally, since we found
no better alternative for the LORD, we let that familiar term stand." How these people
For example, if we were to restore the divine name in the

Hebrew text of such passages as Isaiah 40:13, which Paul quotes in
1 Corinthians 2:16 (whether the divine name appeared in the LXX
Paul quoted is beside the point here, but see the discussion below
beginning on page 22), a Trinitarian would be faced with a problem:
how is it that we cannot know the mind of Jehovah (the One spoken
of in Isaiah), but we can know the mind of Christ, and yet Christ is
supposed to be Jehovah?
It may be that the reason our present collection of NT Greek
manuscripts does not contain an instance of the divine name in its
complete form is due to: 1) Gentile unfamiliarity with and lack of
appreciation for the divine name; 2) philosophical concepts
associated with Gods transcendence; and 3) the Churchs eventual
involvement with Gentile governments and adoption of post-biblical
concepts about God and Christ that were not agreeable to the
distinction created by the use of the divine name in certain passages.
The evidence, which we will discuss below, points to a
combination of these three reasons, though it may not have
originally involved a desire to maintain a distinction between God
and Christ. Certainly, though, post-biblical concepts played a part in
the growing disuse of the divine name, as we will see in our
discussion below. But these post-biblical concepts about God seem
to have been tied to various philosophical (Hellenistic) beliefs.
It should, therefore, be no great surprise to find persons and
organizations today who similarly wish to remove the divine name
from the OT portion of our modern translations and keep it out of
the NT. Indeed, consider the reasoning of the Executive Secretary of
the popular New International Version (NIV), Edwin Palmer. When
asked why the NIV committee chose not to use the divine name in
the OT, but, rather, the common surrogates Lord and God, he
replied:
could not agree the best "alternative for the LORD" is at least some form of the actual
name used in the text is hard to fully understand.
Needless to say, this letter is very revealing. 37 We learn that

the NIV "should have" used the divine name, but did not. Why?
Because it would have been a "sure way of throwing [2 million
dollars] down the drain." According to Palmer, if they had used
the divine name, which is found in ancient Hebrew manuscripts
of the OT, they would have "translated for nothing," since people
are "the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition."
37
The contents of this letter were also partially reproduced in the "Insight on the
News" section of The Watchtower, 15 July 1979, 27.
While I am puzzled about why Palmer, or anyone else for that

matter, would want the victimization stemming from the King
James tradition concerning the divine name to continue, Palmer and
the rest of the NIV committee clearly realized the majority of people
living in the 1970s were unfamiliar with the divine name, and,
hence, "no one would have used it." Is it any wonder, then, that
Gentiles who became interested in Christianity in the late first or
early second century CE felt similarly about the Hebrew name of
God, with which they, too, were not likely familiar? Might they, like
those who purchased the NIV, instead have preferred terms which
they felt more comfortable using? I can think of no cogent reason
why we should assume that Gentile converts to Christianity would
have had no problem adopting the Hebrew name for God.
As Gentile converts to Christianity increased and as the
apostasy spoken of in the Bible continued (see below), it is not
unreasonable to think that one of the results was the removal of the
Hebrew name for God from the NT documents. As an example of
the alteration and misuse the Scriptures were subjected to in the
early centuries CE, we may quote the words of Irenaeus (c. 130c.
200) regarding Marcion of Pontus (who wrote between 140 and 160
CE), "he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said
by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect
that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those
passages from the prophetical writings which teach us that they
announced beforehand the coming of the Lord."38
Whether or not Marcions behavior involved removing the
divine name is really not at issue here, though it certainly may have
been an issue regarding those manuscripts with which he apparently
took excessive liberties. What is clear, though, is that some persons
did take liberties with the text of the NT. And even though Irenaeus
says that Marcion was "the only one who has dared openly to
mutilate the Scriptures,"39 there is evidence showing that Irenaeus
and other early Fathers held theological views concerning Gods
name that may have caused them to similarly "mutilate the
Scriptures" by either removing or sanctioning the removal of the
38
ANF 1, 352, chap. 24(2).
39
Ibid., chap. 27(4).
divine name from both the Old and New Testament writings. Of
course, because of their theological position on this issue (see
below) they would certainly not have viewed this as "mutilation,"
but Marcion probably did not see anything wrong with his actions,
either.
Apostasy, early Christian writers and the divine name.
Earlier I suggested three possible reasons why the divine name may
have been removed from the NT manuscripts discovered to date.
But it should be remembered that we do not presently possess a
manuscript of any NT document with the complete form of the
divine name in it. However, while this is strong evidence in favor of
those who choose not to use the divine name in their NT translations
(though it is no excuse for failing to use it in the OT portion of such
translations), it should be remembered that we do not have any
original NT manuscripts. Most if not all NT manuscripts that we do
have are far enough removed from the date of their original
composition that they certainly could have been altered with respect
to the use of the divine name.40
40
It appears the oldest NT manuscripts that quote a divine-name-containing OT
text, but with a surrogate for the divine name in the quotation, are P 46 (e.g., 1Co 14:21)
and P66 (e.g., John 1:23). Young Kyu Kim, "Paleographical Dating of P 46 to the Later
First Century," Biblica 69 (1988), 248-261, has dated P46 to the somewhere near the
third quarter, or early to the middle of the fourth quarter of the first century CE. P 46
contains most of Pauls letters, including the book of Hebrews. But Kims dating of P 46
has been disputed. In The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts,
eds. P. W. Comfort and D. P. Barrett (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 195-197, a list of
manuscripts that date to the late first to the early second century CE is provided, which
manuscripts are said to more closely correspond to P 46 than those used by Kim in his
dating of P46. After comparing P46 with other manuscripts in the Chester Beatty
collection, the editors conclude that it "belongs to the second century and probably to
the early part of that century, possibly during the reign of Trajan (CE 98-117) or the
reign of Hadrian (CE 117-138). A similar date is offered for P 66. Both of these
manuscripts are dated at about 200 CE by Kurt and Barbara Aland (The Text of the
New Testament, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 2d ed. Revised and Enlarged [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1989], 57, 99, 100). So in the very least it seems that P 46 is
approximately fifty years removed from the original documents, and P 66, being dated
near the middle of the second century or later and containing the Gospel of John, is
approximately fifty or more years removed from the original document. Thus, there is a
considerable time gap between the original documents and these manuscripts. During
this "gap" the manuscripts could have been altered, and a surrogate used in place of the
divine name, in harmony with the emerging textual traditions reflected in the LXX
manuscripts which show insensitivity for the preservation of the divine name.
In fact, this is not at all unlikely, since all known copies of the
LXX that contain the remains of a portion of the Bible where the
divine name occurs in the original Hebrew, up to the end of the first
century CE (when the last book of the Bible is thought to have been
written) contain the divine name in the Greek translation, not
surrogates such as "Lord" or "God."
But when we consider the LXX Codices of the fourth and fifth
centuries CE (Sinaiticus [a], Alexandrinus [A] and Vaticanus [B]),
the aforementioned surrogates are found in place of the divine name.
It is, therefore, not unreasonable to think that something similar
happened to the NT documents during roughly the same period of
time, perhaps even by many of the same people.
Some, though, have taken the position that to suggest that
Gods name was used in the original NT documents and then
removed by copyists or others, for whatever reason, is tantamount to
doubting Gods ability or desire to accurately preserve the NT
documents that He inspired. Lynn Lundquist has written a
comprehensive treatment of the divine name in the NT, and he
believes that the "God who inspired Scripture will certainly take the
necessary precautions to preserve it."41
After rightly objecting to the practice of many modern
translations for their use of "Lord" or "God" in place of the divine
name in the OT, believing that what is in the text should be
communicated to the reader, Lundquist asks, "May we suggest that
the same requirement [that of translating what is actually in the text]
applies to the Christian Greek Scriptures within the New World
Translation?"42 Frankly, the two situations are very different, and
should not be viewed in the same light.
The divine name was given to the Jews; it was a Hebrew name
given to Hebrews. In the OT the name of God is a "strong tower" (Pr
18:10), and melodies should be sung to it. (Ps 135:3) It is not a
special possession of kings, princes or priests, but even "the afflicted
one and the poor one praise [His] name." (Ps 74:21) To suggest that
a primarily Gentile Church of the second century CE onward would
have had this same love and appreciation for the Hebrew name of
41
Lynn Lundquist, The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures, 2d
ed. (Portland, OR: Word Resources, 1998), 27.
42
Ibid., 160.
God is highly questionable. In fact, there is evidence showing that

prominent members of the early Church, in the years following the
death of the last apostle, did not accept this Hebrew name, or any
other, as the proper name for God.
For example, Justin Martyr (who died about 165 CE) taught
that "Father," "God," "Creator" and "Lord" are not names (Greek
[Migne]: oujk ojnovmatav ejstin), "but appellations derived from His
good deeds and functions." He accepts the name "Jesus, as man and
Saviour," as having significance,43 but he claims that "there is no
name given" to the "Father of all, who is unbegotten."44
Why does Justin assert that "there is no name given" to the
Father when there is in fact a distinct name that occurs throughout
the Hebrew and Greek OT? He reasons, "For by whatever name He
be called He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name."45
It is clear, then, that Justin had a certain unbiblical motivation for his
failing to use or even recognize a distinct name for God, in spite of
the fact that the Hebrew Bible makes frequent use of a distinct name
for God.
Earlier in this chapter (pages 5 and 8) it was noted that Clement
of Alexandria knew of the divine name. Of course, knowing the
name is one thing and using it is quite another. Clement refers to
Plato, Moses encounter with God in a cloud of darkness (compare
Ex 19:9) and Pauls statements in 2 Corinthians 12:4 and Romans
43
ANF 1, 190 (chapter 6 of Justins Second Apology). For a discussion of the
semantic significance of theos as having the nature of a proper name when used of the
Father in the NT, see the Excursus, pages 390-393.
44
Ibid. Greek (Migne): !Onoma deV tw'/ pavntwn PatriV qetoVn, ajgennhvtw/ o[nti,
oujk e[stin. In his "Hortatory Address to the Greeks" (which may or may not be the
actual work of Justin Martyr), Justin is said to have taught that "God cannot be called
by any proper name, for names are given to mark out and distinguish their subject-
matters, because these are many and diverse; but neither did any one exist before God
who could give Him a name, nor did He Himself think it right to name Himself, seeing
that He is one and unique" (ANF 1, 281). Regardless of whether or not these are the
actual words of Justin, they further reveal that unbiblical concepts were tied to the use
of Gods name in the first few centuries following the close of the NT canon. Indeed, it
is claimed that to give Him a name is to compromise His uniqueness, but that is
precisely what having a name is meant to highlight! It is also suggested in this quote
that God did not name Himself and that someone would had to have preexisted Him in
order to "give Him a name."
45
ANF 1, 190 (Greek: %W/ gaVr a]n kaiV ojnovmati prosagoreuvhtai,
presbuvteron e[cei toVn qevmenon toV o[noma).
11:33 in support of his view that God is "beyond expression by

words."46 He further states that "the truly mystic word, respecting
the unbegotten and His powers, ought to be concealed."47
Whether or not this "mystic word" is the "mystic name of four
letters" is not clear. But Clement leaves no room for doubt regarding
his view of the divine name, saying the Father of the universe "is
without form and name," and any name we might give Him is not
proper. The names we give to God, according to Clement, are so
we do not "err in other respects."
But Clement then gives a reason similar to that of Justin (and
the author of the "Exhortation to the Heathen" [see note 44]) for not
recognizing a true name for God, "Everything, then, which falls
under a name, is originated, whether they will or not."48 Clement
unabashedly admits, "I do not say His name."49
Christians living during and after the completion of the NT
canon seem to have been overly influenced by their Hellenized
environment, and the popular beliefs of Plato and Philo. Philo
taught that "God indeed needs no name," though he does
recognize "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob" in Exodus 3:15 as a name in which humankind "might be
able to take refuge in prayers and supplications and not be
deprived of comforting hopes."50
Indeed, Philo believes "it is a logical consequence that no
personal name even can be properly assigned to the truly
Existent." In explaining the words of the angel in Genesis 32:29
Philo claims the angel refused to tell Jacob his name because
names are "symbols which indicate created beings, look not for
them in the case of imperishable natures."51
Philo, Justin, Clement and other Fathers appear to have been
influenced by Platonic thought to the extent they chose not to
recognize the tetragrammaton as a distinct name for God. Though
they knew of the name, and some, such as Philo, may even have
46
Ibid., 463.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid., 464.
49
Ibid., 519.
50
Philo, On Abraham 51 (LCL 6, page 31).
51
On the Change of Names, 11, 14 (LCL 5, page 147, 151).
had it in their Bible texts,52 they held to philosophical notions that

are contrary to what the Bible teaches, moving them to use
substitutes for the divine name in their writings. Indeed, according
to Philo: "For those who are born into mortality must needs [sic]
have some substitute for the divine name, so that they may
approach if not the fact at least the name of supreme excellence
and be brought into relation with it."53
Evidence for the divine name in the New Testament. It
is important to keep in mind that the writers of the NT were all
Jews, and that Jesus frequently spoke of making his Fathers name
known, even praying for it to be "sanctified." (Mt 6:9; Joh 17:6)54
Statements like these are not in harmony with Philo or various post-
biblical writers such as Justin Martyr or Clement of Alexandria
(whom we just considered), when it comes to the recognition and
use of Gods name. Why, then, should we think Jesus close
followers would view Gods name different from his own view,
namely, that it was to be "made known" and "sanctified"?
What we can say is that at some point those who claimed to be
Christians altered copies of the LXX in part by removing the divine
name and replacing it with sacred name abbreviations (nomina
sacra).55 If these later Christians could remove the divine name from
52
James Royse, "Philo, KURIOS, and the Tetragrammaton," in Studies in
Hellenistic Judaism, Studia Philonica Annual III (Brown Judaic Studies; Atlanta,
Georgia: Scholars Press, 1991), 179-183 argues that "the manuscript evidence very
strongly indicates that Philo must have read the Biblical texts with the Tetragrammaton
written in paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic letters, and not translated by kuvrio" [Lord]."
Royse points to, among things, Philos statements in On Moses 2.114-115 and 2.132
which suggests Philos knowledge of the tetragrammaton having four letters came from
a biblical text, namely, his Greek OT which used a form of the divine name.
53
On the Change of Names, 13.
54
While it is not necessarily relevant in terms of establishing whether Jesus or his
disciples actually used Gods name, for historical purposes I will here mention the final
section of the so-called Pistis Sophia (a Gnostic work of the third century CE, allegedly
containing teachings revealed by the resurrected Christ to his disciples, in the form of a
dialogue), which has Jesus speaking aloud with his disciples, using Iao (a form of the
divine name) three times in succession, whereas he had previously used the three forms
iao, aoi, oia in succession. See Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament
Apocrypha, vol. 1, Gospels and Related Writings, trans. R. McL. Wilson, Revised ed.
(Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), 368.
55
As Jonathan P. Siegel, "The Employment of Paleo-Hebrew Characters for the
Divine Names at Qumran in the Light of Tannaitic Sources," HUCA 42 (1971), 160,
note 4, observes, "It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios,
OT LXX texts they considered inspired,56 why is it so difficult to

believe they did the same thing to those documents which, at that
time, early in the first or second century CE, may not have even been
considered inspired by many of the same users of the Greek LXX?
Even if the NT documents were accepted as inspired writings
by all of their users, if the OT (LXX) Scriptures were subject to
alteration (particularly when it came to the divine name) why is it so
difficult to accept that the NT was also subject to such alteration?
According to Lundquist, "It does not matter that the Apostles
read the Tetragrammaton in their copies of the Septuagint." He
further states:
It does not even matter that the inspired writers [of the NT]
quoted Hebrew Scripture verses which used the divine name. All
of these things are true and verifiable. All that matters is the
word which the Christian Greek Scripture authors actually
wrote under inspiration of God. All translators must faithfully
represent the exact words written by the inspired authors. If the
Greek Scripture writers used the Tetragrammaton, then the divine
name must be used in each of those instances. If the Greek
Scripture writers used Kyrios, then the passage must be
translated Lord.57
One of the problems with this argument can be introduced with

the following question: Since all of the Hebrew and Greek texts that
were used by the NT writers contain the divine name (and all known
copies support the view that they did), why, then, if the divine name
when the Divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more." See
also, Paul Kahle, "The Greek Bible and the Gospels," Studia Evangelica (1959), 613-
621. See pages 42-48 for a discussion of the divine name in the LXX.
56
See Mogens Mller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint
(JSOTSup 206; CIS 1; England: Sheffield, 1996), 68-94. Remarkably, Lundquist (The
Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures, 161) claims, "It does not matter
that the Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint was changed during the second and third
centuries C.E." Of course, it does matter. It shows the tendency on the part of the Christians
at that time to remove the divine name from biblical documents, even if the documents
were believed to be the product of divine inspiration.
57
Lundquist, The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures, 161. All
emphasis in the above quote is original. Lundquists note at the end of the above quote
emphasizes his point even further: "This is true even when the Hebrew Scriptures are
clearly being quoted. The translator must reproduce for the English reader exactly that
which the inspired author wrote."
is not part of the original NT documents, did God not preserve His
word from the OT into the NT?
If Lundquists view, as stated above, is correct, namely, that we
should only translate what is in the copies we actually have in our
possession, the earliest manuscript of which is considered
approximately fifty years removed from the original document (see
above, note 40), then God did not preserve His own Word!
However, if Lundquist is truly intent on proving that God preserved
His Word, then we should find him endorsing the Witnesses view
that the original NT documents did contain the divine name. For
those who argue that the divine name was used in NT quotations of
the OT are in a much better position to claim that God preserved His
Word than are those who advance the idea that the NT quotations do
not preserve what God had written in His (OT) Word.
It is therefore surprising to find Lundquist claiming, as quoted
earlier, that the "God who inspired Scripture will certainly take the
necessary precautions to preserve it." Such a view is incompatible
with Lundquists own view that God chose to use kyrios in NT
quotations from documents (the OT) that He inspired, and so failing
to preserve what was actually written in His Word. At the very least,
then, we would have to say the authors of the NT documents chose
not to preserve the actual words of the OT text, and if Lundquist is
going to suggest God did not preserve His word from the OT to the
NT (which would include the use of the divine name), then why
should we believe God would "take the necessary precautions to
preserve" what He had written in the NT?
The issue concerning the extent to which God chose to preserve
His word goes beyond simply looking at what copies of the text say.
We must closely consider the circumstances and controversies
surrounding the composition of the original NT documents, and take
note of variants and scribal tendencies toward the divine name in
other documents contemporary to the extant copies of the NT text.
The treatment of the divine name in the LXX scriptures is
particularly relevant here.
We might also point out that the argument which springs from
the idea that God would preserve His Word to such an extent that
significant corruptions to the text of the NT would not take place
(which corruptions might lead to confusion and doctrinal error) is
refuted by the fact that significant corruptions to the NT text did take
place early on in the manuscript tradition. J. K. Elliott makes three
relevant observations in this regard: 1) "the New Testament text
was used and adapted to suit the needs of Christians from the
earliest times"; 2) "the manuscript tradition of the New Testament
represents a living text which was emended to suit the readers";
and 3) "many textual problems are in fact closely related to
doctrinal or theological issues."58
Since, as Elliott rightly points out, "each manuscript
(containing part or all of the New Testament) would have been
regarded as the New Testament in the community or library for
which it was produced,"59 should we conclude the different and
conflicting variants, for, say, 1 Corinthians 15:51, are an instance
of God failing to accurately preserve His own Word?
Regardless of what principles we use to ascertain what we
believe is the correct reading (and I am in no way suggesting the
original reading cannot be recovered), those who read B and other
manuscripts would have thought that they would not all sleep,
but they would all be changed. Those who read a A* (and others)
would have thought that they would all sleep but they would not
all be changed. Those who read P46 Ac (and others) would have
thought that they would not all sleep and nor would they all be
changed, and still others, including readers of D*, some Old Latin
manuscripts and the Vulgate, would have thought that they
would all rise but they would not all be changed. Why, you may
wonder, did God not prevent such variations (and many more
could be cited) from occurring?
The answer may be quite simple: If we take the position, as
Jehovahs Witnesses do, that the original writing of each biblical
document was likely to have been in some sense "inspired" or
motivated by God or by his spirit to be written, then there are
statements in the sixty-six books generally accepted as Scripture
which point to a time when individuals might "add to" and "take
58
J. K. Elliott, "Can we Recover the Original Text of the New Testament? An
Examination of the Role of Thoroughgoing Eclecticism," in his Essays and Studies in
New Testament Textual Criticism (EFN 3; Cordoba: Ediciones El Almendro, 1992),
18.
59
Ibid., 20.
away from" this collection or some similar collection of scared

writings. (De 4:2; 12:32; Rev 22:18-19)60 The Bible does not say
these people would be prevented from altering various copies of
the Scriptures; it only says those who do so would in some sense
be punished by God, which would have to be left to God to
decide.
Related to this, the biblical writings also speak of a time
(referred to as "the time of the end") when the sealed up
knowledge of various books of the Bible would "become
abundant." (Da 12:4; compare verse 9) Jesus referred to a time
shortly after he was to have sown fine seed in his field (Mt
13:24) of the world and when others would corrupt this field with
weeds, causing both to "grow together until the harvest." Jesus,
like Daniel, identified this "harvest" as an end time of sorts (Mt
13:30, 39).
In the New Testament Paul also talked about a time when,
after his death, "oppressive" individuals would mistreat the
"flock" and speak "twisted things." (Ac 20:29) Whether or not
any of these references to apostasy involved the alteration of
various passages of the Bible is not certain, but it certainly shows
that there would be some who would display a self-serving view
of the Scriptures. It would not be out of line (especially given the
many variants that obviously involve a certain theological intent)
to suggest that the removal of the divine name was done by those
who no longer appreciated the Hebrew name of God. If this was
in fact done, then it could be an instance of what is meant by God
letting certain errors resonate in the minds and hearts of those
who "did not accept the love of the truth" (1Th 2:10).
Some people might argue that it is possible that the NT writers,
in certain documents (such as in the letters of Paul or Peter), for
purposes of effective evangelism, used surrogates for the divine
name when writing to Gentile areas. This might even have been
done for certain Jewish groups if they were known to have been
60
Peter (2Pe 3:16) refers to those who twist Pauls letters kaiV taV" loipaV"
grafaV" (kai tas loipas graphas, "and the rest of the [holy] writings" [likely a reference
to other inspired works]). But it is not clear streblo (the Greek word for twist) can be
taken in reference to altering the text versus simply changing its meaning in a verbal
teaching or written exposition on the text.
overly offended by the use of the divine name. Given this scenario, it
is possible that Paul or some other NT writer may have chosen a
more effective means of presenting the gospel message. But there is
little evidence to show it was commonplace among the first-century
Jewish populace to avoid pronouncing the divine name.61
Still, because we do not possess the original NT documents, no
one knows for certain whether or not the NT did in fact use the
divine name. We are left with evaluating the evidence we do
possess, and deciding from there. Lundquist greatly oversimplifies
the matter when he says, "since the original writings have long since
been lost, we must resolve this question from copies of their
writings."62 Copies of the original NT documents may not tell us
much of anything when it comes to the use of the divine name in the
original NT, if the 112 references to the divine name in the OT were
eliminated from these "copies" (see above discussion of
"inspiration" and the divine name).
But Lundquist is not entirely off the mark in his reference to the
importance of these copies, as far as determining whether or not the
divine name was in fact a part of the original NT writings. Evidence
from variants63 and Hebrew manuscripts of NT documents should
61
Certain groups and communities certainly did in fact take a stand against any use
of the divine name. For example, in 1QS (the so-called "Community Rule") 6.27-7.2,
we read: "Anyone who speaks aloud the M[ost] Holy Name of God, [whether in . . .]
or in cursing or as a blurt in time of trial or for any other reason, or while he is reading
a book or praying, is to be expelled, never again to return to the Society of the Yahad"
(Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New
Translation [New York: HarperCollins, 1996], 135). See ibid., 123-126 for a
discussion of this Yahads ("unity") influence. But this reference seems to indicate that
the divine name was pronounced by some, and that extreme measures were taken to
safeguard it against misuse. However, while this is true concerning this particular
group, there is not enough evidence to suggest that this was commonplace throughout
Palestine. In fact, if 1QS had such a great influence on a large portion of the Jewish
community, then it is significant that by the time of the writing of Sotah 7.6 use of the
divine name had become less restrictive, permitting pronunciation of the divine name in
the sanctuary. Compare Tosefta Yadaim, chap. 2, end, where a group known as the
"Morning-Bathers" complain about the Pharisees who "speak the Name in the morning,
before bathing," and of the Pharisees complaint against the Morning-Bathers, "who
speak the Name, with a body containing defilement." See note 124.
62
Lundquist, The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures, 88.
63
The variants in 1Co 2:16 lend support to the view that the divine name originally
appeared in the text of NT. There is no variant for the word "Lord" in Pauls quotation
of Isa 40:13 LXX. The word "Christ" in the latter part of the verse has strong support
from P46 a A C D2 Y 048 0150 (and a host of cursives), but the reading "Lord" (in
be carefully evaluated. We will now consider the relevance of

certain Hebrew NT documents, and then we will consider the
importance of the divine name in the LXX.
NWT and its use of Hebrew translations of the New
Testament ("J" documents). Lundquists book contains much
material that is useful when studying issues relating to the divine
name in the Scriptures, and he manifests a good knowledge of
literature published by Jehovahs Witnesses on this subject. But
some of his underlying assumptions, such as those considered
above, are not very credible. It is also unfortunate that Lundquist
misinforms his readers about the textual basis for many instances
of NWTs use of the divine name in the NT.
Lundquist seems to think the NWT chose various Hebrew
translations of the NT (which are referred to in many of NWTs
New Testament footnotes) over the Christian Greek Scriptures in
every instance.64 The "Textual Symbols" in the front matter of both
place of "Christ") is supported by B D * F G. It is difficult to imagine a scribal change

from "Christ" to "Lord," if "Lord" in the LXX quotation stood in the place of the divine
name, for then we would have: "For who has come to know the mind of the Lord, that
we may instruct him? But we do have the mind of the Lord." If, though, Pauls
quotation of Isa 40:13 LXX had the divine name and he incorporated it into the text of
his letter to the Corinthians, then there would be no problem with "Lord" in the second
instance, for then "Lord" would be distinct from the divine name, and have as its
referent the one who in the NT normally bears the title "Lord," namely, Jesus Christ.
But, assuming the divine name was removed from NT due to lack of meaning and
appreciation on the part of Gentile Christians, then we can see how the divine names
surrogation by "Lord" would have moved copyists early on in the transmission of the
NT text to replace the second "Lord" with "Christ," in an attempt to remove the
ambiguity of the passage, which resulted from the removal of the tetragram. Otherwise,
if Paul had originally used "Lord" in his quote from Isa 40:13 it is difficult to
understand why copyists would remove the unambiguous, inoffensive designation
"Christ," and replace it with "Lord," so that the text would read: Who has come to
know the mind of the Lord . . . ? But we do have the mind of the Lord. See also the
discussion of the variants in Acts 20:28 in Chapter 3, pages 140-143.
64
For example, with reference to the Witnesses use of the "J" documents,
Lundquist (The Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, 91) states: "To
accept late Hebrew translations as a higher authority than the best preserved Greek
manuscripts from which they were translated violates our understanding of the canon
of the Christian Greek Scriptures." (The emphasis in this quote is original to
Lundquist.) This same point is restated on page 92 of Lundquists book. On pages 49-
50 of his book he asks, "Why are Hebrew translations published in 1385 C.E. and later
considered to be more reliable textual sources for the Christian Scriptures than the
Christian Scriptures themselves . . . ?" Lundquist also complains about the lack of
agreement between the NWTs use of the divine name and the circumlocution in the
the NWT (1950 original and 1984 Reference edition) and the
Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT [1969 and 1985 editions)
gives the dates for these "J" documents, and it is clear from the
information given that none of them antedate the Greek witnesses
cited in this same list. (But see the discussion below of J 1 [the du
Tillet Hebrew Matthew] and J2 [the Shem-Tob Hebrew
Matthew].)
In fact, while the aforementioned editions of the NWT and
KIT do refer to these "J" documents as "support for our renderings
[of the divine name],"65 these versions were not the stated basis
upon which Jehovahs Witnesses sought to correct the extant
copies of the New Testament writings, regarding the use of the
divine name. The New World Bible Translation Committee
(NWBTC) was quite clear when it came to the basis for their
restoration of the divine name in the NT:
How is a modern translator to know or determine when to render the

Greek words Kuvrio" [Kyrios, "Lord"] or Qeov" [Theos, "God"] into
Shem-Tob text (Ibid., 67-69), as if NWT was somehow being unfaithful to an unstated
dependence upon the "J" documents, specifically J 2 (Shem-Tob). But, again, he
assumes that "the suitability of the Tetragrammaton for the 237 Jehovah passages is
derived only [emphasis Lundquists] from later Hebrew translations" (Ibid., 54), when
in fact a good number of the 237 passages were based on quotations/paraphrases of OT
texts containing the divine name (see figure 1.2), some of which are rendered by a
circumlocution for the divine name in Shem-Tob (see discussion of Shem-Tobs text
below). Lundquist presents this same inaccurate view regarding NWTs use of the "J"
documents elsewhere in his book (see, for example, his chapter 6, particularly pages
80-82, and his figure 4 on page 81) and in a brochure that has been distributed along
with his book. On page 46 of this brochure, for example, Lundquist says "the evidence
for the Tetragrammaton comes from translations made after 1385." But even in this
brochure (page 56, note 17) Lundquist shows awareness of NWTs dependence on OT
quotations for their use of the divine name in the NT. This awareness should have
qualified Lundquists comment elsewhere regarding NWTs use of the "J" documents,
which, allegedly, are the basis for the entire 237 uses of the divine name in NWTs NT
text.
65
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Brooklyn:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1950), Foreword, 21. See also the 1984
Reference edition of NWT, Appendix 1D, 1565; KIT (1969), Foreword, 19; KIT
(1985), Foreword, 12. Even in a "Questions from Readers" in The Watchtower, 15
August 1997, 30 (where the issue of whether or not Shem-Tobs Matthew uses the
tetragrammaton is discussed), while there is a reference to NWTs use of Shem-Tob
since 1950 for "support" of their use of the divine name, priority is still given to the fact
that "Matthew quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is
found."
the divine name in his version? By determining where the inspired

Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then he
must refer back to the original to locate whether the divine name
appears there. This way he can determine the identity to give to
ky'rios and theos' and he can then clothe them with personality.
Realizing that this is the time and place for it, we have followed
this course in rendering our version of the Christian Greek
Scriptures. To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the
field of exegesis, we have tried to be most cautious about rendering
the divine name, always carefully considering the Hebrew
Scriptures. We have looked for some agreement with the Hebrew
versions ["J" documents] we consulted to confirm our own
rendering.66
These exact same comments are found in the 1969 edition of

the KIT, and in the Foreword to the 1985 edition of the KIT. The
1984 Reference edition of the NWT (in Appendix 1D) uses just
slightly different wording in making these same points. The
italicized words in the above quote appear in all four sources. It is
clear, then, that the "support" from the "J" documents involved
looking for some agreement with the Hebrew versions, "to
confirm [their] own rendering," a rendering which was based on
"determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted
from the [divine-name containing] Hebrew Scriptures."
However, the NWT does not use the divine name in the NT
only when there is a quote or paraphrase of an OT text containing
the divine name. And with reference to those instances in the NWT
where the divine name is used in the NT apart from the NWBTCs
stated principle of "determining where the inspired Christian writers
have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures," then the position taken by
Lundquist and others on the issue of translating what is in the text
may have some merit to it.
Before we elaborate further on this important point, consider the
tabulation in figure 1.2. In this figure Q-P indicates a direct
quotation or paraphrase of an OT text containing the divine name.
The category for "YHWHs Actions" indicates a quotation of an OT
text relating to an action on Jehovahs part that is preceded or
followed by a reference to "God" or "Lord" in the NT, which
66
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Foreword, 20
(emphasis added).
reference has been rendered "Jehovah" in the NWT. In this category

the OT quotation does not actually contain the divine name, but,
again, relates to the actions or words of Jehovah as spoken of in the
OT.
The category labeled "Context=YHWH" means that NWT has
used "Jehovah" apart from any quotation or paraphrase of an OT
text by an NT writer, but where the context of the NT passage
strongly supports the view that the use of "Lord" or "God" is a
reference to Jehovah. The fifth column is labeled "?" to indicate
where NWT uses "Jehovah" in an NT text apart from an OT quote
or paraphrase, and where there is some question as to whether the
reference is to Jehovah or Jesus.
Figure 1.2
Basis for "Jehovah" in NWTs New Testament
YHWHs Context=
Bible Book Q-P ?
Actions YHWH
Matthew 11 2 4 1
Mark 7 0 1 1
Luke 10 0 26 0
John 5 0 0 0
Acts 9 4 5 34
Romans 11 0 0 8
1Cor 8 1 0 6
2Cor 1 2 1 6
Galatians 1 0 0 0
Ephesians 0 0 2 4
Philippians 0 0 0 0
Colossians 0 0 1 5
1Th 0 0 0 4
2Th 0 0 0 3
1 Timothy 0 0 0 0
2 Timothy 0 0 0 4
Titus 0 0 0 0
Philemon 0 0 0 0
Hebrews 11 0 1 0
James 1 3 4 5
1 Peter 3 0 0 0
2 Peter 0 0 4 2
1 John 0 0 0 0
2 John 0 0 0 0
3 John 0 0 0 0
Jude 1 2 0 0
Revelation 0 0 12 0
Totals 7967 1468 6169 8370
The significance of the above totals71 involves the number of

times the NWT used the divine name in the NT without the support
of an OT quotation or paraphrase. My analysis here reveals there are
79 instances where an NT writer is quoting or paraphrasing an OT
text that contains the divine name. These 79 uses of the divine name
67
Mt 3:3; 4:4, 7, 10; 5:33; 21:9, 42; 22:37, 44; 23:39; 27:10; Mr 1:3; 11:9; 12:11,
29 (twice), 30, 36; Lu 2:23; 3:4; 4:8, 12, 18, 19; 10:27; 13:35; 19:38; 20:42; Joh 1:23;
6:45; 12:13, 38 (twice); Ac 2:20, 21, 25, 34; 3:22; 4:26; 7:49 (LXX; after moi ["for
me"] some manuscripts [26, 239, the Lucianic recension and others] read levgei kuvrio"
["Lord (Jehovah) says"], as we find in the quote in Ac 7:49); 15:17 (twice; quote from
the LXX; for this texts inclusion of "the Lord" [toVn kuvrion] into the text of Amos
9:12, see A, 49, 198, 407, 456, 534 and others); Rom 4:3, 8; 9:28, 29; 10:13, 16; 11:3,
34; 12:19; 14:11; 15:11; 1Co 1:31; 2:16; 3:20; 10:21 (twice), 22, 26; 14:21; 2Co
10:17; Ga 3:6; Heb 2:13; 7:21; 8:8, 9, 10, 11; 10:16, 30; 12:5, 6; 13:6; Jas 2:23; 1Pe
1:25; 3:12 (twice); Jude 9.
68
Mt 1:22; 2:15; Ac 7:31, 33; 8:22, 24; 1Co 10:9; 2Co 6:17, 18; Jas 5:10, 11
(twice); Jude 5, 14 (compare 1 Enoch 1:9; see also "Put Up A Hard Fight For the
Faith," The Watchtower, 1 June 1998, 16).
69
Mt 1:20, 24; 2:13, 19; Mr 13:20; Lu 1:6, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 25, 28, 32, 38, 45,
46, 58, 66, 68, 76; 2:9 (twice), 15, 22, 23, 24, 26, 39; 5:17; 20:37; Ac 2:39 (compare
2:22, 32, 36); 3:19; 4:29 (compare 4:30); 10:33 (see verse 36); 14:3 (compare 2:19);
2Co 10:18; Eph 2:21 (compare 2:20); 5:19 (compare 5:20); Col 3:16; Heb 8:2; Jas 1:7
(compare 1:1, 5); 2:23; 3:9; 5:4 (OT description for Jehovah); 2Pe 2:11; 3:8, 9, 10;
Rev 1:8; 4:8, 11; 11:17; 15:3, 4; 16:7; 18:8; 19:6; 21:22; 22:5, 6.
70
Mt 28:2; Mr 5:19 (compare Ex 18:8); Ac 1:24; 2:47; 5:9, 19; 7:60 (see 7:59);
8:25, 26, 39; 9:31; 11:21; 12:7, 11, 17, 23, 24; 13:2, 10, 11, 12, 44, 47 (but compare
Isa 42:6), 48, 49; 14:23; 15:35, 36, 40; 16:14, 15, 32; 18:21, 25; 19:20; 21:14; Rom
12:11; 14:4, 6 (three times), 8 (three times); 1Co 4:4, 19; 7:17; 11:32; 16:7, 10; 2Co
3:16, 17 (twice), 18 (twice); 8:21; Eph 5:17 (compare 5:10 [P 46 reads, "the Christ"]);
6:4, 7 (compare w&" tw/' kurivw/ ["as to the Lord"] with w&" tw/' cristw/' ["as to Christ"]
in verse 5), 8; Col 1:10; 3:13 (compare Ac 5:31), 22, 23, 24 (for verses 22, 23 and 24,
compare the latter part of verse 24); 1Th 1:8; 4:6 (compare 2Th 1:7-9), 15; 5:2; 2Th
2:2, 13; 3:1; 2Ti 1:18; 2:19 (twice); 4:14; Jas 1:12 (compare Rev 2:10); 4:10, 15; 5:14,
15; 2Pe 2:9; 3:12 (note the use of parousia).
71
My totals (and my classification, to some degree) differ from Lundquists study
(The Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, 50). For example, Lundquist
found 92 instances he believed were direct quotations from the OT where the divine
name is used in the source text. But this may be due to the fact that it can sometimes be
difficult to determine when a quotation is being made. So I have allowed for
paraphrases of OT texts in the Q-P category, but my numbers are still lower than
Lundquists. My analysis was based on a careful consideration of each verse listed on
pages 1565-1566 in Appendix 1D, in the NWT Reference (1984) edition. See note 67
for a listing of those verses I believe fit the description of an OT quotation or a
significant paraphrase of an OT text containing the divine name.
in NWTs NT are legitimate, for there is no reason to think that the

NT writers, all of whom were faithful followers of the God of the
OT, would not employ the divine name in their quotation of texts
that they viewed as "inspired." (2Ti 3:16) Ultimately this cannot
presently be proved, for we lack the original manuscripts necessary
to prove this point beyond question. But by the same token it cannot
be disproved, either. (See pages 22-28 for a discussion of the issue
concerning the preservation of Gods Word.)
In the 14 instances where reference is made to Jehovahs action
or words in the OT, which (in the available NT manuscripts) are
accompanied by a reference to the "Lord" who performed those
actions or who spoke the words under consideration, it is also
legitimate to use the divine name. The reason for this is because it is
historically accurate to say that Jehovah is the one who spoke the
words or performed the actions attributed to Him in the NT
passages. So according to the above considerations there is a total of
93 instances where the divine name has a solid basis for being used
in translations of various NT documents.
On the other hand, there are 61 instances where NWT uses the
divine name apart from an OT reference, but where the context does
favor the interpretation that the terms "Lord" or "God" refer to
Jehovah. In these instances one could legitimately argue the best
choice would have been to use the terms that are actually in the
available NT documents, and then point out in a footnote or a cross-
reference that in the translators view this is a reference to the Lord
Jehovah, not the Lord Christ. But since the context points to
Jehovah, the God of the OT, as the referent in these NT passages,
the translators are justified in making this identification explicit.
The final 83 instances of the divine name in the NT of the
NWT are more open to interpretation. Again, since the referent in
these 83 instances is uncertain it could be argued the reader should
be the one to decide if the reference is to Jesus Christ or his God and
Father. This is true even when the reference is to the "word of the
Lord" or the "will of the Lord," since Jesus will and word are the
same as that of his Father (compare John 7:16-17; 5:19, 30; 12:49-
50).
In fact, in Romans 10:17 we have an example of scribal conflict
over the reading "word of Christ" (P46 a* B C D* Vulgate) and the
"word of God" (ac A Syriac Peshitta).72 Then there are references to

"the Lords [NWT: Jehovahs] angel" (see, for example, Ac 8:26).
But given Jesus exalted status in the NT, as chief of the angels, as
the one to whom all authority on earth and in heaven has been
given, and as one who speaks and who is spoken of as having angels
under his command (Mt 28:18; 1Th 4:16; Rev 12:7; 22:16), we
cannot be certain that NT references to "the Lords angel" are not in
fact references to Jesus.
Also, the one instance where the NWT acknowledges not
having any agreement with the "J" documents is for their use of the
divine name in 1 Corinthians 7:17. But even here it is not certain
that Jehovah is the one in view. The NWT Reference Bible (1984)
refers to Romans 12:3 and 2 Corinthians 10:13 as support for their
reading, and it very well could be right. Romans 12:3 refers to
"God" who distributes a measure of faith, and 2 Corinthians 10:13
refers to a certain "territory" that "God" has "apportioned" to Paul
and others, while 1 Corinthians 7:17 speaks of "the Lord" who gives
each one a "portion" so he or she can "walk as God has called him
[or her]."
In view of the distinction between "God" and the "Lord" whom
He raised up from the dead in 1 Corinthians 6:14, and when you
consider the Lord (Jesus), God, and His spirit are all spoken of as
having authority over the various "gifts," "ministries" and
"operations" in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, the identity in 1 Corinthians of
one called "the Lord," is uncertain.
The fact that my conclusions on this matter point to fewer uses
of the divine name in the NT than we presently find in the NWT,
does not mean the NWT translators did not have their reasons for
using the divine name 237 times; they obviously did. The point here
is simply this: the basis for using the divine name in the NT should
be open to as few questions as possible, since we do not have the
original NT manuscripts at our disposal. The fact that there are some
144 (at the very least, 83) instances where NWT used the divine
name in the NT simply on the basis of their interpretation of the
context, is their prerogative as translators.
72
But the use of rhema instead of logos may put this example in a slightly different
semantic light than, say, Ac 8:25.
However, the argument that the basis for NWTs use of the
divine name in the 144 instances listed the last two columns of
figure 1.2 (the "J" documents) does not outweigh the testimony of
the available NT witnesses, cannot be faulted. But since the NWT
translators have gone to great lengths to help their readers
understand the basis for their use of the divine name in these 144
instances, providing all the relevant data for the material in
footnotes, forewords and appendices, then they cannot rightly be
spoken of as having attempted to deceive anyone.
At most, then, it could be said the NWT did not clearly
communicate the fact that not all uses of the divine name in NT were
based on OT quotations or paraphrases. Still, in view of the space
they have devoted to explaining their use of the divine name in the
NT, I am not sure that even this would be a legitimate argument.
Of course, if studies done by Howard and others (see below)
in relation to certain "J" documents (particularly the Shem-Tob
and du Tillet texts) were available when the NWT committee first
decided to use the divine name in their NT translation, then some
of the "J" documents may have rightly figured more prominently
in their stated basis for using the divine name, at least in the text
of Matthew.73
As it stands, the clearly stated basis upon which the divine
name was restored to the NT involved checking the NT quotations
from the OT to see if the OT text contained the divine name. The
NWT committee then made what was considered a reasonable
assumption based on their view of inspiration and the events and
controversies spoken of in the NT, namely, using the divine name
in translating a number of NT passages. Let us now consider the
potential importance of two of the "J" documents referred to in the
NWT forewords and appendices.
Matthews Hebrew Gospel. Although there is no known
Greek NT manuscript containing the full form of the divine name,
there is evidence that the original documents did use some form of
the divine name. This is true particularly in those instances where
the NT authors would quote from the OT, whether quoting from the
73
See, for example, the reference to Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew regarding to
NWTs use of the divine name in the NT, in the note on page 13 of the article "Jesus
Coming or Jesus PresenceWhich?" The Watchtower, 15 August 1996.
Hebrew Scriptures or the LXX. The evidence is even more

convincing for those documents that were originally written in
Hebrew/Aramaic.
In this regard, it should be noted that early writers such as
Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome all allude to or quote
a Hebrew version of Matthew.74 The du Tillet Hebrew version of
Matthew (named after its founder, Jean du Tillet [J1 in NWT and
y
KIT]) uses three yodhs y y in place of the divine name.75 The earliest
complete text of Matthews Gospel in Hebrew is preserved in a
fourteenth-century Jewish polemical work entitled Eben Bohan
("The Touchstone"), authored by Shem-Tob ben-Isaac ben Shaprut;
hence the name of this version of Matthew is Shem-Tob (J2 in NWT
and KIT).
In this document the divine name is replaced with "h (an
abbreviation for m?h, meaning "the Name"76), leading Howard to
conclude: "I have no hesitancy in saying that the occurrence of the
Divine Name in places where the canonical text lacks any reference
to the Lord at all [which is found three times in Shem-Tob, 22:32;
27:9; 28:9], eliminates Shem-Tob as the author of this text. No pious
Jew of the Middle Ages would have dignified a Christian text by
inserting the Divine Name. . . . Whatever the date of this text, it must
have included the Divine Name from its inception."77
Recently, Robert Shedinger analyzed the textual relationship
between Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew and the third-century
74
For references and a discussion of these early references to a Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew, see George Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 2d ed. (Macon, Georgia:
Mercer University Press, 1995), 155-160.
75
George Howard, "The Textual Nature of an Old Hebrew Gospel of Matthew,"
JBL 105 (1986), 56, states: "An important aspect of du Tillets texts is its use of the
Tetragrammaton in the form of a double or triple yodh. Once it also preserves the
Tetragrammaton fully written out, namely, in 2:15." But these conclusions are based on
Howards use of Adolf Herbsts edition of du Tillets text (see ibid., 52, note 16). The
original Hebrew text from which du Tillet made his edition, catalogued under Hebrew
mss no. 132 in the Bibliothque nationale in Paris, contains the triple yodh form only,
even in Mt 2:15. With regard to the text du Tillet used, Howard states, "I now conclude
with considerable finality that the Hebrew Matthew of du Tillet is a rather thorough
revision of an earlier Hebrew Matthew reflected in a much less corrupted form in
Shem-Tob" (ibid., 63, note 34).
76
This is, of course, not the divine name but it certainly recalls the use of the divine
name, and is not the equivalent of the title "Lord," as used of Jesus and others.
77
Ibid., 230, 232.
papyrus P45. On the basis of his study he suggests Shem-Tobs

Hebrew Matthew "contains an ancient Hebrew substratum . . . [and],
at least in a few places, Shem-Tobs Hebrew readings reflect a
Hebrew Vorlage [underlying text] which may have served as
synoptic source material."78
William Petersen has revealed several flaws with Shedingers
comparison of Shem-Tob with P45, flaws which make it difficult to
accept Shedingers conclusions.79 Yet, Petersens criticism of
Howards analysis is not nearly as convincing as his review of
Shedingers study.
Objections to Shem-Tob being a reflection of an early
Hebrew text of Matthews Gospel. As noted above, William
Petersen has challenged Howards and Shedingers conclusions in
relation to the Shem-Tob text of Matthew. Petersen objects to
Howards use of certain early references to a Hebrew Matthew,
claiming "they are irrelevant"80 because, as Howard himself
acknowledges, "a comparison of the quotations [found together with
these early references to a text of Matthew written in a Semitic
language] . . . reveals little or no relationship between them."81
Petersen appears to believe Howards purpose in discussing
these early references to a Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew is to provide
support for Howards view that "Shem-Tobs text preserves an
earlier Hebrew literary tradition," the roots of which go back to the
early centuries of the Christian era.82 But this is not a fair
understanding of Howards intent, which is clearly to compare
Shem-Tobs Matthew with citations from and references to other
Hebrew/Aramaic Matthews mentioned and quoted by various early
Christian writers.
Dates of composition result from this study. This is clear from
the title of the section in which Howard presents and compares these
78
Robert F. Shedinger, "The Textual Relationship Between P 45 and Shem-Tobs
Hebrew Matthew," NTS 43 (1997), 59.
79
William L. Petersen, "The Vorlage of Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew," NTS
44.4 (1998), 506-510.
80
Petersen, "The Vorlage of Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew," 491.
81
Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 160.
82
Ibid., 175, 190-212.
early references to the text of Shem-Tob,83 by the content of this

section, and by the nature of the comparisons made.
That Howard is not using these early references to advance his
theory concerning Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew is clear from his
conclusion to this section, "A comparison of the quotations from this
(these) gospel(s) with the text of Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew
reveals little or no relationship between them."84
Remarkably, Petersen quotes the essence of Howards
concluding words on this point, but still believes they are part of
Howards case that Shem-Tob is "ancient,"85 when in fact, as
Howard clearly stated, he perceives no relationship at all between
Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew and those referred to and quoted by
writers of the early centuries CE.
What, then, might be Howards point in quoting these early
Christian writers? That "early writers attest to an original Matthew
written in a Semitic [Hebrew or Aramaic] language."86 The
significance of this fact, as far as it relates to the divine name, has to
do with whether or not an originally Semitic document of the first
century CE, when it quotes from the Hebrew text of the Bible where
the divine name appears, would faithfully reproduce the divine name
as it is written.
There is no reason to think such a document would not have
used the divine name in its OT quotations. Indeed, some scribes and
sectarian groups who at some point decided to avoid using the
divine name in their commentaries on biblical passages would still
use it in their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures, for the most
part.87
83
Ibid., 155-160. It is titled "Shem-Tobs Matthew and the Hebrew/Aramaic-
Matthean Tradition."
84
Ibid., 160.
85
Note Petersens reference to "his [Howards] case" in paragraph two of section
two of Petersens article (Petersen, "The Vorlage of Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew,"
491), a section entitled, "Howards Analysis of Shem-Tobs Matthew." This is in direct
reference to the first paragraph of the aforementioned section, where Petersen begins by
highlighting Howards view that Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew was "primitive," and
"Howards conviction that Shem-Tobs Matthew is ancient."
86
Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 159.
87
See George Howard, "The Tetragram and the New Testament," JBL 96 (1977),
66-72. The usual pattern is that the scribe would use the divine name in the biblical
quotation, but not in the commentary. Howard, though, notes several examples where
Petersen also presents a comparison of ten readings from the

Greek text of Matthew with the Shem-Tob text and with the Middle
Dutch Lige Harmony manuscript (dated to about the thirteenth
century CE). Primarily from a textual comparison between these
texts, Petersen concludes that Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew is
related to "traditions which lie behind the Middle Dutch Lige
Harmony," and "is translated from a medieval Latin Vorlage
[underlying text]."88
Petersen believes these ten readings constitute "irrefutable
evidence of a unique, close textual link between Shem-Tobs
Hebrew Matthew and the medieval harmonized gospel traditions
which are found in the Middle Dutch Lige Harmony."89 But there
are serious problems with some of Petersens examples.
For example, the first gloss he presents, in Matthew 19:12, is
not even a precise parallel to the Lige Harmony, and it may well be
that the reading ("these [the eunuchs] are those who have not
sinned") was added to the text of Shem-Tob. This author certainly
does not believe that all of the readings in Shem-Tob reflect an early
Hebrew text of Matthew, and neither does Howard.90 As Elliott
even in the biblical quotation the divine name is either surrogated with another term
(such as when 11Q13 [2.10-11] quotes Psalm 7:8-9 and uses el ["God"] instead of the
divine name [see Howard, ibid., 66, note 24]) or is represented by four dots (. . . .), as
in the Community Rules (8.14) quotation of Isaiah 40:3 (see Howard, ibid., 67, for
additional uses of this particular form of substitution). But the divine name also occurs
in non-biblical passages and biblical paraphrases in the Qumran scrolls. See Howard,
ibid., 68, notes 32 and 33; Donald W. Parry, "Notes on Divine Name Avoidance in
Scriptural Units of the Legal Texts of Qumran," in Legal Texts and Legal Issues,
Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran
Studies Cambridge 1995, Moshe Bernstein, Florentino Martnez and John Kampen,
eds. (STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 437-449.
88
Petersen, "The Vorlage of Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew," 490. See also
Petersens review of Howards first edition of Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew in "Book
Reviews," JBL 108 (1989), 722-726. On page 725 of his review, Petersen
acknowledges that "some" (emphasis his) of Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew may be
considered "primitive," but he does not elaborate on any examples, though he does
point out several "fascinating readings" in the Shem-Tob text at the beginning of his
review.
89
Ibid., 506.
90
Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 178, states: "Assuming that the basic text
of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is old, we have what one might expect, a writing
composed primarily in BH [Biblical Hebrew] with a mixture of MH [Mishnaic
Hebrew] elements, but which has undergone scribal modification designed to bring it
more into harmony with later linguistic forms. In addition, the text reflects considerable
rightly observes: "All manuscripts are equally open to corruption

and thus all manuscripts need to be analysed critically to see where
they yield good readings and where they are corrupt. There is no
such thing as a good text, only manuscripts with some good
readings."91
It should not surprise us, then, that Shem-Tob shows signs of
corruption, if this truly is the reason for its similarity with the Lige
Harmony in this and other instances. In fact, in Petersens next
example, Matthew 11:25, he believes Shem-Tobs use of "humble,"
where the Greek uses "babes," and where the Lige Harmony
conflates the two ("the little ones and the humble"), is a signal
indicator "of the secondary character of Shem-Tobs text."92 He may
be right, as far as this text is concerned. But it is also possible Shem-
Tobs text preserves a reading from an earlier Hebrew manuscript, or
was revised to agree with traditions such as those found in the Lige
Harmony and its ancestors.
Petersen next refers to Matthew 17:5, where he compares the
Lige Harmonys "hear him and be obedient" to the Greek "listen to
him" (ajkouvete autou', akouete autou) and Howards translation of
Shem-Tob, "you shall obey him." The problem here lies in the fact
that Petersen is evidently relying on similarities between Howards
translation of Shem-Tob ("shall obey") and his translation of the
Lige Harmony ("be obedient"), when in fact the Hebrew word used
by Shem-Tob (umv, shamaU) basically means to "hear"! In fact, the
LXX uses a form of akouo to translate shamaU more often than any
other word.93
His fourth example is Matthew 12:1, and Petersen refers to an
English translation of the Greek ("grainfields"), Shem-Tob
("standing grain") and the Lige Harmony ("grain that stood upon a
field"). Petersen then states: "The common Hebrew word for grain
is /gD [dagan] . . . Shem-Tob, however, uses hmq [qamah], which
specifies standing grain. The identical variant also occurs in the
revision designed to make it conform more closely to the standard Greek and Latin
texts of the Gospel during the Middle Ages."
91
Elliott, "Can we Recover the Original Text of the New Testament?" 23.
92
93
See Hatch and Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint, 45-49.
Lige Harmony."94 But one need not look to the Lige Harmony at
all to account for the reading in Shem-Tob, for at least two reasons.
First, the text goes on to say that the disciples "began to pluck the
ears . . . and to eat them." Obviously the grain was mature or
"standing." Second, qamah (Shem-Tobs reading) is quite in line
with oJ spovrimo" (ho sporimos, the Greek reading of Matthew),
which means "standing grain, grain fields" (BAGD, under spovrimo"
[page 763]).
Clearly, then, Petersen is in error when he says that Shem-Tobs
reading (in Mt 12:1) is shared only by the Lige Harmony and the
Middle Dutch tradition, for Shem-Tobs reading could have resulted
simply from a translation of any Greek manuscript containing
sporimos! Of course, it is also possible Shem-Tobs reading
represents an early Hebrew text, perhaps even the original Hebrew
word used by Matthew (if Matthew did in fact originally compose
his Gospel account in Hebrew), which was later translated into
Greek by ho sporimos.
Petersen makes some interesting and important observations.
However, while some of his arguments may call into question the
nature of certain readings in Shem-Tob, they far from prove that the
entire Shem-Tob text has been "translated from a medieval Latin
Vorlage."95 There are reasons for believing Shem-Tob does contain
readings that are the result of an early Hebrew text in circulation
during the first three centuries CE.
One of these reasons, which Petersen does not discuss, includes
the use of a circumlocution for the divine name, which would be
difficult to account for as a translation from a Latin or Dutch
manuscript (not to mention, as does Howard, that no Jew would
have inserted "the Name" in a hated document like a Christian
Gospel, when translating from a source text that read either "Lord"
or "God" [see page 36]).
Agreements between Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew and
early "Jewish Christian" groups. Howard has also shown a
possible relationship between readings in the Shem-Tob text which
are not found in the Greek Matthew, and which may have been used
94
95
Ibid., 490.
by certain early "Jewish Christian" groups. Howard points out that

early church writers, from the second through the fourth centuries
(such as Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius), refer to the Ebionites
as a group that use "only the Gospel according to Matthew."96
The beliefs of this group are more in line with the readings of a
Shem-Tob type text than they are with the Greek Matthew. For
example, the Ebionites are reported to have rejected a belief in the
conversion of "people of all the nations [Gentiles]." Yet, that is
precisely what we find in the Greek Matthew (28:19), while the
Shem-Tob text omits this reference to "people of all the nations."97
The discussion about an ancient Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
will continue, and hopefully bring us closer to Matthews original
text. But it is likely that a more fruitful investigation will consider
individual readings in various Hebrew manuscripts of Matthews
Gospel, rather than calling into question the entire text on the basis
of potentially corrupt readings.
Late versions of a Hebrew Matthew, such as the du Tillet and
Shem-Tob texts, which contain circumlocutions for the divine name
and are understood to contain readings that have come from an
ancient Hebrew text of Matthew, may explain this statement from
the Babylonian Talmud, "The blank spaces and the books of the
Minin may not be saved from the fire, but they must be burnt in their
place, they and the Divine Names occurring in them."98
The importance of the divine name in the Septuagint
(LXX). Other evidence that NT authors used the divine name in
their quotations from the OT comes from pre-Christian fragments of
96
George Howard, "Shem-Tobs Hebrew Matthew and Early Jewish Christianity,"
JSNT 70 (1998), 13-14.
97
Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 150. See Howard, "Shem-Tobs Hebrew
Matthew and Early Jewish Christianity," 13-18, for further discussion of a possible
dependence of early "Jewish Christian" groups on a Shem-Tob type text.
98
Shabbath chap. 16. This translation is taken from the Hebrew-English Edition of
the Babylonian Talmud, Shabbath, trans. H. Freedman, vol. 1 (New York: Soncino
Press, 1972), 116a. In ibid., note B (6), on the word "Minin [/ynym]," Freedman
observes: "The term denotes various kinds of Jewish sectarians, such as Sadducees,
Samaritans, Judeo-Christians, etc., according to the date of the passage in which the
term is used. The reference is probably to the last named [=Judeo-Christians]"
(emphasis added). In the same context, the Talmud refers to a "Be Nizrefe [yprxn yb],"
which is "a meeting place of the Nazarene, Jewish Christians, where local matters were
discussed and religious debates were held" (ibid., note C [7]).
the LXX that contain the divine name. We will discuss four of these
fragments, namely:
1) P. Fouad 266 (Rahlfs 848), which has been dated from the
first to the third century BCE.99 This papyrus contains the divine
name in an ancient Hebrew/Aramaic script, .
2) The Scroll of the Minor Prophets (8HevXIIgr [Rahlfs 943]),
dated between 50 BC and 50 CE,100 contains the divine name
written in two paleo-Hebrew forms, (hand A) and
(hand B).
3) We have a fragment of Leviticus found in Qumran cave 4
(4QLXXLevb [Rahlfs 802]), dated to the first century BCE,101 and
containing the divine name transliterated into the Greek characters,
(IAO).
4) Finally, an LXX fragment of Job 42:11-12 dated to the early
part of the first century CE contains an archaic form of the divine
name in the midst of a Greek text.102
In view of these fragments it is no surprise to find scholars like
George Howard concluding: "We can now say with almost absolute
certainty that the divine name, hwhy, was not rendered by kuvrio"
[Lord] in the pre-Christian Greek Bible, as so often has been
thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in
paleo-Hebrew letters or was transliterated into Greek letters."103
99
W. G. Waddell, "The Tetragrammaton in the LXX," JTS 45 (1944), 159-161,
dates it from the second or first century BCE; so also, Howard, "The Oldest Greek Text
of Deuteronomy," HUCA 42 (1971), 125-131; Kahle, "The Greek Bible and the
Gospels," 614, dates it from 100 BCE; also, Bruce Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek
Bible (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 33-34.
100
See Emanuel Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll From Nahal Hever
(8HevXIIgr) (DJD 8; Oxford: Oxford University Press, rep. 1995), 22-26, for a
discussion of the dating of this scroll. Tov himself tentatively opts for a date in the later
first century BCE. See also, George Howard, "The Tetragram and the New Testament,"
64, for other references on the dating of this scroll.
101
P. W. Skehan, "The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism," Volume du
Congrs, Strasbourg 1956 (VTSupp 4; Leiden: Brill, 1957), 157.
102
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 50 (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1983),
1-3. The LXX manuscript P. Ryl Gk. 458 (Rahlfs 957) published by C. H. Roberts,
Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester (Manchester: Aberdeen
University Press, 1936), 24, is dated to the second century BCE, but it does not
preserve enough of the text for us to know if the translator used a form of the divine
name, or a surrogate such as kyrios.
103
Howard, "The Tetragam and the New Testament," 65.
Albert Pietersma has challenged the theory that the original

LXX preserved the divine name. He believes that 8HevXIIgr, in
addition to not being an exemplar of the LXX (as the original LXX
was only a translation of the Pentateuch), contains "hebraizing
corrections," and for this reason Pietersma does not consider it a
"bona fide exemplar of the LXX."104
Regarding P. Fouad 266, Pietersma believes that while textually
"it is an excellent witness to the Old Greek of Deuteronomy, . . .
some revising of this text has obviously been done in order to bring
it into better accord with the Hebrew," and thus it may not be a
"typical" exemplar of the original LXX.105
As for 4QLXXLevb, after quoting Skehans comments to the
effect that this text strongly supports the belief that the use of some
form of the divine name "goes back for some books at least to the
beginnings of the Septuagint rendering," Pietersma acknowledges,
"the genuinely Septuagintal credentials of 4QLXXLevb are well-
nigh impeccable."106
In his attempts to neutralize the evidence presented by the New
World Bible Translation Committee (NWBTC) for the use of the
divine name in the LXX, Robert Countess states: "Among the
manuscripts found in the Qumran region beginning in 1947 is the
Leviticus Scroll Fragment 4QLXXLeva. Dated as having been
written around 100 B.C., it contains Leviticus 26:2-16 . . . This
104
Albert Pietersma, "Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original
Septuagint," in De Septuaginta. Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His
Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. A. Pietersma and C. Cox (Toronto: Benben Publications,
1984), 88-89.
105
Ibid., 89. On page 90 and 91 Pietersma questions the originality of the tetragram
in the LXX of De 31:27, since P. Fouad 266 has tonqeon ("Jehovah God"),
rather than "Jehovah" in place of the articulated "God," which is the reading found in all
other LXX manuscripts. But it is possible that the LXX was translated from a Hebrew
Vorlage that read "Jehovah God" (<hla hwhy). Mogens Mller, The First Bible of the
Church: A Plea for the Septuagint (CSI 1; JSOTSup 206; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996), 42, states: "Compared to the knowledge we have acquired
through the Qumran finds that at such an early time no Hebrew text recension could
claim to be the Bible text, we may conclude that the Septuagint version has its origin in
one out of several Hebrew recensions." If the original Hebrew text from which the
LXX was translated read "Jehovah God," then the removal of the tetragram would
simply have left toVn qeovn ("God"), as in all manuscripts other than P. Fouad 266. But
if this were the case we would probably find kuvrion toVn qeovn ("the Lord God")
somewhere in the LXX tradition.
106
Pietersma, "Kyrios or Tetragram," 91.
fragment produces the crux for the NWT contention . . . in neither

[Lev 26:2 or 26:13] did [the divine name] appear. The copyist
maintained his usage of the Greek language throughout."107
True, 4QLXXLeva does not contain the divine name. NWBTC
never declared anything to the contrary! 4QLXXLeva does not even
preserve the portion of the text where we would expect to find either
a form of the divine name or a surrogate. NWT gives a reference to
4QLXXLevb (= parts of Leviticus chapters 2-5), not 4QLXXLeva,
as an example of another Jewish copy of the LXX, which copy, as
we discussed above, does contain the divine name as . Thus,
Countess sites the wrong text in his argument.108
NWT and Aquilas Greek version of the Old Testament.
The 1950 edition of NWT (Foreword, page 12) contains a passing
reference to Aquilas Greek translation (produced around 130 CE)
as an example of the persistence of the divine name in the Jews
Greek Bible even after the close of the NT canon.109 The 1984
Reference Bible (Appendix 1C, page 1563) also makes reference to
Aquilas version.
Regarding this, Countess states that it would be quite risky to
suggest that the presence of the divine name in Aquila "implies
even less provesthe same presence in the autographs of the LXX."
Additionally, he states: "Aquila could not have compiled his version
before ca. A.D. 130, many years after the compilation of allor at
least mostof the NT writings. So NWT infers from a later work by
extrapolation backwards that NT writers in fact had a LXX with
Hebraic entries for the tetragrammaton."110
107
Countess, The Jehovahs Witnesses New Testament, 30 (emphasis added).
108
For further discussion of Countess treatment of these manuscripts in relation to
NWT, see Firpo W. Carr, The Divine Name Controversy, vol. 1 (Fremont, CA:
Corporate Publishing, 1991), 137-140. See pages 143-154 of Carrs book for a
discussion of Countess treatment of 1Pe 2:3 and 3:15.
109
In Gentile copies of the LXX, the divine name likely did not persist very long.
Since one of the objectives of Aquilas translation was "to provide an accurate
rendering for controversy with Christians" (Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and
Modern Study [Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1989], 76), his use of the divine
name could have been directed toward those copies of the LXX which had begun to
excise the divine name from its text. Or it could have simply been the result of Jewish
loyalty to the Hebrew text, or possibly his loyalty to the more accurate LXX
manuscripts.
110
Countess, The Jehovahs Witnesses New Testament, 29.
Countess criticism of the Witnesses use of Aquila is

unwarranted. NWBTC, in its foreword to the first edition (1950) of
the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (the
New Testament portion of NWT), was explicit regarding the
evidence it was using, which did not include Aquilas Greek version
as though it were either primary or conclusive evidence of what the
original LXX had in it. Rather, they included passing reference to
Aquilas Greek version as merely a (minor) part of a body of
evidence for that frame of mind which Jewish translators and
copyists owned in connection with how they treated the Hebrew
Bibles uses of the divine name from the third century BCE LXX
until past the time when the apostle Johns writings closed out the
New Testament canon.111
Was the divine name in the original LXX? Returning to
Pietersmas conclusions regarding the divine name in the original
LXX, it is of interest to note that near the beginning of his article he
quotes Howards statement (found on page 65 of his 1977 JBL
article, quoted above on page 14) that the divine name was not
reference to the implications this view would have on New
Testament christology (that is, if the NT authors quoted LXX
versions containing the divine name), Pietersma believes "the
foundation on which [Howards view] has been built, namely the
ancient LXX, will not sustain it."112
However, the focus of Pietersmas article is on the original
LXX, hence his article is titled, in part, "A Renewed Quest for the
Original LXX." The fact is, it really does not matter what the
111
Norman Walker, "The Writing of the Divine Name in the Mishna," VT 1 (1951),
309-310, believes, in agreement with Holtzman, that the double yodh form of the
divine name in the Mishna is really "derived from the popular form of the Name in
actual use, to wit, hy pointed in MT Hy [Yah or Jah]" (ibid., 310). He then
conjectures that the practice of doubling a name in order to give emphasis produced the
form HyHy [Jah-Jah]. It is this doubled form that appears in Aquila, which Walker
believes was uttered in the first two centuries CE to keep Greek-speaking Jews from
pronouncing the Name "according to its letters" (Norman Walker, "The Writing of the
Divine Name in Aquila and the Ben Asher Text," VT 4 [1954], 103-104). However,
Peter Katz, "hy'hy> = JEJA, hyhy = JAJA?" VT 4 (1954), 428-429, believes Aquilas
pronunciation of the divine name cannot be traced back to the Mishna; rather, Aquila
reproduced the divine name as it stood in the Hebrew text, "with the single exception
that he put a second y instead of w. This was his way of excluding profanation."
112
original LXX used in those places where the Hebrew Scriptures

contain the divine name. Our concern here is whether or not the
LXX copies used by the NT writers contained the divine name.
The original LXX, consisting of the Pentateuch and translated
in Egypt around 250 BCE,113 may not have contained the divine
name, as the translators were influenced by their Hellenized
environment, which is evident by their translation of several
passages.114 The translators of the LXX may have replaced the
divine name with other terms out of regard for King Ptolemy, as
later rabbinical sources maintain took place with various details in
the Pentateuch.115
Still, there is no convincing evidence proving the original LXX
actually surrogated the divine name. But even if the original LXX
did not use Gods name then that would simply mean Jewish
revision of the LXX began very early in the tradition, as the four
manuscripts reviewed earlier reveal. This, then, would suggest that
"the perception that the content of the translations of the biblical
writings was not immediately identical with the content of the
Hebrew text itself must have been prevalent very early."116
Again, granting the assumption that revisions to the LXX
included additions of the divine name to the Greek text in order to
create further harmony between it and the Hebrew Scriptures, does
not in any way negate Howards conclusion that NT authors quoted
from an LXX text which contained the divine name. The data we
have in our possession indicates that copies of the LXX, before,
during and after the first century CE contained the divine name.
Pietersma quotes Origen as saying, "In the more accurate
exemplars [of the LXX] the (divine) name is written in Hebrew
characters."117
113
But see Nina Collins, "281 BCE: The Year of the Translation of the Pentateuch
into Greek under Ptolemy II," in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings. Papers
Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and its Relations to the
Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (SBLSCS 33; Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press,
1992), 403-477, who on page 477 confidently concludes, "a translation of the
Pentateuch was completed under Ptolemy II, in the closing days of 281 BCE."
114
Such as Ex 3:14. See Chapter 5, pages 292-296, for a discussion of this verse.
115
See Mller, The First Bible of the Church, 66-67.
116
Ibid., 45.
117
Pietersma then states this evidence proves nothing regarding

to the original LXX, as Origen knew that "among the Jews there
were Greek texts which sported the tetragram in Hebrew
charactersand he seized on this as original LXX."118 But Origen
did not qualify his comments with "among the Jews." He also
does not appear to be discussing the original LXX at all, but "the
more accurate [toi'" ajkribestevroi"]" copies.
Certainly those copies of the LXX which contained the divine
name are more accurate (= faithful to the Hebrew text) than those
containing surrogate titles, regardless of which is original.
Jehovahs Witnesses are of the opinion that the NT authors would
quote from "the more accurate" texts, whether this be the original
LXX or a recension of it.
Other objections to the use of the divine name in NT.
Really, though, even if we were to find a manuscript of the New
Testament containing the divine name, would scholars incorporate it
into their translations of the Bible? After all, no one disputes the
appearance of the divine name in the OT nearly 7,000 times. Still,
how many translations give the divine name its rightful place?
As we have already discussed, the fact that we may no longer
have the original pronunciation used by Moses and others is not
significant. The same is true for a great many words in the Bible. In
short, there is no legitimate, scriptural reason to avoid using some
form of the divine name in the Hebrew Scriptures. Titles such as
"Lord" and "God" are not suitable replacements for the unique name
of God, as these titles are commonly used of persons other than
Jehovah.
Countess criticizes the Witnesses use of John 17:6, 26,
believing that these two scriptures are understood by Jehovahs
Witnesses to mean that Jesus restored the true pronunciation of the
divine name.119 Such is not the case. While they do believe that
Jesus words here involve the use of the divine name, they also
believe that by using the Fathers name Jesus was "revealing the
Person it represents . . . enabling persons to know or experience
118
Ibid., 88.
119
Countess, The Jehovahs Witnesses New Testament, 31-32.
what Gods name stands for (Mt 11:27; Joh 1:14, 18; 17:6-
12)."120
The word "name" is used in the Bible to refer to the character
of a person (for example, De 22:14, 19; Ru 4:11; Ne 9:10 [=
reputation]; Job 18:17; Ec 7:1), and also to the actual name of
someone, such as when reference is made to calling on the name
of Jehovah (compare Ge 4:26; 12:8; 13:4; 16:13; 21:33; and
many others). Regarding the former use of the word "name,"
consider 1 Samuel 25:25, where Abigail pleads with David:
"Please do not let my lord set his heart upon this good-for-nothing
man Nabal [meaning, senselessness], for, as his name is, so is
he. Nabal is his name, and senselessness is with him" (emphasis
added). Of course, this should not be taken to mean that Nabals
parents named him "senselessness"!
It is likely that a difference existed between the northern and
southern dialects of the kingdom,121 so that "Nabal" had a
dignified meaning in one dialect and a negative meaning in
another; the dignified meaning was likely intended by his parents.
When his personality became manifest, his wife used the other,
more derogatory meaning. Still, this is but one example in the
120
Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2 (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1988), 72. In ibid., page 467, we are likewise told: "When Jesus Christ was on
earth, he made his Fathers name manifest to his disciples. (Joh 17:6, 26) Although
having earlier known that name and being familiar with Gods activities as recorded in
the Hebrew Scriptures, these disciples came to know Jehovah in a far better and grander
way through the One who is in the bosom position with the Father. (Joh 1:18)"
121
A. R. Millard, "YW and YHW," VT 30.2 (1980), 312, argues as follows: "In
order to deal with the problem of variation between yw and yhw as initial elements of
Hebrew names in the Old Testament, an equally detailed study of the final elements yh,
yhw, yw is needed, embracing both the Biblical and epigraphic records. . . . The
opposition -yh : -yhw may be no more than scribal inconsistency. . . . The seals bearing
names ending in yw and yhw are so similar in form and style of lettering to those
bearing names commencing with the same elements that it would be impossible to
adopt a higher date for one group than for the other." It is possible, therefore, that the
divine name was pronounced differently in the northern kingdom than in the southern
kingdom. If such a difference did exist this would show that there was no singularly
accurate way to pronounce the divine name, but that location and dialect produced
variations in the pronunciation. So surely we cannot be faulted for using a less-than-
precise pronunciation, as language, dialect, location, and time have similarly affected
our pronunciation.
Hebrew Scriptures where the meaning of a persons name is

directly linked with his or her character.122
Given the fact that Gods own revelation of the meaning of
His name (Ex 3:14) is directly related to His character, to what
kind of Being he is (One that will "prove to be" with His people),
it would be a careless mistake to assume Jesus could have made
his Fathers name (character) known without using the very name
that reveals His character! Jesus use of the word "name" in verses
like John 17:6 can no more be limited to character (that is, apart
from a knowledge of a persons actual name) than reference to
Jesus "name" can be made without a knowledge of his own God-
given name, which itself reveals what kind of person he would be,
namely, a Savior (Mt 1:21).
Countess believes that since there is no record in Scripture of
Jesus accusers citing his use of the divine name as blasphemy,
that Jesus did not use the name.123 Of course, this argument from
silence, if true, would only apply to those occasions where Jesus
taught in the presence of those desirous of condemning him.
However, William Arnold points out: "The mere utterance of the
name, apart from perjury, cursing, or blasphemy, was indeed at no
time a criminal offense; but it soon came to be considered a ritual
sin, punishable by God though not by man."124
122
In a similar vein we may note that the word "Satan" obviously was not the name
this angel of God had before his involvement with the first human couple. But this
came to be his name for it accurately described his disposition as a "resister."
123
124
William R. Arnold, "The Divine Name in Exodus iii. 14," JBL 24 (1905), 135.
In ibid., notes 33 and 34, Arnold observes: "According to b. Aboda Zara 17 b, under
Roman rule in the second century A.D. Rabbi Hanina ben Teradion was burned at the
stake, his wife executed, and his daughter condemned to a life of shame, for no other
cause than that the Rabbi had pronounced the ineffable name in public hearing. But the
ground alleged for the outrage is rejected even by those who accept as historical all the
other details of the Talmudic story. . . . In Mishna, Berachoth, ix. 5, there is no talk of
the utterance of the word hwhy [Jehovah]. The question there is merely whether one
shall or shall not use the divine name in ordinary salutation." In Sanhedrin 7.5 we are
told, "He who blasphemes is liable only when he will have fully pronounced the divine
Name" (Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation [New Haven; London: Yale
University Press, 1988], 597). Of course, this by no means establishes that this
inaccurate understanding of Leviticus 24:11 would have been used by Jesus enemies in
the first century CE. Additionally, Sotah 7.6 informs us: "In the sanctuary one says the
Name as it is written but in the provinces, with a euphemism." This seems to imply the
preservation of an accepted pronunciation of the divine name, and specifically indicates
The name of God highlights His character as a Deliverer, as

One who fulfills His promises and brings them to fruition by His
own volition. Jehovahs Witnesses believe that Jesus not only used
his Fathers proper name, particularly when quoting Gods own
Word, but he also made known God's character by stressing the
meaning of His name. For example, Jesus made it plain that the
Father was doing His works (proving to be what He promised long
ago) through the Son (Joh 14:10), causing His purposes in
connection with His Son to be fulfilled. As young David confronted
the God-dishonoring Goliath "with the name of Jehovah of armies,"
so Jesus "came in the name of [his] Father," bringing the good news
of Gods Kingdom and hope for all mankind (Lu 4:43; Joh 5:43).
"Jehovahs Witnesses" or "Jesus Witnesses"?

Christians and Gods name. As stated in the Introduction,
one of the primary reasons for writing this book is to provide the
scholarly community with a more balanced and complete
presentation of Jehovahs Witnesses beliefs, and the basis for them.
No one is above criticism. But much of the criticism heaped upon
the Witnesses lacks accuracy and paints a false picture of what they
truly believe. For example, Ron Rhodes states: "The Jehovahs
Witnesses believe that because they are the only group that refers to
God by his true name, Jehovah, they are the only true followers of
God."125 This is simply not true.
Jehovahs Witnesses do not believe (as is implied by Rhodes)
that merely because they use Gods name they are Gods people.
There is much more to being a true Christian than simply
acknowledging the name of God or His Son, Jesus Christ. Jehovahs
Witnesses believe a person must put faith in what God has had
preserved in His Word, apply it, and follow the example of His Son
(1Pe 2:21; 1Jo 2:6).
its use by the priests. Of course, this cannot be considered definitive in terms of
establishing the use of the divine name in the first century. But it does show that even
the compilers of the Mishnah acknowledged that the priests pronounced the divine
name "as it is written."
125
Rhodes, Reasoning, 50.
Whose Witnesses? Rhodes also objects to the fact that

Witnesses go by the name "Jehovahs Witnesses" and not "Jesus
Witnesses." He states: "In Acts 1:8, Jesus affirmed to the disciples:
You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and
you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria,
and to the ends of the earth (emphasis added). We are called to be
witnesses of Jesus Christ, not of Jehovah!"126
Jehovahs Witnesses are witnesses of Jesus Christ! This is
evident by their zeal to imitate him and to preach the message he
brought to mankind. (Mt 9:35; Lu 8:1) As noted earlier, preaching
the good news of the kingdom was the reason Jesus was "sent forth."
(Lu 4:43) As witnesses of Jesus Christ, Jehovahs Witnesses teach
others about Jesus resurrection and proclaim the glorious good
news about his kingdom. (Mt 24:14; Ac 28:23, 31) They realize,
however, that Jesus himself was a "faithful and true witness" to his
God and Father, Jehovah. (Joh 5:43; Rev 1:5; 3:14) After referring
to Acts 2:32, 33, one issue of The Watchtower stated:
Note that Peter was testifying to what Jehovah God had done. At
the same time he was also a witness for Jesus, presenting
testimony that this one was indeed the Messiah or Christ. Peter
was thus acting in harmony with what the Son of God told the
disciples prior to his ascension to heaven: "You will receive
power when the holy spirit arrives upon you, and you will be
witnesses of me." (Acts 1:8) As witnesses of Jesus, believers in
time came to be called "Christians." According to Acts 11:26,
this was "by divine providence."127
Conclusion
The popular pronunciation of the divine name as "Yahweh"
is not well-founded. In fact, the available evidence supports a
126
Ibid., 61.
127
"Be A Living Witness for the Good News," The Watchtower, 1 July 1977, 401
(emphasis added). Additionally, the article, "Flashes of Light in Apostolic Times," The
Watchtower, 15 May 1995, 11, after quoting Acts 1:6-8, states, "Until then, they [the first-
century Christians] had been witnesses solely of Jehovah, but now they would also be
witnesses of Christ."
three-syllable form and the Anglicized form "Jehovah" is a fine

representation for the original name of God. Those who continue
to look down on the pronunciation "Jehovah" while favoring
"Yahweh" should carefully reconsider the facts.
Some have argued that because the available NT manuscripts
use surrogates for the divine name in quotations from the OT where
the divine name appears translators should also use these surrogates.
But this suggestion ignores significant historical facts relating to the
use and removal of the divine name from what were considered
inspired writings (the LXX) by individuals/groups existing at the
time when the NT was being copied and circulated. The evidence
shows that individuals/groups who claimed to be Christian removed
the divine name from LXX manuscripts. It should not surprise us,
then, that the NT manuscripts in their possession were similarly
affected.
There are a variety of reasons why this might have taken place,
including effective evangelism, lack of appreciation on the part of
some Gentile Christians for the Hebrew name of God, superstition,
and even doctrinal conviction. Whatever the case, the evidence does
not support the view that God would prevent alteration of His Word.
We should, though, be confident that a careful examination of the
text, including significant variations and the tendencies of scribes
during the time of its composition and subsequent transmission will
yield, with a significant level of confidence (greater than that which
might be attributed to any other work of antiquity) the original
words of the NT text.
Jehovahs Witnesses worship and serve the God of the Hebrew
and Christian Greek Scriptures, as did Jesus Christ. (Isa 11:1-11;
Mic 5:4; Joh 4:24) Jesus himself was a "faithful and true witness" to
his God. (Rev 3:12, 14) But the Witnesses also recognize the vital
role of Jesus Christ in the salvation of all who put faith in him. They
are witnesses of Jesus Christ and follow him in proclaiming the
good news about the redeeming value of his sacrifice to all mankind
(Mt 24:14; Joh 3:16; Ac 1:8; 1 Joh 4:14).
2
Understanding Trinitarianism
Why Trinitarians Believe What They Believe
In this chapter we will be considering a number of issues that

will help pave the way for our discussion of the NWT and the
theology of Jehovahs Witnesses elsewhere in this publication. In
order to properly understand some of the objections the
Witnesses have to a Trinitarian interpretation of certain passages
in the Bible, we need to have a reasonably good grasp of some of
the assumptions informing Trinitarians beliefs, and determine if
these assumptions are warranted.
Most of the problems Jehovahs Witnesses and Trinitarians
have in communicating with one another usually revolve around
an inaccurate view of the other sides position. Some Witnesses
might be under the impression that Trinitarians believe in "three
gods" and some Trinitarians may think that the Witnesses believe
Jesus is a "mere creature." Neither of these views is correct.
I am not here suggesting that everything I have to say in this
chapter will be accepted by Trinitarians as part of their belief
structure. I have found that many Trinitarians advance views that
are not wholly in agreement with the views of other Trinitarians,
even though they might consider each other "orthodox." What I
say in this chapter is based on the sources sited and numerous
conversations with Trinitarians from a number of different
religious denominations.
I am not by any means questioning the sincerity of
Trinitarians, or their motives. In fact, I happen to have a good
relationship with many that profess belief in the Trinity. Here I
am simply questioning their arguments. Trinitarians have been
taught to view and define words in a certain way, and I do not
believe that "way" is helpful when it comes to acquiring an

accurate view of God and Christ, from the Bible. Those who look
to the Bible for guidance and instruction and who are presently
worshiping God (and Christ) in accordance with the tenets of
Trinitarianism, should carefully consider the following material.
If after doing so you can confidently continue to put faith in the
Trinitarian God, then I applaud you for taking the time to test
your belief by the source of theological instruction, the Bible.
A Distinction Between "Person" and "Being"?

The Trinitarian distinction. E. J. Fortman and other
Trinitarian scholars acknowledge that "most theologians no
longer expect to find in the New Testament a formal
trinitarianism." He then quotes R. L. Richards view that "an
elemental Trinitarianism" can be found in the "period of Christian
origins," and J. L. McKenzies statement to the effect that the
Bibles use of the terms Father, Son and Spirit are in harmony
with "the elements of the trinity of persons."1
It is absolutely essential for advocates of the Trinity doctrine
to convince others that there is some distinction between a
"person" and a "being." When adherents to the doctrine claim that
the "God worshiped by trinitarians is the one and only God," 2 and
then proceed to claim that three different "persons" are "fully
God,"3 the term "person" is clearly being used in a sense different
from how people typically understand it. To humans, a separate
person is always understood as an individual being.4 In other
1
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the
Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 291.
2
Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to
Jehovahs Witnesses (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 12.
3
Ibid., 13.
4
Remarkably, Bowman (ibid., 13) states, "People often assume that person is
used to refer to a separate individual being, which would imply that three divine
persons were three Gods." This seems to suggest that there really is no basis for
claiming that a separate "person" is also a separate "being," but that is itself merely an
assumption. The truth is, we do not assume that a separate "person" is also a separate
"being" at all; rather, it is everywhere (except for abnormal situations, such as those
involving Siamese twins) demonstrated in our modern society. The question is, is there
Understanding Trinitarianism 57
words, we could not rightly use the term "person" for a human
father and his son without at the same time creating a distinction
in terms of being: they are not one human, but two. They also
have a unique personality or character pattern, as well as a will
and separate thought pattern. But can we refer to God the Father
and His Son (and the holy spirit) as "persons," without
distinguishing them in terms of being?
Bowman believes there is "another sense of the word person
that focuses not on separate existence but on relationship." It is in
this sense that he and other Trinitarians make a distinction
between the Father, the Son and the holy spirit. But they also
admit that the "one God," the Trinity, may be described as a
"person" in the sense of a separate being. This means that "God
may be described as one person or as three persons,
depending on the meaning of persons." 5 Millard Erickson
adopts the definition of "person" given by Leonardo Boff, "a
being-for, a knot of relationships, an identity formed and
completed on the basis of relationships with others." 6 Erickson
then presents a series of analogies that really do not convey the
essential ideas of trinitarianism, except perhaps one: Siamese
twins.7
In the case of Siamese twins we have two different
personalities that share the same essence of being. In one sense
they might be considered one human being but two persons.
However, while they share the same essence of being to some
extent they do not fully share the same essence of being. They do
not, for example, share the same "brain matter." So this example
is not entirely analogous to Trinitarianism, since it could be
argued that Siamese twins are actually two human beings, who
only partially share the same essence. But it at least helps those
unfamiliar with the claims of Trinitarians to see the difference
between two completely separate human beings, and two persons
a different understanding for "person" articulated in the Bible, regarding the

relationship between God the Father, His Son and the holy spirit?
5
Ibid., 13, 14.
6
Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of
the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 233.
7
Ibid., 233-234.
that do share, to some degree, the same essence of being

(Siamese twins).
Another problem with relating this analogy to the Trinity is
that the twins could never exist in a relationship as father and
son. The whole concept tied to this relational distinction is
predicated on a distinction in terms of being; it also involves a
temporal distinction. Additionally, if humans were made in the
image of God, and according to the Bible we were (Ge 1:26),
then it would seem to be quite a reach for us to conclude that God
is more like the Siamese phenomenon (which is not the normal
result of human reproduction). A more appropriate comparison
would seem to be between Gods being and the majority of
humans whose organisms are in no way essentially dependent
upon each other. Still, there is no perfect analogy to explain
Trinitarianism, partly because it is inherently contradictory to
human experience. Below we will argue that it also contradicts
the biblical revelation of God.
Another advocate of Trinitarianism believes that "when
speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking
about one what and three whos. The one what is the Being or
essence of God; the three whos are the Father, Son, and Spirit.
We dare not mix up the whats and whos regarding the Trinity."8
In this way, the "one God" of the Bible is considered the "one
what" and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are considered
separate persons, "three whos." Such language cannot help but
give the impression that the "one what" (being distinct from the
"three whos") is impersonal. Yet, throughout the Bible the "one
God" (Whites "one what") speaks and acts like a "who."
Because adherents of the Trinity frequently state that its
tenets are beyond our ability to grasp, it is said to be "knowable
only by revelation."9 But from what source has it been revealed?
Does the Bible provide a basis for the distinction between
"person" and "being," in relation to the Father, the Son and the
holy spirit, as previously discussed? Does the Bible teach that
8
James White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief
(Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany, 1998), 27.
9
Fortman, The Triune God, 289. White, The Forgotten Trinity, 28, also describes
the Trinity as a revealed truth.
"three persons are one divine being"? 10 Or do the teachings

revealed in the Bible contradict the tenets of Trinitarianism?
The Bible on "person" and "being." There is not a single
passage or collection of passages constituting a discourse,
wherein the Bible says anything about the One God being "three
persons." Also, nowhere does it say anything about a distinction
between "person" and "being," in relation to the One God and the
Father, the Son and the holy spirit. In view of the claim that the
Trinity is a "revealed doctrine," the question naturally arises:
From where has it been revealed?
Trinitarian scholars and supporters, particularly those
belonging to Protestant denominations, believe that it is firmly
rooted in the text of the Bible. James White goes so far as to say,
"I cannot hold the Bible in my hand while denying the Trinity." 11
Surely, then, we should expect White to present clear and
unambiguous scriptural support for this teaching. Others, though,
while supporting the view that the Trinity is consistent with
biblical theology, recognize that "it is not clearly or explicitly
taught anywhere in Scripture." 12 It is the significance of this
observation as it relates to Trinitarians use of the terms "person"
and "being" that we will now discuss.
Most of the attempts to find the Trinitarian distinction
between "person" and "being" in the Bible fall prey to certain
assumptions that the Bible elsewhere dispels. For example, after
stating that the "the Trinity must be understood as fundamentally
a society," and that the "Godhead is a complex of persons,"
Erickson claims that "God being love [1 John 4:8] virtually
requires that he be more than one person." He explains:
Love, to be love, must have both a subject and an object. Thus,

if there were not multiplicity in the person of the Godhead,
God could not really be love prior to this creation of other
subjects. For love to be genuine, there must be someone whom
God could love, and this would necessarily be more than mere
narcissism.13
10
Bowman, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, 14
11
White, The Forgotten Trinity, 28.
12
Erickson, God in Three Persons, 12.
13
Ibid., 221.
There are several problems with Ericksons reasoning:
1) It assumes that "genuine" love can only be demonstrated when

more than one person is involved. Of course, nowhere does the
Bible place this kind of limitation on genuine love, and, what is
more, the Bible reveals that we should have the same kind of
"love" for ourselves that we have for our "neighbor"! (Lu 10:27)
So it is possible, according to the Bible, to have the same kind of
love for ourselves that we do for "others," and this hardly involves
"mere narcissism." The love we have for our neighbor should be
strong, overpowering, moving us to share with them the good news
about Christ and his kingdom, as well as assisting them in times of
need. This same feeling of love can be directed toward ones self,
and there is no reason to think that Jehovahs perfect "self" could
not show "genuine" love in this respect, also.
2) It assumes that the statement "God is love" (1 John 4:8) means

this has been true throughout the eternal past. Having already
established that "love" could have been an eternal attribute of God
without having to display this towards another "person," it is a fact
that the Bible nowhere says that God must be viewed as having
expressed "love" to another person throughout the eternal past.
Furthermore, ones desire and preparation to share himself with
others whom he has not yet even met is an act of love, too.
3) Ericksons argument assumes that perfect love only exists in

the Trinitarian God. Erickson believes that our human
"incompleteness" keeps us "outside of" each other, prevents us
from fully identifying with the "thoughts and experiences of other
persons," and does not allow us to have a genuine understanding of
others, for we are "preoccupied with [our own] concerns." But,
again, there is no biblical articulation for this view, and it assumes
that God must be triune to express true love. Ericksons conclusion,
God could not really be love prior to this creation of other subjects
unless he were more than one person, is the very premise used to
arrive at his conclusion, and the argument is therefore circular: he
assumes what he holds to be true at the outset, instead of first
proving what he believes is true in relation to "genuine love."
The only other arguments from the Bible for a multiplicity of

"persons" in the Trinitarian Godhead usually involve references
to the plural form of the Hebrew term for "God" (elohim).

Sometimes reference is also made to God as "one," which, for
reasons we will now consider, is seen as a compound unity.
Robert Morey states that the Hebrew word for "one" ( dja,
echad), which is used in Deuteronomy 6:4, "refers to a
compound oneness in which a number of things together are
described as one." Remarkably, he further claims:
The use of [dja, echad] in Deut. 6:4 is exactly what

Trinitarians expect to find in the Bible because it is the only
way in the Hebrew language to indicate to the reader that God
is a composite unity of several Persons and not just a solitary
person. There are no other words in the Hebrew language by
which such an idea could be expressed.14
The distance between Moreys view and the true import of

echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 could not be greater. He creates a
false analogy by comparing the use of echad in eight other
verses which contain either a numerical plural or mention more
than one item or person, with the use of echad in Deuteronomy
6:4. For example, he refers to "the evening and the morning"
comprising the "first" or "one" day in Genesis 1:5. But, again,
unlike Deuteronomy 6:4 here we are dealing with more than one
item: "morning" and "evening."
In Genesis 2:24 it is Adam and Eve (two human beings) who
become "one flesh." In Genesis 11:6 the people (a group of
persons) become "one." A similar use is found in Genesis 34:16,
22. The references in 2 Chronicles 30:12 (those in Judah are
given "one heart"), Ezra 2:64 (the "congregation" is viewed as
"one group") and Jeremiah 32:39 (where the "people" are again
given "one heart) are also numerical plurals or impersonal
singular term denoting a group (such as "congregation"). But
Trinitarians will not accept an impersonal sense or a genuine
plural for elohim ("God") in Deuteronomy 6:4!
Those who claim that elohim, being a plural in form, is
somehow consistent with Trinitarianism, fail to realize that
intensive or majestic plurals are quite common in the Hebrew
14
Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Grand Rapids: Word
Publishing, 1996), 88, 89.
Bible, and so plurals can be genuine plurals (that is, more than
one) or intensive plurals. For example, in Genesis 39:2 the plural
form of the Hebrew word for "master" or "lord" is used in
reference to Potiphar, "the Egyptian" (a singular reference). So
either it means "masters," which cannot be sustained in view of
the following singular description in verse 2 ("the Egyptian") or it
is an intensive, majestic plural. The same is true for elohim.
The Hebrew word elohim is not only used in reference to
Jehovah (Ge 1:1), but it is also used of Moses (Ex 7:1), the
Philistine god Dagon (1Sa 5:7), Chemosh (Jg 11:24) and others
who are not multi-personal beings. That elohim is not used in
these texts as a numerical plural is clear from the fact that the
LXX translates them with singular terms. In view of these and
other uses of words that are plural in form but not in meaning, H.
W. F. Gesenius rightly calls this usage the plural of excellence
or majesty.15
It is of interest to note that Morey also cites the use of "one"
in Genesis 3:22 as though it supports his idea of "compound
oneness." He says that this verse speaks of "Adam and Eve
becoming one [dja, echad] with God."16 But Genesis 3:22
does not say anything about Adam and Eve becoming "one with
God." In fact, the verse does not mention Eve at all, but only "the
man" (ha adam). Since Morey is intent on proving a "compound
oneness" for the use of echad, it seems he is willing to add
persons to the text in order to preserve his view of echad!
In fact, Genesis 3:22 does not even use echad in reference to
"the man," but to God and those to whom He speaks, those whom
the man has become "like" (note that echad has the prefixed
preposition K [meaning "like" or "as"] before it). Moreys claim17
that dyjy (yachid) would have to be used of God to disprove the
Trinitarian view is entirely self-serving. The use of echad in
passages such as Isaiah 51:2 ("Abraham . . . was one when I
called him") shows that it can most certainly be used of a single
subject, without implying any kind of "compound oneness."
15
H. W. F. Gesenius, Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E.
Cowley, 2d Eng. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 398-399.
16
Morey, The Trinity, 88.
17
Ibid., 87-88.
The distinction Trinitarians make between a "person" and a

"being," as it relates to the Trinity, it not supported by the Bible.
The Bible does not even imply such a distinction. Rather, what it
does say implies that the distinction between the Father and Son
is not merely one of "person," but one of essence or nature. They
may have the same kind of nature (that is, they are both spirit
beings [Joh 4:24; 1Co 15:45]) but they each have their own
individual substance of being, which is why one of them can be
considered the "God of" the other. (Rev 3:12) For the same
reason they can be distinguished from one another by using
ontological terms such as theos (Joh 1:1).
A plurality of "persons" within the "one God" is also
unknown in the Bible. Philosophical arguments regarding Gods
ability to express perfect love only if God is multi-personal are
not scriptural. Attempts to read a multiplicity of persons into the
plural word for "G-god" in Hebrew (elohim) cannot be sustained
by the evidence.18 Either the plural word elohim is a genuine
plural word ("G-gods") or it is an intensive plural designed to
emphasize the majesty or excellence of the subject. Even
Trinitarian writers argue against this use of elohim, concluding
that "the plural form elohim for God in the Old Testament cannot
be evidence of the Trinity."19
Later in this chapter we will consider the question of whether
the distinctions made by Trinitarians between the persons of the
"Father, Son and Holy Spirit" are legitimate in view of the
biblical confession that there is only one God. But first we will
take a closer look at the terms and expressions Trinitarians use
when interpreting biblical passages. How it is that they can claim
biblical support for their views even though many of them will
admit that there is no explicit, formal statement of Trinitarianism
in the Bible?
18
I use "G-god" to cover the different senses associated with the Greek and
Hebrew terms, which are usually distinguished in languages like English with
capitalized and lower case letters.
19
Bowman, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, 49.
Three Persons Within One God

Meaning what you say. In speaking with Trinitarians and
in reading their written defenses of the Trinity doctrine, it is quite
common for them to begin by trying to establish that "Jesus is
God." This is maintained as true in a context where a Trinitarian
will also adamantly maintain that there is "only one God." Let us
consider an example of how this argument is often presented in
literature produced by advocates of the Trinity doctrine.
James White presents the first foundational point informing
Trinitarianism as the belief that there is "only one God." 20 As we
discussed earlier, the "one God" of whom White here speaks is
the Trinity; the one God of Trinitarianism is a triune being. That
is why Trinitarians can legitimately hold to the belief in one God,
and yet accept that there are "three personal distinctions within
God."21 But if there is "only one God" in Trinitarianism, and if
that one God is the Trinity, how is it that they can legitimately
claim that Jesus, or the Father, or the holy spirit is God?
The reality is, they cannot make such a claim without
qualifying their use of terms, which is not often done in their
consideration of various biblical texts. True, Trinitarians will
often provide, in separate sections of their writings, a discussion
of what they mean when they speak of the Trinity, but the
qualifications that they make are usually lost in their
interpretations of specific passages. For example, in their saying
that there is "only one God" Trinitarians are using the term "God"
in reference to the triune being in whom they put faith. But when
they say "Jesus is God" they certainly do not mean that Jesus is
the triune being! Yet, their failure to qualify what they believe
while discussing various passages that apply the Hebrew or
Greek terms for "G-god" to the Father or to Jesus often leads to
confusion, both to those who already trust in the Trinity and to
those who deny its biblical foundation.
Trinitarians do not really believe that the Son is God,
anymore than they believe the Father is God. True, they often say
they believe that the Father is God and that Jesus is God, but
20
21
what they mean by this is that each of them are divine persons;
the Father is the first "person" in the consubstantial (essence-
sharing) triad, and the Son is the second "person." They believe
each of them is a "person" within God, and that they share the
same substance of being; there is no division of the substance
which they share fully and equally. Again we refer back to our
admittedly imperfect but useful analogy of Siamese twins, where
there is a partial sharing of the same substance but with personal
distinctions.
For example, as we have seen elsewhere in this publication,22
Trinitarians reinterpret passages like John 1:1 so that we do not
have two beings, one of whom is introduced as theos in relation
to ho theos, "with" whom theos (the Word) existed. Instead, in
Trinitarianism, the Word is with the Father, whom they redefine
as the first "person" of the Trinity. It should be clear, then, that
Jehovahs Witnesses and Trinitarians not only have different
views of the Word, but they also have completely different views
of the Father. However, when Jehovahs Witnesses agree that ho
theos in John 1:1 is the Father, they mean the Father as the one
God, not as the first person of the one God. For the Witnesses,
the "one God" and "the Father" are interchangeable; but this is
not true in Trinitarianism. For the Witnesses the Word is
interchangeable with "a god" or "a divine being" in John 1:1. For
Trinitarians theos, when predicated of the Word, must be
redefined as a purely qualitative term, which they interpret in
accordance with the Trinitarian belief that Jesus shares the same
nature as God the Father.
What happens, then, is that instead of deriving their belief in
the Trinity from the text itself, Trinitarians have to read the text in
light of an assumed truth, namely, Trinitarianism. Only when this
is done can they present some kind of interpretation of this and
other passages that sounds somewhat legitimate, when it really
has nothing to do with what is being said in the passage itself.
But not only must they take the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c as a
purely qualitative term and paraphrase it in a way that speaks of
the Word owning the same divine nature as the "Father," but they
22
Chapter 6, pages 336-337.
must also redefine the reference to the "God" with whom the
Word existed as a purely qualitative term!
In other words, Trinitarianism cannot have the Word existing
"with" an unqualified reference to "God," since Trinitarians
accept only one God, namely, the Trinity. That is why ho theos in
John 1:1b must be reinterpreted in light of the assumed truth of
Trinitarianism. When this is done ho theos becomes God the
Father the first person of the Trinity. 23 Indeed, everywhere there
is a reference to the Father or to the Son as theos it cannot be
taken to mean "God" or "god," but it must mean "God the Father
the first person of the Trinity" and "God the Son the second
person of the Trinity," respectively. So, in a passage like Titus
2:13, a Trinitarian who wishes to apply "the great God" to Jesus
must take the description to mean that Jesus shares in the nature
of the triune God, but he himself is not God (= the Trinity). As
for the reference to "God" in Titus 2:11, this too must be taken
either as a reference to the Trinity or as a reference to one of the
persons of the Trinity.
Such distinctions and definitions are essential to a Trinitarian
understanding of God and the Bible. But it leads to significant
contradictions. For example, Trinitarians including Henry
Krabbendam will argue that "God is simultaneously One Person
and Three Persons." He then explains "in the traditional
formulation the Oneness pertains to Essence, and the Threeness
to Persons." But why, then, does he say God is "One Person" if
23
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference
to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 271, writes, "Each strand of the NT affords clear
testimony that customarily qeov" [theos], whether articular or anarthrous, refers to the
trinitarian Father." But the four lines of evidence Harris lists prove nothing about an
NT use of theos for "the trinitarian Father." Harris (ibid., 293) also states: "Although
Jesus shares the divine essence fully and personally, he does not exhaust the category
of Deity of the being of God. To use the distinction made in the Johannine Prologue, oJ
lovgo" ["the Word"] was qeov" [theos] (1:1c) but oJ qeov" ["God"] was not oJ lovgo" ["the
Word"] (cf. 1:1b)." Not only does Harris view the reference in John 1:1 to the Word as
theos in terms of Trinitarianism, but he draws a distinction between the Word and "the
category of Deity of the being of God." Where does the Bible ever refer to a "category
of Deity"? It does not. Still, Harris point in relation to ho theos of John 1:1b is
significant. He states that Jesus "does not exhaust the category of Deity," for "oJ qeov"
was not oJ lovgo"." But Harris had earlier argued that "there can be little doubt that oJ
qeov" in 1:1b designates the Father" (ibid., 55). Does the Father, then, "exhaust the
category of Deity"?
the "Oneness pertains to Essence," not to "Persons," as does the

"Threeness"?
It is partly because Krabbendam (and other Trinitarians)
cannot characterize the Oneness (the essence) as "impersonal,"
since the Bible regularly uses "God" in reference to a person, not
an impersonal substance.24 Therefore, "the interpretation of the
One and the Three simply cannot be exhaustively
comprehended."25 But in this Trinitarians simply appeal to the
incomprehensible as a basis for their contradictions. Krabbendam
is wrong in claiming that those who do not believe such
contradictions in relation to God are ultimately appealing to
"intellect."26 We appeal to the Bible, which does not use such
contradictory terms, and nowhere articulates the concept that
"God is simultaneously One Person and Three Persons."
But why, you may wonder, do Trinitarians not simply
explain exactly what they mean in every instance where the term
"God" is used of one of the three persons of the Trinity, or of the
Trinity itself? Why do they not, for example, when interpreting
John 1:1, simply tell us that it means that "God the Son the
second person of the Trinity is with God the Father the first
person of the Trinity," instead of trying to justify a translation
such as "the Word was with God and the Word was God," or "the
Word was divine by nature"? Why do they not just tell us what
they really mean in every place where they comment on such
passages?
Saying what you mean. In Trinitarian theology a
distinction between the Father and the Son is a distinction
between the first and second persons of a consubstantial Triad.
But such a distinction is usually not apparent in their translations
of texts such as John 1:1. As we have already discussed,
Trinitarians substitute personal terms (such as "Father") in place
of ontological terms (such as "God"). They then add a Trinitarian
24
But their characterization of God often borders on an impersonal sense. Note,
for example, Harris reference to "the category of Deity of the being of God" (see note
23 above) and Whites distinction between God as one "what" and the Father, the Son,
and the holy spirit as three "whos" (see page 58).
25
Henry Krabbendam, "Cornelius Van Til: The Methodological Objective of a
Biblical Apologetics," WTJ 57.1 (1995), 137.
26
Ibid., 137.
meaning to these substitute terms. But why substitute terms at all,

either in translation or in interpretation?
It is much easier for a Trinitarian to simply replace the term
"God" in John 1:1 and elsewhere with "the Father" than to
explain just what they mean by "Father." Since "Father" is a
biblical term, it "sounds" acceptable enough, and most of the time
Witnesses and others will accept that portion of the argument,
and proceed with discussing the predicate theos in 1:1c. But if a
Trinitarian is pressed to define "Father" and to explain how they
are using the term, namely, for "the first person of a
consubstantial Triad," then right away it should be clear that post-
biblical thoughts and expressions are being introduced into the
discussion. John himself says nothing about ho theos being a
"person within God" or "the category of Deity of the being of
God." It is therefore much more difficult for Trinitarians to
justify what they mean by "Father," than to simply use the term
"Father" in their explanation.
Essentially, what Trinitarians want others to believe is when
the Bible uses theos for Jesus, or any other "person" of the
Trinity, it means that that "person" shares in the nature of the one
God. Since the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each
separate "persons" within this one God (but not separate Gods,
for there is no division of the nature or substance)," then that is
what the Bible must mean when it uses "God" for one of the three
"persons." But this is always assumed and never proven. It is also
never proven that "God" ever refers to the Trinity. When
Trinitarians equivocate on terms like "God" they knowingly or
unknowingly confuse others into thinking that they are making
some point that is rooted in the biblical text, when in fact it is
rooted in post-biblical theology. Students of Trinitarianism only
hear the biblical language ("God," "Father," and other terms), not
the post-biblical meanings that are poured into it.
The truth is, nowhere does the Bible say anything about a
"Godhead of three persons" where the "persons" are understood,
not as separate beings, but separate in terms of their relationship
with one another. This conclusion is assumed and used in the
argument itself. The Bible tells us that Jesus was distinct from
God in the beginning, and that he was a god, or a divine being.
(Joh 1:1) Trinitarians cannot interpret this verse without
substituting ontological terms with terms limited to (in their way

of thinking) personal descriptions; they are forced to use post-
biblical thoughts and expressions to justify a post-biblical
doctrine. But since John did not hesitate to make an ontological
distinction between God and the Word, why should we choose to
do otherwise?
Who is assuming what, and why? A little over a year
after the release of my first edition of this book came the first (to
my knowledge) published review. Cutting across the three-
column page of a journal notorious for one-sided journalism
when it comes to Jehovahs Witnesses, in big, bold letters are the
words, "Throughout his work, Stafford assumes Unitarianism is
true in order to disprove Trinitarianism." This article, written by
James White,27 makes a number of outrageous claims regarding
my book and my approach to biblical theology.28 For example,
not only does White claim that I assume Unitarianism throughout
my work (see under "Logic, hermeneutics, and the Trinity") but,
remarkable as it may seem, White also claims that I try "to prove
that Jesus is not the Father"!
Before we proceed on the question of who assumes what,
and why, I would like to make a few things perfectly clear. I have
no problem with someone or some organization presenting an
unfavorable review of my book. I am not surprised to find those
who do not share my views using various outlets to express their
disagreement. In fact, I believe that legitimate objections to
another persons position can help bring important issues more
clearly into focus. But the question is, are the objections
legitimate or are they merely a smoke screen designed to avoid
the real issues?
Consider the "error" that White believes permeates the
"majority of the argumentation in [the first edition of my] book."
As quoted above, White actually believes that I am intent on
proving that Jesus is not the Father, and inherent in this
accusation is the view that I somehow do not understand the
Trinity. That, according to White, is why I argue the way I do.
27
James White, "A Summary Critique: Jehovahs Witnesses Defended," The
Christian Research Journal 21.2 (1999), 47-49.
28
For an online response to each point made in Whites article, see the Elihu
Books Topical Index under J, James White.
White actually has convinced himself the points I make in my

book are in support of the Trinitarian distinction between the
Father and the Son, and according to him they do not disprove
that Jesus is God. Amazingly, White states:
Only by assuming that God can refer only to the Father can
one argue as Stafford does in almost every section of his book.
But Christians have always recognized that the biblical
doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Son is a different Person
than the Father, and that each Person has taken on different
roles in the work of redemption. In light of historic Christian
teaching, the arguments put forward by Stafford and the
Watchtower writers can be seen for what they really are:
arguments aimed at a straw man.29
The truth is, nowhere in my book, or anywhere else for that

matter, do I ever try to prove that Jesus is not the Father when
dealing with the arguments of Trinitarians. Nor do I ever
"assume" Greek or Hebrew words for "G-god" only apply to the
Father. In fact, in the first edition of my book not only did I
clearly state Jesus is theos, but I also clearly stated Trinitarians do
not believe Jesus is the Father.30
The point I wish to highlight in this section is Whites (and
some other Trinitarians) consistent and unabashed assumption of
Trinitarianism as a means of interpreting the Scriptures. Over and
over again White assumes that any distinction between God and
Jesus is a "personal" distinction (that is, as understood by
Trinitarians) between the "Father" and the "Son," both of whom
share the same essence of being.
As we discussed in an early section of this chapter,
Trinitarians will, on the one hand, say that there is only one God
and that that one God is triune, but they will inevitably claim that
"Jesus is God" and only when pressed to the conclusion that this
conveys the idea that Jesus is triune will they make known the
different senses in which they are using the term "God"; this is
where their equivocation on the word "God" is revealed. But we
29
White, "A Summary Critique," 47.
30
See, for example, the first edition of Jehovahs Witnesses Defended (1998),
pages 180-181.
ask, where are these different senses for "God" articulated by

Paul? Where is it that Jesus speaks of "God" in such way? Where
in the OT is there any indication that "God" was ever understood
to refer to a triune being? Where in the OT is there ever a
reference to one of the "three persons" as "God," but where such
a usage of "God" is articulated as a reference to the particular
"persons" sharing in the essence of the one God?
Where does the Bible articulate the view that Jesus can be a
person within God without being a different G-god than the
Father? If we are to accept the belief that individuals such as
Thomas, Paul, Peter or John used theos for Jesus without
introducing the idea that his essence of being is separate from the
Father, then where do we find anything in their teachings, or in
the Bible as a whole, upon which we can justify a Trinitarian
sense for theos? Is there anywhere in the Bible where theos is
used unambiguously either in reference to "God" as the one,
triune being, or in reference to one of the three "persons" who
share fully in the essence of the one God, but who are not
themselves "G-god" apart (= distinct in nature) from the others?
If it is claimed that the Bible writers and worshipers of God
in Bible times did not have a fully developed understanding of
the distinctions within the "Godhead," then what exactly did they
mean when they used theos of Jesus? Why, if they did not have
this fully articulated understanding, is it so frequently claimed by
Trinitarians that when Peter, Paul, John or other Bible writers
wrote such and such about God, Christ or the holy spirit, they
meant such and such? How can Trinitarians know what the Bible
writers meant if they acknowledge that those who completed the
Bible canon with gifts of knowledge and inspiration did not
themselves fully understand the very doctrine about which they
wrote? Indeed, how is it that those in favor of the Trinity at
various post-biblical councils were able to articulate a more clear
doctrine of God than what the apostles and prophets
articulated?31
31
This is entirely different from asking how today we might have a clearer
understanding of Bible prophecy than those who received and wrote various
prophecies. Prophecies in the Bible are generally recorded with the understanding that
they will be fulfilled at a much later time than that in which they are given. Indeed, the
prophecies given to Daniel, for example, are specifically said to be "sealed up until the
Since the Bible writers did not put any qualification on their
use of theos for Jesus or for the Father, is it not more likely they
were using the terms in a sense commonly used by them, namely,
to denote a particular being of whom theos is a proper predicate?
Does not the Bibles clear and repeated statements about the
Father being the "God of" Jesus point to a distinction of being,
which necessarily means a distinction of persons? Do we not find
a clear expression of faith and doctrine in a variety of places in
the OT and in the NT, such as in 1 Corinthians 8:6? But neither
here nor elsewhere do we meet with Trinitarianism.
Rather, we are presented with what, on an unforced
interpretation of the text, amounts to a contradiction of
Trinitarianism. For if according to 1 Corinthians 8:6 the Father is
the "one God," how does this lend support to the Trinitarian
confession the one God is the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit? Only by redefining "God" and viewing "the Father" as a
"person" (as understood in Trinitarianism) can this be done. But,
again, this is not taking ones doctrine from the text; it is bringing
ones doctrine to the text, and interpreting the text in light of that
doctrine.
The Trinitarian meaning for terms such as "God," "person,"
"begotten" (viewed without any notion of temporality in relation
to Christs prehuman generation from the Father [a doctrine
which, significantly, is not shared by all Trinitarians]) and others
is not given anywhere in the OT or the NT. It is part of a belief
system that arose hundreds of years after the New Testament
canon was closed, through philosophical discussions about the
relationship between God and Christ, and eventually also about
the holy spirit.
Missing the point and misstating the argument. Some
Trinitarian apologists and scholars frequently claim that
Jehovahs Witnesses misrepresent the Trinitarian view of God.
To a certain extent, on occasion, this may be true. But what must
not go unnoticed is the fact that Jehovahs Witnesses engage in
an intense form of face-to-face evangelism where they meet with
all sorts of views and opinions. I cannot count the number of
time of the end." (Da 12:9) For more on the Witnesses view of Bible prophecy, see
Chapter 9.
times I have spoken with Catholics or Evangelicals who express

the Trinity to me in terms that, if they had been spoken or written
by a Witness, would be considered misrepresenting and
misleading by leaders in respected Catholic and Protestant
denominations.
Indeed, those writing in defense of the Trinity frequently
refer to the lack of clarity that exists in Christendom with respect
to this doctrine. James White writes, "Most Christians do not
understand what the term means and have only a vague idea of
the reality it represents." 32 Is it any wonder, then, Jehovahs
Witnesses, whose literature is primarily written to reach those
whom they meet in their door-to-door activity, have spoken about
the Trinity doctrine in terms which may not, at times, be
considered accurate? After all, most of the people to whom they
witness do not have an accurate view of the doctrine, and yet they
defend it as scripturally sound, probably because they "fear being
branded a heretic."33 Jehovahs Witnesses have no such fear;
they are more concerned with being judged adversely by God and
Christ, than by man.
It may be that those who have written certain, somewhat
inaccurate articles on the Trinity in literature published by
Jehovahs Witnesses (where, for example, it is said that the
Trinity teaches the belief in "three gods" 34) have relied too much
on what is said by advocates of the Trinity in their ministry work,
or in publications that do not accurately communicate the
different aspects of Trinitarianism. But, again, given the fact that
even Trinitarians themselves are characterized by their leaders as
32
33
Ibid., 14.
34
"Reaching All Kinds of People in Modern-Day Athens," The Watchtower, 15
October 1995, p. 15, tells the story of a former Catholic who questioned the churchs
teaching "that one God is three Gods." But the article does not mention that while this
may have been the distorted view of God as taught in a particular monastery, Catholics
officially do not believe in "three Gods." However, in other articles the Witnesses do an
excellent job of dispelling the notion that the Trinity advances the belief in three Gods.
See "One God in Three?" The Watchtower, 15 August 1984, pp. 27-28; and especially
"Did the Early Church Teach that God is a Trinity?" The Watchtower, 1 November
1991, 19-21, where on page 21, it is clearly admitted that "it is said that there are not
three Gods but only one God." My citation to these last two articles is strictly in
reference to their presentation of the Trinity as teaching, not three Gods, but "only one
God."
having "only a vague idea of the reality it represents," it should

not be a surprise to find other religious groups responding to this
"vague" idea, instead of the more precise definitions that have
informed the development of this doctrine since the first councils
and creeds of post-biblical times.
However, when it comes to the misrepresentation of the
Witnesses beliefs, and their legitimate arguments against the
Trinity, I find that those who misinform others have really no
excuse at all for their mischaracterization of the facts. Indeed,
when some Trinitarian apologists erroneously claim that a
legitimate argument presented by the Witnesses is really not
legitimate at all, when it really is legitimate, then this weakens
their case against the Witnesses use of inaccurate arguments
against the Trinity, which arguments appear to have been aimed
at the concepts shared by those who "do not understand what the
term [Trinity] means."
For example, after referring to the teaching of John 20:17
and 2 Corinthians 1:3, one Witness publication reasons, "Since
Jesus had a God, his Father, he could not at the same time be that
God."35 Bowman quotes this very sentence and responds by
saying, "But again, trinitarians do not hold that Jesus is his
Father."36 However, Bowman misses the point of the Witnesses
argument. The Witnesses objection has to do with the fact that
Jesus "had a God," which quite obviously means that "he could
not at the same time be that God"! But Bowmans objection is,
"trinitarians do not hold that Jesus is his Father." How does this
objection relate to the "Booklets" objection?
The Witnesses argument in this instance does not have
anything to do with Jesus being the Father. By responding to a
phantom argument and side-stepping the real objection, Bowman
would have us believe that he succeeds not only in making the
Witnesses argument look as if they were trying to prove
something that Trinitarians reject in the first place, namely, that
Jesus is the Father, but he also avoids having to deal with the true
implications of their objection!
35
Should You Believe in the Trinity? (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1989), 17.
36
Implicit in Bowmans reply, of course, is the Trinitarian

view that Jesus is distinct from the Father as a "person," not as
"God." But that is precisely the point of the Witnesses argument:
the Father is Jesus God, so they cannot be the same God. The
issue of being different "persons" is irrelevant from a biblical
perspective, for the Bible does not add any such qualifications to
what it says about the Father being Jesus God. Trinitarians have
to import this concept of "distinct persons" which they define in
such a way as to avoid the conclusion that this somehow involves
distinct beings.
Because Trinitarians have been conditioned to think along
these lines it is practically a given that they will accuse those who
disagree with them of not properly understanding what they
believe. Then they will use scriptural terms like "God" or
"Father" and redefine them according to Trinitarianism. When a
term such as "God" is presented in an argument against
Trinitarianism, a Trinitarian who is familiar with their beliefs will
immediately redefine the term so that it can be made to agree
with his or her view. If a Witness or someone from another
religion quotes a verse such as 1 Corinthians 8:4 which says
"there is no God but one," then, to the Trinitarian, this use of
"God" becomes a reference to the Trinity. If they are presented
with a passage like 2 Corinthians 1:3, where we are told that the
Father is the God of the Jesus, then the Trinitarian ignores this
use of "God" and he or she shifts the focus to a "personal
distinction," as we just observed.
Basically, Bowman takes the post-biblical distinction
between the Father and Son as "persons" and ignores the fact that
the Bible distinguishes them in terms of theos. Bowman goes on
to read yet another post-biblical concept into the text. He creates
a false dichotomy between Christs human nature and his divine
nature, both of which he is supposed to have, with conflicting
sets of attributes (that is, in his divine nature Jesus knows all
things, but in his human nature his knowledge is limited), and yet
be only one "person."
Trinitarians use of "person" for the two-natured Christ is
even more interesting when you consider the fact that the other
members of the Godhead do not share Christs human nature.
This means that there is an ontological distinction between
Christs human nature and the other members of the Trinitarian

Godhead, and between Christs own divine nature! But the
human nature of Christ has attributes that define personhood. So
there is actually a double equivocation taking place, in that the
term "person" is used in reference to Christ as a divine "person"
(that is, as one who shares fully in the essence of the triune being)
and "person" as used in reference to his human nature. Yet,
Trinitarians say Jesus is still only "one person"!
It is no wonder, then, that many Trinitarians will reach a
point in the discussion where they acknowledge that their view of
God is not entirely comprehensible, and that there is nothing
wrong with such an admission. The problem we are attempting to
make manifest, though, revolves not around the fact that the
Trinity tries to explain the unexplainable. That certain things
relating to God are beyond our comprehension is readily
admitted. Our objection, however, has to do with the fact that the
tenets of Trinitarianism are not articulated in the Bible, and that
what the Bible does say contradicts what the Trinity teaches
about God.
Logic, hermeneutics, and the Trinity. Some of the
arguments presented by Trinitarians take the form of a logical
syllogism. A syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of two
premises and one conclusion. A deductive argument is an
argument where the premises are claimed to support the
conclusion in such a way that if they (the premises) are accepted
as true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.
Premises are statements that set forth the evidence of the
argument. Consider the following example:
Premise #1: Creatures with claws are all birds;

Premise #2: all cats have claws;
Conclusion: therefore, all cats are birds.
Only if we accept the two premises as true is it impossible

for the conclusion to be false. So from a structural point of view,
the above argument is valid. However, the first premise is
certainly not true (that is, birds do not exhaust the category of
creatures with claws) and if de-clawed cats are considered then
even premise two is not true. Logicians would therefore consider

this argument unsound. This means that it is possible to have a
structurally valid argument that is unsound, that is, where the
premises are not true.
In a brief article about the deity of Jesus Christ,37 Francis
Beckwith quotes Isaiah 44:24 as follows: "Thus says Yahweh,
your redeemer, he who formed you in the womb: I, myself,
Yahweh, made all things, I alone spread the heavens. When I
gave the earth shape, did anyone help me?" He then refers to
John 1:3 which says (even in Beckwiths translation) that all
things were made "through" Christ, and Colossians 1:16 which
says all things were made "in," "through" and "for him."
Beckwith reasons that "if Yahweh alone made all things, and if
all things were made through Christ, it logically follows that
Christ is in fact Yahweh." He presents the following syllogism in
support of his view:
Yahweh is the only one who participated in creation;

Christ is one who participated in creation;
Therefore, Christ is Yahweh. 38
The problem with Beckwiths logic is that his syllogism does

not reflect the teaching of the biblical texts on which he leans in
constructing his argument. His argument is structurally valid,
which means if we accept as true his premises that "Yahweh is
the only one who participated in creation" and that "Christ is one
who participated in creation," we would have to conclude "Christ
is Yahweh." But Beckwiths argument is unsound, as it is based
on false premises.
In Isaiah 44:24 Jehovah is spoken of in an active sense: He
"made all things"; He "alone spread out the heavens"; no one
"helped" him make these things or "spread out the heavens."
But John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 do not present Christ as an
active participant in creation; rather, as we have discussed at
length elsewhere in this publication, 39 he is presented as the
37
Francis J. Beckwith, "Of Logic and Lordship: The Validity of a Categorical
Syllogism Supporting Christs Deity," JETS 29.4 (1986), 429-430.
38
Ibid., 430.
39
See Chapter 4, pages 221-224 and Chapter 6, pages 320-326.
passive mediator of Gods creative acts. God is the only one who
creates through His Son. Beckwith confuses and combines
Jehovahs active role and Christs passive role under one general
term, "participation." If his intent was to present the meaning of
the biblical texts he quotes as evidence in the form of premises,
then his syllogism should have read:
Jehovah is the only one who made all things;

The Logos is the passive agent through whom Jehovah made all things;
Therefore, the Logos is not Jehovah.
In an attempt to reform logic (indeed, the whole of

theology!) in light of the Trinity, Vern Poythress presents a
number of assumptions informing Trinitarian theology,
particularly in his explanation of John 1:1.40 But Poythress
himself admits the circularity of his arguments: "Our
observations involve circularity, of course. We rely on
knowledge of the Trinity to arrive at a form of logic that prevents
people from attacking the Trinity"; "The argument of this article
is circular, in the sense that I use Trinitarian logic in order to
argue for Trinitarian logic."41
If we adopt a system of Hermeneutics (interpretation) that
begins with the acceptance of Trinitarianism or any other belief,
then we show that we really are not interested in figuring out
what the text has to say apart from our preconceived view. If we
begin by assuming the validity of Trinitarianism as a means for
interpreting what the Bible says, then naturally everything we
read will be interpreted in light of the presuppositions informing
Trinitarianism. This is one reason why Trinitarians often have a
difficult time understanding the arguments of non-Trinitarians,
40
Vern S. Poythress, "Reforming Ontology and Logic in the Light of the Trinity:
An Application of Van Tils Idea of Analogy," WTJ 57 (1995), 187-219. On page 188
he begins his assumption of a Trinitarian model for interpreting John 1:1, claiming that
it describes the Word as "the Second Person of the Trinity." On pages 189 and 192 he
claims the word "was" (see Chapter 6, page 319) means the "Word exists eternally." On
pages 190, 192-193 and 199 he redefines the God with whom the Word existed as "God
the Father," so instead of the Word existing "with God," John 1:1b allegedly teaches
that "the Word exists in association with God the Father," meaning the first person of
the Trinity.
41
Poythress, "Reforming Ontology and Logic," 212, 218.
for they are conditioned to interpret all that is said of God, Christ
and the holy spirit in a manner consistent with Trinitarianism.
In his study of the Trinity, Robert Morey acknowledges:
"We gladly admit that we are beginning with the Triune God as
an a priori [presumed] truth for two very good reasons. First, this
is where the Bible begins (Gen. 1:1) . . . Second, the non-
Christian begins with his own set of presuppositions." 42 Moreys
basis for "beginning with the Triune God" is founded first upon a
misinterpretation of Genesis 1:1 (and other passages), and
secondly he tries to justify his presupposition by claiming that
everyone else begins with certain presuppositions. Morey may be
partially right regarding his second point. After all, there are
some who may have studied the Bible based on the assumption
that it is Gods Word. Later on in their study, however, they may
find their belief vindicated or contradicted based on what they
read. Still, others wait for the evidence to convince them. But not
everyone waits until they have examined a generous measure of
the facts before committing themselves to a particular faith.
However, it is certainly not the case that all non-Trinitarians
(Moreys non-Christians) begin with the presupposition that the
Trinity cannot be true, or that some other view of God must be
true. Beginning with the assumption that the Bible is Gods Word
and then testing that assumption based on what one reads in the
Bible is one thing. But to accept a doctrine or teaching about God
as a means of interpreting what the Bible says can only result in
the conclusion that the doctrine with which the person begins is
the one that he or she will end up with.
Morey claims that in beginning with the Trinity as a
"theological given,"43 there are certain things one would expect to
find. He states: "If we go to the Bible and we do in fact find those
very things which must be in order for the Trinity to be what it
is, then we have all the proof we need that the Trinity doctrine is
true."44 While testing a presumed truth in light of what the Bible
says may ultimately allow a person to determine what to accept
as biblical truth, by beginning with the assumption that
something is true there is an inherent tendency to ignore that
42
Morey, The Trinity, 7, 9.
43
Ibid., 7.
44
Ibid., 18.
which might disprove ones assumptions. There is also a danger

of reading the assumed truth into the text and downplaying the
historical development of the doctrine.
It is therefore much safer and rewarding for a person to set
aside any presuppositions about what the Bible teaches and go to
the text looking for answers. By performing historical, literary,
grammatical and other studies on what is read then the original
meaning of the text can in most cases be uncovered. Morey,
though, warns his readers: "While we can understand why the
non-Christian would want to begin with [the belief that the
Trinity is not true] as his a priori, why would a professing
Christian want to start there as well?"45
A "professing Christian" should not begin with the
assumption that anything is true or not true about God. He or she
should simply consider what the Bible has to say on the matter,
and accept it without trying to make it fit with a preferred
religious view. A Christian should care more about what the
Bible does expressly teach than whether or not it can be pressed
into service for support of a doctrine that is expostulated in terms
of fourth century theological speculations. Indeed, if we begin by
concerning ourselves with the defense of a certain doctrine, then
we show that our concern is not so much for what God wants us
to believe, but whether or not He wants us to believe what we
already believe.
If a person finds it difficult to detach himself from certain
presuppositions then it is imperative for him to make sure that the
assumed truth is rightly tested by what is read out of the Bible,
rather than by what is read into the Bible. However, such
assumptions usually cloud a persons judgment, not only
regarding the teachings of the Bible, but also when it comes to
reading and interpreting other ancient documents.
Ancient Jewish Literature and the Trinity.

In this section we will discuss examples from three types of
literature that some Trinitarians have used in an attempt to prove
45
Ibid., 18.
that their views concerning God and Christ are quite compatible
with the theology expressed in Jewish literature in the ancient
world. In this chapter, which is intended to be more of an
introduction to Trinitarian theology and apologetics, we cannot
make a comprehensive inquiry into the subject of the theology of
ancient non-biblical literature. Instead I will select and consider
key examples from each of these three bodies of literature: the
Targums, the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea
Scrolls.
By doing this the reader can get a feel for how this ancient
literature is manipulated or misused by some Trinitarian
authors/scholars. I emphasize the word "some" here for there are
many Trinitarians who would not dare make the kind of claims
that we are about to consider, or who would at least be much
more careful in their presentation of the facts. Still, since there
are some who have been misled by faulty argumentation relating
to these ancient sources, a brief consideration of several examples
will help others to recognize the need to examine matters more
carefully; it will also provide further illustration of how some
Trinitarians "bend the rules" in their arguments for a triune God.
The Targum of Isaiah 9:6-7. The Targums are a body of
literature that had an oral tradition of some length before they
were written down. The Targums are a collection of interpretive
translations that seek to make understandable the biblical books
that were written in Hebrew. Targum Onkelos and Jonathan were
not written earlier than the second century CE, but the Job
Targum from Qumran was written in the first century BCE. The
language of the Targums is Aramaic, and all the biblical books
have Targums except the books of Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah,
which contain Aramaic readings. Some books, such as the
Pentateuch (the five books attributed to Moses [Genesis to
Deuteronomy]) have more than one Targum, or interpretive
translation.46
According to Ron Rhodes, the Targum of Isaiah 9:6 proves
that the ancient Jews considered the phrase "everlasting Father"
46
For additional information on the Targums, see Pierre Grelot, What Are The
Targums? Select Texts, trans. Salvator Attanasio (Collegeville, Minnesota: The
Liturgical Press, 1992); "All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial" 2nd ed.
(Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1990), 307.
as "a reference to the eternality of the Messiah." 47 He quotes J. F.

Stennings translation of the Targum, "His name has been called
from of old, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, He who lives
forever, the Anointed One (or Messiah), in whose days peace
shall increase upon us."48 Robert Morey gives the following
translation of the key portion of the Targum, "and his name will
be called the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, existing
forever, the Messiah . . ."49
What is most interesting about Moreys translation is that he
does not use The Aramaic Bible published by Michael Glazier,
Inc., which Morey refers to as "the best translation available in
English."50 Indeed, the translation in The Aramaic Bible is quite
different from Stennings (quoted by Rhodes) and Moreys
translations:
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and he will

accept the law upon himself to keep it, and his name will be
called before the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God,
existing forever, "The Messiah in whose days peace will
increase upon us."
As Bruce Chilton states is his note to the above translation,

"The distinction between the Messiah and God is made out
47
Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures With the Jehovahs Witnesses (Eugene,
Oregon: Harvest House, 1993), 166. Rhodes prefers the translation "Father of eternity."
He concludes that "the phrase Father of eternity in Isaiah 9:6 means eternal. Christ as
the Father of eternity is an eternal being." But Rhodes here assumes a meaning for the
Hebrew word du (ad) in the phrase du yba (avi ad; NWT: "everlasting Father").
According to KB (679-680), the word ad can mean "lasting future," "forever," "for all
time," and they even give "eternal" as a description of the mountains in Habakkuk 3:6
(du yrrh, harrey ad). Obviously these mountains were not eternal in the sense of
having always existed! Yet that is what Rhodes would have us believe, for the
reference in Isaiah 9:6. KB considers "father for ever" to be the proper sense in this
text. BDB (723) views ad in the sense of "booty" or "prey," and considers the sense to
be "father (i.e. distributor) of booty." They also note the sense that most others give to
the expression, "everlasting father." The LXX does not translate avi ad, though some
manuscripts read "Father of the age that is to be revealed" (see the footnote apparatus in
J. Zieglers Isaias [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983]). The Latin reads pater
future saeculie ("Father of future ages").
48
49
50
Ibid., 238, note 8.
clearly in the Targumic rendering of v. 6." 51 Stennings

translation renders the Aramaic expression <dq /m (min qedem) as
"from of old," while Chiltons translation reveals that the "name"
of the Messiah would be called before (that is, "in the presence"
or "in the sight of"52) "the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty
God, existing forever."
Neither Rhodes nor Morey mention this alternative
understanding to their readers, which would show that there is
nothing in the Targum to Isaiah 9:6 that in any way supports
Trinitarianism. In fact, Chiltons translation shows the Targum
avoids using the biblical titles "Wonderful Counselor,"
"Everlasting Father," "Mighty God" and "Prince of Peace" for
the future Messiah.
The titles given to the Messiah in the biblical text of Isaiah
9:6 are quite in line with the NT teaching concerning Christ as
the Son of God, who would be enthroned as King of the
Messianic Kingdom of God. But the titles given to the Messiah
in Isaiah 9:6 do not support Trinitarianism. In fact, the use of the
title "Mighty God" for the Messiah shows that the doctrine of the
Trinity is a post-biblical concept. There is nothing in this text or
elsewhere in the context that defines "Mighty God" as Mighty
God the Son the second person of the Trinity."
On this matter involving the Trinity, the Targums, and Isaiah
9:6, Rhodes uses just one translation, the terms of which he
views in accordance with the post-biblical doctrine of the Trinity,
while Morey omits the preposition qedem (and min [see note 52])
from his translation (which is rather curious), and ends up giving
his readers an inaccurate view of the Isaiah Targums
presentation of the Messiah. In discussing this point, it is hoped
51
Bruce D. Chilton, The Aramaic Bible, vol. 11, The Isaiah Targum
(Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1987), 21.
52
Abundant Targumic examples where qedem is so used can be found in M. L.
Klein, "The Preposition <dq (Before): A Pseudo-Anti-Anthropomorphism in the
Targums," JTS 30 (1979), 502-507. The use of min before qedem in the Targum (as
found in the text of A. Sperber, ed., The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 3 [Leiden: Brill, 1962],
445) could mean "on account of" (see Klein, "The Preposition <dq (Before)," 505,
note 7) which would then mean the Messiahs name would be "called" on account of
"the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, existing forever."
that those who embrace certain Trinitarians use of the Targums

to support their view of God, will proceed with caution.53
The Pseudepigrapha and the Trinity. The term
"Pseudepigrapha" is used in reference to a collection of Jewish
and Jewish-Christian documents that range in dates from
approximately 200 BCE to 200 CE. But, as Samuel Sandmel
points out, "there is no such thing as a canon of the
Pseudepigrapha." He further states, "Rather, there is an
abundance of this scattered literature, some of it preserved in its
entirety and some preserved in part, usually in translation rather
than in the original Hebrew or Aramaic." 54
While much of this literature is worthwhile for the study of
the OT and the NT, there are also many ideas expressed in this
literature that are not in line with biblical theology. Still, the
question with which we are here concerned is whether or not the
Pseudepigrapha teaches any type of Trinitarianism, which might
support the view that the roots of Trinitarianism go back to a
time prior to, during and shortly after the close of the NT canon.
In the Psalms of Solomon 55 reference is made to "the Lord
Messiah" (17:32; 18:7). Robert Morey highlights the fact that
reference is not made to "The Lords Messiah" but, as Morey
puts it, to "the Lord Messiah because he is the LORD."56
Remarkably, Morey then quotes Psalms of Solomon 18:5 which
reads, "May God cleanse Israel for the day of mercy in blessing,
for the appointed day when his Messiah will reign" (emphasis
added). So, while reference is made to "the Lord Messiah," it is
clear that this is Gods Messiah!
Additionally, Psalms of Solomon 18:7, after referring to "the
Lord Messiah," speaks of "his God." Also, in 17:32 "the Lord
Messiah" is "taught by God." Clearly, then, there is no
identification of "the Lord Messiah" with Jehovah, but there are
statements to the effect that Jehovah is the Messiahs God
53
For a discussion of the use of memra (Aramaic for "word") in the Targums, see
Chapter 6, page 310.
54
Samuel Sandmel, "Foreword for Jews," in OTP1, xii.
55
This is a collection of psalms and poems attributed to but not authored by
Solomon, and dated by R. B. Wright (OTP2, 640-641) to between 125 BCE and the
early first century CE. It also contains some Psalms that are not datable.
56
(compare Mic 5:4), that the Messiah belongs to God (compare

Psalm 2), and that the Messiah is taught by God (compare John
7:16-17). Morey does not give any of these facts to his readers.
In reference to 1 Enoch 48:2-6 and 62:7, Morey claims,
"The Messiah pre-exists from all eternity before he comes to
earth."57 But in neither 1 Enoch 48:2-6 nor 62:7 is any such
claim made. Indeed, 1 Enoch 48:3 is speaking about how the Son
of Man was "named"58 "before the creation of the sun and the
moon, before the creation of the stars." This period of creation is
nowhere said to be the beginning of time, 59 and there is certainly
no mention of "from all eternity." Additionally, the Son of Man
is distinguished from the "Lord of Spirits." Neither does 1 Enoch
62:7 say anything about existing "from all eternity"; it simply
refers to the Son of man being concealed "from the beginning."
Apparently it has not occurred to Morey that before the
creation of the sun, moon, and stars or "from the beginning"
could be and likely is a reference to the beginning of the "days"
of the physical creation recorded in Genesis 1 (note the reference
to the "creation of the world" in 48:6 and the reference to the
"sun," "moon" and "stars" in 48:3). 1 Enoch 48:6 does refer to
the fact that the "Son of Man" was "concealed in the presence of
(the Lord of the Spirits) prior to the creation of the world, and for
eternity," but the words "for eternity" in OTP 1 (translated by E.
Isaac) have to do with future time, not past time. Thus, George
Schodde uses "to" before eternity ("to eternity"). R. H. Charless
translation reads, "Before the creation of the world and for
evermore." Michael Knibb translates the passage, "before the
world was created, and for ever," and Matthew Black gives
57
Ibid., 233.
58
See Chapter 5, page 279, note 76.
59
See Chapter 6, pp. 315-319 for a discussion of the "beginning" of Genesis 1,
John 1 and elsewhere. Additionally, Moreys reference to 1 Enoch 46:1-2 as proof the
"Messiah pre-exists from all eternity before he comes to earth" (Morey, The Trinity,
233), is but another example of misreading and misusing a text to support a
preconceived view. 1 Enoch 46:1-2 says nothing about the Messiah pre-existing "from
all eternity." These passages speak of One who is of ancient time (God [see note 46a in
OTP 1, 34]) and they also speak of another "whose face was like that of a human
being," and whose "countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy
angels." Here the "Son of Man" (verse 3) is likened to the "holy angels."
"from everlasting and for ever," with a note saying, "lit. from
the beginning of the world."60
Morey also claims that "the fact that the Messiah is to be
praised upon the earth (1 Enoch 52:4) and we are to worship
him (1 Enoch 48:6) reveals that he is divine." 61 Of course, Morey
is using "divine" in a sense commensurate with Trinitarianism,
which is nowhere articulated in 1 Enoch. Regarding the
"worship" that 1 Enoch 48:5 says will be given before the Son of
Man, Morey simply assumes that it is worship in the same sense
as God is worshiped, rather than the homage that might rightfully
be given to a God-appointed ruler. Therefore, Schodde translates,
"All who live upon the earth will fall down before him and bend
the knee to him."62 Only someone who has closed their eyes to
the use "worship" or "obeisance" in the LXX and literature of the
same period (and in the NT) could fail to recognize a legitimate
use of the term for one who is "the Elect One [who] stands before
the Lord of the Spirits" (1 Enoch 49:2, 4).63
As for being praised from the earth, while there is nothing in
this that in any way leads to Trinitarianism, the passage to which
Morey refers is not even necessarily referring to the Messiah! 1
Enoch 52:3-4 reads: "And I asked the angel who was going with
me, saying, What are these things which I have seen in secret?
And he said to me, All these things which you have seen happen
by the authority of his Messiah so that he may give orders and be
praised upon the earth" (Isaac). 64 Even according to this
translation the "his" in "his Messiah" could quite reasonably be
the antecedent to the "he" in "he may give orders and be praised
upon the earth."
Moreys last reference to the Pseudepigrapha is significant
both in terms of the facts that are left out of his discussion, and
60
George H. Schodde, The Book of Enoch (Andover, Warren F. Draper, 1882),
127; R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 216; Michael Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 134; Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch:
A New English Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 211.
61
62
Schodde, The Book of Enoch, 126.
63
See Chapter 4, pp. 205-209 for more on the honor that is to be given to Jesus.
64
Compare Blacks translation, "All these things which you have seen shall
serve the dominion of his Anointed One, that he may be powerful and mighty on the
earth" (The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch, 52).
the Trinitarian "spin" he puts on the information he does provide.

He refers to 3 Enoch 12:5, 48B:44, 48C:7, and 48D:(90) as
evidence for a "greater YHWH" and a "lesser YHWH," which he
views as support for the doctrine of the Trinity. He further states:
The biblical precedent for two YHWHs can be found in

Genesis 19:24. Notice also that the second YHWH, while on
earth, is "lesser" in rank than the first YHWH but this does not
negate the fact that both of them are still YHWH. They are one
in nature although separate in rank.65
Morey presents a classic example of how some Trinitarians

will say one thing but mean something entirely different. He says
that there is "biblical precedent for two YHWHs"! Does Morey
believe in more than one YHWH? No, he does not, as we
discussed above regarding Deuteronomy 6:4. But he will give the
impression that the references in the Pseudepigrapha, which he
interprets as involving "two YHWHs," support the later
Trinitarian view that two persons can be considered YHWH, and
yet there be only one God. Indeed, after referencing the alleged
"two YHWHs" of 3 Enoch, Morey writes: "It is easy to see how
John could believe that the Father and the Son were one in
nature (John 10:30) but separate in rank (John 14:28) because
such an idea was perfectly Jewish."66 Here Morey imports a post-
biblical view into John 10:30 (compare the use of "one" in John
17:21-22) and 14:28, and then makes it seem as if these so-called
Trinitarian references in John are simply drawing from allegedly
Trinitarian ideas and concepts that could be found in Jewish
literature of the first century CE!
The truth is, Morey has either not studied issues surrounding
Metatrons identity as a "lesser YHWH" and his position in
relation to God as given in the Pseudepigrapha and other
literature, or he is simply not willing to offer a balanced
presentation of the material. For example, he refers to 3 Enoch
12:5 where Metatron (the transformed, heavenly Enoch) is called
"The lesser YHWH." But this very text refers to Exodus 23:21 (to
which Morey also refers!) where God says concerning the angel
65
66
Ibid., 234.
that He sent to guide the Israelites, "My name is within him."

Notice, it is Gods name that is within him (= the angel). In other
words, the name that God puts within the angel is not the angels
name, but Gods, which he bestows upon or places within the
angel. That is why he is called a lesser YHWH in 3 Enoch, for he
is not viewed as YHWHs equal. Indeed, 3 Enoch 10:3-6 reveals
his nature and position in relation to YHWH:
I have appointed Metatron my servant as a prince and a ruler

over all the denizens of the heights, apart from the eight great,
honored, and terrible princes who are called YHWH by the
name of their King. Any angel and any prince who has
anything to say in my presence should go before him and
speak to him. Whatever he says to you in my name you must
observe and do, because I have committed to him the Prince of
Wisdom and the Prince of Understanding, to teach him the
wisdom of those above and of those below, the wisdom of this
world and of the world to come. Moreover I have put him in
charge of all the stores of the palaces of the Arabot, and all
the treasuries that are in the heavenly heights [Isaac].
Here it is made known that Metatron was "appointed" by

God, being Gods "servant," His spokesman. Metatron does not
speak in his own name, but in the name of YHWH, which is no
doubt one way in which he was understood to have had Gods
name within him. God had him instructed in "Wisdom" and
"Understanding," and he was put in charge of the heavenly
heights. We are also told that "eight" other princes are "called
YHWH by the name of their King"! 3 Enoch 30:1 speaks of "the
great princes who are called YHWH by the name of the Holy
One." Then in verse 2 the question is asked, "How many princes
are there? There are 72 princes of kingdoms in the world, not
counting the Prince of the World"! Clearly, then, one can be
"called YHWH" or even be considered a "lesser YHWH"
without being equal to or "one in nature" with YHWH Himself.
Morey also refers to 3 Enoch 48C:7, where God says: "I
bestowed on him some of my majesty, some of my
magnificence, some of the splendor of my glory, which is on the
throne of glory, and I called him by my name, The lesser
YHWH, Prince of the Divine Presence, knower of secrets.
Every secret I have revealed to him in love, every mystery I have

made known to him in uprightness." There is nothing about
being one in nature here. In fact, it is clear that Metatron is
entirely dependent on YHWH (not simply "the Father") for his
glory, majesty and the secrets which he is permitted to reveal.
YHWH calls Metatron by His name; it is not Metatrons name,
but YHWHs name, by which he calls Metatron. In 3 Enoch
48C:10 we are told that "Metatron stands and carries out every
word and every utterance that issues from the mouth of the Holy
One, blessed be he, and executes the decree of the Holy One."
Metatron is not the "Holy One," but his "servant" (3 Enoch
48C:1).
It is surprising to find Morey referencing 3 Enoch 48D:(90),
which speaks of Metatron as the "lesser YHWH, after the name
of his Master, as it is written, My name is within him." Again,
being a "lesser YHWH" or even being "called YHWH" has
nothing to do with being "one in nature" with YHWH. Morey
has to read that into the texts, for they themselves are quite clear
in terms of what they mean: Metatron is a "lesser YHWH"
because he is Gods servant in whom YHWH put his name
(compare 3 Enoch 48D:6-9).
It seems that when reference is made to Jehovah putting his
name in one of His servants it has to do with the authority these
princes have to speak or act as YHWHs representative (compare
Php 2:9-11). It may also mean that their names somehow make
use of the name YHWH (as in "Yahoel," who also evolved from
a figure independent of Metatron, to one identical to him67). But
is also possible that YHWH was sometimes called "Metatron"
and that YHWH then gave this name to His servant.68 However,
67
See P. Alexander, "The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch," JJS
28.2 (1977), 161, under "1. YAHOEL."
68
The basis for this is the listing of the seventy names given to Metatron in 3
Enoch 48D:1. 3 Enoch 48D:5 refers to these as "the seventy nameseach of them like
the sacred name on the chariot, engraved on the throne of glorywhich the Holy One,
blessed be he, took from his sacred name and bestowed on Metatronseventy names
by which the ministering angels address the King of the kings of kings in heaven
above." But it is here said that Metatrons seventy names are "like" the seventy names
of the Holy One, and are taking from his sacred name. In 3 Enoch 3:1-3 R. Ishmael
asks Metatron, "What is your name?" to which Metatron replies: "I have seventy
names, corresponding to the seventy nations of the world, and all of them are based on
the name of the King of the kings of kings." We note here that Metatrons names are
the very text to which Morey refers (3 Enoch 48D:[90]) refers to

YHWH, not as the name of Metatron, but as "the name of his
Master." Thus, the name is not original to him.
A number of scholars have recognized similarities between
what is said of Metatron and what is said of Michael the
archangel. In the introduction to his translation of 3 Enoch
Alexander suggests that Metatron and Michael were actually at
some point considered the same angel, with Michael being the
angels more common name and Metatron being "one of his
esoteric, magical names." At some point "the connection
between Metatron and Michael was obscured." 69 Alexander also
notes the similarity between 3 Enochs use of the titles "Greater
YHWH" and "Lesser YHWH" and the use of the same titles in
the Gnostic work Pistis Sophia.70 If the use of these titles is tied
to pre- or post-Christian Gnosticism it is unlikely that genuine
Christianity of the first century would have approvingly made
use of the concepts associated with them. But, as they are used in
3 Enoch, there is nothing to suggest that Metatron was "one in
nature" with YHWH. There is nothing to suggest a Trinitarian
concept of God in the writings (falsely) attributed to Enoch, or in
any other work belonging to the Pseudepigrapha.
4Q246The "Son of God" text from Qumran. The
Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) have truly revolutionized the study of the
Bible, and have added a great deal of support for the reliability of
"based on" the name of God. Alexander recognizes that "the natural interpretation of
this would be that they are derived (by temurah, gematria, and other systems of letter
and number magic) from the tetragram YHWH" (OTP1, 257, note 2 c.). But in view of
3 Enoch 48C:9 (where God says of Metatron, "I took seventy of my names and called
him by them, so as to increase his honor") and 48D:5 which is quoted above, there is a
basis upon which to conclude that "Metatron was not only the angels name, but a
secret name of God as well" (ibid., 158, note 2 c.). But 3 Enoch 3 was not written by
the author of 48C or 48D, and the fact remains that "Metatron" is not one of the seventy
names given to God in 48B:1.
69
P. Alexander, Introduction to 3 Enoch, "Theological Importance," 243-244. In
"The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch," 162, Alexander states: "A
proper estimate of Metatron must begin with the fact that he bears a striking
resemblance to the archangel Michael. Both these angels stand in a peculiar
relationship to Israel as Israels special heavenly advocate; both are High Priest of the
heavenly tabernacle; both are chief of the angels; what is said in one text about
Metatron is said in another about Michael, and Metatron appears as a manuscript
variant for Michael."
70
Alexander, "Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch," 162, 179-180.
OT manuscripts. They also tell us, among other things, about

different views of eschatology (study of end time events and
prophecies in the OT), legal regulations and community rules,
and messianic ideas. Not only do the scrolls have much to say
about a "Messiah,"71 but they even contain instances of terms that
we commonly associate with NT beliefs.
A study of the literature from Qumran reveals that the
Messiah was indeed a significant individual. 4Q521 refers to the
fact that the heavens and the earth will "listen to his [= Gods]
Messiah" (compare Mt 28:18). The Davidic Messiah is referred
to as a judicial figure (1Q28b 5:21-22; 4Q246 2:5-6 [compare Isa
11:3-9 and Joh 5:22]), is associated with raising the dead
(4Q52172 [compare Joh 5:25-27, 30]), and is even called the "Son
of God" (4Q246). However, the scrolls say nothing that would
lead us to think that those responsible for their composition held
to a belief that is anything remotely similar to the Trinitarian
concept of God.
Here we will focus on one fragment in particular, namely,
4Q246. This text has been the subject of great interest in studies
relating to the DSS, and this may be due in no small part to its
close resemblance to Luke 1:32-35. According to Florentino
Garca Martnez translation the second column of 4Q246, which
is the column where our interest is here focused, reads (with
underline added):
71
While I recognize that there are signs of prophetic, priestly and royal
messianic/anointed figures, I am not convinced that there is a clear-cut presentation of
two Messiahs in the literature from Qumran. See R. B. Laurin, "The Problem of Two
Messiahs in the Qumran Scrolls," RevQ 13.4.1 (1963), 41. Laurin shows that "the
theory of two Messiahs in the Qumran Scrolls is really built on a tenuous interpretation
of one text: Rule of the Community IX, 11 (35)" (Ibid., 52). He points out that the
overwhelming evidence from the history of the word mashiach, its use in Jewish
literature, and other Scrolls points to the belief in but one Messiah of the line of David.
Martin G. Abegg, Jr., "The Messiah at Qumran: Are We Still Seeing Double?" DSD 2.2
(1995), 125-144, provides an excellent summary of the issues, though he does not refer
to Laurin, and he leaves the door open for those who would object to the view that
"messianic hopes were only or always singular" (page 144).
72
This text, as well as 4Q246, has some striking similarities with statements in
the NT. For a discussion of 4Q521 in relation to the expected activity of a prophetic
Messiah, see Craig A. Evans, "Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran Cave 4,"
in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Craig A. Evans and Peter W.
Flint, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 96-97.
He will be called son of God, and they will call him son of the
Most High. Like the sparks of a vision, so will their kingdom
be; they will rule several years over the earth and crush
everything; a people will crush another people, and a city
another city. Blank Until the people of God arises and makes
everyone rest from the sword. His kingdom will be an eternal
kingdom, and all his paths in truth and uprigh[tness]. The earth
(will be) in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease
in the earth, and all the cities will pay him homage. He is a
great god among the gods (?). He will make war with him; he
will place the peoples in his hand and cast away everyone
before him. His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all
the abysses.73
As mentioned, there has been much discussion about this

text in various books and journals. Primarily, though, the
discussion has been centered on the figure referred to as the "Son
of God." Some scholars argue this figure is really not a Jewish
figure at all, but a negative figure, the son of a Seleucid king who
is conceived of as a world ruler in Akkadian prophecy.
According to this view, 4Q246 is "Jewish counter-propaganda to
Seleucid claims, turning the Mesopotamian prophecy genre
against itself, and utilizing a powerful Israelite aversion to human
claims to divinity."74
John Collins, however, has argued convincingly that such an
interpretation is in error, and that 4Q246 more closely parallels
thoughts expressed in the book of Daniel. It is also parallel in
some respects to the messianic prophecy in Luke 1:32, 35.
Therefore, 4Q246 should also be "read as messianic." 75
73
Florentino Garca Martnez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran
Texts in English, trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson, 2d ed. (Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996), 138.
74
Edward M. Cooke, "4Q246," BBR 5 (1995), 43-66.
75
John J. Collins, "The Background of the Son of God Text," BBR 7 (1997),
51-62. See also Collins discussion of this text in his The Scepter and the Star: The
Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York:
Doubleday, 1995), 154-172. Other scholars who share the messianic view of 4Q246
include Frank Moore Cross, "Notes on the Doctrine of the Two Messiahs at Qumran
and the Extracanonical Daniel Apocalypse (4Q246)," in Current Research and
Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. Donald W. Parry and
Stephen D. Ricks (STDJ 20; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1-13.
Setting aside the different interpretations of the "Son of God"

figure in this text, we will now focus on the application of the
expression "the great God" in column two, line seven. According
to Morey,76 all of his quotations from the DSS are from either
Martnez translation of 1994, or from Eisenman and Wises text
of 1993. On page 230 of his book Morey quotes what we
presume to be Martnez translation of this text and concludes:
"The deity of the Son of God is once again crystal clear. He is a
great God of gods." Morey does not consider the question of
whether the reference in 4Q246 is to an individual or to the group
of rulers mentioned in line two.77
However, when I say that I presume that Morey is here
quoting from Martnez translation of 4Q246 it is because the
translation in Eisenman and Wise translates this text much
differently when it comes to the identity of "great God." Their
translation reads, "As for the Great God, with His help he will
make war."78 You can see why Morey would not choose this
particular translation of 4Q246: here "the Great God" is
distinguished from the subject of column two, namely, the "Son
of God." But the real problem is not Moreys failure to check
various translations of the text in question, in order to determine
if there is some question about the rightfulness of a particular
rendering. While I have attempted to make a thorough check of a
variety of sources, including (where possible) the original text of
the particular Dead Sea Scroll or other ancient document that we
have considered in this publication, it is not such a sinister error
for one to rely perhaps a bit too much on a recognized authoritys
translation of a certain text. Such shallow research is not very
helpful, but it happens, particularly when one is dealing with
limited resources.
The real problem with Moreys reference to 4Q246 is not his
choice of translations (though that is a problem [see later
76
Morey, The Trinity, 239, note 27.
77
Some scholars interpret what is said in column two of 4Q246 in reference to a
collective messiah, namely, "the people of God" who will "fight the final war and itself
will gain everlasting reign" (Annette Steudel, "The Eternal Reign of the People of
GodCollective Expectations in Qumran Texts (4Q246 and 1QM)," RevQ 17 [1996],
519).
78
Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (New
York: Penguin, 1993), 71.
discussion]), but what he chooses not to communicate to his

readers about the translation he uses. On page 92 I quoted
Martnez translation on which Morey depends, and here I will
re-quote the lines relevant to our discussion, "The sword will
cease in the earth, and all the cities will pay him homage. He is a
great god among the gods (?)." This is the text as it is translated
in Martnez 1996 edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it reads
the same in his 1994 edition. Notice how Morey presents
Martnez translation of the second sentence, "He is a great God
of gods. . . . His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom." 79
There are several problems with Moreys misquotation of
Martnez translation, the most egregious of which is his
omission of the "(?)" that Martnez placed right next to his
rendering! This shows that even Martnez felt unsure about the
translation and the reading of this text. Indeed, back in 1992
Martnez wrote about the figure in 4Q246, but at this time he
only had a partial reading of the text, with only the words "great
God" in line seven.80 In an article in 1996, however, two years
after the release of his 1994 English edition of the Dead Sea
Scrolls, Martnez not only again put a "(?)" in the same place, but
right after the "(?)" he says in parentheses, "or: The great God
will be his strength."81 Martnez now appears to be in support of
the translation that is found nearly everywhere else where this
passage is critically examined, for in his recent Study Edition of
the Dead Sea Scrolls, the only reading that is found is, "the great
God is his strength."82 The basis for this reading has been given
by a number of scholars who have examined this text, and there
appears to be no justification for the rendering found in some of
79
80
Florentino Garca Martnez, Qumran and Apocalyptic (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill,
1992), 163-164. Notice, though, his reference to Fitzmyers translation of line seven on
page 167, "For the Great God is/has been with it/him, and He will now subject all
enemies to it/him."
81
Florentino Garca Martnez, "Two Messianic Figures in the Qumran Texts," in
Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds.
Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks (STDJ 20; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 26.
82
The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, vol. 1, 1Q1-4Q273, eds. Florentino Garca
Martnez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
Martnez works, and misquoted in Moreys work on the

Trinity.83
Morey also rewords Martnez translation to read "He is a
great God of gods" instead of "He is a great God among the
gods," which is what Martnez actually wrote. Morey is here
reading his theology not only into the text of 4Q246, but he is
taking liberties with someone elses translation and reading his
views into and rewording the translation itself! The switch to "of
gods" from "among the gods" keeps Morey from having to
explain how this figure could be "among" other gods, to a view
that, to him, allows the one he presumes to be "the great God" to
be the God of these other gods.84 Hence, in Moreys view, this
figure is in no way simply "among them," but above them, as the
"God of" them.85
A great many Trinitarian scholars would not dream of
handling the Targums, Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls
83
John J. Collins, "A Pre-Christian Son of God Among the Dead Sea Scrolls,"
BR 9.3 (June 1993), 37, translates the text as, "the great God will be his patron." This
same translation is found in Cross, "Notes on the Doctrine of the Two Messiahs," 7. In
J. A. Fitzmyers article, "4Q246: The Son of God Document from Qumran," Bib 74.2
(1993), 165, he renders the phrase, "The great God is himself his might." Cooke,
"4Q246," 59, refers to a passage in the Hebrew Bible (Ex 18:4 ["the God of my Father
is my help") which is similar to the Aramaic in column two, line seven of 4Q246, and
he also points out that "Aramaic instances are common in the targumim, for example,
Tg. Onq. Gen 21:20: . . . "the command of the lord was his help." He translates the text
as, "The Great God is his/their help" (page 58). See also Steudel, "The Eternal Reign of
the People of God," 515.
84
See the section "The God of gods," below.
85
There are other problems in Moreys interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
For example, he refers to the Damascus Document, column 19, lines 7-11, as proof that
"the deity of the Messiah could not be clearer." He says (Morey, The Trinity, 228),
"The appearance of the Messiah is understood as the time when God visits the earth,
according to verse 6!" Not only does he here import into the Dead Sea Scrolls a concept
of "deity" that he simply assumes is consistent with Trinitarianism, but his reference
does not clearly or even vaguely provide evidence for his conclusion. According to
The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations,
vol. 2, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (Tbingen: Mohr, 1995), 30-31, CD-B 19, 5-6 simply
refers to "the evil ones" who "will be repaid their due when God visits [dqpb] the
land." In 19, 10 we are told of those who "will escape at the time of the visitation
[hdqph]." The next sentence says, "those who remain will be handed over to the sword
when the Messiah of Aaron and Israel comes [awbb]." So there is no verbal connection
between the statements. Also, to suggest that a text cannot refer to God visiting the land
and the coming of the Messiah during a period of judgement without conveying the
"deity" of the Messiah in a Trinitarian sense (or in any sense, for that matter), is such an
incredibly forced interpretation that it requires no further comment.
in the manner in which those Trinitarians with whom we have

taken issue above have done. Still, it is critical that no one,
whether he or she be a Jehovahs Witness or a Trinitarian or a
member of some other faith, put complete confidence in what
someone else claims is factual and reliable information.
True, many of us are often without the ability to verify
claims made in relation to certain ancient or modern documents.
But there is a difference between being confident in what
someone claims (perhaps because we have found them to be
reliable on other matters) and putting complete confidence in
what is claimed. That is to say, we should never build our faith
on things that we have not personally been able to verify, to at
least some degree, ourselves.
This is why those who base their faith on what the Bible
alone has to say on matters of doctrine are much better off than
those who, whether they know it or not, rely on non-biblical
definitions and distinctions. The tools and texts available for
Bible study in our modern age are such that anyone with a little
desire and determination can come to an accurate knowledge of
what the Bible has to say about God and His Son.
Understanding Biblical Monotheism

Do Jehovahs Witnesses "deny the deity of Christ"?
According to one issue of The Watchtower: "Jehovahs Witnesses
do not deny Jesus godship, or divinity. They accept what John
1:1 says of him, that he is a god. However, the Church [in this
context the Greek Orthodox Church] says that Jesus is not just a
god but that he is the almighty God."86 The Watchtower magazine
had earlier made this same point quite clear, "The fact is that
Jehovahs Witnesses recognize and accept that the Bible uses the
designation god with regard to Jesus. (John 1:1, 18)"87 Clearly,
then, those who claim that Jehovahs Witnesses deny the deity of
Jesus Christ are either misinformed or are using the term "deity" in
86
"Religious Liberty Under Attack in Greece," The Watchtower, 1 December
1986, 6.
87
"Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 10 December 1976, 640.
a sense different from that of the Witnesses. But this different

(Trinitarian) sense is rarely communicated and articulated as it
should be, especially when the claim is made that the Witnesses
deny Christs deity.
The fact is, it is the Witnesses who accept the unique,
individual deity of Jesus Christ, while Trinitarians deny it! By this I
mean, as stated earlier in this chapter, that Trinitarians do not really
believe that Jesus is "God" or "a god [= a deity]." They believe in
only one God, and that that one God is triune. The three "persons"
each share fully in the nature of this one God, but not one of the
three persons is God (= the Trinity) or a god. The only way they
can be and are spoken of as "God" by Trinitarians is if the term is
stripped of its biblical meaning and given a purely qualitative
meaning, such as, "God the Son the second person of the Trinity,
who shares fully in the one true Godhead."
Is it fair, then, to mislead others into thinking that Jehovahs
Witnesses deny Christs deity, when those who make such a claim
are themselves using the term in a special sense, which is not
articulated in the Bible, particularly when the Witnesses do accept
Jesus as a god according to the sense in which the Bible employs
the term? Again, as we have seen, many of those who make such a
claim do in fact use such terms as "deity," "God" and "divine" in a
sense found only in the works of Trinitarians. This is one of the
reasons why many Trinitarian scholars have so much trouble with
passages such as John 1:1, 1:18 and others. What they are doing is
making it seem as if the Bible writers meant the same thing later
Trinitarian writers meant by their use of "God," "divine" and other
similar terms. The result is that the person reading their works is
attracted to the biblical "sound" of the words, though he or she
usually does not recognize the new sense being attributed to them.
The critical question, however, which we will now attempt to
answer is does the Bible refer to other beings who possess the
nature of theos, but who are nonetheless inferior to the Most High
God? Jehovahs Witnesses believe this is in fact what the Bible
teaches, but it must not be confused with a typical polytheistic or
even henotheistic view. The Witnesses believe the Bible teaches
there is only one God in the absolute sense, but that others are
considered "gods" in a secondary sense.
However, it is not merely on the basis of John 1:1 that

Jehovahs Witnesses arrive at such a conclusion, even though they
do believe John 1:1 can legitimately be understood as consistent
with this teaching. Through his use of the article before the first
occurrence of theos, in 1:1b, John makes it clear to his readers that
the Word existed with the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, Jehovah.
Since He is the "Most High" (Ps 83:18) it would have been quite
natural for a reader of the Johannine Prologue to understand anyone
else called theos, in distinction to and in association with ho theos,
as one who exists in heaven, who is himself divine, but who is not
equal to the One he is distinguished from (ho theos). But what
about the Bibles repeated claim that no other gods but Jehovah
exist?
"Before me there was no God formed, and after me
there continued to be none." A fundamental precept of
Trinitarianism is that the Bible says there is only one God, and
since the Bible also calls the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
"God," then they must be the same God, which is what the Trinity
teaches. In this they selectively determine who is called "God" in
the proper sense of being a person in the "one God." That is, they
exclude angels and men who are called "gods" from being included
in the Godhead because they do not fit within the Trinitarian
concept of God. However, we could just as easily say that because
angels and certain humans are called gods (see discussion later in
this Chapter), then whatever else is said of them should be
redefined and not taken in its normal sense. In fact, nowhere does
the Bible specifically say, "the angels are created beings." Of
course, someone might argue that they are included in the "all
things" mentioned in passages such as Colossians 1:16, but
someone else could respond by saying that they simply proceeded
through the "Firstborn" in a non-temporal sense; that they were
begotten as "sons" (Job 38:7) outside of time.88
Jehovahs Witnesses do not, however, share this view of the
angels or of "time." But the argument could still be made, just as
Trinitarians argue for a certain interpretation as respects the
temporal terms used to describe Jesus Christ. We could, then, argue
that angels should be included in the Godhead based on the fact that
88
the singular and the plural terms for "G-god" are used of them. But
the fact is, the assertion that there is only one God can easily be
shown to refer to a unique type of Godship that is owned only by
the Father, Jehovah. Before we explain how this is so, let us
consider the context of the denials of gods other than Jehovah, in
the Bible.
In the next several sections we will demonstrate that it is quite
in line with biblical monotheism to allow for the existence of gods
other than Jehovah, but who are not His equal and who are not a
threat to His uniqueness. These spirit beings are not merely "gods"
in that they represent Jehovah or possess divine authority (as was
the case with Moses [Ex 4:16; 7:189]). It is also because they are
spirits like God, divine by nature,90 that they can properly be
considered "gods." However, it is often asked of Jehovahs
Witnesses whether the affirmation of gods other than Jehovah
directly contradicts the fact that the Bible elsewhere emphatically
denies the existence of other gods?
There are many cases in Scripture where the existence of only
one God is asserted. For example, Isaiah 43:10 says: "YOU are my
witnesses, is the utterance of Jehovah, even my servant whom I
have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and
89
Crispin Fletcher-Louis, "4Q374: A Discourse on the Sinai Tradition: The
Deification of Moses and Early Christology," Dead Sea Discoveries 3.3 (1996), 236-
252, challenges the theory that Philos deification of Moses was a result of Hellenistic
influence, and argues that, in fact, authors such as Philo who deified Moses "were
rooted in the biblical text (e.g. Exod. 7:1), but are also reusing and inculturating a
fundamentally Jewish tradition which, since at least the second century BCE, conceived
of Moses in angelomorphic/divine terms" (page 243). On page 252 he concludes, "If
Moses could be [elohim], then, for the gospel writers, so could Jesus, who was
regarded by the New Testament as at the very least a new Moses."
90
Galatians 4:8 is often misused to prove that there are no gods other than
Jehovah. After rightly referring to Isa 45:21-22 as a challenge to idol gods, James
White (The Forgotten Trinity, 37-38) refers to Ga 4:8 as evidence that Paul refers to
idols as "those that by nature are no gods." But he then concludes, "A god other than
Yahweh is, by nature, a no god." Unless White is going to argue the Galatians slaved
for the angels who served God "when they did not know God," his general conclusion
does not follow from Pauls specific statement in Ga 4:8. Bowmans handling of this
text (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, 53-54) and 1Co 10:20 is also rather
interesting. Paul refers to the idols in 1Co 10:19 as "nothing"; they are not the demons
who use them in verse 20. Bowman simply assumes that in Ga 4:8 Paul is speaking
about the demons, and not the idols. Since this cannot be proven, then for him to use it
as proof against facts that are clearly articulated elsewhere regarding the angels as
"gods" is most unfortunate.
that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there
was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none." In
response to the question, How could Jesus be a god who was
created by Jehovah when in Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says "before me
there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be
none"? The Watchtower replied: "A sincere Bible student is helped
by noting carefully the context of those words. The Almighty
God Jehovah was contrasting himself with the man-made idols in
nations surrounding Israel."91
This is a very reasonable conclusion, and it is quite in line
with the sense and reference of "gods" in Isaiah, where there are a
number of references to "idols" and "gods." (Note: NWTs
"valueless gods" is a translation of a Hebrew word that simply
means "empty," "vain," hence an "idol" [notice the plural use of this
term in Leviticus 26:1].) But not one of them is used in a context
where the angels who serve Jehovah are being discussed. Rather, in
each case, the focus is clearly on the idol gods of the nations.
For example, Isaiah 2:6 speaks about the Israelites apostasy,
having become like the Philistines and "the children of foreigners."
Verse 8 continues the denunciation against Israel, speaking of the
"valueless gods" that fill their land, and how they bow down to "the
work of ones hands . . . to that which ones fingers made." Then in
verses 18 and 20 the "valueless gods" are again described: "In that
day the earthling man will throw his worthless gods of silver and
his valueless gods of gold that they had made for him to bow before
to the shrewmice and to the bats."
In Isaiah 10:11 Gods judgement is again brought against idol
gods: "Whenever my hand has reached the kingdoms of the
valueless god whose graven images are more than those at
Jerusalem and at Samaria, will it not be that just as I shall have
done to Samaria and to her valueless gods, even so I shall do to
Jerusalem and to her idols?" Here the focus is clearly on idols and
carved images; there is nothing here to suggest that the angelic gods
who serve Jehovah are the object of His judgement.
In chapter 19 Isaiah speaks against the "valueless gods" of
Egypt (verses 1-3), and in chapter 21 judgement is rendered against
91
"Questions From Readers," The Watchtower, 1 July 1986, 31. See also, "Of
Which God Are You A Witness?" The Watchtower, 15 February 1964, Part Two, 115-
118.
Babylon and her gods: "She has fallen! Babylon has fallen, and all
the graven images of her gods he has broken to the earth!" (verse 9)
In chapter 31 Jehovah appeals to His people, asking them to return
and "reject each one his valueless gods of silver and his valueless
gods of gold, that your hands have made for yourselves as a sin."
(verse 7) In Isaiah 36 the inability of the gods of those nations
conquered by Assyria is highlighted (compare 37:12) and in his
prayer to Jehovah, Hezekiah explains why these foreign nations
were unable to protect their people from the Assryians: "And there
was a consigning of their gods to the fire, because they are no gods,
but the workmanship of mans hands, wood and stone, so that they
[the Assryians] destroyed them" (37:19).
Isaiah 41 records Gods challenge to the gods of the "national
groups," saying: "Tell the things that are to come afterward, that we
may know that you are gods. . . . Look! You are something
nonexistent, and your achievement is nothing . . . Look! All of them
are something nonexistent. Their works are nothing. Their molten
images are wind and unreality." (verses 1, 23, 24, 29) In Isaiah
42:8-9 Jehovah again makes known His superiority over "graven
images," saying: "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one
else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images.
The first thingshere they have come, but new things I am telling
out. Before they begin to spring up, I cause you people to hear
them." He also warns those who are "putting trust in the carved
image, those who are saying to a molten image: You are our
gods" (Isa 42:17).
It is significant that the test of true Godship involves the ability
to foresee and foretell the future. While Gods prophets have
certainly shown the ability to foretell the future, it is understood
that their words originate from God. We find the same is true in
reference to Jesus, who not only received "a commandment as to
what to tell and what to speak" while on earth, but even after his
ascension to heaven his knowledge of future events came from God
(Rev 1:1).
In view of the consistent condemnation of idols gods in Isaiah,
it is certainly understandable for us to view Isaiah 43:10 in the
same light. There is nothing in the context of Isaiah 43:10 that
suggests, let alone conclusively proves, that Jehovahs words are
meant not only for the idols of man, but also for any heavenly
beings who serve Jehovah, and who are elsewhere considered

"gods." No living god has been "formed" by the hands of the idol-
worshiping nations. Which is why Jehovah goes on to condemn the
idols and those who form them in Isaiah 44:8-10.92
The context of these texts shows that such denials are directed
against the gods of the nations, not the angelic gods of Jehovahs
heavenly court. In fact, Isaiah 43:10 uses the same verb for "form"
that we see used in Isaiah 44:10. Using such scriptures in an effort
to deny that the angels are gods, when in fact the Bible clearly
refers to them as "gods," is to ignore the purpose for which these
denials were written. As stated by Yehezkel Kaufmann: "We are
constrained to offer the embarrassing reply that nowhere in the
Bible is the existence of gods denied, neither explicitly nor
implicitly. Even the polemic of Second-Isaiah attacks the idols with
no word at all for the gods."93
In addition to noting that the "multiplicity of Old Testament
terminology for a body of divine beings subordinate to Yahweh is
not an indication that the Hebrews meant quite different things
when they referred to Yahwehs host, council, assembly of
gods, to the sons of (the) God(s) [all references to angels], etc,"94
Gerald Cooke (with emphasis added) observes:
We have found the conception of lesser divine beings around

Yahweh was known and utilized throughout Israels biblical
period, beginning possibly as early as the Yahwist in the early
Genesis references and in Ps 29 and Dt 33 . . . and extending to
the book of Daniel. . . . The functional distinction of the gods of
the peoples among this heavenly company is made clearer,
however by II Isaiah and Ps. 82. II Isaiah denies the existence of
gods other than Yahweh; yet it is quite likely that II Isaiah
himself continued to make use of the conception of the heavenly
company [compare Isa 6:1-4, 6-7]. . . . It seems to the writer
equally likely that it is to be explained in terms of a distinction
within the heavenly company as a living reality of Israelite faith,
for the poet-prophet condemns and denies existence to the gods
92
See also Isa 44:11-20. Compare Isa 42:8, 17; 45:18-20; 48:5. Regarding De 32:39,
compare De 32:16, 21, 37, 38 ( see note 105 below).
93
Yehezkel Kaufmann, "The Bible and Mythological Polytheism," JBL 70
(1951), 196.
94
Gerald Cooke, "The Sons of (The) God(s)," ZAW 76 (1964), 39
of Babylon which have led the community into idolatry and

apostasy. The gods of a foreign people, and perhaps the gods
worshipped by all the nations, are denied existence by one who is
seeking to meet an immediate and critical religious need. None
deserves the worship which is due Yahweh alone; none can
perform the role which belongs to Yahweh alone, for there is
none like Yahweh. The denial applies not to the entire heavenly
company, but to the gods of a foreign people, gods that claim the
worship due Yahweh alone.95
That the Bible can on the one hand claim that there is only one
God, Jehovah, the Father, and at the same time allow for the
existence of other gods who do not share His level of Godship, can
be demonstrated in two ways: 1) by considering how the Jews used
descriptive terms with more than one sense, and 2) by a discussion
of those texts that do attribute a divine status to angelic beings.
John 8:39-41 provides an excellent example of how the Jews
in Jesus day could limit the use of a descriptive term to one person,
with one sense, but then use that same term in a secondary (lesser)
and yet positive sense for another person. Notice that in John 8:39
the Jews respond to Jesus with the words, "Our father is Abraham."
But then in verse 41 they reply again, "We have one Father, God."
If we were to use the logic of Trinitarians concerning the restriction
of terms to certain individuals then we would have to conclude that
the Jews believed that Abraham was God!
Clearly, though, the Jews viewed Abraham as their father in a
different sense than the way they viewed God as their father. But,
still, they did not hesitate to claim that they had but "one Father,
God," when just prior to this claim they confidently stated that
Abraham was their father. Additionally, it should be noted that
Jesus did not try to turn this seemingly contradictory use of "father"
against them; no doubt he recognized the different senses in which
they were using the term "father," and their restricting the term (by
their modifying it with the adjective "one") to its highest sense
when used as a reference to God was not a problem. The real
problem had to do with the fact that they would not listen to what
Jesus had to say, and consequently their true father was revealed.
95
Ibid., 43-44 (emphasis added).
(Joh 8:42-47) Now we will consider some biblical texts that

attribute a divine status to angelic beings.
"A little lower than *elohim"God or gods? The Old
Testament clearly teaches that angels are divine beings. To prove
this we could point to Psalm 8:5, where angels are called "gods"
(<yhla, *elohim; LXX [8:6]: ajggevlou", angelous). The author of
Hebrews quotes the LXX of Psalm 8:5(6) at Hebrews 2:7, 9,
confirming that angels are the ones called "gods." The Jews did not
view these "gods" as equals of Jehovah, even though they were at
times commanded to obey them: "Here I am sending an angel
ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the
place that I have prepared. Watch yourself because of him and obey
his voice. Do not behave rebelliously against him, for he will not
pardon YOUR transgression; because my name is within him." (Ex
23:20, 21, emphasis added) This is similar to what occurred during
Jesus transfiguration, when Jehovah said concerning Jesus: "This
is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved; listen to him." (Mt
17:5) Jehovah uses His angelic servants as administrators of His
divine will.
Bowman objects to the view that references such as Psalm 8:5
teach that angels are "gods." Because this understanding presents
such a problem to Trinitarian theology, Bowman is not so willing to
view Psalm 8:5, or any other verse in the Bible for that matter, as a
statement that angels are "gods" in a positive sense because they are
subordinate to Jehovah. His opinion is these scriptures, if directed
to angels at all, are references to angels as false gods, since the
Bible teaches that there is only one true God.96 However, the fact is
Psalm 8:5 is a reference to angels, not as false gods, but as gods of
a secondary class. The writer of Hebrews confirmed this in his
quotation of the LXX rendering of Psalm 8:5, which calls the
*elohim "angels." (Heb 2:7, 9) Still, Bowman and others believe
translating *elohim as "God" better captures the meaning of the
Psalm.97 But this view is unacceptable for several reasons.
96
Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Jehovahs Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of
John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 58-59. See also, Bowman, Why You Should Believe
in the Trinity, 51-54.
97
Bowman, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, 52; Peter Craigie, Psalms 1-
50 (WBC 19; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983), 108; Conrad Louis, The Theology of
Psalm VIII, A Study of the Traditions of the Text and the Theological Import (Catholic
First, not only does Bowmans suggestion directly contradict

the quotation in Hebrews 2:7, 9 (see below), but it is hardly the case
that man is a "little lower" than God! While we are made in His
image, being endowed with qualities such as love, justice, wisdom
and knowledge, we are in no way a "little lower" than God.98
Bowman tries to make his case that humans can be
considered a "little lower than God" in the sense of being made in
the "image" of God, according to the Genesis account of mans
creation. There is no doubt that Psalm 8:3-8 contains many
parallels to Genesis 1:16-28. In an online discussion with Rob
Bowman I asked him, "Just how does Psalm 8:3-8 closely
parallel Genesis 1:1, 8, 16, 26-28, so that elohim in Psalm 8:5
should be translated "God"?" Bowman replied by referring to
the many parallel thoughts in the two accounts, as if I was
questioning that there are any parallels at all! In fact, he even
suggested that I was not watching myself when I said, "in spite
of our lowly state God made us in His image, just below the
angelic gods." Unfortunately, this is just one example of how
Bowman consistently missed my point and proceeded to build his
case on the wrong foundation.
While I recognize differences and similarities between the
two accounts, my main objection, which I stated in clear and
unambiguous terms, was "Just how does Psalm 8:3-8 closely
parallel Genesis 1:1, 8, 16, 26-28, so that elohim in Psalm 8:5
should be translated "God"?" Notice the last part of the sentence
beginning with "so." Bowman argues that being made "a little
lower" than elohim and crowned with "glory and honor" is
parallel to mans being made in the image of elohim, in Genesis
University of America Studies in Sacred Theology 99; Washington, D. C.: Catholic

University of America Press, 1946), 56-59; see also the translations of the RSV and
NASB.
98
William H. Brownlee, "Anthropology and Soteriology in the Dead Sea Scrolls
and in the New Testament," in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other
Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring, ed. James M. Efird
(Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press, 1972), 217, agrees, saying: "That man is
infinitely less than God all ancient Jews knew right well; but the Psalmist declares man
to be but little less than the angels, little short of supernatural." Gleason Archer and
Gregory Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1983), 59, also agree, stating, "A little lower than God is totally
unacceptable (despite NASB, NIV: the heavenly beings) in view of the transcendence
of God taught in the OT."
1:26. But what he fails to notice is this point does not aid him in
denying that elohim in Psalm 8:5 refers to angels, for regardless
of the terminology used to describe mans nature in relation to
God, mans being made in the image of God still ultimately
involves being "lower than" angels!
Also, if being made in the "image of God" meant the same
thing to an ancient Israelite as being made "a little lower than
God," then why do ancient versions like the LXX define elohim
as "angels" in Psalm 8:5(6) if the correspondence between being
made in the "image of God" and being made "a little lower than
God" is so unmistakably clear, as Bowman implies? Also, if both
Hebrew-language expressions so obviously mean the same thing,
why do we not find a variant in Genesis 1:26, in the LXX, for
"God" just as we do in Psalm 8:5?
An appeal to Genesis 1:26 does not establish anything, and it
certainly does not prove that the being made "a little lower than
God" would have been understood and accepted as the equivalent
to being made in "the image of God." In fact, Genesis 1:26
speaks about making man in "our image." But the speaker is
God! Since there is only one God according to Trinitarianism,
then according to Trinitarianism the God who speaks must be the
Trinity, and those to whom He speaks must be the angels!
Trinitarians will deny this, of course, but, again, the text refers to
"God" speaking to others. It does not say anything about one of
three "persons" in the Godhead speaking to other "persons" in the
Godhead.
Non-Trinitarian interpreters can look at Genesis 1:26 and see
that God is speaking either directly and only to the Logos or to
the Logos and the rest of Gods heavenly sons. The fact that God
involves those to whom He speaks in making man in their
image does not rule out the strong possibility that angels are
included in the expression, "Let us make . . ." 99 The angels were
99
4Q417, frag. 2, col. 1, line 17, speaks of "Enosh" whose "nature was patterned
after the holy angels" (Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead
Sea Scrolls: A New Translation [New York: HarperCollins, 1996], 381). John Collins,
"In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from
Qumran," in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. Donald
W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich (STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 609-618, argues that in
this text "Enosh" (?wna) refers to "Adam, the original human being created by God"
certainly present (Job 38:7); but to be included in the "us" of

Genesis 1:26 ought no more imply that they had a share in the
making of man than that Gods words in Genesis 11:7 should
bear any implication that anyone other than Jehovah was
involved in the confusing of mans languages. Still, it is also
possible that rather than serving as mere observers, the angels
were used in some unstated tasks relating to the creation of man
and the physical universe. Of course, this would not be anything
like the mediatorial role that is attributed to the Logos (John 1:3).
To argue that "God" here means one of the three persons of
the Trinity and that He speaks to another member of the
Godhead, is, as we have seen, to assume Trinitarianism and to
redefine "God" as a "person of the Godhead." Jehovahs
Witnesses choose not to do that. Instead, they accept what the
Bible says: God speaks to others and makes man in their image.
It is true that the account goes on to say that God made man in
"his" image, but this does not present a problem for those who
recognize and accept the fact that God previously said he would
make man in His image and in the image of those with Him.
Those to whom God speaks are spirits like Him (Ps 104:4; Joh
4:24).
Surprisingly, Bowman argued: "Similarly, the writer of
Hebrews affirms that the Son of God is the radiance of his glory
and the exact representation of his being (Heb. 1:3); here exact
representation (charaktr) is a synonym for image." Now, we
may indeed accept a certain semantic overlap between what is
said in Hebrews 1:1-3 and the term "image," which is used of the
prehuman Jesus in Colossians 1:15. However, if we follow
Bowmans reasoning then Christ as the "image," "reproduction,"
and "radiance" of Gods being means that the prehuman Jesus is
"a little lower than God"! To get around this all sorts of terms
have to be redefined and various distinctions made that are in
harmony with Trinitarianism. But the fact is, "God" speaks of
making man in His image and in the image of those with Him,
which likely involves having the qualities and the unique
capabilities that were previously restricted to spiritual beings.
(page 612). He also cites other Jewish (midrashim) sources that refer to Adams
creation as being in the likeness of angels (ibid., 615).
Some later Greek translations (Symmachus and Aquila) render

elohim by theos ("God"), while several translations follow the
LXX in rendering elohim in Psalm 8:5 as "angels," including the
Syriac Peshitta and the Vulgate. This, of course, does not prove
anything other than the fact that the translators of the LXX, Vulgate
and the Peshitta recognized elohim in Psalm 8:5 did not refer to
God, otherwise why would they have translated it with "angels"? In
view of these translations, Bowman asks:
Why, if the LXX translators thought the text was referring to

heavenly beings as "gods," did they not simply render the word
as theoi ["gods"]? That is, if the LXX translators did not have a
problem with understanding Psalm 8:5 to be referring to angels
as gods, why not translate elohim "literally" as "gods"? It is a
curious thing, given Staffords reasoning, that the Watchtower
itself seems to have had a failure of nerve on this question
[online discussion].
Bowmans comments here spring from an overconfidence

regarding the value of his questions, and a failure to appreciate
the nature of the LXX translation of Psalms. It is a well-known
fact among scholars that many books and sections of books of the
LXX offer a more exegetical (interpretive) translation than other,
more literal books. Emanuel Tov points out that most of the
exegetical elements in the translation "were derived from the
context, but it should be stressed that the translators concept of
context was more comprehensive than ours. They referred not
only to the relationship between the words in their immediate
context but also to remote contexts. Furthermore, the translator
might introduce any idea that the source text called to mind." 100
100
Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research
(Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3; Jerusalem: Simor, 1981), 61-62. Anneli Aejmelaeus, On
the Trail of the Septuagint Translators (Kampenthe Netherlands: Kok Pharos
Publishing House, 1993), 67-68, states: "As I see it, the general intention of the
translators was thus concerned with the meaning of the original, or meanings of words
and phrases in the original. Their general intention was not directed towards the formal
representation of items in the original. They did not consciously aim at word-for-word
translation." While this statement is apparently meant only for the Pentateuch, we
believe it applies in other books to a greater or lesser degree. John H. Sailhamer (The
Translational Technique of the Greek Septuagint for the Hebrew Verbs and Participles
in Psalms 341 [SBG 2; New York: Peter Lang, 1991], 208) demonstrates that in his
Bowman ignores these points when it comes to

understanding why the LXX does not use theoi for elohim. The
real issue is not whether the LXX translated the Hebrew literally,
but whether the Hebrew was interpreted correctly. It is not a
matter of the LXX translators attempting to avoid calling the
angels "gods"; rather, they are making it clear by their
interpretive translation that the elohim of the Hebrew text are
"angels," and not some undefined "gods," which might have
resulted if they had translated elohim by theoi ("gods"). What is
more, if the LXX translators understood the Hebrew elohim as a
reference to God, then why not simply translate it by theos? If they
were so concerned about improperly attributing divinity to angels,
why translate a term used in reference to one or more divine beings,
by "angels"?
It is quite clear to most non-Trinitarians, and even a number of
Trinitarian scholars, that the LXX translators realized that to
suggest that mankind was a "little lower than God," even in poetic
hyperbole, was unacceptable (see note 98 above). Thus, Psalm
49:20 admits: "Earthling man, although in honor, who does not
understand, is indeed comparable with the beasts that have been
destroyed" (compare verse 12). Just as the beasts of the field die
and return to the dust, so, too, does man (compare Ec 3:19-21). For
the inspired writer of Psalm 8:5 to suggest in any context that man,
who is comparable to beasts, is but a "little lower than" Jehovah,
who cannot die (Hab 1:12), is the most unlikely of all possibilities.
The LXX translation makes it clear this is not how the Psalm was
understood, and their translation also shows that they did not view
being made in the "image of God" as the equivalent to being "made
a little lower than God." In short, there is no reasonable explanation
for suggesting that Psalm 8:5 refers to man being made a "little
lower than God," only a forced one.
Of course, Paul did not quote Psalm 8:5 in a manner
consistent with Symmachus or Aquilas translations. In Hebrews
2:7, 9 his quotation shows that he accepted the reading of the
LXX, "angels." Jehovahs Witnesses reject Bowmans suggestion
treatment of the Hebrew verbal forms, the LXX Psalms translator "sought to give the
LXX Psalms the Greek form required by their sense. The sense of the LXX Psalm was
that of the translators interpretation" (emphasis added). See chapter 2 of his book for
examples.
that the author of Hebrews 2:7, 9 would quote from an inaccurate

translation of the Hebrew of Psalm 8:5. 101 He argues that
"angels is certainly not a literal translation of gods." 102 While
it is true that "angels" is not the formal equivalent of "gods"
(particularly in English), it is, as we have seen, quite beside the
point here.
In addition to what we have already pointed out regarding
the nature of the LXX translation, consider the fact that the LXX
of Genesis 19:16 translates "the men" (<y?wnah) with "the angels"
(oiJ a[ggeloi). Certainly no one will argue that "angels" is a literal
translation of "men"! But here the LXX translates the meaning of
the text. The "men" who were with Lot were in fact angels, and
the LXX is simply making this point clear. The LXX is not trying
to avoid identifying the men as angels, but making that fact
explicit. The same is true regarding the use of "angels" for
elohim in Psalm 8:5 and elsewhere (see later in this Chapter).
Bowman, however, suggests that it is not unusual for NT
quotations to differ somewhat from their OT counterparts, even
displaying significant but not contradictory differences. In our
online discussion Bowman referred to Ephesians 4:8 wherein we
find a quotation from Psalm 68:18. Here Paul departs from the
LXX rendering, particularly in his use of the verb "give" as
opposed to the LXXs "take/receive." In the Psalm the "men" are
Egyptians, while in Ephesians 4:8 Paul applies the term to
Christians. This is similar to other examples where OT statements
predicated of one or more persons are applied in a different or
parallel sense to others, for a particular purpose (compare, for
example, Ps 102:25-27 with Hebrews 1:10-12103). But here we do
not have a situation comparable to the quotation of Psalm 8:5(6)
in Hebrews 2:7, 9, for Pauls use of "angels" is in agreement with
the LXX, not different from it!
It is also not out of the ordinary to find "angels" as a
translation for elohim. The LXX of both Deuteronomy 32:43 and
Psalm 97:7 use "angels" for elohim. The author of Hebrews
101
Bowman, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, 52-53.
102
Ibid., 52.
103
See Chapter 3, pages 170-174.
(whom Jehovahs Witnesses believe to be the apostle Paul 104)

even quotes Deuteronomy 32:43 in Hebrews 1:6,105 again showing
his agreement with the LXX in using "angels" for "gods." The
same is true of Psalm 138:1, where again *elohim is translated by
"angels."
If Paul did not agree with the LXX translation of "angels" for
"gods," then he could easily have changed the wording of the text
as he did in Ephesians 4:8. So Bowmans example actually works
against him, demonstrating that the NT writers, if they were not
in complete agreement with the LXX rendering, were not bound
to it and could even make significant changes in order to properly
capture the right thought, or to make a certain application.
Bowman would have been better off using the quotation in
Hebrews 10:5, where the LXX of Psalm 40:6 reads, "You
prepared a body for me." But the Hebrew of Psalm 40:6 says,
"You cleaned out my ears." This would have been a better
example to use in showing how Paul can quote a passage from
the LXX that radically differs from the Hebrew text, so that the
104
See "All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial," 2d. ed. (Brooklyn:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1990), 243-244.
105
The LXX of De 32:43 is more likely the source of Pauls quotation, as there
are LXX manuscripts of this text that match Pauls quotation word for word. That he
primarily quotes from the Psalms is not a deterrent to accepting Heb 1:6 as a quotation
from De 32:43, since he also quotes from 2Sa 7:14 in Heb 1:5. The quotation in Heb
1:6 seems to have come from a Hebrew recension other than MT, which is reflected in
4QDeutq. See Patrick W. Skehan, "A Fragment of the Song of Moses (Deut. 32) from
Qumran," BASOR 136 (1954), 12-15; Ernest Wrthwein, The Text of the Old
Testament, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 138, 9b; Arie Van
Der Kooij, "The Ending of the Song of Moses: On the Pre-Masoretic Version of Deut
32:43," in Studies in Deuteronomy. In Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of
His 65th Birthday, eds. F. G. Martnez, A. Hilhorst, J. T. A. G. M. Van Ruiten, A .S.
Van Der Woude (VTSup 53; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 93-100; Paul Sanders, The
Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (OTS 37; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 248-252, 422-425. On
pages 426-429 Sanders discusses the relationship between Jehovah and the gods spoken
of in verse 8 (see below) and verse 43 and the statements in verses 12 and 39, where it
is said there are no gods "with" Jehovah. He concludes: "Verse 12 and verse 39 say that
there is no god with YHWH. These affirmations relate to his activity: YHWH is the
only god who acts on behalf of Israel. In that respect there is no other god with him. . . .
Though the conceptual background of the passage [De 32:8-9] may be archaic the
message of the passage is completely in line with the monotheistic affirmations in the
song: other gods may existin fact they dobut for Israel the only significant god is
YHWH. He is even the highest god (/wylu) and the other gods (<yhla ynb) are
subordinate to him" (ibid., 427). See ibid. pages 237-238 for more on De 32:39.
quotation need not imply a direct correspondence between the

Hebrew original and the Greek translation.
However, since the translation of "angels" for *elohim is
nowhere near the kind of semantic difference we see between the
Hebrew and the LXX translation for Psalm 40:6, and since the
use of "angels" for *elohim is not isolated to one particular text,
Hebrews 10:5 is also not a proper analogy for what is happening
in Hebrews 2:7, 9. As for why Hebrews 10:5 accepts the meaning
of the LXX over the Hebrew of Psalm 40:6, it may be that at this
point the LXX reflects a more ancient Hebrew text than the MT.
This is clearly the case with Deuteronomy 32:43, which differs
from MT but agrees with the more primitive text of 4QDeutq (see
note 105 above).
If Psalm 8:5(6) could be understood as "calling" the angels
"gods" in a representative sense, that is, similar to the manner in
which Moses was considered "God" (Ex 4:16; 7:1), then
Bowman and other Trinitarians would likely not object as
strongly as they do. But the fact is, Psalm 8:5(6) is clearly
speaking in reference to the nature of those who are called
*elohim. Really, will anyone suggest that man in comparison to
angels is only "a little lower" positionally but not ontologically?
Both here and in the Genesis account of mans creation it is
clear that man was given both a lower nature and position in
comparison to those in heaven. The angels, being "gods" and
"spirits," are higher in their nature and position than is so for
mankind. The biblical references to angels as "gods" are no doubt
why the Dead Sea Scrolls also frequently refer to the angels as
"gods." Consider the following material from liturgical texts
found in Qumran:
"Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice"

Frag. 6 (4Q403, 30-45)
And exalt his exaltation to the heights, gods of the august divinities,
and the divinity of his glory above all the august heights. For he is
God of the gods . . . Sing with joy those of you enjoying his
knowledge, with rejoicing among the wonderful gods. . . . Praise
him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the main vault of the
heights . . . The spirits of the holy of the holy ones, the living gods,
the spirits of everlasting holiness.106
The earthly temple of worship to Jehovah contained

representations of angels, such as the two covering angels on the
top of the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:19-20), or the cherubs in
the innermost room (1Ki 6:23-27), and all the carvings of cherubs
on the walls of the temple. (1Ki 6:29-32) The following reference
views these angels as "gods":
Frags. 14-15 (4Q405)
the holy of holies . . . The likeness of the living gods is engraved in

the lobbies when the king enters, forms of shining spirits . . . In the
middle of the spirits of splendour, wonderful embroidered work, the
forms of the living gods.107
Many other examples of this kind could be given to

demonstrate that in the Judaism of Jesus day the angels who
served Jehovah were considered "gods."108 The acceptance of
angels as "gods" was not viewed as a threat to Gods uniqueness
or sovereignty, for reasons that we will consider in the last
section of this chapter, "Defining biblical monotheism."
The "Sons of God." Further evidence angels were considered
"gods" or "divine beings" is found in the use of the Hebrew for
"sons of." In ancient Hebrew when we read of the "sons of"
someone or of some group of people, they are often seen as
members of the group or class of whom they are "sons." For
example, in 1 Kings 20:35 the "sons of the prophets" are
"prophets," and in Nehemiah 12:28 the "sons of the singers" are
"singers." Concerning this use of "son" Gesenius states: "There is
106
Martnez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 426-427.
107
Ibid., 427-428.
108
For example, in the War Scroll (1QM 15.14) we read of the "heroes of the
gods girding themselves for battle" during the day of the God of Israel, and His war
"against all the wicked spirits." Also, in what has been considered a fragment of the
War Scroll (4Q491 frag. 11, col. 1) an unnamed figure makes lofty claims such as, "I
am counted among the gods, and my glory is with the sons of the king," and asks,
"Who is comparable to me in my glory?" (ibid., 118) Others point out that this
fragment was mistakenly labeled a copy of the War Scroll, and really belongs to the
Thanksgiving Psalms. See, Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 167-168,
171.
another use of [ -/b, ben (son)] or [ynb, beney (sons)] to denote

membership in a guild or society (or of a tribe, and any definite
class). Thus [<yhla ynb, beney *elohim (sons of God) and
<yhlah ynb beney ha- *elohim, (sons of [the] God)] Gn 6:2, 4,
Jb 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 ... properly means not sons of god(s), but beings
of the class of [ <yhla, *elohim (God/gods)]."109 Gerald Cooke
believes the sons of (the) God(s) are "without question lesser
divine beings."110 It is no surprise, then, to find texts like Job 1:6
translated, "The day arrived when the gods [emphasis added]
come and present themselves before Yahweh."111
If the text of Deuteronomy 32:8 should read "sons of God,"
then we would have another instance where God is referred to as
delegating rulership of the nations to the angelic gods (compare
Dan 10:13). Some favor the text as given in NWT and other
translations, "sons of Israel."112 But Sanders favors "sons of
God."113 He highlights M. Lanas observation that the reading of
MT in Deuteronomy 32:8b "does not make good sense," since in
the Hebrew Bible the expression larcy ynb [sons of Israel]
always designates the people of Israel," and "the expression does
not refer to a fixed number (rpsm [number, as used in De
32:8b]) of sons of Jacob." 114 He also notes that the LXX and
Qumran fragments 4QDtq and 4QDtj support the reading "sons of
God." He further observes that scholars view the reading of MT
as an "adaptation of the older reading for theological reasons,"
since "the older reading would have implied undue recognition of
divine beings next to YHWH."115
The description "sons of God" is given to the Israelites in
Hosea 1:10. That this description has a much different meaning
than when used of the angels is clear from the fact that the
109
H. W. F. Gesenius, Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, trans. A. E. Cowley
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), 418, sec. 128, V.
110
Cooke, "The Sons of (the) God(s)," 36.
111
Marvin H. Pope, Job (AB 15; New York: Doubleday, 1965). L. Koehler and
W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testimenti Libros (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 134,
define beney elohim as "(individual) divine beings, gods."
112
See David E. Stevens, "Does Deuteronomy 32:8 Refer to Sons of God or
Sons of Israel?" BSac 154 (April-June 1997), 131-141.
113
Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 155-159.
114
Ibid., 158; see note 292.
115
Ibid., 157.
description in Hosea is figurative, relating to their newfound

relationship with God, as opposed to His rejection of them
mentioned in the same verse. The angels in Genesis (6:4), Job
(1:6; 2:1; 38:7) and the book of Psalms (89:6; compare 29:1) are
not described as sons of God in such a context. Rather, they, as
"sons of God," "take their station before Jehovah" in the heavens
(Job 1:6; 2:1), and witnessed the creation of the heavens and the
earth (Job 38:7).
The description "sons of God" does not have the same
meaning in all instances, but its meaning is revealed by the
context and related to the referent(s). No doubt Jesus use of "Son
of God" in reference to himself prompted the Jews to interpret his
claim as though he were making himself "a god." (Joh 10:33, 36)
There is a great deal we can learn about the biblical use of "G-
god" from this account as recorded in the Gospel of John, to
which we now turn.
"I said: You are gods." There are many issues
surrounding the interpretation of Psalm 82:1-6, and I will attempt
to provide a fairly complete discussion here, as far as it relates to
the issue of biblical monotheism. However, for a comprehensive
look at this Psalm and its quotation in John 10:34-36, other
resources should be considered.116
Jehovahs Witnesses understand the "gods" in Psalm 82:6
and in John 10:34 in reference to human judges in ancient Israel.
According to the Witnesses, these judges failed to faithfully
execute justice on behalf of Gods people. 117 However, there is
116
See H. Wheeler Robinson, "The Council of Yahweh," JTS 45 (1944), 155,
who concludes in part, "The God of the Old Testament is certainly not Trinitarian, but
He is much more than the God of ethical monotheism"; Edwin D. Freed, Old
Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (NovTSup 11; Leiden: Brill, 1965), 60-65,
observes on pages 62-63: "Jesus argues with the Jews by quoting scripture to defend
himself against their charge of making himself God. . . . If the point of controversy
were on the matter of sonship, the second half of Ps 82:6 would have been more
appropriate for Jesus defense of himself: And all of you sons of the Most High.
Moreover, in view of the idea of divine sonship in the O. T. and Jewish tradition, there
could hardly be opposition by the Jews to Jesus on that point"; Matitiahu Tsevat, "God
and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm 82," HUCA 40-41 (1969-1970),
123-137; Cooke, "The Sons of (the) God(s)," 29-34; Jerome H. Neyrey, "I Said: You
Are Gods: Psalm 82:6 and John 10," JBL 108.4 (1989), 647-663; Kenneth M. Craig,
Jr., "Psalm 82," Interpretation 49.3 (1995), 281-284.
117
See "The WordWho is He? According to John," Part 2: "Prehuman
Existence," The Watchtower, 15 September 1962, p. 566; "A Grand SpokesmanWho
support from the Targum to the Psalms, texts from Qumran, the
Peshitta and various early Christian writers for identifying these
"gods" as angels.118 I believe it is very likely that in Psalm 82
Jehovah is rendering judgment upon the angelic gods who were
appointed over various nations (see page 114). Parallels in
Canaanite documents also strongly suggest that Psalm 82 is a
condemnation of "divine beings who were responsible for the
dispensation of justice."119
But whether we understand the "gods" of this verse to be
angels or human Israelite judges, the use Jesus makes of Psalm
82:6 in John 10:34-36 is remarkable. Mastin claims that, in
context, the statement of the Jews (that Jesus claimed to be qeov"
[theos]) "can only be understood as an assertion that Jesus was
claiming far more than [being a god]."120 Mastin fails to explain
just how the context supports such a view. Indeed, if anything the
fact that Jesus answered the Jews by quoting Psalm 82:6 (where
beings other than Jehovah are called "gods") shows that they had
accused him of claiming to be "a god,"121 not "God." Jesus, as
Gods Son, is far more worthy to be called "a god" than those
who are elsewhere considered "gods." Those who are called
"gods" in Psalm 82:1 were judged adversely by Jehovah, while
Jesus was "sanctified and dispatched into the world" (Joh 10:36).
The fact that Jesus rightly justifies his claim to be Gods Son
by an appeal to the scriptural application of "gods" for others
shows that he recognized a secondary sense for the term "G-god"
Is He?" The Watchtower, 15 March 1975, p. 174; "Do You Respect the Name of
Christ?" The Watchtower, 1 October 1983, p. 21; "What Do the Scriptures Say About
the Divinity of Christ?" The Watchtower, 15 January 1992, 22.
118
See J. A. Emerton, "Some New Testament Notes," JTS 11 (1960), 329-32.
119
E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew
Literature, ed. Frank Moore Cross, Jr. (HSM 24; n.p.: Scholars Press, 1986 [1980]),
236. See especially pages 116-120, 175-244, 274-277.
120
B. A. Mastin, "A Neglected Feature of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel,"
NTS 22 (1976), 46, note 2.
121
In addition to NWT, the NEB in several of its early editions reads "a god" in
John 10:33. J. W. Bowker, "The Origin and Purpose of St Johns Gospel," NTS 11
(1964-1965), 406, translates, "You, a mere man, claim to be a god." Robert Young, in
Youngs Concise Critical Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 62, says
"makest thyself a god, not God." Neyrey, "I Said: You Are Gods," 661, translates,
"make yourself a god." Finally, C. C. Torrey, The Four Gospels (2d ed.) translates,
"You, a man, make yourself god." Compare the note on page 324 of Torreys
translation.
in the Bible. Indeed, it is this secondary sense that he uses to

justify his claim! Also, Jesus does not hesitate to compare the use
of the plural "gods" in Psalm 82 against the Jews claim that he
claimed to be "a god," in the singular. Thus, Jesus clearly did not
see any distinction in meaning between a singular and plural use
of "G-god." Those who are "gods" collectively are also individual
gods, when and if they are viewed in isolation from the group to
which they belong. These observations might seem to be of little
importance, but they are necessary in view of the arguments
some Trinitarians put forth.
The singular use of qeov"(theos). Bowman attempts to
narrow the discussion of the question, Who may rightly be
considered "G-god" in the Bible? to the singular use of theos in
the NT. He states: "We find it [the singular use of theos] is used
only in one of two ways: of the true God (approximately 1,400
times) or of a false god (6 times: Acts 7:43; 12:22; 28:6; 2 Cor.
4:4; Phil. 3:19; 2 Thess. 2:7)."122 But he overlooks a very
significant use of the singular theos in John 1:18, where the
prehuman Jesus is revealed as the "only-begotten god."123 This
shows that Jesus is viewed as a certain kind of god in relation to
his God, the God he was "with" (Joh 1:1).
Remarkably, Bowman does not seem to realize that the use
of the singular theos for the Father, the Son or the holy spirit
contradicts Trinitarianism, which asserts that there is only one
God, and that that one God is triune. Therefore, as we discussed
earlier in this chapter, to predicate "G-god" for any of the three
"persons" either identifies that "person" with the Trinity or
involves an equivocation on the word "G-god." But nowhere does
the Bible define or otherwise articulate "Trinity" or "first, second
or third person of the Trinity" for "G-god." Bowman simply does
not allow for a third use of the singular theos in reference to Jesus
Christ, deluding the reader (by creating a false dichotomy) into
thinking that there only two alternatives: in reference to the true
God, or in reference to a false G-god. The only usage Bowman
can accept and thereby remain faithful to his theology is one
where Jesus is viewed as the true God in a Trinitarian sense. But
122
Bowman, Jehovahs Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John, 59.
123
this Trinitarian view is hidden under the biblical expression "true

God."
Bowman presents data which not only contradicts his view
when properly understood in relation to the Bibles use of theos,
but he also fails to present a discussion of a text that is
significantly damaging to his view. (Joh 1:18) In addition to these
facts, and in addition to what we discussed in relation to Psalm
82:1-8 and John 10:34-36 (where Jesus made no attempt to
distinguish a singular use of theos from the plural theoi, but
instead used a plural reference to justify a singular claim), the
LXX also uses the singular theos for beings other than God.
In Judges 13 we read about "Jehovahs angel" (verse 3)
appearing to Manoahs wife in the form of a "man," but who also
resembled "the appearance of the angel of the true God." (verse
6) In verse 8 Manoah entreats Jehovah to send the "man" to them
once again, to instruct them about the future of their child
(Samson). Verse 9 tells us that "God" responded by sending the
angel to Manoahs wife while she was alone in the field. In
verses 10-12 she notifies Manoah who comes to speak with the
angel. After verse 3, the "man" who visited Manoah and his wife
is called "Jehovahs angel" eight times (verses 13, 15, 16 [twice],
17, 18, 20, 21). In verse 16 we are told that all this time Manoah
did not realize that he was speaking to Jehovahs angel. But
according to verse 21, when the angel of Jehovah no longer
appeared to Manoah and his wife, "then it was that Manoah knew
that he had been Jehovahs angel." He reacted by saying to his
wife, "We shall positively die, because it is God we have seen."
In view of the facts that 1) no man can see (nor did even
Moses see) Gods face and live (Ex 33:20), and 2) Manoah and
his wife did not die, then it is probably better to translate Judges
13:21 as, "we have seen a god." This is especially preferable
since it is only after Manoah realizes he has seen "Jehovahs
angel" (not Jehovah Himself) that he makes this statement. Even
though Moses could not see Jehovahs face, he spoke with
Jehovah "face to face," in that Gods angel represented Jehovah,
but the angel was still a god, which is why he was capable of
representing Jehovah to Moses, and he do this in such a close
manner. (Ex 33:11, 20) Similarly, Manoah was evidently aware
that those who ministered to Jehovah in the courts of heaven are
gods, and can be identified as such without compromising

Jehovahs unique power and position. The LXX translates
Manoahs words using the singular theos without the article, in
reference to the angel.
Manoahs fear of dying after seeing the glorious angel is
understandable, particular when you consider the similar feeling
expressed by Gideon in Judges 6:22-23. After seeing "Jehovahs
angel," Gideon exclaims, "I have seen Jehovahs angel face to
face!" But Jehovah assures him: "Do not fear. You will not die."
That the "angel of Jehovah" is not Jehovah is clear not only from
the fact that he is "Jehovahs angel" (!), but also because Gideon
saw him "face to face." Moses only spoke with God "face to
face," as, again, no one can see Gods "face" and live. (Ex 33:20)
But Gideon, Manoah and his wife did not die after seeing the face
of "Jehovahs angel," which shows that he was just who the text
says he was, "Jehovahs angel." As such, Manoah rightly viewed
him as "a god." Bowmans arguments concerning the singular use
of theos, then, fail to convince on any level.
The "God of gods." It is also very significant that the
Bible presents Jehovah as "the God of gods." (De 10:17; Ps
136:2; Da 11:36) In view of the fact that Jehovah is a God, not of
the dead, "but of the living" (Mt 22:32), these gods over whom
God is God cannot be idols. Clearly, the only ones who are
positively identified as "gods" in the Bible (and not simply
"called" gods), and who continue to serve Jehovah, are the
faithful angels.
Jesus, as Gods preeminent messenger, also continues to
faithfully serve his God and Father. It is clear, then, that gods
other than Jehovah are positively identified in the Bible. These
gods are not equal to Jehovah, but they are spirit beings as He is,
who are given authority to act for and serve Him. Regardless of
how much power, authority or position He gives them, it is
always "to the glory of God the Father" (Php 2:11).
The truth about the True God. Jehovahs Witnesses
believe the Bible presents us with a monotheistic view of God, in
that He is the only one who is God in the absolute (non-derived)
sense. The Father is the only true God, as Jesus said. (Joh 17:3)
The description "true God" is used only three times in the NT. In
all three of these texts Jesus is distinguished from the true God.
In John 17:3 he prays to the "only" true God. In 1 Thessalonians
1:9 we are told to "slave for a living and true God," who is then
distinguished from "his Son" in verse 10, "whom he raised up
from the dead." Finally, in 1 John 5:20 the true God is
distinguished from "his Son Jesus Christ." 124 This is significant in
that there is no clear identification of Jesus as this "true God" in
the Bible, which would stand to reason in view of the restriction
he himself places on this title in the NT.125
Ron Rhodes informs his readers: "When discussing John
17:3 with a Jehovahs Witness, it is important to raise the issue:
Is Jesus a true God or a false god? If Jesus is a true god, then this
forces the Jehovahs Witness to believe in more than one true
God (which is polytheism). If Jesus is not such a true God, then
He must be a false god." 126 This kind of reasoning is highly
misleading, for it seems to assume that "true," as used by Jesus in
John 17:3, has the meaning of "right" or "correct" with its
opposite meaning being "false" or wrong," such as we might say
in relation to whether or not a statement is true or false (right or
wrong). This is far from what Jesus meant when he said the
Father is the only true God!
Trinitarians are not really in a position to ask such questions
relative to this verse. Indeed, they put themselves in a very
precarious position. Since they do not recognize the scriptural
teaching of secondary gods who serve Jehovah, and since Jesus
says that the Father is "the only true God," then according to their
reasoning Jesus would have to be a false god, since, again, the
Father is the only true God. This is a proper reading of the text, for
the Father is the one to whom Jesus is speaking, and his words are,
"you, the only true God" (Joh 17:1-3). However, we reject
Trinitarians false dichotomy between true and false; there is
another option.
124
See Excursus, pages 405-408 for a discussion of this verse.
125
While in certain contexts the word "only" might not mean only in the absolute
sense, there is no indication that we have such a use here in John 17:3. Also, there is no
example that I am aware of where the person who makes the assertion that another
person is the "only" something, means to include him- or herself in the description.
126
Rhodes, Reasoning, 227-228.
The Greek word translated "true" (ajlhqinov", alethinos) can

have one of several meanings, depending on the context and usage
of the author or speaker. According to BAGD, alethinos can mean:
"genuine, real . . . Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real
. . . true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype,
not by its copies." While BAGD does not attribute the archetypal
meaning to alethinos in John 17:3, we believe this sense best fits
the use of "true" in this and other passages.
To illustrate this meaning of a "reality possessed only by the
archetype, not by its copies," consider John 1:9, where John says
concerning Jesus, "The true light [toV fw'" toV ajlhqinovn, to phos to
alethinon] that gives light to every sort of man was about to come
into the world" (compare 1Jo 2:8). Does this mean that Jesus
disciples (Mt 5:14) are "false" lights? No. It means they are not
the original light, but copies of it, giving forth the light they
received from Jesus.
Similarly, when Jesus contrasted himself, "the true bread
from heaven [ toVn a[rton ejk tou' oujranou' toVn ajlhqinovn, ton
arton ek tou ouranou ton alethinon]," with the manna that God
gave the Israelites, did this mean the manna was not really food?
(Joh 6:32-33) Surely he meant the manna was not food in the far
more excellent sense that his life-saving sacrifice (his flesh [Joh
6:51, 54-56]) would prove to be. The manna and other earthly
foods give only temporary sustenance; they are but a copy of the
reality possessed by the real food God gives.
Finally, we note the contrast made in Hebrews 8 between the
"true tent" (th'" skhnh'" th'" ajlhqinh'", tes skenes tes alethines) in
verse 2 and the typical tent God commanded Moses to make.
(8:5; 9:9) In all these texts alethinos is not contrasted with
something "false," but is used to describe that which is the
archetype as opposed to that which is a copy of the original.
Origen seemed to understand the use of alethinos in John 17:3,
for in his Commentary on John he wrote:
God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself);

and so the Savior says in His prayer to the Father, "That they
may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very
God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be
called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without the
article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to
be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more
exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the
God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord [Jehovah], hath
spoken and called the earth." [Ps. 136:2] It was by the offices of
the first-born that they became gods, for they drew from God in
generous measure that they should be made gods, and He
communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true
God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after him are
gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.127
Origen evidently understood that the reference to the Word as

theos was not intended to make him equal to God the Father, for he
wrote: "Nor must we omit to mention the Word, who is God after
[eJxh'", hexes] the Father of all."128 To acknowledge others who are
gods "by participation in His [the Fathers] divinity," and who are
therefore not "Very God," as Jehovah is, does not detract from the
glory of the Father. Neither is it accurate to describe biblical
monotheism as acknowledging the existence of only one god/God
in any positive sense. But is the biblical faith really monotheistic to
begin with?
Defining biblical monotheism. Monotheism should be
defined by the beliefs and practices of those who consider
themselves monotheists. "Otherwise," as Larry Hurtado points out,
"we implicitly import a definition from the sphere of theological
polemics in an attempt to do historical analysis."129 Hurtado further
states:
127
ANF 10, Book 2, p. 323 (emphasis added). Another early reference to the use of
the article with theos is found in the works of Philo (an Alexandrian Jew who died around
50 CE). In his work On Dreams 1.39.229, Philo argues: "Accordingly the holy word in the
present instance [that is, in the LXX of Gen 31:13] has indicated Him Who is truly God by
means of the articles saying I am the God, while it omits the article when mentioning him
who is improperly so called, saying Who appeared to thee in the place of God"
(translation is from F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, Philo, vol. 5 [LCL], 418-419. But the
value of this reference is limited. See Colson and Whitakers note a on page 418, and also
the Appendix sec. 230 on pages 604-605).
128
ANF 10, Book 2, p. 303 (emphasis added).
129
Larry W. Hurtado, "What Do We Mean by First-Century Jewish
Monotheism?" in Society of Biblical Literature 1993 Seminar Papers (Atlanta,
Georgia: Scholars Press, 1993), 356.
I propose that Jewish monotheism can be taken as constituting a

distinctive version of the commonly-attested belief structure
described by Nilsson as involving a "high god" who presides
over other deities. The God of Israel presides over a court of
heavenly beings who are likened to him (as is reflected in, e.g.,
the OT term for them "sons of God"). In pagan versions, too, the
high god can be described as father and source of the other
divine beings, and as utterly superior to them. In this sense,
Jewish (and Christian) monotheism, whatever its distinctives,
shows its historical links with the larger religious environment of
the ancient world.130
Hurtado recognizes there were many divine figures that played

a role, sometimes quite prominent, in the ancient Jewish
understanding of God. These beings were distinguished from the
one God of Israel "more in degree than kind as to their attributes,
some of these beings portrayed as in fact sharing quite directly in
Gods powers and even in his name."131 But, for Hurtado, the key
to Jewish monotheism lies in this fact: "It is required to offer God
worship; it is inappropriate to offer worship to any other."132
Other scholars who study Christian origins recognize that
divine beings other than God were acceptable to a Jewish mindset.
For example, Peter Hayman argues "God is king of a heavenly
court consisting of many other powerful beings . . . but he is not the
only divine being."133 Hayman points to this understanding in the
Jewish ancestral religion as part of the reason why many Jews of
the first century were prepared to accept the divinity of Jesus.
But there are other scholars, such as Richard Bauckham, who
adopt a far stricter view of monotheism in pre-70 CE Judaism.
Bauckham does not believe that "Jewish intermediary figures are of
any decisive importance for the study of early Christology."134 I
130
Ibid., 365.
131
Ibid., 367.
132
Ibid., 365. On page 364 Hurtado states: "The evidence we have surveyed here
shows that it is in fact in the area of worship that we find the decisive criterion by
which Jews maintained the uniqueness of God over against both idols and Gods own
deputies."
133
Peter Hayman, "MonotheismA Misused Word in Jewish Studies?" JJS 42
(1991), 15.
134
Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology in the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 4.
look forward to reading Bauckhams larger study of this issue, but

the precursor to his larger study (which is forthcoming) makes a
number of inaccurate assumptions concerning the "I am" sayings of
Jesus, the titles "Alpha and Omega," "one Lord" as used in 1
Corinthians 8:6, and in other matters, all of which have been
considered at length in this publication. I respectfully suggest
Bauckham readdress all of these issues prior to drawing any
definitive conclusions.
It will no longer suffice for scholars to simply state that texts
such as Philippians 2:6-11 teach Jesus "identification as
YHWH,"135 especially if they are going to neglect, as does
Bauckham, significant aspects of the text. For example, not only
does Philippians 2:6-11 say Jesus exaltation is done "to the glory
of God the Father," but "God" is the one who exalted him! Only by
redefining "God" to mean "God the Father, the first person of the
Trinity" (and thereby assuming Trinitarianism in ones reading of
the text), can one conclude what Bauckham concludes. Also, can
we imagine the ending of Isaiah 45:23 proclaiming that what is
done before Jehovah is done to the glory of another? Additionally,
we find it hard to dismiss the relevance of principal mediator
figures when it comes to evaluating NT christology, since the NT
itself presents Jesus as a mediator between the "one God" and men
(1Ti 2:5).136
Hurtado, though to a lesser extent than Bauckham, falls prey to
the traditional explanation of Jesus "I am" sayings, the quotation of
Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2:6-11, and apparently to the use of
proskyneo ("worship," "obeisance") for Jesus in the NT.137 But his
model for explaining early Christian monotheism, namely, that
christological developments in early first century Christianity were
"assisted by the divine agency tradition of an exalted position next
135
Ibid., 53.
136
I shall have more to say about the significance of principal angelic figures and
NT christology in my forthcoming book, Michael the Archangel: Israels "Great
Prince."
137
Larry W. Hurtado, "Pre-70 CE Jewish Opposition to Christ-Devotion," JTS
50.1 (1999), 40-41, 52-53. On the matter of "worship," Jesus himself recognized that the
highest form of worship should be reserved for Jehovah alone. (Lu 4:8) While the form of
worship denoted by the Greek word proskyneo can and is often given to others who serve
God, latrueo, the higher form of religious devotion, is given only to the Father. See Chapter
4, pages 205-210.
to God in heavenly glory,"138 is far more convincing than

Bauckhams model. We also emphasize the importance of
following Hurtados approach of not reading first-century texts "in
the light of later creedal developments,"139 for, as he observes:
Quite a lot could be accommodated in Jewish speculations about

Gods retinue of heavenly beings, provided that Gods
sovereignty and uniqueness were maintained, especially in cultic
actions. I think that we may take it as likely that the glorious
beings such as principal angels who attend God in ancient Jewish
apocalyptic and mystical texts were intended by the authors very
much as indicating Gods splendour and majesty, and not as
threatening or diminishing God in any way. The greater and
more glorious the high king, the greater and more glorious his
ministers, particularly those charged with administering his
kingdom.140
This is precisely what we see in the life and ministry of Jesus,

and in the writings of his early followers. Hurtado recognizes the
relationship between NT christology and "Jewish traditions of
principal agent figures,"141 but he is careful to point out the
significant differences that constitute a "mutation" (used in a non-
pejorative sense142) of these Jewish traditions. While Jehovahs
Witnesses do not share Hurtados view of certain religious practices
relating to Christ in the NT, such as the extent to which Hurtado
would say that prayer was offered to the risen Christ,143 there is no
doubt that Jesus is exalted far above those figures mentioned in
Jewish non-biblical literature.
However, regardless of how high Jesus is exalted in the NT, it
is still "to the glory of God the Father" (Php 2:11), and it therefore
does not justify the Trinitarian concept of God. Gods own
uniqueness and sovereignty are not only always preserved in His
exaltation and glorification of Jesus, but God is held in an even
138
Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient
Jewish Monotheism, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 93-94.
139
Ibid., viii.
140
Larry W. Hurtado, "First-Century Jewish Monotheism," JBL 71 (1998), 23.
141
Hurtado, "What Do We Mean by First-Century Jewish Monotheism?" 367.
142
See Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 99-100.
143
See Ibid., 104-107. For a brief consideration of the NT concept of prayer, see
my Appendix E.
higher regard as a result. Hurtado also emphasizes the devotion

given to Christ by his early followers, and believes that at some
point non-Christian Jews viewed Christian reverence for Jesus as
"blasphemous and incompatible with Jewish (monotheistic)
commitment to the uniqueness of God."144
The reason for this, I believe, is because with the arrival of
Jesus we are dealing with not only a heavenly revealer and
mediator for God, but also with an exalted king who was given
authority greater than any principal figure before him. He claimed a
unity (oneness) with God that, for a man who disrupted the Temple
activities of the Jewish religious leaders and who was viewed by
them as demon-possessed, was unacceptable. (Joh 2:15; 8:48;
10:30-33) I also believe that too little has been seen in Jesus
messianic claims, especially in the above context. Hurtado rightly
observes:
Although it was acceptable to exalt a great figure of the past

recognized by the Jewish tradition, such as Moses, to give
equivalent treatment to Jesus, a figure of their own time who was
regarded by some as a false teacher and who did not enjoy broad
respect outside the circle of his followers, would have seemed
silly and offensive, all the more so since these followers even put
Jesus above the great figures of Israels past.145
The Jews had no excuse for misunderstanding Christs view of

himself, nor had they excuse for misunderstanding the view his
early followers had of him. Indeed, Jesus repeatedly made known
his devotion and dependence upon God; he was not acting of his
own accord, but sought only to do the will of the One who sent
him: "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If
anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching
whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality" (Joh 7:16-
17).
His dependence on the Father was so great that in John 14:10 it
is said that the Father was doing his works through the Son. In
fact, Jesus was so protective of his Fathers sovereignty and
uniqueness that when he was addressed as "good teacher" by a truly
144
Hurtado, "Pre-70 CE Jewish Opposition to Christ-Devotion," 36.
145
Ibid., 58.
humble man, he replied: "'Why do you call me good? Nobody is

good, except one, God." (Mr 10:17) Jesus did not present himself as
a threat to Gods uniqueness, nor did his early followers portray
him as such. It is, however, quite possible that those who opposed
Jesus and his followers refused to accept any qualifications when it
came to his claims. Still, he never threatened Gods uniqueness or
sovereignty, and that is precisely why God "exalted him" (Php 2:9).
When we couple this with the fact that Christ is the image of
God, "the exact representation of his being" (Heb 1:3), should it not
seem to us that the Christ-devotion (of which Hurtado speaks)
resulted from the fact that those who accepted Jesus looked upon
him as the visible expression of God? The reason his followers had
no reservation about singing hymns to Christ and expressing their
devotion to him in ways previously reserved for God, was partly
because God gave Christ authority over the Christian Congregation.
(Joh 17:6; Col 1:13) Those who now belonged to Christ realized
that his position and his glory were given to him by God, and that
his attitude was one where he sought only to further glorify the One
who sent him. In showing honor to Christ, therefore, they were
actually showing honor to his Father. (Joh 5:23) Christs followers
knew Jesus was not one who sought to usurp Gods position or
glory, but those who opposed their Christ-devotion did not
understand or accept Christs relationship with and dependence on
God. So they condemned Christ-devotion as idolatrous.
We must not allow our preferred religious views to keep us
from recognizing the fact that the Bible speaks of Jehovah as the
"Most high," and also allows for the existence of other divine
beings who serve Him. Trinitarians use the word monotheism to
describe their view of God, but if we are dealing with biblical
monotheism, and not fourth-century CE theology, we must let the
Bible tell us what it means to acknowledge that there is one
God, the Father." (1Co 8:6) If other, secondary divine beings are
said to serve this "one God," then we should accept it.
The Trinitarian party was faced with a problem: preserving
their concept of monotheism with the divinity and exaltation of
Jesus Christ. But in this they were attempting to solve a problem
(polytheism) that did not exist. As Theophile Meek points out:
The word [monotheism] is often applied to a form of religion that

is not strictly monotheistic by the false argumentation (so
common today) that you can make something almost anything
that you wish by calling it that. An example is found in
Christianity. The leaders of the early Church presently found
themselves in the position of believing in three gods (Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit), but with their prejudice against polytheism
they had to interpret these three gods in such a way as to bring
them into a single godhead . . . In a sense, then, trinitarian
Christianity can be regarded as monotheistic . . . But even though
we grant that trinitarian Christianity is monotheistic, that has no
bearing on the possible monotheism of Moses because he lived
in a totally different age and his concept of deity must have been
totally different. The [Trinitarian] Christian concept is
metaphysical and was the result of years of controversy and
argumentation. That of Moses is practical and was the result of
personal experience.146
The Trinitarians failed to recognize the belief in secondary

divine beings, Gods sons, was not a threat to the exclusive
devotion God commanded or to His uniqueness. Indeed, it was
Gods purpose that He should be glorified through the exaltation
of His Son. (Php 2:11) Based on the biblical evidence and the
biblical evidence alone, I suggest the following definition for
biblical monotheism:
Biblical Monotheism involves the recognition, acceptance and

worship of only one true, uni-personal God, the Father. Other
beings can and are rightly considered "gods" in a different,
lesser (that is, a positionally/functionally conferred and/or
ontologically derived) sense than the true God. This is true of
them either collectively or as individuals, so long as their position
and glory preserve or further enhance the uniqueness of God.
146
Theophile J. Meek, "Monotheism and the Religion of Israel," JBL 61 (1942),
22-23. See also, Hurtado, "First-Century Jewish Monotheism," 5-6.
Conclusion
The idea that the one God of the Bible is multi-personal
arose hundreds of years after the contents of the Bible were
completed. In teaching this doctrine, Trinitarians are knowingly
and sometimes unknowingly redefining terms such as "God" or
"person" so that they can read the Bible in the light of
Trinitarianism. In doing so, they import their ideas into the Bible,
making it practically impossible for them to view theological or
christological statements apart from Trinitarian concepts.
Literature produced or circulating during the time when
events in the Bible were still taking place does not support the
Trinitarian view of God. Most of this literature, though making
use of a variety of biblical figures and events, does not present a
theology that is entirely consistent with the Bible. It does,
however, contain a number of statements that could be viewed as
parallels to the NT description of Jesus Christ, particularly in
relation to his role as mediator between God and men.
The Bible most certainly does deny existence to the idol
gods of man, but it never speaks against the divinity of Gods
heavenly "sons," the angels, who are in fact presented as divine
beings who serve Jehovah. In OT prophecies and in the NT
articulation of these prophecies, Jesus Christ is seen as Gods
preeminent messenger, and as one who relies completely on God
in order to fully accomplish His will. Jesus is not the same God
as the Father; rather, the Father, Jehovah, is his God (Mic 5:4;
Rev 3:12).
3
The New World Translation
and Jesus Christ
The New World Translation, used primarily by Jehovahs

Witnesses, has often been criticized for allegedly excising the deity
of Christ from the New Testament (NT).1 In an attempt to discredit
Jehovahs Witnesses presentation of Jesus, Ron Rhodes charges
that NWT "mistranslates key verses that have been traditionally
understood to strongly support the deity of Christ."2 Rhodes also
claims, "The Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus Christ is a mere
angelthe first being God created in the universe."3 But while
Rhodes criticizes the NWT for allegedly mistranslating passages
relating to the deity of Christ, he nonetheless believes it can be used
to prove that Jesus is God, in accordance with his understanding of
the term.4
While it is true Jehovahs Witnesses teach, in accordance with
the Holy Scriptures, that Gods Son was "the firstborn of all
creation" (Col 1:15),5 they do not believe he was a mere angel.
Witness critics often misrepresent Jehovahs Witnesses view of
Jesus as being one that strips Christ of his glory. Note how this is
simply not true:
1
Robert Countess, The Jehovahs Witnesses New Testament, 2d ed.
(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), 57-70.
2
Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovahs Witnesses,
(Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 1993), 74.
3
Ibid., 71.
4
See Chapter 2 for a discussion of the meaning Trinitarians give to terms such as
"God." See Rhodes, Reasoning, 250, for an example of where he suggests using the
NWT to prove Jesus is "the Alpha and the Omega." See below for a discussion of this
very subject.
5
See Chapter 4, pages 212-228, for a discussion of this verse.
Following his resurrection, Jesus informed his disciples, "All

authority has been given me in heaven and on earth," thereby
showing that he heads a government of universal domain. (Mt.
28:18) The apostle Paul made clear that Jesus Father has "left
nothing that is not subject to him [Jesus]," with the evident
exception of "the one who subjected all things to him," that is
Jehovah, the Sovereign God. (1Co 15:27; Heb 1:1-14; 2:8) Jesus
Christs "name," therefore, is more excellent than that of Gods
angels, in that his name embraces or stands for the vast executive
authority that Jehovah has placed in him. (Heb 1:3, 4) Only those
who willingly recognize that "name" and bow to it, subjecting
themselves to the authority it represents, will gain life eternal.
Ac 4:12; Eph 1:19-23; Php 2:9-11.6
Jehovahs Witnesses do not view Jesus as a "mere angel." He is

the exalted King of Gods Messianic Kingdom! "All authority" has
been given to him and it is to him "every knee should bow," to the
glory of his Father, Jehovah. Rhodes and Countess have taken issue
with several verses in the NWT which they believe have been
"mistranslated" by Jehovahs Witnesses. We will consider some of
these passages, and we will also take a look at several scriptures that
some believe teach that Jesus is in fact Jehovah, and that even in the
NWT this conclusion is manifest.
Part OneMistranslations?
Zechariah 12:10
NWT compared with other translations. After contrasting
the NWTs rendering of Zechariah 12:10 ("They will certainly look
to the One whom they pierced through") with the NASB translation
("They will look on Me whom they have pierced") Rhodes states:
"In order to avoid Jesus appearing to be Jehovah or Almighty God,
the Watchtower Society deliberately altered the text. In the New
6
Society, 1988), 61.
NWT and Jesus Christ 133
World Translation, it is not Jehovah that is pierced. Rather, the

One (Jesus, as distinct from Jehovah) is pierced."7
What a bold accusation! What proof does Rhodes have that the
Witnesses "deliberately" altered the text of Zechariah 12:10? Was
he with the Committee when it worked on the book of Zechariah,
specifically chapter 12 and verse 10? No, this is but another example
of Rhodes extreme and uncalled-for bias against Jehovahs
Witnesses and the NWT. Did James Moffatt, J. M. P. Smith (An
American Translation), Steven T. Byington (The Bible in Living
English), the translators of the Good News Bible, The Modern
Language Bible, the Revised Standard Version, The New American
Bible, and The Jerusalem Bible, all of whom read either "the One"
or "him whom" in Zechariah 12:10 (not "Me whom"), deliberately
alter the text as well? It is strange that Rhodes should fail to
mention these translations to his readers.
The basis for NWTs rendering. Rhodes continues his
attack on NWT, claiming, "There is virtually no justification in the
Hebrew text for translating the disputed portion of Zechariah 12:10
as they will certainly look to the One whom they pierced through
(emphasis added)."8 But there is justification for NWTs translation,
and others, as can be seen from the following:
The Relative Pronoun. . . . (2) Not depending (adjectivally) on a

governing substantive, but itself expressing a substantival idea.
Clauses introduced in this way may be called independent
relative clauses. This use of [rva, *asher] is generally rendered
in English by he who, he whom . . . In Ze 12:10 . . . instead of the
unintelligible [rva ta yla, *elai *eth *asher ("to me whom")],
we should probably read [rva-la, *el- *asher ("to him whom")]
and refer the passage to this class.9
Edwin Freed notes Burneys observation "that some fifty

Heb. mss. read [/yla], on him, and it is this text upon which
7
Rhodes, Reasoning, 84 (emphasis added in the first instance only).
8
Ibid.
9
H. W. F. Gesenius, Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E.
Cowley, 2d Eng. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 444-446.
[John] is dependent."10 The difference between the reading of

these manuscripts (wyla, "on him") and the reading of MT (yla,
"on me") is one letter, w (waw). But the former reading (wyla) fits
better with the context, specifically the use of wylu ("for [over]
him") in the same verse.
Evidence from the New Testament. Rhodes unjustified
accusation is even more extraordinary considering the apostle John,
in chapter 19 and verse 37 of the Gospel bearing his name, quotes
Zechariah 12:10 as, "They will look on the one [ [Oyontai eij" o}n
(Opsontai eis hon)] they have pierced." (NIV, emphasis added)
That is just how NWT rendered the verse John quoted! Certainly the
inspired apostle knew the correct wording and teaching of Zechariah
12:10.11 Compare the reading of Revelation 1:7 (aujtovn, ["him"]),
which likewise preserves an accurate understanding of Zechariah
12:10.
Where is the harmony? In spite of having this knowledge,
note how in the following comparison NIV confuses its readers,
whereas NWT and other translations show the harmony of the
Scriptures. In each case Zechariah 12:10 will be followed by the
apostle Johns quotation of it at John 19:37 (emphasis added to each
verse).
NIV: "They will look on me, the one whom they pierced."
"They will look on the one they have pierced."
10
Edwin D. Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (NovTSup
11; Leiden: Brill, 1965), 109, 111. See also Crawford H. Toy, Quotations in the New
Testament (New York: Scribner Sons, 1884), 92-94.
11
The LXX, however, reads kaiV ejpiblevyontai prov" me ajnq= w|n
katwrchvsanto kaiV kovyontai ejp= aujtoVn kopetoVn wJ" ejp= ajgaphtoVn kaiV
ojdunhqhvsontai ojduvnhn wJ" ejpiV prwtotovkw/ ("and they will look upon me, because
they performed a victory dance, and they will lament over him, as over a beloved one,
and they will suffer as over the loss of a firstborn"). The LXX has several striking
differences with the Hebrew. In the LXX those who look upon Jehovah perform a
victory dance in defiance against Him, rather than pierce Him. Maarten J. J. Menken,
Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form (CBET 15;
Kampenthe Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996), 172-173, believes that the LXX
translator did not translate from a Hebrew text different from MT, and that the
transposition of the letters d and r (causing wrqd, "they have pierced," to be read as
wdrqr, "they have danced") explains the reading of the LXX. See also, Freed, Old
Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John, 109-110, 114.
NWT: "They will certainly look to the One whom they pierced through."
"They will look to the One whom they pierced."
RSV: "When they look on him whom they have pierced."

"They shall look on him whom they have pierced."
In 1 John 4:12 we are told, "No man has seen God at any time."
This verse does not say No man has seen God the Father the first
person of the Trinity, thereby allowing other "persons" of the
Trinity to be seen by men. The one who was pierced was seen even
with his glory unveiled (Mt 17:2) and therefore could not have been
God, since, according to Scripture, such a thing never took place.
The only way that Jehovah God was pierced was when He
witnessed His Sons death. For example, according to Luke 10:16
Jesus said, "He who disregards me disregards Him who sent me."
(Weymouth) So it could be said that when Gods Son was pierced
literally, his Father was pierced figuratively.
Acts 20:28
Is NWT "against all legitimate translations" of this
text? In the New World Translation Acts 20:28 reads, "Shepherd
the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his
own [Son]." Our attention is drawn to the bracketed word "Son." Is
it proper for NWT to use this word, even though the Greek
manuscripts we have in our possession do not contain the word for
"Son"? Not according to Rhodes, who states, "The New World
Translation rendering of this verse goes against all the legitimate
translations of Scripture."12
If Rhodes is correct in his assertion, then the translations of J. B.
Rotherham, William Barclay (whom Rhodes refers to on page 96 of
his book as a legitimate Bible scholar), John Nelson Darby, the
New Revised Standard Version, The New Jerusalem Bible, the
Todays English Version (or Good News Bible), and others, are not
12
legitimate translations. After citing several versions in support of his

view, Rhodes asks:
Why do these standard translations [the NASB, NIV, and KJV]

render the text this way? One reason is that there is not a single
Greek manuscript containing the word "Son." Hence, the
Watchtower translation"...which he purchased with the blood
of his own [Son]"is unwarranted.
As previously mentioned, the rendering of Acts 20:28 in

NWT is also found in numerous other reputable English
translations. This is an important fact about which Rhodes fails to
inform his readers. Still, this fact alone does not legitimize the
addition of "Son" to the text, and there are at least two concerns
which must be addressed when discussing the meaning of Acts
20:28, both of which Rhodes ignores.
The meaning of dia tou haimatos tou idiou ("the blood
of His own Son"?). The first concern has to do with the meaning
of the words themselves. One of the reasons some Bible versions
translate Acts 20:28 as "his own" or "his own Son" is explained
by Bruce Metzger:
Instead of the usual meaning of diaV tou' ai}mato" tou' ijdivou [dia
tou haimatos tou idiou, "the blood of his own"]], it is possible
that the writer of Acts intended his readers to understand the
expression to mean "with the blood of his Own." . . . This
absolute use of oJ i]dio" [ho idios, "his own"] is found in Greek
papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is
possible, therefore, that "his Own" (oJ i]dio") was a title which
early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to "the Beloved" (o&
ajgaphtov" [ho agapetos]); compare Ro 8.32, where Paul refers to
God "who did not spare tou' ijdivou uiJou' [tou idiou huiou, "his
own son" ]" in a context that clearly alludes to Gn 22.16, where
the Septuagint has tou' ajgaphtou' uiJou' [tou agapetou huiou, "his
beloved son"].13
13
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3d
corrected ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975), 481.
The above understanding is reflected in the translation offered

in a Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains, which reads, "Be shepherds of the church of
God, which he acquired by means of his own Son's death Ac
20.28."14 If this is the teaching of Paul at Acts 20:28, it would be
consistent with the rest of the inspired record regarding whose blood
was poured out for the cleansing of our sins (1Jo 1:7; Joh 3:16; Heb
9:14).
Brown acknowledges that "perhaps theos refers to the Father
and idios to the Son, thus, the church of God (the Father) which He
obtained with the blood of His own (Son)."15 J. H. Moulton, in
addition to noting that the papyri use the singular ho idios ("his
own"]) as a term of endearment referring to near relatives, also offers
several examples in NT of an absolute use of ho idios (that is,
without an expressed noun, namely, Joh 1:11; 13:1; Ac 4:23; 24:23)
as encouragement to those who would translate the passage, "the
blood of one who was his own."16 Hence, NWTs translation of
Acts 20:28 is not "unwarranted."
Significant textual variations. This verse also has an
interesting textual history. According to Metzger, the authorities for
the reading thVn ejkklhsivan tou' qeou' (ten ekklesian tou theou, "the
congregation of God") and thVn ejkklhsivan tou' kurivou (ten
ekklesian tou kyriou, "the congregation of the Lord") are "singularly
balanced."17
Ezra Abbot also reviewed a great deal of the evidence for both
readings, and concludes that "the evidence of manuscripts, ancient
versions, and the early Christian writers, when fairly weighed,
decidedly preponderates in favor of the reading kurivou [kyriou,
Lord]."18 However, others favor qeou' (theou, "God"),19 while
14
J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
Based on Semantic Domains, vol. 1, 2d ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989),
565, under peripoievomai.
15
R. E. Brown, "Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?" TS 26.4 (1965), 553.
16
James Hope Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 1,
Prolegomena, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908), 90. See also, J. H. Moulton and
George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1930), 298, for other uses in the papyri.
17
Metzger, Textual Commentary, 480.
18
Ezra Abbot, "On the Reading Church of God, Acts xx.28," Bsac 33 (1876),
337.
some believe it is "impossible to decide between the two main

variants on the basis of external evidence."20
Internal evidence is sometimes seen as favoring theou. Thus,
Robert Countess states that "Paul's epistles contain eleven instances
of the phrase, the church of God and none to the church of the
Lord." He then concludes, "Hence, at the outset Pauline usage
favors the reading the church of God."21 However, nearly a century
earlier, Abbot noted how such figures are "strangely
misapprehended." He goes on to observe that the "the church of
God" appears eight times in the singular, and three in plural, and
asks, "Has any respectable commentator in any one of these
passages understood him [Paul] to mean Christ by qeou'?"22 Abbot
continues:
So far, then, as the phrase in question is concerned, the appeal

to the usage of Paul shows that it is extremely improbable that he
would have employed it here to describe the church as belonging
to Christ.
Let us look a little further. What is the usage of Paul in the rest
of this discourse? Examine the use of the words kuvrio" and qeov"
in vv. 19, 21, 24, 25 [variant], 27, 32, 35; note especially vv. 21
and 24. Is it not clear, without argument, that the usage of the
19
Charles F. DeVine, "The Blood of God in Acts 20:28," CBQ 9 (1947), 381-
408. DeVine (ibid., 391), however, does observe that "the readings Church of God
and Church of the Lord are both well supported"; Brown, "Does the New Testament
Call Jesus God?" 552; among others.
20
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference
to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 134. The external support for "the church of
God" is found in a B and many good minuscules, while the reading "the church of the
Lord" is supported by A C* D E Y as well as many minuscules of very good repute. See
Bruce Metzgers The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration, 3d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 234, for a complete
listing of the 7 different readings and their witnesses.
21
Robert Countess, The Jehovahs Witnesses New Testament, 59; see also,
DeVine, "The Blood of God in Acts 20:28," 396.
22
Abbot, "On the Reading Church of God," 335. He points to four examples
(1Co 1:2; 2Co 1:1; 1Th 2:14; 2Th 1:4) where "Christ is in the immediate context
clearly distinguished from qeov" [theos]; and in none of the others (1Co 10:32; 11:16,
22; 15:9; Ga 1:13; 1Ti 3:5, 15) . . . would it occur to any reader, that qeou' is used as a
designation of Christ" (ibid.).
Apostle here favors the supposition that he would employ kurivou

rather than qeou' to denote Christ in ver. 28?"23
In this light, it may very well be the case that a scribe replaced
kyriou with theou in order to conform more closely with Pauline
usage in reference to the Father. Whatever reading is accepted, it will
not affect our view of this passage, for we are more concerned with
the meaning of tou idiou, to which we will return shortly. But the
discussion of the variants is needed here, for a critical question
that must be addressed involves the two main textual variants.
First, though, other objections to kyriou being the more primitive
reading will be considered.
Countess, following what he considers "cogent reasoning" by
Alford, believes the text may have been altered in connection with
the "Arian controversy." According to Alford, the Arians "would be
certain to annul the expression offensive to them and substitute the
weaker one."24 However, Abbot rightly rejects such "cogent
reasoning" for the following reasons:
1) The Arians believed just as much in the sacredness of the Scriptures as
their enemies, and would not have consented to a deliberate falsification
of the divine record.
2) Such an attempt would have been futile, for the Arians could not falsify
all copies of the Scriptures, and, thus, would have been exposed and put
to shame for their attempt.
3) There is no record that the passage was used against the Arians, thus
causing them trouble.
4) The reading "God" in this passage would have actually been favorable to
the Arians, for "they did not hesitate to apply the term theos to Christ; but
lowered its meaning."
5) This theory does not explain how the variant reading "Lord" came to be in
authorities that date back to a century or more before the Arian
movement.25
23
Ibid. Abbot is quick to point out he is not here arguing a doctrinal question, but
simply calling attention "to certain important facts in relation to the New Testament use
of language" (ibid., 336).
24
Cited in Countess, The Jehovahs Witnesses New Testament, 61.
25
Abbot, "On the Reading Church of God," 331-332. See also, Harris, Jesus as
God, 135, note 15.
Another issue involved in choosing between the two variants,26

is which reading is the more difficult, and, therefore, more likely the
original. Metzger says that "qeou' is [undeniably] the more difficult
reading." He thinks that if we give the passage what he calls its
"usual sense," and translate dia tou haimatos tou idiou as "with his
own blood," then a copyist might well ask, Does God have blood?
and thus be tempted to change the reading to kyriou.27 Countess
agrees with Metzger, stating that a "scribe would have thus been
more likely to change God to read Lord than the reverse."28
Solving the textual and exegetical problems. The above
conclusions assume that tou idiou does not mean, "the blood of the
one who was his own," or "his own Son." However, Harris points
out that tou idiou ("his own") may be understood as an abbreviation
of tou' ijdivou uiJou' (tou idiou huiou, "his own Son"), which is found
in Romans 8:32, or it may be that "his own" is a christological title
comparable to other substantival adjectives or participles that have
become christological titles.29 If tou idiou originally meant "his
26
This is not to say that no other variants exist. Indeed, the reading tou' kurivou
kaiv qeou' (tou kyriou kai theou, "the Lord and God") is found in C3 P 049 and part of
the Byzantine minuscules, and cristou' (christou, "Christ") receives little support from
some versions and Fathers. See, Abbot, "On the Reading Church of God," 327-328;
Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 234.
27
Metzger, Textual Commentary, 480-481. He also believes "there is nothing
unusual in the phrase [kyriou] to catch the mind of the scribe and throw it off its
balance" (ibid., 481). More will be said about this as we continue.
28
29
Harris, Jesus as God, 139-140. Harris (ibid., 140) gives oJ divkaio" (ho
dikaios, "the righteous [one]"; Ac 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; compare 1Pe 3:18; 1Jo 2:1, 29;
3:7) as an example of a substantival use of an adjective, which is comparable to the use
of ho idios in Ac 20:28. For other examples, see Harris, 140. DeVine ("The Blood of
God in Ac 20:28," 405) rejects these arguments as "weak attempts to avoid at all costs
the full force of the expression Gods own blood." But aside from his acceptance of
the Magisteriums apparent use of this text from the fifth century onward as proof of
Christs divinity (Cyril of Alexandria being the first to use the text as bearing on the
deity of Christ, but earlier Ignatius had spoken of "the blood of God" [Eph 1:1], though
with no direct reference to Ac 20:28; see Abbot, 324, 330-331; DeVine, 400-401), he
offers nothing that would make our proposed understanding of tou idiou, as articulated
by Harris and others, invalid. Also, we might add that although Clement of Rome uses
the phrase "through the blood of the Lord" (1 Clem 12.7), the earliest witness to the
"church of the Lord" is Irenaeus (Haer. 3.14 [ANF 1, chap. 14, p. 438]), who in an
early Latin version quotes six verses from Acts 20 (namely, 25-30), and, thus, were
"probably not made from memory" (Abbot, 315). Also, although DeVine (385) casts a
shadow of doubt over this early witness by saying "the nature of the Latin translation
and its precise relation to the Greek of Irenaeus is still in question," he seems to have
Own," as Metzger suggests, then there would be no difficulty at all

in reading theou. But, if tou idiou originally had this meaning, why
was the text altered at all? Also, an argument raised by DeVine for
the originality of theou is how does kyriou explain the existence of
the variant theou?30 The following explanation, which to this
authors knowledge has not been considered before, may satisfy
both queries.
It is quite possible that some scribes simply did not recognize
"his Own" as a christological title, and, therefore, modified the text
to fit their theology. It is equally possible, in view of the common
Old Testament expression, hwhy lhq (qehal YHWH, "congregation
[or, church] of Jehovah"),31 that Luke used the divine name in
recording Paul's speech, and that the passage in Acts 20:28
originally read, "the congregation of Jehovah [hwhy]."32
It is usually believed, in view of the more frequent reference to
Jesus as "Lord" in the New Testament, that if kyriou is the true
ignored Abbots observation that "if it be assumed, without proof, that the translator
here followed the Old Latin version instead of Irenaeus, we have at all events a
testimony for kurivou which reaches back to the second century" (Abbot, 316).
30
DeVine, "The Blood of God in Acts 20:28," 396. It is conceivable that ho
idios eventually lost its substantival meaning of "his Own one" and, together with tou'
ai{mato" (tou haimatos, "the blood"), came to be understood as simply, "his own
blood." If theou were the original reading, then, with this later understanding of tou
idiou, one might understand how a scribe could have substituted kyriou in its place. So
DeVines objection is a valid one.
31
See Nu 16:3; 20:4; De 23:1, 2 (twice), 3 (twice), 8; Jg 21:5; 1Ch 28:8; Mic
2:5. A similar expression also appears in fragments from Qumran. Dana M. Pike, "The
Congregation of YHWH in the Bible and at Qumran," RevQ 17.65-68 (1996), 233-
240, discusses fragment #5 on PAM plate 43.679 (Mus Inv #203) which will be
designated as 4Q576, and notes that line 3 contains the phrase hwhy tdu, "the
congregation of YHWH." Pike notes that "lhq [qehal] is elsewhere used as a synonym
of hdu [ &edah], as seen in Numbers 16 and 20. Furthermore, lhq is combined in the
MT with some of the same terms as hdu, including hwhy lhq [congregation (or,
assembly, as Pike prefers) of Jehovah] and larcy lhq [congregation of Israel]"
(ibid., 239).
32
The consistent translation given in the LXX is hJ sunagwghV kurivou (he synagoge
kyriou, "the synagogue of the Lord") or ejkklhsiva kurivou (ekklesia kyriou, "congregation
of the Lord"). However, if LXX P. Fouad 266 (which first-century BCE manuscript
contains the divine name in the Greek text of Deuteronomy) is any indication of the text
used by the first-century Christians, then we have even greater reason to believe the divine
name may have originally been part of the text of Ac 20:28. P. Fouad is especially
appealing here, for the majority of the occurrences of "Jehovahs congregation" are found in
Deuteronomy. See note 31 above. Also, see Chapter 1, pages 42-48 for a discussion of the
use of the divine name in the LXX.
reading, then the passage simply means that Jesus, the Lord here
referred to, acquired the congregation "with his own blood."33 But if
we recognize the Old Testament background for the use of this
phrase, and see the possibility that Luke used the tetragrammaton in
recording Pauls speech, then that would help explain why, if tou
idiou is considered a christological title equivalent to "his Own,"
there is such difficulty in choosing between the two main variants.
After all, if the tetragrammaton was used by Luke, and then
surrogated with kyrios when appreciation for the divine name began
to dwindle, we can see how theos entered the picture, for the
reading, "the congregation (church) of the Lord (= Jesus) which he
obtained with the blood of his own," or "with the blood of his own
Son," would not have appealed to any theological mindset.34
Thus, when the title "Lord" became restricted to Jesus, theos,
the more common title of the Father,35 naturally took its place, so
that the meaning of ho idios ("his Own," or "own Son") remained
the same, as did the identity of the One who acquired the
congregation by means of the "blood of his Son [which] cleanses us
from all sin." (1Jo 1:7) Harris puts the matter succinctly: "The
congregation which the Ephesian elders were to shepherd as the
Spirits appointees was nothing other than the church of God which
he acquired by means of the shed blood of his own dearly loved
Son."36
33
Although Harris (Jesus as God, 137, note 29) does acknowledge that if kurivou
be preferred, then two possible senses are "the Lord (= Yahweh). . . through his Own
(Son)"; or "the church of the Lord (= Yahweh) which he (Jesus) obtained through his own
blood." But Harris does not suggest the actual presence of the tetragrammaton in the text of
Ac 20:28.
34
"Lord," if considered the first surrogate of the divine name in this passage (that
is, assuming the divine name was used here), may have been understood for some time
as a reference to the Father by readers of Acts due to its application to Him in 1:24;
3:19; 4:24, 29; 5:9, 19; 7:31, 33; 8:22, 24, 25, 26; 10:33; 12:7, 11, 17, 23, 24; 13:2
and 17:24 (in all of these verses, except 4:24 and 17:24, NWT uses "Jehovah"; see, the
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures with References [Brooklyn: Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society, 1984], Appendix 1D). The references to the Father as "Lord"
are even more numerous if we count the surrogates for the tetragrammaton in 2:20-21,
25, 34, 39; 3:22 (compare LXX P. Fouad 266 at De 18:15), 4:26 and 7:49, where the
Old Testament is quoted.
35
Used of Him in the book of Acts alone 158 times.
36
Harris, Jesus as God, 141.
We have argued above that Jesus is not called "God" in this

verse. But, whether he is or not ultimately offers very little in
support of Trinitarian theology. Jehovahs Witnesses unhesitatingly
accept Jesus as theos. This is a scripturally acceptable title for Gods
Son. (Isa 9:6; Joh 1:1; 18) However, they understand the use of this
title in light of the qualified presentation of Jesus as theos taught in
the Bible.37
Romans 9:5
Translation analysis. According to the NWT, the final part
of this verse (referring to "God, who is over all") is separated from
the preceding reference to "the Christ." In Appendix 6D of the 1984
NWT Reference Bible, several other translations, including the
RSV, NEB, TEV, NAB, and James Moffatts translation of the
Bible, are cited as agreeing with NWTs reading. We might also list
Goodspeeds translation in this category.
There are, however, other translations that identify Christ as the
"God who is over all" in this verse, including the NIV, NASB,
NRSV, MLB, and C. B. Williams translation of the New
Testament. But given the difference of opinion expressed by these
respected translations, it is, quite frankly, astounding to find certain
advocates of the Trinity doctrine making dogmatic claims about this
verse, some of which will be considered below. What is strange
about such claims, other than their unfounded dogmatism, is those
who make them are often apparently unaware that their claims
regarding the translation of Romans 9:5 directly contradict their own
understanding of God. This will be explained further in this Chapter.
Evidence from early translations. According to Bruce
Metzger,38 the Old Latin, containing no punctuation other than two
suspended points surrounding "amen," is indeterminate. The same is
true of the Amiatinus codex, though Metzger believes the rhythm of
37
38
Bruce M. Metzger, "The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5," in Christ and the Spirit in
the New Testament, In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, eds. B. Lindars and S.
Smalley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 100-101. Metzgers
discussion of the early versions is confined to pages 100-101 of his article.
the text as it stands in the edition by Wordsworth and White makes

the second stichos easier, in his mind, to take in reference to the
Christus ("Christ") of the first stichos, rather than as an independent
sentence. Metzger also presents translations from the Peshitta,
Harclean Syriac, the Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic versions, the
Gothic, the Armenian and the Ethiopic versions that apply the term
"God" to "Christ" in Romans 9:5.
The above constitutes evidence in favor of the rendering found
in the NIV and other, similar translations. But this early evidence is
countered by other early evidence relating directly the transmission
of the Greek text itself.
Punctuation in early Greek manuscripts. Some ancient
Greek manuscripts shed light on how this passage was understood
by some scribes. Some manuscripts, including Codex A, have a
middle point after "flesh," creating a pause or break between the
reference to "Christ" and the reference to "God." Other manuscripts,
such as B, L, 0142 and 0151 have a high point after "flesh," also
indicating a pause or break of some kind.39 Metzger also notes the
scribe of C left a noticeable space between "flesh" and what
follows.40
In view of the use of punctuation in some of these manuscripts
in other places where there is not a clear break in the sentence, it is
uncertain just how we should view the point after "flesh" in Romans
9:5. However, while some of the punctuation marks to which
Metzger makes reference are indeed oddly placed, in the context of
Codex A the punctuation marks do not appear to be used in as many
unusual places, and yet A uses a mid- or highpoint and what appears
39
Metzger, ibid., 97, believes B has a middle point, but in reviewing the
microfilm of Codex B it is quite possible that B has a high point, not a middle point.
There is definitely a middle point after "Abraham" in verse 7, which is noticeably lower
than the point after "flesh" in verse 5. A middle point is usually taken to indicate a
pause such as we might indicate by use of a colon or comma, while a high point is
generally used to indicate a full stop, which is why B uses a high point after "Amen" in
verse 5. Codex B uses middle points throughout Romans 8, and the point after
machaira ("sword") in 8:35 is quite similar in its height to the point after "flesh" in 9:5.
Compare the high point after "sword" to the middle points in 8:35, which are clearly
intended as minor pauses, not full stops.
40
Ibid., 97.
to be a small space between sarka and the article ho.41 Metzger is

probably right in saying that "the most that can be inferred from the
presence of a point in the middle position after savrka [sarka,
flesh] in a majority of the uncial manuscripts is that scribes felt that
some kind of pause was appropriate at this juncture in the
sentence.42 This same conclusion was reached by Ezra Abbot nearly
a hundred years earlier.43
The view of early church Fathers. Metzger refers to several
early Christian writers who apply the words of Romans 9:5 entirely
to the Christ. For example, he refers to Irenaeus of the second
century (CE), Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian and a letter from six
bishops to Paul of Samosata of the third century, as well as a host of
writers in the fourth century (including Athanasius, Basil, Jerome
and others) to show that this passage has from early times been
understood as calling Christ "God."
Regarding Irenaeus use of Romans 9:5, Abbot points out that
Irenaeus "does not quote it to prove that Christ is qeov" [theos, G-
god]." He further observes, "His argument rests on the [from whom
came Christ according to the flesh], and not on the last part of the
verse, on which he makes no remark."44 In support of this
interpretation, it should be noted that Irenaeus places his quotation
of Romans 9:5 between a quotation of Romans 1:1-4 and Galatians
4:4-5, both of which are used to emphasize the fact that God sent
forth His Son "according to the flesh."45 Indeed, as Abbot also
points out, Irenaeus "text is preserved only in the old Latin version,
which of course cannot determine the construction which Irenaeus
put upon the Greek."46 In terms of how Irenaeus may have
interpreted the Greek text of the last part of Romans 9:5, we may
simply note that "throughout his work against Heresies, and very
41
The copy of Codex A that I am using is the reduced facsimile produced by the
British Museum (London, 1909).
42
Ibid., 99.
43
Ezra Abbot, "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," JBL 1 (1881), 152.
44
Ibid., 136.
45
ANF 1, 441.
46
Abbot, "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," 136.
often, Irenaeus uses the title the God over all as the exclusive
designation of the Father."47
Hippolytus refers to Romans 9:5 twice in his work Against the
Heresy of one Noetus. The first reference is used in relation to the
Noetians argument that Christ was the Father Himself!48 Hyppolytus
then uses Romans 9:5 in support of his own view that Christ is
indeed "God over all," for the Father has delivered all things to him
(compare Mt 11:27).49 He also refers to 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 and
John 20:17 to show that while Christ is indeed "Lord of all," the
Father "is Lord of him." Therefore, the grammar of the passage is
such that the Noetians felt justified in seeing a reference to Christ as
the Father in Romans 9:5. Hippolytus viewed the entire text as a
reference to Christ as "God over all," in a somewhat Trinitarian
sense, but he still qualified the use of "over all" in a way which
allowed the Father to be Lord over Christ.
Hippolytus applies the term "God" to Christ in Romans 9:5 in
such a way that it is redefined to be consistent with Hippolytus
analogy of "light from light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray
from the sun."50 The Bible does not use the term God in this way,
nor does it make use of such analogies when it comes to the issue of
the Logos as theos, in relation to God the Father.
As noted above, Metzger also refers to Tertullian and other
early writers and documents as evidence that theos in Romans 9:5
was understood as a reference to Christ. Metzger does, however,
refer to at least two Greek Fathers who applied the last part of
Romans 9:5 to the Father, namely, Tarsus and Photius.51 Abbot has
much to say about the use of Romans 9:5 among early writers, and
we will here defer to his discussion for further consideration of this
47
Ibid., 136. Although Romans 9:5 does not use the article before epi panton
theos, whereas the patristic citations in reference to the Father generally do preface the
expression with the article, Metzgers dismissal of the patristic citations because of this
difference (Metzger, "The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5," 103, note 14) overlooks several
important implications, which are highlighted by Abbots observation: "If the Father is
God over all, and Christ is also God over all, the question naturally arises, how the
Father can be the God over all, unless the term God as applied to Christ is used in a
lower sense" (Abbot, "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," 129).
48
ANF 5, 224.
49
Ibid., 225.
50
Ibid., 227.
51
Metzger, "The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5," 103.
issue.52 Metzgers concluding remarks concerning the evidence from

early writers are worth repeating here:
In assessing the weight of the patristic evidence one must put it

within its proper perspective. On the one hand, certainly the
Greek Fathers must be supposed to have possessed a unique
sensitivity to understand the nuances of a passage written in their
own language. On the other hand, however, in the present case
the probability must be allowed that dogmatic interests may have
swayed (and in many instances undoubtedly did sway) their
interpretation. It is therefore prudent to refrain from assigning
much weight to the overwhelming consensus of patristic
interpretation of the meaning of the passage in question. In fact,
the prevailing patristic interpretation of the passage is altogether
counterbalanced by what we have seen came to be the prevailing
scribal tradition of punctuation in the later manuscripts . . . each
tradition neutralizing, so to speak, the force of the other.53
Grammatical analysis. Since the meaning of this verse in

our modern translations hinges on how we punctuate the text, are
there any grammatical clues that might help us decide which
choice of punctuation is best? The two key options revolve around
the question of whether we have in Romans 9:5 a concluding
doxology (ascription of praise and glory) to Jesus' God and Father
(compare Ro 15:5-6) for sending His Son, the Messiah,
"according to the flesh," or if theos ("G-god") is a description of
Christ.
The first of the two options mentioned above does not see
"God who is over all" in apposition (referring back to and further
defining) "Christ." Rather, it takes "God who is over all" as the
subject of a doxology that concludes with "be praised/blessed
forever." The second option would take "God who is over all" as
an appositive for "Christ according to the flesh," which would
then create a conflict with Trinitarian thinking in terms of a
deification of Christs human nature. But Harris54 and others
attempt to find an antithesis in this verse between Christs human
52
Abbot, "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," 133-141.
53
54
Harris, Jesus as God, 155-156.
and divine natures, which they believe are present in but one
"person."
Harris arguments seem to overlook the simple fact that Paul
is here using "according to the flesh" just as he did in referring to
his own relation to his "relatives according to the flesh" two
verses earlier. The Messiah did not simply appear among Israel as
Savior and Lord, he really was of Israel, being born in the line of
David. There is no antithesis in verse 3, and it is not necessary
that the mere presence of kata sarka ("according to the flesh")
involves one with "God who is over all" in verse 5. The fact that
Paul could have omitted "according to the flesh" in verse 5 is no
more significant than the fact that Paul could have omitted
"according to the flesh" in verse 3, and ended his statement with
"relatives."
Any antithesis in Romans 9:5 would, according to
Trinitarianism, have to be devoid of attributing individual being
to the Messiah by predicating "God who is over all" of him.55 But
there is nothing to suggest that "God who is over all" could
somehow properly be interpreted according to the NT context of
thought in relation to a persons "divine nature" apart from
denoting his individual being at the same time.56 Indeed, a proper
antithesis would involve different entities, as even Harris
examples of a sarx-theos ("flesh" and "God") antithesis reveal.57
55
Thus, Harris (ibid., 166, 167) is forced to redefine theos to mean that Christ
"shares the divine nature" and that "he is God by nature." He even goes so far as to
suggest that "Paul shows that his Christian experience and reflection have forced him to
redefine his hereditary monotheism so as to include Christ within the category of
Deity." Contrary to Harris and other Trinitarians, there is no "category of Deity" to
which one or more "persons" (who are not individual beings) belong articulated in the
Bible. This concept is imported into the Bible and used to interpret passages according
to a post-biblical view. Paul shows in Ro 15:5,6 and elsewhere that Christ is not the
same God as the Father. The Father is the God of Christ, and is the only one who is
God in the fullest and most complete sense of the term. See Chapter 2, pages 119-122.
56
57
Harris, Jesus as God, 156, c. He refers to Ro 3:20 (compare verse 21), 9:8, Mt
16:17 (uses "Father," not "God"), Lu 3:6 and 1Co 1:29. But Lu 3:6 and 1Co 1:29 do
not involve a contrast at all, and the other three passages (only two of which actually
use "God") involve an antithesis between different entities, not an antithesis that
involves only one entity. What is more, the contrast that is present in Ro 9:8 and Mt
16:17 is brought out by ajllav (alla, "but") following a negative, which is commonly
used in introducing a contrast (see BAGD, 38, under ajllav). In Ro 3:21 the contrast is
set up by nuniV deV (nuni de, "but now"). None of these devices are used in Ro 9:5.
Harris also argues the subject preceding the doxology is the

most likely referent, which would be "Christ." Harris states, "in all
NT doxologies an explicit link is found between the doxology
itself and some preceding word or words."58 Of course, it is quite
possible that we should take oJ w]n ejpiV pavntwn ("who is over all
things") in reference to "Christ," and begin the doxology with
"God," not with oJ w]n (ho on, "who is"). But Harris notes ho on
can introduce a new subject, as in John 3:31.59
Still, John 3:31 is not a doxology. However, in Romans 9:5
the doxology involves the use of the adjective eujloghtov"
(eulogetos, "blessed"), which is elsewhere (that is, apart from Ro
9:5) used six times as an adjective in a doxology to God the
Father (Lu 1:68; Ro 1:25; 2Co 1:3; 11:31; Eph 1:3; 1Pe 1:3), and
once it is substantivized (used as a noun) as a name for God the
Father (Mr 14:61). It is nowhere else used as part of a doxology to
Christ.
In view of the overwhelming use of theos for the Father in the
Pauls writings,60 and the unique contextual build-up for Romans
9:5 which I will next discuss, then there is nothing unusual about
taking the words following "according to the flesh" as a doxology
to the One responsible for the coming of the Christ, a self-
contained expression of thanks and praise to the One who is
frequently referred to and distinguished from Christ in the
58
59
Harris (ibid., 159), following Timothy Dwights lead ("On Romans ix. 5," JBL
1 [1881], 24), presents a false analogy when he attempts to compare a rewording of
2Co 11:31 with Ro 9:5. Dwight remarks, "if the construction of the verse [2Co 11:31]
were so changed as to read [the Father or our Lord Jesus Christ knows that I am not
lying(;) the one who exists as God over all be blessed into the ages]" then no one
would hesitate to refer "God" back to "the Father." But why would one hesitate to apply
"God" to "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" when this is the most common way of
referring to the Father? The same is hardly true for Christ, who is frequently
distinguished from "God" in the Pauline writings. Additionally, the rewording of 2Co
11:31 by Dwight (approved by Harris) seems quite naturally to involve a pause after
pseudomai. The only difference, again, is there is no reason to view the subject of the
second clause as different from the preceding one. The same cannot be said of Ro 9:5.
60
See figure E.1 on pages 390-392. It is also worth noting that only the Father is
elsewhere described as "the one over all" (Eph 4:6). Harris (Jesus as God, 159-160)
goes to great lengths to minimize this point, but in his attempts to do so he mistakenly
asserts that Christ is "the one who created" the universe according to Col 1:16, 17. See
Chapter 4, pages 221-224 for a discussion of these texts.
preceding eight chapters of Romans. Indeed, 1 Peter 1:3 begins

with a doxology to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,"
but any link to the preceding has to skip past the implied referents
for humin ("to you" [namely, the "temporary residents" in verse
1]) and "Jesus Christ" to "God the Father." So there need not be
any direct correspondence with the subject of the doxology and
the immediately preceding subject (see also 2Co 1:3).
If, however, we take the clause beginning with ho on or with
theos as a doxology to the Father, why does eulogetos ("blessed")
not mark the starting point of the doxology, which is true
everywhere else eulogetos occurs as part of a separate doxology?
While we would not take Psalm 67:19-20 as the "regulative key
for the interpretation of a contested NT passage,"61 the fact
remains that in this text the LXX places eulogetos after kyrios ho
theos ("the Lord God"), and then in the following clause it is
placed before kyrios. This indicates that either placement is
acceptable.62 It is interesting to note that while both Harris and
Metzger refer to Pauls ordinary placement of eulogetos before the
subject as evidence for their position, they are more than willing
to overlook the more established and common use of theos in
Pauls writings. Indeed, Metzger argues that "a writer may turn
aside from his ordinary usage, or even start a new one, in some
particular instance."63 He should therefore have little difficulty
accepting the placement of eulogetos in Romans 9:5.
Further, I do not believe Harris has fully appreciated Abbots
point on the position of eulogetos in Romans 9:5. He merely cites
Abbot as positing that the placing of eulogetos after theos is
because "Paul wishes to stress . . . the overruling providence of
God as the Ruler over All."64 But Abbots point is built on a
critical analysis of the context leading up to Romans 9:5, which
61
62
Harris, (ibid., 162) quotes Dwight ("On Romans ix. 5," 38) who believes the
position of eulogetos after "the Lord God" and then preceding "Lord" actually involves
a chiastic device designed to give "prominence to the doxological words." This may be
true, but if it is true then this is the only occasion among the 15 instances where
eulogetos is used in reference to God or his name where the LXX translator(s) of the
Psalms felt the need to employ such a device.
63
64
shows that Paul is focused on the conception of God as the one

who rules over all things, "who cares for all men and who controls
all events"65 (such as those leading to the coming of the Messiah
according to the flesh). Abbot concludes:
In simply exclamatory doxologies, the eujloghtov" [eulogetos]

or eujloghmevno" [eulogemenos] comes first, because the feeling
that prompts its use is predominant, and can be expressed in a
single word. But here, where the thought of the overruling
providence of God is prominent, the oJ w]n ejpiV pavntwn [ho on
epi panton] must stand first in the sentence, to express that
prominence; and the position of eujloghtov" after it is required
by the very same law of the Greek language which governs all
the examples that have been alleged against the doxological
construction of the passage.66
The grammar of Romans 9:5 will admit of either a rendering

that predicates theos of Christ, or one that recognizes a doxology
to the God and Father of Jesus Christ. In view of Pauls use of
theos throughout this letter to the Romans and in the rest of his
writings, as well as his consistent use of eulogetos for occasions
of praise to God in distinction to Christ, it is best to accept the
translation which renders this passage as a doxology to God the
Father. The grammatical arguments given in support of the
translation which makes theos predicate for Christ are relevant,
but they are certainly not incontrovertible.
Contextual considerations. Metzger argues that "in view of
the apostles lamentation over the lapse of the Jews from
appropriating to the full their divinely granted prerogatives, there
appears to be no psychological explanation that would account for
the introduction of a joyful doxology addressed to the Father." He
further states, "Both logically and emotionally such a doxology
would interrupt the train of thought as well as be inconsistent with
the mood of sadness that pervades the preceding verses."67 What he
fails to realize, however, is that the preceding sadness becomes joy
65
Abbot, "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," 105.
66
Ibid., 105-106.
67
in Romans 9:5 and is expressed in praise to God for sending the

Christ "according to the flesh."
Harris, too, fails to appreciate the significance of the context
leading up to Romans 9:5, in relation to how it does indeed support
a doxology to God the Father.68 Both Metzger and Harris, though
they make frequent reference to Abbots discussion of Romans 9:5,
have avoided a detailed interaction with his interpretation of the
context leading up to Romans 9:5.69 Even Timothy Dwight, who
argues in favor of translating Romans 9:5 as a reference to Christ as
God, and who believes the context leading up to and after Romans
9:5 fits with this conclusion, nevertheless acknowledges:
We cannot regard an ascription of praise to God as especially out

of place at this point. St. Paul had been enumerating the peculiar
blessings and honors of his own people, which had given them,
as he rejoiced to feel, an exalted position in the world. He was
declaring his affection for them, and the absence of all enmity
even when compelled to say what might seem harsh and
offensive. He was testifying his sorrow for evil which befell
them, and his joy and pride in all their history as evidencing
Gods favor. These are the thoughts of the first five verses of this
chapter. Why could he not, and why should he not, at the close of
these verses, and after the enumeration of these blessings, break
forth into the exclamation, May he who is over all, God, be
blessed for ever!70
Colossians 2:9
The meaning of theotes (NWTs "divine quality"). This
verse has often been seized upon by opponents of the Witnesses as a
case where NWT "robs Christ of His Deity."71 Rhodes also objects
to the translation of Colossians 2:9 in NWT, stating: "Colossians 2:9
68
69
See Abbot, "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," 87-89, 90-93; Abbot,
"Recent Discussions of Romans ix. 5," JBL 3 (1883), 95-99.
70
Dwight, "On Romans ix. 5," 41.
71
Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, Revised Edition (Minneapolis:
Bethany Fellowship, 1977), 79.
is not saying that Jesus has mere divine qualities. Rather, it is saying
that the absolute fullness of Deity dwells in Christ in bodily
form."72 In support of his interpretation Rhodes cites several scholars
whose views are similar to his. For example, he says: "Greek scholar
J. H. Thayerwhose Greek lexicon is called comprehensive by
the Watchtower Societysays the Greek word in Colossians 2:9
refers to deity, that is, the state of being God, Godhead."73
First, it should be noted that the words Rhodes attributes to J.
H. Thayer are not the words of J. H. Thayer! They are the words of
Karl Grimm, the Lutheran lexicographer whose work Thayer
translated from Latin to English. Thayers additions to Grimms
comments are few and marked off by brackets. This is explained in
the preface to the English edition of the lexicon.74 Of course, the
reason our critics like to attribute the words to Thayer is because
they operate under the questionable assumption that Thayer was a
Unitarian. They may then at times argue, "Well, even this Unitarian,
one who would tend to be sympathetic to your view, argues for a
Trinitarian understanding of Colossians 2:9!"75
The term theotes (of which theotetos in Col 2:9 is a genitive
flexion) closely resembles, in spelling, the term Paul uses in Romans
1:20, namely, theiotes (NWT: "Godship"). James White asserts a
distinction between these two terms (theotes and theiotes) such that
theotes (in Col 2:9) "is different from the weaker term used at
72
73
Ibid., 81-82. Really, though, considering the use of theotes in other Greek
sources, one would be justified in defining it as the quality of being a god (Stephen E.
Broyles, "What do we mean by Godhead?" EQ 50.4 [1978], 224). Especially so in
view of the OT concept of God (see Chapter 2, pages 96-128), and in view of the fact
that God gives His Son a divine nature (discussed later in this section).
74
See, for example, Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977 [1901]), xi-xv.
75
See Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, 79. Remarkably, even the Publishers
Preface to the Baker edition of Thayers lexicon misleadingly attributes the definition
given under qeovth" (theotes) to Thayer (viii, par. 2). It is also asserted by this
publisher that, "If there were no other proof in the Bible of the full deity of the Lord
Jesus, every Christian should believe it on the strength of these two verses alone." By
"full deity of the Lord Jesus" they no doubt mean something commensurate with
Trinitarianism. The other verse referred to is Ro 1:20, though it is not clear how the
author of the preface imagines this verse to be in harmony with the Trinity teaching.
Nonetheless, we will investigate their claim in relation to Col 2:9.
Romans 1:20" (theiotes).76 White is apparently not aware of the

extensive study by H. S. Nash, who a century ago demonstrated
quite convincingly that the two terms theiotes and theotes do not
have the distinction in meaning attributed to them by White.77 Says
Nash:
The chief fault in the exponents of the distinction between the

terms is that they have taken little or almost no account of the
long history of the terms. They have made no attempt to correlate
them with the history of thought. They have not asked whether
the system of the author in question called for the distinction,
but, taking the terms as the isolated expressions of an isolated
theorem, have picked up an example wherever it came their way.
The only excuse for the hasty study of the larger context of the
stock illustrations is the fact that the traditional view, having
ruled interpretations for six centuries, has naturally fallen into the
habit of taking itself for granted.78
It is unclear whether we should take the references to the

dwelling of the "fullness" of theotes in Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 as
referring to the historical person of Christ while he lived on the
earth, or after his resurrection. There is no question the theotes
dwells "bodily" in Christ, but is this reference to the physical body
he had on earth or to the spiritual body he now has in heaven? It
76
(Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany, 1998), 85.
77
H. S. Nash, "Qeiovth"Qeovth", Rom. i. 20; Col. ii. 9," JBL 18 (1899), 1-34.
On pages 4-5, 8 Nash concludes that Paul was not influenced by Philo or Alexandrian
Judaism. Indeed, Philo does not use theotes, and only uses theiotes once. (Josephus also
does not use theotes, but he does use theiotes.) In addition to Wisdom 18:9, there are,
then, only two known instances of theiotes and none of theotes in Alexandrian Judaism.
On pages 10-12 Nash demonstrates the lack of a distinction in meaning between these
two terms in Greek philosophical literature, concluding, "so far as regards philosophical
usage, the two words are practically identical in meaning." After surveying the use of
these two terms in the writings of the early Christian Fathers, Nash (page 19) observes:
"The evidence so far has been sufficient to show that the exegesis of the Greek Patristic
period is either totally silent upon the point in question or is directly counter to the
tradition." He further notes (page 26): "If the two terms had ever divided the field of
theological statement and definition between them, it would not have been possible for
one of them [theotes] to practically drive the other [theiotes] out of use. The fact that
this happened plainly suggests the conclusion that the two terms covered a common
field, that they fought for existence, and that [theotes] triumphed."
78
Ibid., 9.
may be that we should take the reference as beginning with his

sojourn in the flesh on earth and continuing after his ascent to
heaven. But what sense does theotes have in this context?
In Ephesians 1:22-23 Paul refers to the congregation as Christs
"body," and further defines it as "the fullness of him [= Christ]."
Paul figuratively identifies Christs fullness with the congregation
because it functions as though Christ were directly manifesting his
attributes through it. In this sense, as we will articulate further below
in relation to Colossians 1:19, those attributes which define God (or
"a god" [see note 73 above]) are fully expressed in the person of
Christ and, by extension, those who are "in" Christ. (Col 2:10)79 The
context of Pauls words and his overall teaching concerning Christs
role as a "mediator between God and men" (2Ti 2:5) will help us
better understanding how it is that Christ can be considered the
embodiment of the divine powers and attributes that define God.
An "anti-Gnostic polemic"? Commentators have suggested
a variety of possible situations that may have existed in Colossea,
against which the apostle Paul may have directed his letter. But
scholars efforts to create a situation such that the Colossians were
under direct attack by a unique threat from the outside (such as an
incipient form of Gnosticism80) and that Paul is writing to meet that
attack head on, are not entirely convincing. As M. D. Hooker
observes: "The strangest feature about this reconstruction of the
situation behind the Colossian epistle is the extraordinary calm with
which Paul confronts it. If there were within the Colossian Christian
79
White, The Forgotten Trinity, 207, note 39, claims that I have "confused" the
allegedly "undefined" "fullnesses" in 1:19 and 2:10 with, in Whites view, the only
defined fullness of 2:9. According to White, then, there are at least two fullnesses
dwelling in the Son, one "by the decree of the Father" and the other a "fullness of deity"
which he does not identify as one contingent upon the Fathers decree. Of course, Paul
makes absolutely no such distinction between the "fullness" in Col 1:19 and 2:9. But
White is forced to create a distinction between them because of his loyalty to
Trinitarianism, which could not survive an identification of the fullnesses mentioned in
these two verses. He is also forced to disconnect the "fullness" that exists in Christ
according to 2:9 from the seemingly obvious relation to the fullness that is achieved by
being "in" Christ, mentioned in the very next sentence! It seems quite clear that the so-
called "undefined" fullness of 1:19 is indeed defined by tes theotetos in 2:9. There is
nothing in the context of these two texts that should make us think Paul is using the
same word in relation to Christ, with two different senses.
80
For a brief discussion of Gnosticism, see "Against KnowledgeFalsely So
Called," The Watchtower, 15 July 1990, 21-23.
community any kind of false teaching which questioned the

uniqueness of Christ, which suggested, for example, that he was a
member of some kind of gnostic series of spiritual powers, then Paul
would surely have attacked such teaching openly and explicitly."81
James White, however, claims that in my discussion of passages
such as Colossians 1:15-17 I have ignored the issue of Gnosticism82
(which White assumes as the antithesis to Pauls teachings in this
epistle). He further claims that in so doing I have gutted Pauls
apologetic, "leaving it entirely irrelevant to the gnostic view."83 But
White and those whom he cites as references on this matter do not
prove anything about the existence and influence of Gnostic views,
against which Paul is allegedly writing.
Regarding Pauls view of Christ in Colossians 1, Hooker
observes: "Certainly Paul is here describing the supremacy of Christ,
and the comprehensive character of his work in creation and
redemption. This does not mean, however, that he is refuting false
teaching which has suggested that others have a role in this work."84
Even Clinton Arnold, who shares Whites view of Christs role and
position in Colossians 1:15-17, recognizes that the "authorities and
powers" in Colossians are not depicted as "mediators of divine
knowledge, nor should they be seen as emanations from a high god
or even as impersonal forces." Rather, as Arnold demonstrates by a
consideration of these and related terms in the NT and Jewish
literature circulating at the time, they are "angelic beings in league
with the authority of darkness (1:13)."85
Concerning Colossians 2:9, some have argued that the use of
terms like pleroma ("fullness") reveal that Paul is in fact addressing
the claims of certain Gnostic sects. But P. D. Overfield does a good
job of surveying the technical use of pleroma in Gnostic literature,
and he also reveals the long history of the non-technical use of the
term, concluding that "in no instance is the NT use of the word in
81
M. D. Hooker, "Were there false teachers in Colossae?" in Christ and the Spirit
in the New Testament, In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, eds. B. Lindars and
S. Smalley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 316.
82
83
White, The Forgotten Trinity, 211, note 1.
84
Hooker, "Were there false teachers in Colossae?" 317.
85
Clinton Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface Between Christianity
and Folk Belief at Colossae (Tbingen: Mohr, 1995), 255.
any way related to or influenced by Gnosticism."86 Arnold also

disagrees with the technical use of pleroma in Colossians, stating
that it is instead "an appropriate expression for the sole-sufficiency
and adequacy of Christ derived from the LXX."87
Thus, if White and others wish to assume that the influence of
Gnosticism is the motivation behind key sections of Pauls letter to
the Colossians, then that is up to them. I will not allow such
possibilities to get in the way of a biblical (contextual) and linguistic
examination of the vocabulary and grammar of Pauls letter(s).
Indeed, even if there were false (Gnostic) teachers at work in
Colossae, and if we assume that Pauls letter is meant to address
their claims about Christ, this in no way contradicts the Witnesses
interpretation of the passages (Col 1:15-17 and Col 1:19; 2:9-10)
under consideration. In fact, Jehovahs Witnesses have on occasion
accepted the idea that Paul writes against Gnostic views in his
letters.88
It is one thing to suggest that Paul may have been writing
against a particular brand of heretical theology in one or more of his
letters, but it is quite another matter to use such speculation as fact in
ones argumentation, as White does. By not assuming that Pauls
intention is "to refute the early forms of Gnosticism that were
coming into the Colossian church,"89 hopefully we can avoid
creating "a false picture of events, and then read this back into what
is said."90
Clues from the context. In the previous section we noted
Arnolds view that Pauls statements about Christs supremacy are
86
P. D. Overfield, "Pleroma: A Study in Content and Context," NTS 25 (1979),
396. C. F. D. Moule, "Fulness and Fill in the New Testament," SJT 4.1 (1951), 79-
80, also argues against the technical (Gnostic) use of pleroma in Colossians, as does
Phaedon Cambouropoulos, "The Colossian Heresy and Its Life-Situation in the Epistle
to the Colossians" (M.A. thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1974), 32-35, who notes
that "sufficient evidence is lacking that the technical (gnostic) use of plhvrwma
[pleroma] was widespread at least during Pauls life" and that there is no "polemic attitude
in 1:19 and 2:9 against the errorists use of the term."
87
Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, 263-264.
88
"Against KnowledgeFalsely So Called," 21; "Let No Man Deprive You of
the Prize," The Watchtower, 15 July 1985, 10-14. The Witnesses do not share the later
Gnostic interpretation of Pauls letters, concerning God and Christ.
89
90
Hooker, "Were there false teachers in Colossae?" 319.
against "angelic beings in league with the authority of darkness

(1:13)." Hooker notes Pauls concern both for "the pressures on
pagan converts to complete their conversion by accepting Judaism
and all its demands," and also their bondage to powers mentioned in
1:16. Says Hooker, "the submission of all spiritual powers to Christ
means not only that the Colossians can be free from fear of the
forces which oppressed them in the past, but also that they need not
submit to any others."91
With this in mind, it is easy to see how Pauls word about the
"fullness of that which defines God" dwelling in Christ could keep
them from contemplating the need to return or respond to the
"philosophies" and "traditions" that do not belong to Christ (2:8).
But the reference to the "fullness" of divine attributes dwelling in
Christ does not necessarily make him equal to God, and certainly
does not imply a Trinitarian concept of deity. Nash points to several
uses of theotes in philosophical literature where theotes is actually
used of demons who mediate between gods and men. In one of his
citations Nash notes that "the rank of the deities in question, at the
highest, is not above that of a demi-god, yet [theotes] is the term
used."92 So the term is not elsewhere restricted in its application to
the highest god or gods of pagan pantheons.
The NT unquestionably presents Jesus as the mediator between
God and men. (2Ti 2:5) In John 14:10 Jesus answered the question
about how the Father is seen in the Son, saying: "Do you not believe
that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? I myself am not
the source and origin of what I say to you. The Father lives in me
and acts through me." In this light, the Father is working through the
Son, expressing to mankind the fullness of the divine attributes and
qualities that draw men to Him through Christ. Indeed, "God was
by means of Christ reconciling a world to himself." (2Co 5:18) For
God to allow the fullness of His divine attributes and qualities to
reside in Christ fits perfectly with Christs mediatorial and
reconciliatory role in Gods purpose. Everything Christ does is in
response to the Father (Joh 5:19).
91
Ibid., 327-328.
92
Nash, "Qeiovth"Qeovth", Rom. i. 20; Col. ii. 9," 12.
In this sense it could be said Christ was in the "state of being

God," for he was visibly displaying and communicating to men
what his God and Father is like. We have a similar situation
involving Moses, though to a far lesser extent, when Jehovah said
to him, as recorded at Exodus 7:1, 2: "See, I have made you God
to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your
prophet. Youyou will speak all that I shall command you."
Though Moses served as "God" he only spoke what his God,
Jehovah, commanded him to speak. The same is true of Jesus
Christ (Isa 11:1-3; Mic 5:4).
As we have seen (in note 79 above), those who attempt to create
a situation whereby Trinitarianism is made to agree with Colossians
2:9 try to disassociate what is said in 2:9 from what is said in 1:19.
The reason for this is not hard to find. Colossians 1:19 tells us, "For
God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him" (NIV).93
The Greek word translated "pleased" is eujdokevw (eudokeo). In
the Word Biblical Commentary we are told that "the verb be
pleased (eujdokevw) which often appears in the OT to denote the
good pleasure of God (Ps 44:3; 147:11; 149:4) is particularly used
to denote divine election."94 Similarly, the Exegetical Dictionary of
the New Testament makes these observations:
NT use of eujdokevw, a vb. of the will, is shaped by the influence of

the LXX. The meanings alternate between want, decide, and
choose. . . . In these examples the idea of the divine election
predominates in view of the singular and transcendent
designation of Christ, the only Son (the ajgaphtov"["beloved"]).
The same christological view is seen in Col 1:19 (cf. Ps 67:17
93
The word "God" does not actually appear in the Greek text of Col 1:19. Most
translators take "God" as the implied subject (based on the context). Another option
would be to take pan to pleroma ("all the fullness") as the subject so the text would
then read, "All the fullness was pleased to dwell in Christ." But to accept the
impersonal to pleroma as the subject here is entirely unjustified, and Arnolds view
(The Colossian Syncretism, 262-263) of to pleroma as a reference to the Holy Spirit is
also unconvincing. None of his examples present a truly personal view of the spirit, not
even his reference to 2 Baruch 21:43, paralleling Gods fullness with Gods spirit.
Regardless of which view of the subject we adopt in Col 1:19 the conclusion
concerning Christs fullness remains the same: he did not possess it from all eternity.
94
Peter OBrien, Colossians, Philemon (WBC 44; Waco, Texas: Word Books,
1982), 52 (emphasis added).
LXX); according to the most probable interpretation the "fullness"

(plhvrwma) of the saving riches that dwell in Christ (so that he
may mediate them to humankind; cf. 2:9-11; Eph 1:23) refers to
the free and absolute decree of God.95
The Scriptures will not sustain the view that Almighty Gods
powers and attributes are something contingent upon the "will" or
"decree" of another. Such is the case, however, with the fullness
belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ. God "chose" (Goodspeed),
"decided" (Beck), "willed" (Moffatt) to have all His attributes
displayed in the person of His Son. This means that "in Christ God
is made known to us in his saving power, awakening our love and
enabling our worship. . . . He that hath seen me hath seen the
Father."96
However, it is actually uncommon in reading through different
commentaries and articles that discuss issues connected with 1:19
and 2:9 to find a scholar who tries to disconnect what is said in the
two passages. This is likely because they do not see the problem
involved in the use of eudokeo. White, however, recognizes the
problem, and that is why he attempts to avoid the conclusion that the
fullness in 1:19 is the same fullness mentioned in 2:9.
According to Colossians 2:10 those in union with Christ are
"possessed of a fullness by means of him" (NWT); "and through
union with Him you too are filled with it." (C. B. Williams New
Testament) These Christians are "filled with the very fullness of
God." (Eph 3:19, Goodspeed) This, however, does not make them
equal to God, the One who willed that they should possess such a
fullness in union with His Son.
95
Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, eds., Exegetical Dictionary of the New
Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 75 (emphasis added). Compare the
use of the same verb in Ga 1:15.
96
Francis W. Beare, The Epistle to the Colossians (IB 11; New York: Abingdon
Press, 1955), 171.
Titus 2:13
Do "all legitimate translations" differ from the NWT?
According to NWT, Titus 2:13 reads, "While we wait for the happy
hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Savior
of us, Christ Jesus." However, Rhodes is quick to point out the
difference in the NASB translation: "Looking for the blessed hope
and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ
Jesus." The NASB applies the titles "great God and Savior" to one
person, Jesus Christ.
Without any mention to his readers that NWT is not alone in
rendering Titus 2:13 as a reference to two individuals (God the
Father and our Savior Jesus Christ), Rhodes makes the following
allegation: "The Jehovahs Witnesses mistranslate Titus 2:13 to
make it appear that two persons are in viewGod Almighty and
Christ the Savior. Yet all legitimate translations have only one
person in view in this verseour great God and Savior, Jesus
Christ."97 According to Rhodes, then, the KJV, ASV, NAB, The
New Testament in Modern English (J. B. Phillips), The Emphasized
Bible (J. B. Rotherham), the translations of James Moffatt, Richard
Lattimore, A. S. Way (the noted translator of Homer, Virgil, and
other classics), and others, are not "legitimate translations"! Contrary
to Rhodes, we believe the above translations, including NWT, are
legitimate.
For a complete discussion of the grammatical and linguistic
issues surrounding Titus 2:13 and other scriptures with similar
grammatical content, see the Excursus after Chapter 6. At this point,
we will simply cite the translations that parallel NWT in thought,
and address one of Rhodes arguments concerning Titus 2:13 which
does not revolve around a controversial rule of Greek grammar.
God and Christ as "Savior." Rhodes argues since Titus
2:13 calls Christ "our Savior," and because "the Old Testament
indicates that it is only God who saves . . . a claim to be Savior is, in
itself, a claim to deity . . . there is only one SaviorGod," and since
"the New Testament clearly refers to Jesus Christ as the Savior, the
97
Rhodes, Reasoning, 89 (emphasis added).
only conclusion that makes sense is that Christ is indeed God."98

That might be the only conclusion which makes sense to
Rhodes, but let us see what a careful examination of the facts
reveals. First, it should be noted that though Jehovah is indeed the
Savior of His people, His methods of deliverance often involved
others who were also considered "saviors" in that they faithfully
obeyed and fulfilled the role that Jehovah outlined for them in His
purpose. One Witness publication has this to say in relation to our
discussion:
Jehovah is identified as the principal Savior, the only Source of

deliverance. (Isa 43:11; 45:21) He was the Savior and Deliverer
of Israel, time and again. (Ps 106:8, 10, 21; Isa 43:3; 45:15; Jer
14:8) He saved not only the nation but also individuals who
served him. (2Sa 22:1-3) Often his salvation was through men
raised up by him as saviors. (Ne 9:27) During the period of the
Judges, these special saviors were divinely selected and
empowered to deliver Israel from foreign oppression. (Jg 2:16;
3:9, 15) While the Judge lived, he served to keep Israel in the
right way, and this brought them relief from their enemies. (Jg
2:18) When Jesus was on earth Jehovah was his Savior,
supporting and strengthening him to maintain integrity through
his strenuous trials.Heb 5:7; Ps 28:8. . . . Salvation is provided
by Jehovah through Jesus Christ for "all sorts of men."1Ti
4:10.99
Individuals such as Othniel and Ehud were considered saviors

for their people. (Jg 3:9, 15) In these references the same Hebrew
word (uy?wm, moshia), translated "savior" or "deliverer" in Isaiah
43:11, is also used of these human Judges. Does this mean since
Isaiah 43:11 says besides Jehovah "there is no savior [moshia],"
these men were and should be considered Jehovah God? If we
follow Rhodes line of reasoning this would be "the only conclusion
that makes sense"! However, it is not the only conclusion which
makes sense. In fact, it does not make sense at all.
In the New Testament the semantic signal (a word that conveys
a certain concept or thought) "Savior," when applied to Jesus, has a
98
Ibid.
99
Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2, 873.
different meaning than when it is used of the Father, which can be

seen by a simple reading of 1 John 4:14 and other texts. So when a
reader familiar with the Christian teaching concerning Jesus
soteriological role (that is, his role as a savior) sees the word
"Savior" used in reference to Jesus, they would naturally think of
him as a "sent-forth Savior." However, when the word "Savior" is
used of the Father the natural thought, based on what is said
elsewhere in the Bible, would be to think of Him as the "Provider of
salvation." To illustrate the different senses conveyed by the same
semantic signal ("Savior") when it is used in reference to both God
and Jesus, consider figure 3.1:
Figure 3.1
The Meaning of "Savior" When Used of God and Christ
SEMANTIC
REFERENT MEANING
SIGNAL
Sent-forth Savior
"Savior" Jesus Christ
(agent of salvation)
Provider or
"Savior" God the Father
source of salvation
Perhaps that is why when the word "Savior" is unambiguously

used of Jesus in Titus it is accompanied by "our" and "Jesus Christ."
(Titus 1:4; 3:6) But when it is not used of Jesus in Titus it is always
accompanied by the word theos, "God." (Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4) In
Titus 2:13 Paul brings both terms together in view of the fact that
one will appear in the others glory, at Christs manifestation. (Mt
16:27) They are related in bringing salvation to mankind, but they
are distinct in their roles and they are distinct beings.
Prior to the coming of Christ, Jehovah God did in fact send
"saviors" to His people. (Ne 9:27) Just as Jehovah sent these saviors
to deliver His people from their troubles, He also "sent forth his Son
as Savior of the world." (1Jo 4:14) He sent His Son to deliver
mankind from our greatest enemy, death (1Co 15:26).
In view of this we can see that while Jehovah uses His servants
in administering salvation to others, He always remains our Savior
in the ultimate sense. He is the source of salvation, and His Son,

Jesus Christ, the medium of communication and the provision which
makes salvation possible (Joh 3:16; Ro 6:23; 1Jo 4:14).
Hebrews 1:8
Is the NWT really "against all the standard, legitimate
translations"? The NWT renders this verse: "But with reference to
the Son: God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of
your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." Regarding this
scripture, Rhodes claims: "The Watchtower Society mistranslates
this verse so that Jesus cannot be called God. . . . The New World
Translation goes against all the standard, legitimate translations of
Hebrews 1:8."100
Did Edgar J. Goodspeed, James Moffatt and Steven T.
Byington, in their versions of the New Testament, "mistranslate" this
verse as well? Should we consider the Twentieth Century New
Testament and the alternative readings offered in the RSV and NEB
"legitimate translations"? What of A. T. Robertsons admission,
"God is thy throne or Thy throne is God. Either makes good
sense"?101 Even Countess does not criticize NWT for "excising" the
deity of Christ in this passage, as he likely understood the difficulties
associated with this verse far better than Rhodes.
Psalm 45:7 in the Hebrew and in the LXX. Hebrews 1:8-9
is a quotation from the LXX of Psalm 45(44):7-8. The issues
surrounding the proper understanding of the Hebrew of this Psalm
will not be fully explored here. Jehovahs Witnesses accept the LXX
translation that is quoted by the author of Hebrews (whom
Jehovahs Witnesses believe to be the apostle Paul) and so this is
where our investigation will be focused. Still, the Hebrew of Psalm
45 does seem to point toward a non-vocative (that is, other than
direct address, "O God") understanding of our subject text.
Harris, although admitting in his concluding remarks to
Hebrews 1:8-9 that "some slight degree of uncertainty remains as to
100
101
A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 5 (Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1932), 339.
whether <yhwa [*elohim, God] in Psalm 45:7 (MT) is a

vocative,"102 nonetheless concludes, "The traditional rendering,
Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever, is not simply readily
defensible but remains the most satisfactory solution to the
exegetical problems posed by the verse."103 On the other hand,
Johannes Mulder believes:
Because of the generic character of the expressions irb

["fellows"] and j?m ["to anoint"] in the parallel verses and due
to the multiple references and the allusions in Ps. 45,7a to the
relation between God and the king, such a translation should be
chosen as admitting the widest possible implications. The most
literal translation, using the same brachylogy as the Hebrew
original does, is most probably the best one here, too. The final
decision about how to word the translation in English has to be
made in view of the possibilities of the English language. A
genitive in English is open to more explications than any
preposition, just as the construct state chain in Hebrew. Thus it
best renders the full impact of the Hebrew. Therefore, the present
writer prefers to render Ps. 45,7a . . . with: YOUR THRONE IS
GODS FOR EVER AND EVER.104
There have been and continue to be many different attempts to

explain and translate Psalm 45:(6)7.105 But even if the Hebrew of
Psalm 45:7 addresses a human king as "God," then it "was because
the earthly Davidic king ideally personified God on the throne that
102
Harris, Jesus as God, 227(F).
103
Ibid., 202 (C)5.
104
Johannes Stephanus Maria Mulder, Studies on Psalm 45 (Offsetdrukkeril
Witsiers - Oss, 1972), 80. For a complete discussion of the issues surrounding the
Hebrew of Psalm 45, see ibid., 34-80; Harris, Jesus as God, 187-204.
105
In addition to Harris and Mulder, another useful summary of the different
proposals is given by Gerhard Wallis, "A Note on Ps 45,7aa," in The Scriptures and
the Scrolls. Studies in Honour of A.S. Van Der Woude on the Occasion of His 65th
Birthday (VTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 101-103. Wallis offers a rather unique
approach to this verse. He considers it possible that the noun "throne" be taken as a
verb (verbum denominativum) and "God" as the subject, meaning, "God has enthroned
thee for ever and ever." This would provide three parallel references in the Psalm: "God
has blessed you" (verse 2 NWT); "God has enthroned you" (verse 6 NWT); "God has
anointed you" (verse 7 NWT). If the book of Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew
(see Jeromes comments in NPNF 3, chap. 5, page 363) then it might have been
originally understood in this same way.
he could be called god. God, then, reigned through the king who, as
did his sovereign who had anointed him, was to love righteousness
and hate wickednessrighteousness was to be the very scepter of
his kingdom."106 The same could then be true of Pauls application
of this Psalm to Christ in Hebrews 1:8. If we adopt a vocative (direct
address, "O God") rendering of 1:8, then this would simply be
another case where theos is used in a qualified sense of Christ (see
later in this discussion).
However, some may object, thinking that the original words of
Psalm 45:7-8 were not directed toward anyone but the future
Messiah, and therefore theos is not qualified in Hebrews 1:8 by
having been applied similarly to a human king. Whether that is true
or not, the fact is the words of the Psalm themselves place a clear
limitation on the significance of a vocative translation.
The context of Psalm 45 and Hebrews 1. In Hebrews 1:9
the Father speaks to the Son saying: "You loved righteousness, and
you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God [oJ qeov" sou, ho
theos sou, literally, the God of you], anointed you with the oil of
exultation more than your partners." This shows that the Son has
one who is God to him. It is hard to imagine anyone being described
as the God of Jehovah, since He is the "Most High." (Ps 83:18)
One who has another as his God is not the Most High. As Buchanan
puts it: "For the author, the Son was the first-born, the apostle of
God, the reflection of Gods glory, and the stamp of his nature (1:3,
6), but he was not God himself."107
While we cannot here address all the issues regarding the proper
translation of Hebrews 1:8, we can dispel some of the more
inaccurate claims associated with this verse. As we discussed above,
this scripture, at most, teaches a qualified godship for Jesus, since
the context shows he has one who is God to him. Also, the
translation of NWT, "God is your throne forever and ever," is in line
with the context and purpose of Hebrews 1. Paul is here presenting a
series of arguments to show that the Son "has become better than the
angels" (verse 4, emphasis added). Bowman argues, "If all this verse
106
Richard D. Patterson, "A Multiplex Approach to Psalm 45," GTJ 6 (1985),
40.
107
George W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews (AB 36; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1972), 21.
[1:8] means is that the Sons authority derives from God, this in no
way makes him unique or greater than the angels, since this could be
said of any of Gods obedient angels."108 But that is not "all this
verse means." A metaphorical reference to God as the Sons
"throne" does not simply denote "authority," but royal authority.
Mulder states:
In order to find out more precisely what ideas and relations are
indicated by the word ask ["throne"] we have to investigate its
use in the Old Testament. An interesting fact will soon be
noticed. The words found in parallelism with ask ["throne"] fall
rather neatly apart in two groups and the terms with which it is
grouped in one list fall apart in the same two groups. The one
group comprises terms that indicate the government of the king
or his royal function; the second group of terms points more or
less explicitly to the dynasty of the king, his successors.109
Thus, for the author of Hebrews to highlight the source of the

Sons royal authority, as King, is quite in line with his purpose of
demonstrating the superiority of the Son over the angels, since Jesus
resurrection. The angels do not have royal authority, for they have
not been seated "at the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places"
(Heb 1:3; compare Rev 3:21).
Do scholars "unanimously" object to the translation in
NWT? Remarkably, Rhodes believes "scholars unanimously agree"
that NWTs translation "is entirely foreign to the context."110 Of
course, we have already discussed how several respected translations
agree with the NWT rendering of Psalm 45:7 and Hebrews 1:8, and
we just discussed how NWT is quite in line with the context. But it
is not true that all scholars, in their commentaries and published
articles, believe NWTs translation is out of harmony with the
context of Hebrew 1:8. For example, B. F. Westcott states:
The LXX [from which Paul was quoting] admits of two

renderings: [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative . . . (Thy throne,
108
Robert M. Bowman Jr., Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to
Jehovahs Witnesses (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 107.
109
Mulder, Studies on Psalm 45, 73 (emphasis added).
110
O God, . . .) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in

the first case (God is Thy throne [=NWT] or Thy throne is
God...) . . . On the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause
the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is
Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable rock ... The
phrase God is Thy throne is not indeed found elsewhere, but it
is in no way more strange than Ps. [71:3] . . . The angels are
subject to constant change, [the Son] has a dominion for ever and
ever.111
Some significant textual variants. Westcott also points

out that the variant aujtou' (autou, "of him"), if adopted in place of
sou (sou, "of you" [preferred by NWT]), "requires" a translation
like NWTs.112 However, Harris is correct when he says this is not
entirely accurate, and that while "it remains true that sou accords
better with a vocative and aujtou' with a nominative," "it is also
possible to prefer aujtou' yet take oJ qeov" as a vocative."113 The
original reading is probably sou and scribes changed sou to autou
because they took "God" in the first part of verse 8 as a
nominative (= "God is your throne," or "Your throne is God")
"and therefore supplied a natural antecedent for aujtou'."114
Does the translation really matter? As noted earlier, even if
we took "God" in Hebrews 1:8 as a vocative ("O God"), this would
not conflict with the Witnesses understanding of the Bible. We
have no problem recognizing the unique, individual deity of Gods
Son. (Joh 1:18) Trinitarians, however, object to Christs individual,
unique deity, and must insist that he shares in the essence of a tri-
personal Godhead, and there is nothing in Psalm 45:7 or Hebrews
111
B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [1889]
1950), 25-26.
112
Ibid., 26.
113
Harris, Jesus as God, 212. Harris observes that several translations, including
the JB, NEB, NASB, and REB do in fact prefer aujtou', but still translate oJ qeov"
("God") as a vocative (see ibid., note 25).
114
Ibid., 211, b., 4. See pages 210-212 of Harris book for a complete discussion
of the arguments in favor of each variant. On page 210, note 22, Harris lists several
scholars who accept autou as original. To this list we may add Kenneth J. Thomas,
"The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews," in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins,
Recensions, and Interpretations (Ktav Publishing House, 1974), 305, note 3; see also,
Alan H. Cadwallader, "The Corrections of the Text of Hebrews Toward the LXX," NT
34.3 (1992), 262, note 31, 283-284.
1:8 that speaks of Christ sharing in a Godhead of thee persons. In his

article on the use of theos in reference to Jesus, G. H. Boobyer
observes:
But, to be sure, already in the Old Testament, Israels king as

Gods anointed finds mention as "son of God," and one or two
passages occur in which the noun "god" is actually used of men.
Psalm xlv. 6f. provides a significant example, because here the
greater and lesser senses of the substantive "God" appear side by
side namely "God" in the usual sense of the supreme God of
Israel and "god" denoting the person of Israels king.
Furthermore, this same passage appears in Hebrews i.8f. as a
testimonium related to Christ, where it is "god" in its lesser
connotation in the original which, following the usual translation
of the passage, is apparently related to Jesus Christ.115
Any use of the term "G-god" in the Bible is significant to some

degree. But even if Christ is called "G-god" at Hebrews 1:8 it is
"god in its lesser connotation," which is indicated by its possible
application to the human king in Psalm 45, and the clear limitation
the context, specifically Hebrews 1:9, places on it. In Hebrews 1:8
the word "God" is not used in a manner consistent with the
Trinitarian understanding of God, for such an understanding
developed centuries after the letter to the Hebrews was written.
Part TwoIs Jesus Jehovah?

Proponents of the Trinity doctrine are fond of quoting various
passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that allegedly prove the
writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures or New Testament (NT)
understood Jesus to be Jehovah God of the Old Testament (OT).
Most of the examples offered as proof for such a contention have
115
G. H. Boobyer, "Jesus as THEOS in the New Testament," BJRL 50 (1967-
68), 256 (emphasis added).
been sufficiently addressed elsewhere.116 However, there are three

cases where more can and should be said.
Two of the examples are instances where writers of the NT
appeal to specific texts from the OT, and establish an identity, it is
argued, between Jesus and Jehovah. In the third example
descriptive terms and titles are allegedly applied to Christ with the
same meaning and significance that they had when applied to
Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, we believe that a
careful consideration of these verses in their respective contexts
will provide a different understanding, which is more in line with
the overall teaching of Scripture.
The Application of Psalm 102:25-27

to the Son of God at Hebrews 1:10-12
The words of Psalm 102:25-27 read: "Long ago you laid the
foundation of the earth itself. And the heavens are the work of your
hands. They themselves will perish, but you yourself will keep
standing; And just like a garment they will all of them wear out. Just
like clothing you will replace them, and they will finish their turn.
But you are the same, and your own years will not be completed."
These words are, as the context reveals, directed to the Sovereign
Lord, Jehovah God. However, in the New Testament, in Hebrews
1:10-12, Paul117 applies these words to Jesus Christ.
Because of this, some have concluded that 1) Jesus is the
Creator and 2) he is "Jehovah of the Old Testament," the One to
whom these words were originally addressed. Is this what the author
of Hebrews was teaching? A careful examination of Hebrews 1 as
well as other, related verses will reveal the truth of the matter.
116
See Watchtower Publications Index 1930-1985, also the Index for 1986-1990
(Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1986, 1990), under the headings,
"Questions from Readers," "Trinity," or in the "Scripture Index" located at the end of
each volume.
117
In spite of the fact that many scholars reject Pauline authorship for the book of
Hebrews, Jehovahs Witnesses accept Paul as the author. See "All Scripture Is Inspired
of God and Beneficial" 2d. ed. (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1990),
243-244.
Is Jesus the Creator? We will consider Christs role in

creation in greater detail in Chapter 7. It will be shown that in 1
Corinthians 8:6 the apostle Paul makes a careful distinction between
the "one God" (the Father) as the one "out of [ ejx, ex (hereafter
transliterated as ek)] whom all things are," and Jesus Christ as the
one "through [di, a contraction of dia] whom" all things came into
being. Hebrews 1 begins by giving reasons why we should "pay
more than the usual attention to the things heard" through Gods
Son. (Heb 2:1; see also, Joh 7:16, 17; 12:49, 50) In verses 1 and 2
we are told: "God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in
many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, has at the
end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he
appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems
of things."
Clearly, then, in context Hebrews 1:10-12 could not be teaching
that Jesus is the Creator, for here, in the opening words to the
Hebrews, it is clearly stated that God made all things "through" His
Son. Since Jesus role in creation has already been discussed (Heb
1:3), it is not likely that in verses 10-12 the author would return to
the same point he has explained earlier. It could be that these verses
from Psalm 102 are appropriately applied to the Son of God in view
of his being the preexistent Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs 8. There
he is described as a "master worker" alongside his Creator, Jehovah.
(Pr 8:22-31) B. W. Bacon acknowledges, "The passage could be
made to prove the doctrine that the Messiah is none other than the
preexistent Wisdom of Prov 8, 22-31, through whom according to
our author [the author of Hebrews], v.2, God made the worlds."118
It would certainly be appropriate to refer to the heavens and
the earth as the work of Christs hands in a secondary sense in
view of his being the mediator of the creative acts of Jehovah
God.119 Indeed, as the "master craftsman"120 Jesus was very much
involved in Jehovahs works. (Pr 8:30, Jerusalem Bible) Still,
118
Benjamin W. Bacon, "Heb 1,10-12 and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps 102,23,"
ZNW 3 (1902), 285. Compare F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Revised Edition
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 63, note 103.
119
See Reasoning from the Scriptures, (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1989), 414, par. 3.
120
See Chapter 4, pages 228-232 for a discussion of Jesus as the Wisdom of
Proverbs 8:22-31, and page 233 for a discussion of *amon (=NWTs "master worker").
there seems to be another reason why Paul applies verses 25-27 of

the 102nd Psalm to Gods beloved Son.
The immortal Son. Is it to prove Jesus of Nazareth is
Jehovah of the Old Testament that the author of Hebrews makes
this type of application of Psalm 102? Again, those who embrace
the doctrine of the Trinity would likely answer, "Yes, the fact that
a verse was originally applied to God, and later applied to Jesus,
proves that he is Jehovah of the Old Testament."
Using this type of reasoning one might feel justified in
concluding that Solomon was Jesus Christ! Why? Because in the
verses just previous to Hebrews 1:10-12 Paul wrote: "But with
reference to the Son: God is your throne forever and ever, and the
scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. You loved
righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your
God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your
partners" (Heb 1:8-9).
As we have already discussed, the translation "God is your
throne" in this chapter, we simply want to point out that these
words were originally addressed to Solomon in Psalm 45:6-7, but
here in Hebrews 1:8-9 they are applied to the Lord Jesus Christ.
The book Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 414, adds more to
the point:
It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made

from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although
that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application
of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are
the same. Jesus is "greater than Solomon" and carries out a work
foreshadowed by Solomon.Luke 11:31.
Paul no more intended to identify Jesus with Jehovah than he

intended to identify Solomon with Jesus. He did, however, apply
certain concepts and ideas expressed in those verses that were
originally applied to Jehovah God and Solomon, to the Son of God.
The application of Psalm 45:6-7 to Jesus at Hebrews 1:8-9 shows
that God is the source of Jesus royal office and authority. Because
Jesus "loved righteousness and hated lawlessness," Jehovah
"anointed him with the oil of exultation." Pauls words are, "God,
your God [oJ qeov" sou; lit. the God of you]," when referring to
the One who anointed Jesus.
Jehovah was both the source of Solomons royal authority as
well as his God. The same is true of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jehovah
is the source of his authority and is also his God (compare Da 7:13,
14; Mt 28:18; Php 2:9,10; Rev 3:2,12). Paul next applies Psalm
102:25-27 to Jesus in the following words, as recorded at Hebrews
1:10-12:
You at the beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth

itself, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They
themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain
continually; and just like an outer garment they will all grow old,
and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment;
and they will be changed, but you are the same, and your years
will never run out [emphasis added].
The emphasized portion of the above helps us to appreciate the

point Paul is making. His understanding that God made all things
"through" his Son makes the application of this Psalm to Jesus even
more appropriate, as was noted earlier. Yet, the thrust of his message
is to highlight Jesus immortality (deathlessness) since his
resurrection by God. (Ro 6:9; Ga 1:1) Jesus will "remain
continually," unlike the creation that he was instrumental in bringing
forth, which, if left on its own without Jehovahs power to "keep it
standing" (Ps 148:1-6), would certainly "perish."121 Gods Son is
now "living forever and ever," and his "years will never run out"
(Heb 1:12; Rev 1:18; compare Heb 7:16, 25).
When he was on earth, Jesus was "lower than the angels"
(which shows that he was not a God-man while on earth), and since
his resurrection from the dead he has been elevated to a "superior
position," having become "better than the angels to the extent that he
has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." (Php 2:9; Heb 1:4;
2:9) He is also better in that he is now immortal, thus like his
heavenly Father, as expressed in Psalm 102:25-27, which is now
121
For a discussion of these verses in relation to the future of the literal heavens and
earth, see "Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 1 August 1971, 479-480. Compare
Ps 104:5; 148:1-6; Pr 2:21, 22; Ec 1:4; Isa 45:18.
also applicable to Christ. Yet, even though he has obtained such a

lofty position, he is still not the equal of his Father, Jehovah (1Co
11:3).
Jehovah is the "Most High" and Jesus Christ is his only-
begotten Son. (Ps 83:18; Lu 1:32; Joh 3:16) Jesus is not identified as
Jehovah in Hebrews 1:10-12. Jehovah is his God. The prophets
knew this; the apostles knew this; and, more important, Jesus
himself knew this (Mic 5:4; Joh 20:17; Eph 1:3, 17; 1Pe 1:3; Heb
1:9; Rev 3:2, 12).
Isaiah 6:1 and John 12:41

The Glory of Jehovah or Jesus?
Understanding the argument. It has been suggested to
this author by various advocates of the Trinity doctrine, that in
John 12:41 the beloved apostle refers to Isaiahs temple vision of
Jehovah in Isaiah 6, and with the words, "he [Isaiah] saw his
[Jesus] glory and spoke about him [Jesus]," we have an explicit
identification of Jesus as Jehovah, for the context of John 12
clearly shows that Jesus is indeed the one spoken of in verse 41.
But does John speak of the "glory" that Isaiah 6 describes as that
which was filling the halls of the spiritual temple? True, the
appearance of Jehovah in vision is glorious, but will a careful
analysis of the context of John 12:41 direct us to Isaiah 6:1, as the
cross-reference of the NWT Reference Bible suggests?
NWTs cross-references to Isaiah 6. Here we must keep
in mind the purpose of the marginal references in NWT:
"References are given as parallel thoughts, events and accounts;
biographical information; geographical information; citations of
the fulfillment of Bible prophecies within the Bible itself; direct
quotations of phrases, expressions and entire verses from other
parts of the Bible; and connections between Law covenant
patterns and their fulfillment as related in the Christians Greek
Scriptures. All of this leads to a wealth of Bible knowledge." 122
122
New World Translation of the Holy Bible with References, Introduction
(Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1984), 8.
So the reference to Isaiah 6:1 is not a dogmatic assertion that that

text is the basis for interpreting the words of John 12:41. One
issue of The Watchtower gives us this interpretation of Johns
words:
What "things" did Isaiah say "because he saw his glory"? Well,
John quotes Isaiah here twice, first quoting Isaiah 53:1
concerning the arm of Jehovah and then quoting Isaiah 6:10
concerning the temple vision. At Isaiah 53:1 the arm of
Jehovah is Christ Jesus. At Isaiah 6:10 the speaker at the
temple is Jehovah, but he includes his Son with him when he
says: "Who will go for us?" that is, for me and my Son. Thus
we see that the prehuman Jesus was associated with Jehovah in
his glory at the temple, and hence John could rightly say Isaiah
here saw his glory and spoke about him, "the arm of Jehovah."
Certainly Jesus the Greater Isaiah had not sent himself, but
Jehovah at the temple did so, for John here applies Isaiah 6:10
to Jesus as the Sent One toward whom this prophecy was first
fulfilled, after Jesus had ridden into Jerusalem and offered
himself as King and had cleansed the temple. . . . Especially
since his resurrection, Jesus is the reflection of Jehovahs
glory.Heb. 1:2, 3; 2 Cor. 4:6.123
The context of John 12:41. In John 12:37 it is said that

although Jesus "performed many signs before them [that is, the
crowds that stood about], they were not putting faith in him."
Then in verse 38 John refers to their response (or lack thereof) as
fulfillment of Isaiah 53:1. In verses 39 and 40 we are told why
Isaiah 53:1 was fulfilled in them: "He has blinded their eyes and
he has made their hearts hard, that they should not see with their
eyes and get the thought with their hearts and turn around and I
should heal them." This is a reference to Isaiah 6:10. Finally, in
verse 41 John tells us, "Isaiah said these things because he saw his
glory, and he spoke about him."
Isaiah spoke about Jesus, the Messiah, in Isaiah 53, when he
foresaw the future glory of the one who would "come up like a
twig" and "like a root out of waterless land." (verse 2) Isaiah also
123
"Commissioning of Witnesses in the Time of the End," The Watchtower, 1
April 1951, 219.
saw the glory of "the arm of Jehovah" in that he would "bring a

righteous standing to many people," "and for the transgressors he
[would] interpose." (verses 1, 11-12) Therefore, John 12:41 refers
primarily to Isaiahs Messianic references in chapter 53, whereas
John 12:39-40 explains why the crowds surrounding Jesus "were
not able to believe."
The "glory" of the Messiah. Again, it seems reasonably
clear that the things Isaiah said about Jesus are found in Isaiah 53,
as cited in John 12:38. Verses 39-40 are an explanation of why the
crowds were not able to believe. If verse 41 has any reference at
all to Isaiah 6 it does not necessarily involve an identification of
Jesus as Jehovah. Rather, the context of Isaiah 6 does seem to
have some Messianic significance. In verses 6-7 there could be
some prophetic significance in the atonement of Isaiahs sins,
perhaps foreshadowing the redemptive act the future Messiah
would perform to remove the sins of many (compare Isa 53:11).
Also, there is the reference to the one Jehovah would send as
a messenger to his people, which could also be a foreshadowing
of the role that Jesus would eventually have, in the outworking of
Jehovahs purpose. Some later theologians held that Jesus was
actually one of the seraphs in the vision.124 In Isaiah 6:8 Jehovah
says, "Who will go for us [wnl, lanu, for us]." This indicates that
someone other than Jehovah was present in this vision, and that
someone may very well have been the Lord Jesus Christ, in his
pre-human glory as the "Word" (Joh 1:1; compare Joh 17:5).
Our quote from The Watchtower on the connection between
Isaiah 6 and John 12 suggested that Isaiah may have seen the
glory of the preexistent Logos. This view would be in line with
the Targum of Isaiah. Knowing as he did that no man (including
Isaiah) has ever seen God (Joh 1:18), John may have been
following the tradition behind the Targum translation of Isaiah
6:1, which reads, "the glory of the Lord," and in verse 5 "the glory
of the shekinah of the Lord."125 Still, it seems clear that John is
124
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii) (AB 29; Garden
City, New York: Doubleday, 1966), 487.
125
Brown, John (i-xii), 486-487. Wilbert F. Howard, The Gospel According to
St. John (IB 8; New York: Abingdon, 1952), 673, states: "The evangelist declared `No
one has ever seen God' (1:18). He was probably well aware of the rendering in the
directly referring to those things Isaiah "spoke" in chapter 53 of

the book bearing his name. Here Isaiah saw his [the Messiahs]
day, even as Abraham is reported to have done (Joh 8:56), and
"spoke about him."
Indeed, since the immediate context of John 12:41 is very
much dependent on Isaiah 53, and what is there prophesied about
Jesus, the reference to seeing Jesus "glory" may be in direct
reference to Isaiah 52:13, where Jehovah says that His servant, the
Messiah, would be "glorified" (doxasqhvsetai, doxasthesetai).
Jesus himself refers to the glorification Isaiah saw in John 12:23,
and it is not unlikely that John picked up on this same point a few
verses later, in 12:41. Isaiah was not confused at all about the
identity of the Messiah, and what position he occupied in relation
to the Most High. (Isa 11:1-3) Neither was John confused about
their relationship (Joh 1:18).
Is Jesus "the Alpha and the Omega"?

When discussing the position of Jesus in relation to Jehovah
God, it is quite common for believers in the Trinity doctrine to
refer to several passages where they claim the descriptions "Alpha
and Omega," "first and last," and "beginning and end" are applied
to Gods Son. The purpose of this portion of our discussion is to
determine whether or not Jesus is given any of these titles, and, if
so, what is their meaning and significance.
To do so, we must first analyze each occurrence of these
descriptions, determine who the intended referent is according to
the context, and then try to uncover the meaning of the
description.
Revelation 1:8. According to the NIV, this verse reads: "I
am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is, and
who was, and who is to come [ oJ w]n kaiV oJ h\n kaiV oJ ejrcovmeno";
ho on kai ho en kai ho erkhomenos], the Almighty." Here the
Targ. of Isa. 6:1, I saw the glory of the Lord." Franklin Young, "A Study of the
Relation of Isaiah to the Fourth Gospel," ZNW 46 (1955), 215, points out that "the
words [of John 12:41] have been interpreted as referring to a vision of the Logos
identified with Jesus, the pre-existent Messiah."
"Alpha and Omega" is clearly identified as "the Lord God," or

"Jehovah God" (NWT).
In an attempt to further identify the "Alpha and Omega" of
this verse, Trinitarians have tried to establish a link between Jesus
in verse seven, who is there spoken of as "coming," and the One
"who is coming" according to verse eight. There are several
problems with this interpretation, however, which make such an
identification practically impossible from a biblical perspective.
First, in Revelation 1:4, 5, John writes to the seven
congregations that are in the district of Asia: "Grace and peace to
you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come [ho on
kai ho en kai ho erkhomenos], and from the seven spirits before
his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the
firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth"
(emphasis added).
Here we can see that just prior to verse 8 the description of
the One "who is, and who was, and who is to come" is given to
One who is clearly distinguished from "the seven spirits" and
"Jesus Christ." It would seem obvious that the only other person
from whom "undeserved kindness and peace" could come is the
Father.
Thus, the "coming" of the "Alpha and Omega" in verse eight
is consistent with the description of the Fathers "coming" in verse
four. Further proof that a reference to the "coming" of the Father
is supported by Scripture, particularly the book of Revelation, is
found in chapter 6 verses 16, 17, where those who refuse to bear
witness to God and Jesus cry out: "Fall over us and hide us from
the face of the One seated on the throne and from the wrath of the
Lamb, because the great day of their wrath has come [emphasis
added], and who is able to stand?"126
Here we can see that "the One seated on the throne" is also
seen as "coming" with the Lamb on the "great day of their wrath."
Throughout the book of Revelation, including here in 6:16, "the
One seated on the throne" is a common reference to Jesus God
126
Though "their" (aujtw'n) is supported by a C 1611 1854 2053 2344 and other
witnesses, the singular aujtou' ("his") is found in A P 046 and "all minuscules,"
according to Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3d
corrected ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975), 739-740.
and Father. (4:10; 5:1, 7; 7:10, 15; 21:5) There is no compelling

evidence to support the belief that Revelation 1:8 is a reference to
Jesus Christ. In fact, the evidence seems to point decisively in
favor of the Father being "the Alpha and the Omega" of this verse.
Revelation 1:10, 11. The reference to these verses in our
study might at first surprise some, for according to nearly every
modern English translation they read: "By inspiration I came to be
in the Lords day, and I heard behind me a strong voice like that
of a trumpet, saying: What you see write in a scroll and send it to
the seven congregations, in Ephesus and in Smyrna and in
Pergamum and in Thyatira and in Sardis and in Philadelphia and
in Laodicea."
However, to readers of the King James Version these verses
demand explanation, for in it we read: "I was in the Spirit on the
Lords day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What
thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches
which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto
Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto
Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea" (emphasis added).
This reading is also found in The Living Bible (Kenneth
Taylor), The Amplified New Testament, and Youngs Literal
Translation of the Holy Bible (Robert Young), although Young
admits that the "oldest MSS. omit" the above emphasized portion
of verse 11.127
Of course, if the KJV were correct in its reading of verse 11
then it would prove to be an undisputed reference to Jesus as the
"Alpha and Omega," as verses twelve through twenty reveal him
to be the speaker in this context. However, the reading of the KJV
is not part of the inspired record, as it does not have any support
from the early manuscripts of the New Testament. Its addition to
some late Byzantine texts was apparently from an overzealous
scribe who recognized the need for more support from the
Scriptures to uphold an identification between Jesus and "the
Alpha and the Omega."
127
Robert Young, Youngs Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible, paperback
ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 179 of the New Testament section.
Revelation 21:6. Here is the second, non-interpolated

occurrence of "the Alpha and the Omega," according to the RSV:
"And he said to me, It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega,
the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the
fountain of the water of life without payment."
According to verse five, "the One seated on the throne" is the
speaker. This fact alone would seem to point conclusively to the
Father as "the Alpha and the Omega" of verse six, but there is
more. The "One seated on the throne" continues in verse seven:
"Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his
God and he will be my son." In reference to verse seven, the book
Reasoning from the Scriptures, pages 412-413, observes:
Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual

conquerors are to be sons of the one known as the Alpha and
the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-
anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as
brothers. (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those
brothers of Jesus are referred to as "sons of God."Gal.
3:26; 4:6.
Of course, in the context of the two scriptures in Galatians

where the "brothers" of Christ are referred to as "sons of God,"
"God" here is clearly a reference to "God the Father," as Jesus is
distinguished from Him in the context of these verses.128 Thus, the
fact that "the One seated on the throne" is speaking and He refers
to the "conquerors" as His "sons," again favors understanding a
description of the Father in verse six as "the Alpha and the
Omega." On the other hand, there is no compelling evidence to see
a reference to Jesus in verse six.
Revelation 22:12-13. The last mention in Scripture of "the
Alpha and the Omega" reads as follows: "Look! I am coming
quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as
his work is. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last,
the beginning and the end." This is the only instance where
Trinitarians have offered a credible means of identifying the
128
See the latter part of 3:26 as well as 4:4; see also Mt 5:45; Ro 8:14, 15, 19,
23; 9:4, 26; Eph 1:5.
speaker as Jesus Christ. However, the evidence provided to

support such a contention is really not as convincing as they think.
It is recognized by all parties concerned that "the Alpha and
the Omega" begins speaking in verse 12, and continues at least to
verse 15. Yet, Trinitarians argue that the speaker continues
through verse 16, which reads: "I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear
witness to you people of these things for the congregations. I am
the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star."
If, therefore, the speaker of verses 12-15 continues through
verse 16, then "the Alpha and the Omega" would definitely be
identified as "Jesus," who identifies himself in the first person at
the beginning of verse 16. But does the simple fact that in verse
16 we see the first-person singular "I" followed by the explicit
identification of the speaker, "Jesus," mean that the scriptures just
prior to verse 16 are also the words of Jesus? Consider two
examples from the book of Revelation that reveal the limitations
of such a conclusion.
The first example is Revelation 1:9, which reads according to
the NASB: "I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the
tribulation and kingdom and perseverance [which are] in Jesus,
was on the island called Patmos, because of the word of God and
the testimony of Jesus." Here John, right after "the Alpha and the
Omega" finishes speaking in verse 8, refers to himself in the first-
person singular, followed by an explicit identification through the
use of his name. Surely no one will argue this means John is "the
Alpha and the Omega" of the previous verse!
The second example is found in Revelation 22:8: "I, John, am
the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard
and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who
had been showing them to me." (NIV) Will anyone conclude
based on the opening of this verse that John is the one "coming
quickly" in verse 7?
Based on the aforementioned examples, one might well
wonder why there are so many sudden changes in speaker
throughout the book of Revelation. The truth is, there may not be
that many after all. In fact, the only other direct speaker in the
book of Revelation, other than John that is, would appear to be the
angel Jesus sent to deliver the revelation that his God and Father
gave to him, as Revelation 1:1 reveals: "A revelation by Jesus

Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that
must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented
it in signs through him [the angel] to his slave John."
Eugene Boring has presented a fine study of the different
speakers in Revelation, showing how complicated it can be to
rightly discern who is speaking in the different visions. He notes
that angels are "by far the largest number of speakers in
Revelation," and he identifies problem passages such as
Revelation 9:12 where it is "difficult to determine whether it is the
continuing voice of the angel who has been speaking."129
Though Boring believes John speaks as Jesus in Revelation
16:15 and that it is quite possible in Revelation 22:7 and 22:16
and angel is "speaking for Jesus in the present," he seems to have
some difficulty working his way through the different speakers in
Revelation 1:8, 21:6 and 22:13.130 But, for the most part, he
shows acute awareness of a number of issues relating to the
speakers in Revelation that seem to go unnoticed by many who
contend Jesus is "the Alpha and the Omega." For example, Boring
writes:
When God, Christ, Spirit, Angel, and prophet were thought of

together, the conceptual result was a kind of revelatory
"chain," but it functioned as a synchronic Gestalt [a pattern so
well unified that its parts are difficult to distinguish from the
whole] rather than as a linear chain of command. The voices,
and the figures they represent, do not remain distinct, but
fade into each other. There are numerous examples of the
phenomenon of the modulation/ transposition/ blending/
overlapping/ fading of voices into each other.
When we consider Revelation 22:12-16 in this light, we can

see how the angel could switch from speaking the words of
129
M. Eugene Boring, "The Voice of Jesus in the Apocalypse of John," NovT
34.4 (1992), 338, 341. He is in error, though, when he says (page 338) no angel is
named in Revelation (compare 12:7).
130
Ibid., 336-337, 340, 342 note 12, 355. But note his astute remarks in the
first paragraph of page 344.
Jehovah God, to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. To help

illustrate that the angel is in fact the one speaking for both "the
Alpha and the Omega" and Jesus Christ in verses 12-16, consider
the following dialogue between John and one of Gods angels,
from Revelation 21:9-22:11 (NIV):
One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the
seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show
you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." And he carried me away
in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the
Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.
[Revelation 21:11-14 are omitted for brevity] The angel who
talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the
city, its gates and its walls. The city was laid out like a square,
as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and
found it to be 12,000 stadia. He [that is, the angel] measured
its wall and it was 144 cubits by man's measurement, which
the angel was using. [Rev 21:18-27 are omitted for brevity] . . .
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as
clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the
Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. [Rev
22:2-5 are omitted for brevity] . . . The angel said to me,
"These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of
the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants
the things that must soon take place." [note the break in the
quotation] "Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who
keeps the words of the prophecy in this book." I, John, am the
one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard
and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel
who had been showing them to me. But he [the angel] said to
me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with
your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of
this book. Worship God!" Then he [the angel] told me, "Do not
seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the
time is near. Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong;
let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right
continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be
holy."
As you can see, even though NIV places a break in the

quotation from Revelation 22:6 where the angel is clearly
speaking, and 22:7, where the speaker says, "I am coming
quickly," there really is no such break indicated in the text itself.
Also, for obvious reasons, NIV breaks up the words in 22:11 and
22:12, this so the angel is not understood as speaking the words of
"the Alpha and the Omega." However, as Revelation 1:1 reveals,
an angel was sent to bring the divine message to John; so, it
should be no surprise that this angel speaks the words of God and
Christ Jesus.131 In fact, it is quite common in the Hebrew
Scriptures to find examples where angels speak directly for God,
even referring to themselves as "God" or "Jehovah" (compare Ex
3:2-6; De 5:4; Ac 7:30, 38, 53).
As far as the One "coming quickly" in Revelation 22:12, we
have already discussed how Jehovah and Jesus Christ are
understood as "coming" to the "war of the great day of God the
Almighty." (Rev 16:14) One Witness publication states: "The
expression, Look! I am coming quickly, in verse 12, does not
require that these aforementioned verses apply to Jesus, inasmuch
as God also speaks of himself as coming to execute judgment.
(Compare Isa 26:21.) Malachi 3:1-6 speaks of a joint coming for
judgment on the part of Jehovah and his messenger of the
covenant."132
Also, note the similarity of this verse, which speaks of God
coming with a reward, and Isaiah 40:10: "Look! The Sovereign
Lord Jehovah himself will come even as a strong one, and his arm
will be ruling for him. Look! his reward is with him, and the wage
he pays is before him." Hebrews 11:6 likewise refers to God the
Father as "the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him."
On several occasions Jehovahs Witnesses have identified the
one "coming quickly" in Revelation 22:12 as the Lord Jesus
Christ.133 But in other articles the one "coming quickly" in
131
See Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 1 (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1988), 81.
132
Ibid., 81.
133
See "Christs Coming an Academic Question?" The Watchtower, 1 July 1955,
387; "Keep on the Watch," The Watchtower, 1 October 1978, 15.
Revelation 22:12 is Jehovah.134 In conversations with this author,

some have also referred to the following statement in a more
recent Watchtower publication, "Both he [Jesus] and Jehovah
God himself repeatedly stress the fact that they are coming
quickly, or soon, Jesus here saying that for the fifth time.
(Revelation 2:16; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20)"135 They point to the fact
that the five scriptures listed are all applied to Jesus, and that this
is another, more recent instance where the words of Revelation
22:12 are attributed to Jesus Christ.
Of course, such reasoning ignores the fact that on page 316 of
the Revelation book these words are attributed to "Jehovah, the
King of eternity," and that on page 317, paragraph 9, the first
sentence specifically distinguishes the words of Jehovah in verses
12-15 from the words of Jesus in 22:16. The five verses listed
above from page 319 likely included Revelation 22:12 as one of
the references to Jehovah, for the preceding sentence clearly
states, "Both he [Jesus] and Jehovah God himself repeatedly stress
the fact that they are coming quickly" (emphasis added).
In any event, Witness literature occasionally links Jesus with
Revelation 22:12 in view of the fact that the writer of the article(s)
in question was intent on finding the expression "coming
quickly," which is normally used by Jesus; the writer was not
concerned with identifying "the Alpha and the Omega." Of
course, the expression, "coming quickly" is not used exclusively
of Jesus coming (compare Rev 11:14), and it can hardly be
considered unusual that God should use it in Revelation 22:12, for
He is also spoken of as "coming" (Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; compare
11:17).
When you come right down to it, there really is no
compelling evidence to identify Jesus as "the Alpha and the
Omega" of Revelation 22:12. Surely, then, it is acceptable to
understand this as a reference to the same One referred to as "the
134
See "Make Up Your Mind Now as to Whom You Will Serve," 15 November
1967, 680; "Detest Utterly the World's Disgraceful Course," The Watchtower, 15 June
1988, 20; "Who Is the Alpha and the Omega?" Awake! 22 August 1978, 28.
135
RevelationIts Grand Climax At Hand! (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society, 1988), 319.
Alpha and the Omega" in earlier verses, yes, "the One who is and
who was and who is coming," the Almighty Father, Jehovah!
"The First and the Last." Although Jesus is never
described as "the Alpha and the Omega," he does bear the title,
"the First and the Last." (Rev 1:17; 2:8) What does this mean? Of
the three occurrences of the title "Alpha and Omega," two of them
are accompanied by the description "the beginning and the end,"
while only the last one, Revelation 22:12, adds a third description,
"the first and the last." Does this title carry the same meaning
when applied to Jesus and the Father, assuming the Father (which
assumption we base on the above presentation of facts) is in fact
the One spoken of in Revelation 22:12? To answer this question
we must examine the context of the three verses in Revelation
where the description "first and last" is used.
In Revelation 1:17-18, we read: "And when I [John] saw him
[the glorified Jesus], I fell dead at his feet. And he laid his right
hand upon me and said: Do not be fearful. I am the First and the
Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living
forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." Just
a few verses later, in Revelation 2:8, John is told to write: "These
are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and
came to life again." (NIV) We can see that the immediate context
(sometimes called the "cotext") links Jesus death and resurrection
to the meaning of the description "the First and the Last."
Also worthy of note is the fact that "the Alpha and the
Omega" is not used in tandem with "the First and the Last" in
these two Scriptures, nor is "the beginning and the end." Jesus is
simply "the First and the Last" in relation to his death and unique
resurrection by the Father, which is why he is elsewhere referred
to as the "firstborn from the dead." (Rev 1:5; compare Col 1:18)
Remarkably, the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus [A] reads
"firstborn," instead of "first," at both Revelation 1:17 and 2:8;
however, in 22:12, where the context makes no reference to "the
Alpha and the Omega" dying and coming to life again, we find
"first" (prw'to", protos), not "firstborn" (prwtovtoko", prototokos).
This shows that the scribe of Codex A recognized a difference in
meaning between the references to Jesus in 1:17 and 2:8, and "the
Alpha and the Omega" in 22:13. And, again, the description
"Alpha and Omega" does not accompany the title "the First and
the Last" in 1:17 or 2:8, as it does in 22:13.
As the first part of 22:12 refers back to Isaiah 40:10, the
additional description of "the Alpha and the Omega" as "the first
and the last" seems to recall (although the LXX does read the
same as the Greek of Revelation on this point) the words of Isaiah
44:6: "I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no
God." That Revelation 1:17 and 2:8 could not have this same
meaning seems clear from the fact that "the first and the last" of
Isaiah 44:6 is obviously God Almighty, Jehovah; but Jesus, in the
same glorified state in which he is called "First and Last" in the
context of his death and resurrection, admits to another as his
God:
Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I

have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God. . .
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my
God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name
of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new
Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God;
and I will also write on him my new name.Rev 3:2, 12
(NIV).
This is hardly something we would expect to hear from "the

first and the last" of Isaiah 44:6! Also, it does no good to invoke
fifth-century (CE) christology to explain away the fact that Jesus
has One who is God to him. Not only are they different "persons"
(that is, Father and Son), but they are not the same God. One is
the God of the other.
To teach that Christ has two-natures in one person is not only
against the teaching of Scripture, but it flies in the face of logic
and reason. After all, how could one person possess unlimited
knowledge and at the same time be limited in knowledge?
(Compare Rev 1:1 where Jesus is given a revelation [=disclosure
of divine knowledge136].) This would be a violation of the law of
non-contradiction: "A" cannot be "non-A" at the same time and in
the same way.
136
See Chapter 4, page 199.
In this case we are dealing with knowledge, and Jesus either

has it or he does not. His 100% divine nature cannot have it
while at the same time his 100% human nature does not; that is,
if he has but one center of consciousness. If there is more than one
center of consciousness then there is more than one person. At any
rate, Jesus adds no such qualification (such as, "God of my
human self") to his statement in Revelation 3:2, 12.
Another indication that "the First and the Last" of Revelation
1:17 and 2:8 is not the equivalent to the expression used by
Jehovah in Isaiah 44:6, is, as we noted earlier, the fact that its
context specifically limits the meaning of this expression to Jesus'
death and unique resurrection. But, can Jehovah die? Habakkuk
1:12 tells us: "Are you not from long ago, O Jehovah? O my God,
my Holy One, you do not die" (emphasis added).
Many translations render the emphasized portion as "we shall
not die." The reason for this difference is explained by the
following: "We shall not die represents the Hebrew text, followed
by the LXX, but at this point occurs one of the eighteen
emendations of the scribes (Tiqqune Sopherim): the margin bids
one read Thou shalt not die parallel to from everlasting. This is
preferable. If we shall not die is the true reading, it is hard to
understand its presence here unless it is a gloss."137 Likewise,
Ralph Smith translates this portion of Habakkuk 1:12, "You
[Jehovah] shall not die," stating that this "expresses the same idea
as the first line, that Yahweh never dies. He lives forever."138
137
Charles L. Taylor, The Book of Habakkuk (IB 6; New York: Abingdon Press,
1956), 984. Other scholars believe the reading of MT ("we shall not die"), which is
supported by the LXX, is the original reading, and that the list of Tiqqune Sopherim
(TS) contains a correction. See, A. J. O. van der Wal, "LO' NAMUT in Habakkuk I 12:
A Suggestion," VT 38.4 (1988), 480-483; Robert D. Haak, Habakkuk (VTSup 44;
Leiden: Brill, 1992), 48-49. Their objection concerning the fact that the alteration
suggested by TS has no textual tradition to support it is worthy of consideration, but we
should keep in mind Zipors reference to Tovs reservation concerning the textual
testimony of TS, "its absence may occasionally be merely the result of its having been
suppressed by the Rabbis" (Moshe A. Zipor, "Some Notes on the Origin of the
Tradition of the Eighteen T]qqWn? SoP+r'm," VT 44.1 [1994], 86, note 41). Zipors
article is a very useful review of the tradition of the TS. See also, Emanuel Tov, Textual
Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 65-66.
138
Ralph Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC 32; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1984),
102, 103.
Conclusion
In this chapter we have demonstrated that a variety of
accusations against the NWT are a product of shallow and one-sided
research. Just because other translations like the NIV or NASB offer
renderings that differ from NWT does not mean NWT is
automatically guilty of mistranslation. Bible translation does not take
place without the translators views and beliefs having some
influence, especially when a particular passage admits of more than
one rendering.139 Anyone who thinks NWT displays bias, and
versions like the NIV or NASB do not, needs to think again. When
confronted with a verse that (grammatically) admits of two or more
renderings, a Bible translator must decide which is best based on his
or her understanding of the context.
The application of Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son of God in
Hebrews 1:10-12 is for the purpose of highlighting the Sons
immortality since his resurrection. In doing so, Paul gives yet
another example of how Christ has become superior to the angels.
In John 12:41 it seems clear that the things Isaiah said and
where he "spoke about him [Jesus]" are found in Isaiah 53, as
cited in verse 38. John 12:39-40 contains an explanation of why
the crowds were not able to believe. If verse 41 has any reference
at all to Isaiah 6 it is not to identify Jesus as Jehovah; rather, the
context of Isaiah 6 does seem to have some Messianic significance
in verses 6-7, and there could be some prophetic significance in
the atonement of Isaiahs sins, perhaps foreshadowing the
redemptive act the future Messiah would perform to remove the
sins of many. (Isa 53:11) It is also possible that Isaiah saw the
glory of the preexistent Logos as expressing and representing the
glory of his God and Father (compare Heb 1:3).
We also examined all three "Alpha and Omega" texts in
Scripture, and have concluded that not one of them conclusively
identifies Jesus Christ as this One. Rather, the evidence from the
verses in question, as well as their surrounding contexts, points to
the Father as "the Alpha and the Omega" in each instance.
139
See Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a
Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovahs Witnesses (Huntington Beach,
CA: Elihu Books, 1999).
The title "the First and the Last," when used of Jesus in
Revelation 1:17 and 2:8, has special reference to his death and
unique resurrection, as indicated by the context of each verse.
Also, the title "the Alpha and Omega" does not occur in either
Revelation 1:17 or 2:8. Yet it does appear beside "the first and the
last" of Revelation 22:12, where it is used to describe Gods
eternal sovereignty.
Jesus and the writers of Scripture bear witness to the fact that
Jehovah God and His Son are two separate and unequal beings.
Over and over again Jesus confesses his inferiority to Jehovah by
acknowledging Him as his God. (Rev 3:2, 12) He is also the One
responsible for the royal authority of the Son (Rev 2:26-27; 3:21),
who in turn is responsible for the kingship of 144,000 others, who
will, together with the Son, restore the earth to the paradise
condition for which God originally created it (Rev 1:6; 5:9-10;
14:1-5; 20:4-6; 21:1-4).
4
Jesus Relationship with God
Part One
"The Father Is Greater Than I"
The Bible is far from silent on the relationship between Jesus
Christ and God. Already in previous chapters we have discussed
some of this material. There is, however, a great deal more that
should be considered. In this chapter some of the evidence we will
consider is remarkably explicit regarding the subordination of the
Lord Jesus to his God.
Consider, for example, Jesus words in John 14:28, "I am going
my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am." We
might also refer to the familiar words of the apostle Paul in 1
Corinthians 11:3: "But I want YOU to know that the head of every
man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the
head of the Christ is God."
But what exactly did Paul mean? What did Jesus mean when he
said that the Father was greater? In Part One of this chapter we will
consider these questions, and a host of others, as they relate to
various passages which touch on the subject of Christs
subordination to God. In Part Two we will discuss questions relating
to the issue of Christs creation.
John 14:28
Does this verse apply only to Christs "human nature"?
The words of this verse, quoted above, would appear to clearly
communicate the way that Jesus would have his followers
understand his position in relation to Jehovah. Ron Rhodes attempts
to discredit this statements power by stating that Jesus was simply
referring to his "human nature." Indeed, he refers to the Athanasian
Creed which says that Christ is "equal to the Father as touching his
Godhood and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood."1 If
this were the case (that Christ was simply referring to his human
nature in John 14:28) then what was the point of him telling this to
his disciples? In other words, was it not rather obvious that Jehovah,
the God of heaven, was greater than a man?
This is undoubtedly one reason why individuals such as
Irenaeus, Justin, and Origen applied John 14:28 to the Logos (pre-
human Jesus), and not to the "Christ of history."2 It is also important
to note that Jesus nowhere limits what he says to his human nature.
Those who add this qualification to Jesus words are doing so out of
loyalty to the later doctrine of the Trinity.
Christs nature or position? Rhodes also tries to weaken the
force of the Greek word translated "greater" (meizon). He does so by
arguing as follows:
Now, it is important that you emphasize the distinction between

the Greek words for greater (meizon) and better (kreitton). . . .
The word "greater" is used to point to the Fathers greater
position (in heaven), not a greater nature. Had the word "better"
been used, however, this would indicate that the Father has a
better nature than Jesus. This distinction is made clear in
Hebrews 1:4, where "better" is used in regard to Jesus
superiority over the angels. The word "better" in this verse
1
2
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, repr. 1992), 554. Schaff himself believed that John 14:28 applied "only to
the Christ of history," that is, according to his human nature.
Jesus Relationship with God 193
indicates that Jesus is not just higher than the angels positionally;
rather, He is higher than the angels in His very nature.3
From the above we can see that Rhodes gives meizon the
meaning of greater in regards to position, while he states that
kreitton would mean better in terms of nature. With the
understanding that Rhodes gives to the meaning of these two Greek
words in mind, let us now consider the definitions offered in the
Grimm-Thayer lexicon. We read on page 395 that meizon "is used
of those who surpass otherseither in nature and power, as God"
(emphasis added). John 14:28 is then cited as an example of this
definition. Regarding kreitton, this same work, on page 359, informs
us that in Hebrews 1:4 it means "more excellent." In reference to
Hebrews 1:4, BAGD (page 449) gives these definitions of kreitton,
"more prominent, higher in rank, preferable, better . . . Hb 1:4."
Higher in rank? That is just the opposite of what Rhodes says!
And just how did Christ "become" better than the angels? It is as
Hebrews 1:4 tells us, "So he has become better than the angels, to
the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs"
(emphasis added). Jesus "inherited" a more excellent name or
position (not "nature") than the angels. Indeed, since his resurrection
he has "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places"
(Heb 1:3).
So, then, according to the above lexicons Jesus, at John 14:28,
affirmed that the Father was greater "in nature and power." Of
course, entries in lexicons do not prove anything, except that other
scholars recognize this as a legitimate meaning for meizon, while
Rhodes gives the impression such a meaning is not acceptable at all.
In Hebrews 1:4 we are told that Christ is "higher in rank" than the
angels, because he has "inherited a name [title, C. B. Williams
New Testament] more excellent than theirs." Rhodes, following
Martins lead, has stripped meizon of any notion of a difference in
nature and added the concept of a difference in nature to kreitton,
when the reverse is likely true, all in order to protect his theology!
3
Rhodes, Reasoning, 146-147. Rhodes (ibid., 146, note 7) refers to Walter
Martin as the source for his argument regarding this erroneous distinction in meaning
between meizon ("greater") and kreitton ("better"). All of the emphasis in the above
quote from Rhodes book is original.
Regarding the relationship between Melchizedek and Abraham,

Hebrews 7:7 tells us that "the less is blessed by the greater
[kreittonos]." Melchizedek was superior to Abraham, not in his
"nature"; rather, he was superior in his authority or position as king.
As Albert Barnes points out: "The word better means one who is of
superior office, or rank, not one who has necessarily a purer or holier
character."4 Barnes was also correct in pointing out that in Hebrews
1:4 kreitton "does not refer to moral character, but to exaltation of
rank."5 For early theologians like Origen (ca. 185ca. 253 CE),
there was no reason to keep from applying both terms to the
relationship between God and Christ. He spoke of the Father as
"stronger [kreittonos] and greater [meizonos]" than the Logos.6
1 Corinthians 11:3
The nature of Gods headship over Christ. In this scripture
the apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthian congregation, gives the
following pattern of headship: "But I want YOU to know that the
head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the
man; in turn the head of the Christ is God." We see here that
whereas a woman should recognize the headship of the man, and
man is to submit to the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ, so Christ
is under the headship of God. As the supreme authority, God is not
under the headship of anyone (Da 4:35).
The fact that Christ is submissive to the Fathers headship
shows that they are not equal in authority. Rhodes offers the
following rebuttal: "Even though men and women are completely
equal in terms of their nature, there is nevertheless a functional
hierarchy that exists between them. In the same way, Christ and the
Father are utterly equal in their divine being . . . even though Jesus is
functionally under the Fathers headship."7
4
Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, one volume ed. (Grand Rapids:
Kregel, repr. 1980), 1276.
5
Ibid., 1225 (emphasis added).
6
Commentary on John, ANF 10, Book 2, chap. 6, p. 328.
7
Rhodes, Reasoning, 140, 141.
Understanding the argument. After stating the above,

Rhodes asks these two questions: "Are women inferior in nature to
men because men exercise headship over women? If the mans
headship over the woman does not mean that women are inferior in
nature, then why does the Watchtower teach that the Fathers
headship over Christ means that Christ is inferior in nature?"
Answer: Jehovahs Witnesses do not teach that 1 Corinthians 11:3
has anything to do with a difference between the "nature" of Christ
and Jehovah.
Therefore, Rhodes questions are completely irrelevant to their
use of 1 Corinthians 11:3 against the Trinity doctrine. What Paul is
saying is that God has authority over Christ. According to BAGD
(page 430) the Greek word translated "head" (kephale) is used in
this verse "to denote superior rank." Joseph Fitzmeyer demonstrates
conclusively that in Pauls day kephale frequently referred to a
"ruler, leader" or "person having authority over" someone or
something.8
Just as Christ has authority over the Congregation, and man has
authority over woman, so Jehovah has authority over Christ. This is
a loving arrangement that provides order and unity among God's
people. It also shows that God and Christ are not equal in terms of
their authority, even as man is not equal to the Lord Jesus in
authority.
Of course, as the supreme authority, Jehovah God does not
have one who is his "head [?ar, rosh]." (1Ch 29:11) Also, it is
noteworthy that the holy spirit is not mentioned at all in this
structure of headship. Certainly if it were Almighty God you would
think it would occupy some position of headship in relation to the
other members of the "Godhead," as well as the Congregation.
Jehovahs Witnesses recognize that the holy spirit is a vital part of
the life and ministry of every true Christian, but not as the third
member of a tri-personal deity (Joh 14:16).
8
Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, "Kephale in 1 Corinthians 11:3," Interpretation 47.1
(1993), 52-59.
1 Corinthians 15:28
"The Son will subject himself." Further evidence of the
subordination of Christ to God is again found in the writings of
Paul. Consider the following: "Now when it says that everything
has been put under him [Christ], it is clear that this does not include
God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done
this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him [God] who
put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (NIV) Here
we are told that after Christ has accomplished God's purposes he
will then submit himself to the authority of Jehovah God; this he
will do so that "God may be all things to everyone."
Rhodes believes this verse "has nothing to do with Christ's
essential nature or being."9 This is true, but it misses the point
entirely. As is the case with 1 Corinthians 11:3, Jehovahs Witnesses
do not teach that 15:28 refers to the "essential nature or being" of
Jesus. Both scriptures refer to the authority and position of Christ in
relation to God and others. Christ is under the authority of God, and
God is under the authority of no one. Rhodes and others try to
dismiss this obvious subjection of Christ to God as a mere
"functional subjection to God the Father."10 However, such efforts
are really the result of reading later Trinitarian theology back into
Bible texts. The Scriptures nowhere define Christ's subordination to
God as "functional."
Subject only in his "human nature"? Rhodes tries to
establish that Christ still has his human nature with him in heaven,
and thus his subordination to God is simply in relation to his
humanity. However, even if it were true that Jesus has his human
nature with him in heaven, these verses from 1 Corinthians that
speak of Christs subordination to God do not differentiate at all
between his human nature and his divine nature. In any event, the
Scriptures do not teach that Christ has a human nature in heaven.
According to the Bible Jesus was resurrected as a "life-giving spirit"
(1Co 15:45).11
9
10
Ibid.
11
See Chapter 7.
Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36

Christs nature(s) and Christs knowledge. The question
of knowledge often surfaces in discussions about the relationship
between the Father and the Son. In Mark 13:32 Jesus openly
declared, "Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither
the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father." Here Jesus lets it
be known to all that his Father has knowledge that no one else has,
not even Jesus. Matthews record of Jesus statement is even more
explicit, "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the
angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only [and so also excluding
the holy spirit] the Father" (emphasis added).12
The only argument offered by Trinitarians, including Rhodes,13
is that Jesus said these things from his human perspective. Since
Trinitarians believe that Jesus possessed both a human and a divine
nature while on earth, they maintain that he spoke, on different
occasions, from both perspectives. And, of course, what he said at
Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 was uttered, not from his divine
nature, but from his human perspective.
However, the Bible nowhere even hints at this alleged dualism.
This is another case where later "theological provisions" are read
back into the Scriptures. The Bible tells us that when Jesus left his
heavenly abode he divested himself of his divine form and became
"lower than the angels." (Php 2:7; Heb 2:9) Braumann states:
It is said of this divine mode of existence that Christ existed in it

in the past (hyparchon, being, v. 6). It refers to his pre-existence
prior to the incarnation, en morphe theou characterizes, therefore,
his existence before his earthly life, but not his existence in that
earthly life. For he emptied himself (heauton ekenosen, v. 7)
12
Some older translations, such as the KJV, omit the words "nor the Son." However,
Bruce Metzger (Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3rd corrected ed.
[Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975], 62) points out: "The best representatives of the
Alexandrian, the Western, and the Caesarean types of text contain the phrase." He then
remarks that the omission of the phrase in some manuscripts was likely due to "the doctrinal
difficulty they present" (ibid.). B D a*, among others, contain "nor the Son." See, New
Testament Greek Manuscripts, Matthew, Reuben Swanson, ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press; Pasadena: William Carey International University Press, 1995), 241.
13
Rhodes, Reasoning, 154-156
taking the "form of a servant" (morphen doulou). This form

replaces the "form of God." It is not to be thought of like clothing
put over the previous form or as an addition to the pre-existing
form. Christ's mode of being was essentially changed.14
In 1 Corinthians 15:45 Jesus is called the "last Adam." Adam

was not a "God-man" with two natures. Before he sinned against
Jehovah he was a perfect, sinless human creation. That is what Jesus
became so he might "give his soul a ransom in exchange for many"
(Mt 20:28).
Does Jesus know "all things"? Rhodes15 cites two verses
(John 16:30 and 21:17) which allegedly teach that Jesus has equal
knowledge with God the Father. Since both verses use the same
wording in reference to Jesus knowledge we will only consider the
first scripture, John 16:30.
According to verses 29 and 30 we are told: "Then his disciples
said to him, Look, you are speaking very plainly now, without
using parables. We know now that you know everything; you do not
need someone to ask you questions. This makes us believe that you
came from God." (TEV, emphasis added)
First, it should be noted what Jesus said here convinced his
disciples Jesus "came from God," not that he was God. In view of
what Jesus had made known earlier, at John 8:28-29, it is no wonder
his disciples believed he knew everything, for he said: "I do nothing
on my own authority, but in all that I say, I have been taught by my
Father. He who sent me is present with me, and has not left me
alone; for I always do what is acceptable to him." (NEB, emphasis
added; compare Joh 12:49-50) The source of all Jesus knowledge is
his Father. He has been "taught" by God. As the Messiah, he has a
"spirit of knowledge" from Jehovah (Isa 11:1-3).
Does the fact that Jesus disciples said he knows everything
mean that he really does know everything? We have already seen
that Jesus did not know the day or the hour of the coming Judgment.
(Mr 13:32; Mt 24:36) Additionally, we have this testimony
concerning the knowledge of the Lord Jesus: "A revelation by Jesus
14
G. Braumann, "morfh," NIDNTT 1, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1975), 706.
15
Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must
shortly take place." (Rev 1:1) Note that this scripture records what
took place while Jesus was in his glorified, heavenly state. Even in
heaven Jesus is still dependent on his Father for certain kinds of
knowledge.
In this case, the word "revelation" (ajpokavluyi", apokalypsis)
refers to a "disclosure of truth, instruction, concerning divine things
before unknown."16 But during his human life, to his disciples it was
as though Jesus knew all things. His knowledge was far superior to
theirs. But to go so far as to say John 16:30 and 21:17 teach Jesus
actually knew everything (that is, there was not even one thing he
did not know) would be contradictory to what the Bible teaches, and
to what Jesus actually taught.
These verses are simply more examples of all-inclusive
statements with certain exceptions, exceptions that are clearly
outlined elsewhere in Scripture. As Irenaeus observed:
Even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that the Father
alone knows the very day and hour of judgment, when He plainly
declares, But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, neither
the Son, but the Father only. [Mt 24:36 and Mr 13:32] If, then,
the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to
the Father only, but declared what was true regarding the matter,
neither let us be ashamed to reserve to God those greater
questions which may occur to us.17
16
Grimm-Thayer, 62. The opening words of Revelation (apokalypsis Iesou
Christou, "a revelation of Jesus Christ") should be taken as a possessive, referring to
something Jesus Christ possesses, namely, the "revelation" (apokalypsis). The apokalypsis
is something "God gave to him" (e[dwken aujtw/' oJ qeoV", edoken auto ho theos [auto =
Iesou Christou]), and it consists of things soon to occur (a} dei' genevsqai e*n tavcei, ha
dei genesthai en tachei), which are further defined in the series of visions that follow. The
apokalypsis ( = knowledge of divine things soon to occur) originated with ho theos
("God"), now belongs to Iesou Christou ("Jesus Christ"), and will be made known toi'"
douvloi" aujtou' (tois doulois autou, "to his slaves").
17
Against Heresies, ANF 1, book 2, chap. 28, page 401.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6
"One God . . . the Father." According to 1 Corinthians 8:4-
6 the Father is the "one God" of true Christians. This statement by
the apostle Paul is in direct conflict with the later doctrinal
development that the "one God" is three persons ("Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit"). Here it is plainly stated that the Father (as
distinguished from Jesus who is mentioned in the very same verse) is
alone18 the "one God" of true believers. In response to this teaching,
Bowman states: "1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes between one God,
the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. The JWs conclude from
this verse that since the Father is the one God, Jesus cannot be
God. But by that reasoning, since Jesus is the one Lord, the Father
cannot be Lord!"19
First of all, Jehovahs Witnesses do not believe since the Father
is the "one God," that Jesus cannot be "God" or "a god" to some
degree. Jehovahs Witnesses do believe that the description of the
Father as the "one God" in this verse shows that Jesus cannot be the
"one God." Simply put, the "one God" is one person, the Father.
Similarly, the Father cannot be the "one Lord" of the Christian
Congregation, for He has given His Son this position. Of course, He
can still be considered "Lord" in respect to His own sovereignty, but
18
Some take the confession "one God" in verse 6, together with the emphatic
statement of verse 4 ("there is no God but one"), to mean "only one God." (TEV,
Phillips; compare Goodspeed, "just one God") The description of the Father in 1Co 8:6
carries with it a meaning somewhat similar to Jesus description of the Father as the
"only true God." (Joh 17:3) Calling the Father the "one God," as well as the description
"only true God," does not mean that others cannot be considered gods of a secondary or
inferior class. Morton Smith, "The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East," JBL
71 (1952), 139, points out that in theological texts of the ancient Near East the god
being worshiped "is regularly flatteredthat is to say, exalted. . . . He is the only true
god; sometimes, even when worshiped in close connection with other deities, the only
god. This does not mean, of course, that he is actually thought to be the only god." In
note 14 of the same page Smith notes that the same Greek expression ei|" qeoV" (heis
theos, "one God") used by Paul in 1Co 8:6 "means approximately is a great god,
not is the only god." But "only God" would be acceptable in 1Co 8:6 if we take it
as "the only One who is God in the absolute sense" or "the Most High God." See also,
Martin P. Nilsson, "The High God and the Mediator," HTR 56.2 (1963), 101-102.
19
Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to
Jehovah's Witnesses (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 73.
He has relinquished a particular Lordship to His Son, who will

exercise this authority until death is no more (Ac 2:36; 1Co 15:28).
"Many gods and many lords." The Greek word
translated "Lord" (kuvrio", kyrios) can have one of several meanings,
depending on the context in which the word is used. What is the
context of 1 Corinthians 8:4-6? Godet tells us: "As God, the Father,
is contrasted with the principal heathen deities, Christ, the Lord, is
so with the secondary deities who served as mediators between the
great gods and the world."20 In the context of 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 the
title "Lord" is used in contrast to the "many lords" of the pagans
who were viewed as subordinate mediators between the greater gods
of Greco-Roman society. Robert Grant, Professor of New Testament
and Early Christianity, states:
Though pagans might accept "many gods" or "many lords,"

Christians believed in one supreme God, the Father, and one
Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom everything, including us, has
come into being. The universe was thus created through the
crucified and exalted Messiah whom Paul proclaimed in his
preaching. The supreme Father resembles the supreme Zeus,
while the work of the Lord Christ is like that of the various
demiurgic gods to whom cosmic functions were assigned. Later
passages, such as Colossians 1:15-20 or even John 1:1-14, make
no higher claims for Christ, though John 17:5 does speak more
explicitly about his preexistent life. Jesus possessed glory with
the Father before the world was made. . . . The doctrine of the
cosmic Christ was proclaimed in a setting where the "many
lords" were not so much related to one another as to the supreme
god Zeus. These lesser gods could be expected to intervene in
human affairs for the benefit of humanity and individuals.21
The context of Pauls statement is a contrast between the "many

gods" (principal heathen deities) of the pagans and the "one God" of
true Christians, the Father. A contrast is also made between the
"many lords" (the secondary deities who served as mediators) and
20
F. L. Godet, Commentary on St. Pauls First Epistle to the Corinthians
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1886), 416 (emphasis added).
21
Robert M. Grant, Gods and the One God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1986), 112, 114 (emphasis added).
our Lord, the "one mediator between God and men." (1Ti 2:5)
Therefore, it would not have been possible for Paul to have given the
title "Lord" to the Father in this context, for it referred to the
subordinate mediator "through whom" all things came into being.
The Father is not the mediator; He is the one "out of whom" all
things camethe "one God" of true Christianity.
Jesus as mediator between "God and men." Commenting
on Jehovahs Witnesses use of 1 Timothy 2:5 against the Trinity
doctrine, Bowman states: "1 Timothy 2:5 says that Jesus is the
one mediator between God and men (NWT), and from this
statement the JW booklet concludes that Jesus cannot be God,
because by definition a mediator is someone separate from those
who need mediation (p. 16). But by this reasoning Jesus cannot
be a man, either; yet this very text says that he is a man!"22
A more complete quotation of 1 Timothy 2:5 will prove
illuminating: "For there is one God and one mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (NIV, emphasis added).
The point of the "JW booklet"23 is that Jesus cannot be the
one for whom he mediates. Who is that? It is not simply "God,"
but the one God. Bowman substitutes the specific reference to the
Father as the "one God" with the less descriptive title, "God."
Bowman claims by our alleged reasoning "Jesus cannot be a man
either."
However, if we take notice of the second and third words
emphasized in the above quote from 1 Timothy 2:5 ("men" and
"man"), we can see that the proper conclusion is Jesus cannot be
the "men" (those for whom he mediates), but he was "a man"24;
nor can he be the "one God," but he can be and is "a god."25
22
Bowman, Why You Should, 73.
23
Society, 1989).
24
Paul is clearly referring to the historical person of Christ as "a man," for after
the resurrection of Jesus he became an apostle "neither from men nor through a man,
but through Jesus Christ and God the Father." (Ga 1:1) After his conversion to
Christianity, he declared that the "good news is not something human; for neither did I
receive it from man, nor was I taught it, except through revelation by Jesus Christ" (Ga
1:12).
25
See above, note 18. See also Chapter 6, pages 350-362.
Jesus as the "one Lord." Returning to 1 Corinthians 8:4-6,

even if the distinction articulated above between the "many gods and
many lords" of the pagans and the "one God" and "one Lord" of
Christians was not implied in the context,26 the argument given by
Bowman would still be untenable. The fact is that when kyrios is
applied to Jesus in the New Testament it has a much different
connotation than when applied to the Father. One reason for this,
which we noted earlier, is because the Father "made" Jesus "Lord,"
and has "exalted him" to his lofty position (Ac 2:36; Php 2:9).
The Father is not Lord because of someone else. References to
Jesus as "Lord" must be read with this understanding in mind. As
was observed some time ago by Ernest De Witt Burton: "The
expression Lord God (Yahweh Elohim) is often applied in the Old
Testament to God, as is its Greek equivalent in the Septuagint and in
the New Testament; but the latter is never used of Jesus." He also
states the "facts indicate that Lord, as applied to Jesus in the New
Testament, is not even in its highest sense a term of nature or of
identification with Jehovah, but of relationship to men and the
world."27 This fact has been frequently observed by other scholars as
well:
Pauls confidence in Jesus lordship is primarily based upon the

fact of exaltation, and in general he gives Christ only a mediate
position, particularly in respect to the new creation, and he in no
sense supplants God, who is always the one and only true Deity
(1 Cor. 8:6) It is not at all probable that Kuvrio" [Kyrios, "Lord"],
in the first instance, was appropriated to Jesus with any deliberate
intention of assigning to him the revered and unspeakable name
of Yahweh. . . . and the Septuagint readers certainly knew that
Kuvrio" was not itself the actual name of Yahweh but was merely
26
In addition to those sources already referred to, which support a distinction
between the "gods" and "lords" of verse 5, see, Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the First
Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 267; BAGD, p. 460, under
II kyrios - e. - b; The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, ed. John Parry
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1937), 130; Edward Robinson, Greek and
English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1882),
418 (under kyrios Robinson refers to the "gods" and "lords" of 1Co 8:5 as "gods superior
and inferior" [underlining added]).
27
Ernest De Witt Burton, New Testament Word Studies (Chicago: Chicago
University Press, 1927), 35-36 (emphasis added).
an expedient of the translator. Moreover, no special sanctity

could be attached to it as a mere word, for it was used in the
Greek Bible variously of God, kings, and ordinary men. The real
appropriateness of its application to Christ, as well as to God, lay
in the fact that it was not essentially a proper name but a
descriptive term, and so capable of varying degrees of title
significance.28
When applied to Jesus the title "Lord" does not equate him with
the One who made him Lord. Jehovah gave this position to Jesus so
that he could administer his Fathers will. Jesus has complete
authority over Gods people. Indeed, he is "our only Owner and
Lord" (Jude 4; compare Joh 17:6). This is so because the Father
gave his Son all authority in heaven and on earth; the lordship which
Jesus exercises is that which has been delegated to him by Jehovah
(Mt 28:18; compare Da 7:14). When he, as Lord and King,
accomplishes his Fathers will, he will once again submit himself to
the supreme sovereignty of the "one God" (1Co 15:24-28).
"Only the most obdurate would deny its Trinitarian
implications." In spite of the fact that the Father is here called
the "one God," respected Trinitarian scholars such as Gordon D.
Fee have made irresponsible remarks regarding this texts
meaning. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Fee supports his
fanciful characterization of those who do not accept the
Trinitarian implications he reads into the text by claiming that
"Lord" as used of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is the equivalent to
the title "Lord" as used of Jehovah in the OT.
Fee believes Paul distinguished two "persons" (as understood
by Trinitarians), the Father and Jesus Christ.29 Fee here uses an
argument which fails to properly address the nature of Christs
Lordship as articulated in the NT (compare Acts 2:36 and
Philippians 2:9-11). He also reads Trinitarian concepts associated
with the Father and the Son into the text, all the while missing the
28
Shirley J. Case, "KURIOS as a Title for Christ," JBL 26 (1907), 154, 159-160
(emphasis added).
29
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987), 375-376.
fact that the Father is the "one God," not the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit.
In view of the ease with which Trinitarian scholars like Fee
brush aside texts which are not at all agreeable to Trinitarianism, and
then unabashedly read Trinitarianism back into the text in order to
circumvent the difficulties which texts such as 1 Corinthians 8:4-6
present to their theology, we ask: By what biblical evidence would
Trinitarians expect their view to be disproved? In other words, there
is nothing that they seem to be willing to accept as proof against
their view, because they come to the text with the conviction their
view is correct regardless of how others might interpret a particular
passage or collection of passages.
It is time for non-Trinitarians to call Trinitarians bluff and
insist that the later distinctions and definitions that inform
Trinitarianism are left behind when a consideration of biblical
passages is underway. If the meaning they hope to find is in the text,
then it should be plain for all to see by a simple reading of the
passages in question. Certainly the Witnesses view that the Father is
the "one God" can be obtained through such a simple reading.
The Relative Aspect of Worship

NWTs use of "worship" in reference to Jesus. In
Hebrews 1:6, according to the rendering of various translations, we
read of Gods command for all the angels to "worship" Jesus Christ.
The Greek word often translated "worship" in this verse is
proskunevw (proskyneo). Rhodes believes: "In Hebrews 1:6, we are
told that Christ is worshipped (proskuneo) by the angels. But in the
New World Translation, this superiority is obscured because of the
way the Watchtower has butchered this verse."30 Butchered? We
have already seen how Rhodes, while he makes negative comments
like this about Jehovahs Witnesses and NWT, nonetheless,
consistently fails to inform his readers that the translation found in
NWT, and the reasons offered for the particular rendering in
30
question, have a substantial amount of scholastic and biblical

support.
In Hebrews 1:6 NWT translates proskyneo as "obeisance."
Earlier editions (1950-1951, 1961) translated it simply as "worship."
However, for legitimate reasons (as we shall see) it was felt that the
more appropriate rendering of this word is "obeisance." This is not
to say that the translation "worship" is incorrect,31 as long as one
understands the various connotations proskyneo can have in a given
context. We shall illustrate this point shortly. In Hebrews 1:6
"worship" was simply not the most accurate rendering as far as the
NWT translation committee was concerned.
This is also the case in a number of other Bible translations. For
example, in the NEB Hebrews 1:6 reads: "Let all the angels of God
pay him homage." Also, consider the readings found in the
Twentieth Century New Testament ("Let all the angels of God bow
before him"), Robert Youngs translation ("And let them bow before
himall messengers of God"), and Goodspeed ("And let all Gods
angels bow before him"). Did these translations "butcher" the
meaning of Hebrews 1:6? According to BAGD (page 716)
proskyneo has the following meanings: "(fall down and) worship, do
obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome
respectfully." Thus, translators have to carefully consider the context
and the person to whom proskyneo is being giving, in order to
convey the right sense in a particular context.
The OT (LXX) and the "worship" of royal figures and
other servants of God. Let us now consider several examples of
proskyneo from the LXX, which is the source Paul quoted in
Hebrews 1:6, and see if a qualified sense emerges. The English is
from the RSV:
1SA (1 Kings in LXX) 24:8 (24:9)Afterward David also arose,

and went out of the cave, and called after Saul, "My lord the
king!" And when Saul looked behind him, David bowed with his
face to the earth, and did obeisance [ejpiV provswpon aujtou' ejpiV
thVn gh'n kaiV prosekuvnhsen aujtw'/, epi prosopon autou epi ten
31
See "What Do the Scriptures Say About the Divinity of Christ?" The
Watchtower, 15 January 1992, 23.
gen kai prosekynesen auto; prosekynesen is a form of

proskyneo].
1SA 25:23When Abigail saw David, she made haste, and

alighted from the ass, and fell before David on her face, and
bowed to the ground [prosekuvnhsen aujtw'/ ejpiV thVn gh'n,
prosekynesen auto epi ten gen].
1SA 25:41And she rose and bowed with her face to the
ground [prosekuvnhsen ejpiV thVn gh'n ejpiV provswpon,
prosekynesen epi ten gen epi prosopon], and said, "Behold, your
handmaid is a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my
lord."
2SA 1:2 (2 Kings in the LXX)And on the third day, behold, a

man came from Sauls camp, with his clothes rent and earth
upon his head. And when he came to David, he fell to the ground
and did obeisance [e[pesen ejpiV thVn gh'n kaiV prosekuvnhsen
aujtw'/, epesen epi ten gen kai prosekynesen auto].32
From these scriptures we can see that on a number of occasions

Gods servants were appropriately given proskyneo, without there
being a compromise to Jehovahs law on exclusive devotion. (Ex
20:5) Some have recently argued that the worship Jesus received
was different from others because, on occasion, people fell to the
ground and did proskyneo to him, not proskyneo only.
Based on the above, we can see that such reasoning is not well-
founded. The homage or "worship" paid to Gods Son is relative to
his appointment as King of Jehovahs heavenly kingdom. Jehovah
allows this kind of "worship" to be given to Jesus for the same
reason he allowed it to Israelite kings of old: they acted as
representatives of His rule and authority.
A "sacrilegious act" to "a mere creature"? Recall the
wording of Hebrews 1:6, "let all Gods angels do obeisance to him"
(emphasis added). Rhodes offers the following comments: "If the
Watchtower Society is correct in saying that Jesus is created being
and is not to be worshiped, then the Father Himself is guilty of
32
See also 2Sa 9:6, 14:4, 22, 33; 16:4; 18:28; 24:20; 1Ki 1:16, 23; 2Ki 2:15;
4:17; 1Ch 21:21; Isa 60:14; Ru 2:10.
committing a horrible sin because in Hebrews 1:6 He commanded

the angels to commit a sacrilegious act by worshiping (proskuneo) a
mere creature."33
First of all, Jehovahs Witnesses do not believe Jesus is a "mere
creature"; rather, the Scriptures know him as the "firstborn of all
creation." (Col 1:15)34 As such he is second only to Jehovah God
Himself! Such a being could hardly be considered a "mere creature."
Second, does the fact (demonstrated above) that the Father allowed
certain human servants of His to accept proskyneo mean He was
"guilty of committing a horrible sin"? Was Jesus similarly guilty of a
sinful act because he commanded that his followers in the first-
century congregation of Philadelphia be given proskyneo by the
Jews "of the synagogue of Satan"? (Rev 3:9) Just as the Father
considered proskyneo appropriate for His Son, so Jesus saw no
compromise with Gods commands in allowing proskyneo to be
given to his disciples in Philadelphia.
1 Chronicles 29:20 reads: "Then David said to the whole
assembly, Praise the LORD your God. So they all praised the
LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate
before the LORD and the king." (NIV, emphasis added) In this
account both king David and Jehovah God are given proskyneo by
the same people at the same time. Why did David not reject such
"worship" and direct it all to Jehovah? Because he realized that as
Gods appointed king such obeisance was proper in the eyes of
Jehovah. Jehovah gave royal dignity to his anointed servant, and He
continued to do so in the case of Davids son Solomon:
And Solomon began to sit upon Jehovahs throne as king in

place of David his father and to make a success of it, and all the
Israelites were obedient to him. As for all the princes and the
mighty men and also all the sons of King David, they submitted
themselves to Solomon the king. And Jehovah continued to make
Solomon surpassingly great before the eyes of all Israel and to put
upon him such royal dignity as had not come to be upon any king
before him over Israel.1Ch 29:23-25.
33
34
See below, pages 212-228.
Jehovah God gave Solomon greater "royal majesty" (NASB)

than any king who preceded him. Solomon enjoyed the obedience of
his subjects because he sat on "Jehovahs throne." Such subjection
and honor, given to him by the people, did not make him or any
other king in Israel equal to Jehovah, and none of the Israelites who
gave obeisance to these servants of God considered it a compromise
to Jehovahs Law. Jesus, of course, is far more worthy to receive the
honor, glory, and obeisance that his royal position demands. Yet, he
still showed that only Jehovah was to be given absolute, religious
worship when he told Satan, "It is Jehovah your God you must
worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service
[latreuvw, latreuo]" (Mt 4:10).35
Bowman asserts, "Jesus also receives . . . sacred service (Rev.
22:3)."36 Is this true? Does Revelation 22:3 teach that Jesus receives
latreuo? The NIV reads: "No longer will there be any curse. The
throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants
will serve [form of latreuo] him" (emphasis added). Revelation 22:3
speaks of two individuals, "God" and the "Lamb." In referring to the
one who would receive latreuo, John uses the third person singular
pronoun ("his," "him"), showing it has reference to but one of the
two individuals mentioned. If John wanted his readers to know that
both God and the Lamb (Jesus Christ) were to receive latreuo, he
would have simply used the third person plural pronoun (for
example, and their servants will serve them) instead of the
singular.37
If it is argued latreuo here refers to "the Lamb," then we must
indeed wonder why it does not refer to God, the One to whom it is
elsewhere restricted. Also, there would be no evidence other than
mere opinion to support such a theory that Jesus here receives
latreuo and that God does not. Therefore, we may safely conclude
35
Karen H. Jones, "Distinguishing the Meaning of the Greek Verbs in the
Semantic Domain for Worship," FN 4 (November 1991), 185, points out: "In the New
Testament latreuvw [latreuo] is used to designate duties performed in a religious
vocation. . . . As used in the New Testament, the word latreuvw denotes actions which
are always evaluated positively when God is the grammatical object and negatively
with reference to any other object (eg, Matt 4:10; Luke 4:7, 8)."
36
37
Compare Revelation 6:16, 17 where, referring to God and the Lamb, the third
person plural pronoun is used.
latreuo is here given to the same individual who receives it in

Revelation 7:15, and elsewhere in the Bible.38
Part Two
"I Live Because of the Father"
The words forming the title of this section are found in John
6:57, where Jesus gives an unqualified statement to the effect that
the Father is the source of his life. Though the import of Jesus
words is seemingly clear for all to recognize, the controversy over
whether or not the Son of God had a beginning, a start to his
glorious life in the heavens, has raged for centuries. The situation
today has changed little. Jehovahs Witnesses believe the Bible
teaches that Jesus, as the Logos (Word), lived with God Himself in
heaven prior to the creation of the universe. It is also their firm
conviction, based on the Bible, that the relationship Jesus has with
his Father did not exist in the eternal past, but came about as a result
of the Father giving life to the Son as a mighty spirit being.
Aside from the many scriptures that Jehovahs Witnesses
believe clearly communicate this teaching, several of which will be
considered in this chapter, the very distinction so often made
between these two as "Father" and "Son" is worthy of serious
reflection. Of course, Trinitarians will usually deny that the
designations "Father" and "Son" carry any connotation of inferiority,
or that they jeopardize an eternal relationship between the two, even
though one would expect them to be "brothers" were it the case that
neither one had a beginning.
In any case, this distinction naturally gives rise to the question,
Why is one considered "the Father," and the other "the Son"?
Indeed, why is not the Father the Son, and the Son the Father? What
event took place that caused such a dichotomy to exist?
38
Revelation 7:15 speaks of the great crowd that comes out of the tribulation
rendering latreuo to the "One seated on the throne," referring to Jehovah. However, Jesus is
clearly distinguished from the One seated on the throne, as he is said to be "in the midst of
the throne" according to verse 17.
Tertullian (c. 160c. 225 CE), a pre-Nicene theologian, made

an interesting statement concerning the relationship between the
Father and the Son. In his treatise Against Hermogenes, Tertullian
takes issue with Hermogenes unscriptural belief that God created all
things out of "Matter," which is itself (according to Hermogenes)
unborn, unmade, and, thus, coeternal with God. Part of
Hermogenes argument hinged on what he felt was a truism, namely,
that God has always been "Lord" over something, and that
something (Matter) must therefore be eternal.
Tertullian responded by pointing out that the title "Lord" only
really applied to God "from the moment when those things began to
exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act."39 Using a similar
line of reasoning, Tertullian argued that God was not always a
"Judge" nor was He always a "Father," as there was "a time when
neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son" (emphasis added).40
Tertullians reasoning on this point helps reveal the reason for
the distinction between the Father and the Son: The Son is the "Son"
because he received life from the Father. The fact that the Father is
the Sons life-giver is in our view the reason for the distinction
between the two. This is an actual filial relationship, not a mere
functional assignment. But another reason why Tertullian is cited on
this matter is because some have taken issue with citations of
Tertullians writings in literature published by Jehovahs Witnesses.
In a brochure discussing the history and scriptural limitations of
the Trinity doctrine,41 Jehovahs Witnesses assert that Tertullian
taught, "There was a time when the Son was not." Of course, as we
can see from our quotation of Tertullian above, that is in fact what
he taught. However, it has been claimed that "the expression there
was a time when the Son was not was not used by Tertullian
himself."42 Such statements need to be reconsidered in light of the
facts, and apart from ones dogmatic bias towards a preconceived
view of Tertullians alleged christology. Of course, we are by no
39
ANF 3, chap. 3, p. 478.
40
Ibid. The Latin of our emphasized portion reads, et filius non fuit.
41
Society, 1989).
42
Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1989), 31.
means embracing the whole of Tertullians theology. We are merely

highlighting the fact that Tertullian was on the right track when he
realized that the distinction between the Father and Son involved
some act that caused the distinction to exist in the first place.
There are other short-comings in Bowmans discussion of
Tertullian,43 as well as in matters relating to biblical exegesis. The
latter will be given due consideration as we progress in our study.
With the aforementioned thoughts on the use of the terms "Father"
and "Son" (which qualify the relationship between God and the
Word44) clearly in mind, let us proceed to those Scriptures which
further describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, and
see if we can answer the question, Is the Son eternal?
Colossians 1:15-17
"Firstborn" or "firstcreated"? The familiar designation of
the prehuman Jesus as the "firstborn of all creation" has been the
subject of many a discussion in relation to the origin of the Son of
God. While Jehovahs Witnesses maintain that the word "firstborn"
(prwtovtoko", prototokos) is used in Colossians 1:15 to refer to the
43
For example, Bowman (ibid.) quotes Holmes translation of Tertullians
Against Praxeas (ANF 3, chap. 7, p. 601) where Tertullian allegedly says, "Thus does
He [God] make Him [the Son] equal to Him [God]." However, it should be noted that
this reading is not based on good manuscript authority. Holmes translates the Latin
parem (equal), which has been displaced by the better-supported and more contextually
satisfying reading, patrem (Father). That is why in A. Souters Tertullian Against
Praxeas (New York: Macmillan, 1919), 39-40, we read: "This is the complete birth of
the word, since it proceeds out of God. Having been first created by Him as far as
thought is concerned, under the name of wisdomthe Lord created me as a beginning
of ways,then begotten to actualitywhen he was preparing heaven, I was with
Him,thereafter, making as Father for Himself Him from whom he proceeds and
thus becomes His Son, He was made firstborn, as having been begotten before
everything" (emphasis added). Clearly the reading "Father" is better suited for the
context, which discusses the begetting of the Son. So we have a description similar to
the one found in Tertullians response to Hermogenes, namely, God is constituted a
"Father" when He begets His Son. As Souter rightly points out, "There is no reference
to equality here, but only paternity" (ibid., 40, note 1).
44
The belief that Jesus only became the Son from the point of his flesh-taking
sojourn onward is without scriptural foundation. References such as Hebrews 1:2 reveal
that the Son was the one through whom God made all things.
Sons priority among the created order, others, particularly those of a

Trinitarian persuasion, conclude otherwise.
In 1892 J. B. Lightfoot authored a commentary on the book of
Colossians,45 wherein he provides a rather lengthy discussion of
Paul's reference to Christ as "the firstborn of all creation." Although
he admits that "at first sight it might seem that Christ is here
regarded as one, though the earliest, of created beings," he
nonetheless concludes that this reference connotes a two-fold
meaning of priority to and sovereignty over all creation.46 He
outright rejects the interpretation that Christ is here included among
the created order. The argumentation he employs in an attempt to
sustain his conclusion, however, is not very convincing.
He begins by pointing out that the "fathers of the fourth century
rightly called attention to the fact that the Apostle writes not
prwtovktisto" [protoktistos, firstcreated], but prwtovtoko"
[prototokos, firstborn]."47 But the fact is protoktistos was not in
popular use until the second or early third century CE! When this
word began to be used more and more frequently, it was in fact
used in reference to Christ, with little or no apparent distinction in
meaning between it and "firstborn."48 As John Patrick writes:
45
J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Pauls Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon
(London; New York: Macmillan, 1892).
46
Ibid., 144-146.
47
Ibid., 145.
48
A search was made using the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae D CD ROM (Los
Altos, CA: Packard Humanities Institute, 1993), available through the University of
California at Irvine. This database contains Greek texts from Homer to 1453 CE.
Clement is the earliest author in which our term is found. Using the citation system as
given in Luci Berkowitz and Karl A. Squitier, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of
Greek Authors and Works, 3d. ed. (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1990), Appendix 4, the following occurrences of protoktistos were found in Clements
writings: Stromata (book, chapter, section, subsection, line) 5.6.35.1.4; 5.14.89.4.3;
Eclogae Propheticae (chapter, section, line) 51.1.3; 51.2.2; 51.1.1; 52.1.2; 56.7.2;
57.1.2 (twice); 57.4.3; Excerpta ex Theodoto (section, extract, excerpt, line) 1.10.1.2;
1.10.1.7; 1.10.3.7; 1.10.6.1; 1.11.4.3; 1.12.1.1; 1.12.1.3; 1.20.1.2; 1.27.3.7; 1.27.5.6.
It is of interest to note the ANF version of Clements Stromata (ANF 2, chap. 6, p.
452) translates a passage which clearly calls Jesus Christ the firstcreated (tw'n
prwtoktivstwn) as though it called him simply "the firstborn." Yet, later in this same
work (ibid., chap. 14, p. 465) th'" sofiva" th'" prwtoktivstou [tes protoktistou] tw'/
Qew'/ is correctly translated, "Wisdom, which was the first of the creation [or simply,
the first creation] of God." This may have something to do with the latitude scholars
have had in identifying Gods "Wisdom." Or it may be that the ANF simply recognized
"firstborn" as synonymous with "firstcreated" in Clements writings.
Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God,

and yet he refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in
one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and in another
"First-begotten," to the Word. But this seems to be rather a
question of language than a question of doctrine. At a later date
a sharp distinction was drawn between "first-created" and
"first-born" or "first-begotten," but no such distinction was
drawn in the time of Clement, who with the Septuagint rendering
of a passage in Proverbs before him could have had no misgiving
as to the use of these terms. . . . Zahn . . . points to the fact that
Clement makes a sharp distinction between the Son and the
Word who was begotten or created before the rest of creation
and the alone Unbegotten God and Father.49
There is no reason for us not to believe Pauls words in

Colossians 1:15 mean Christ was, in fact, the first of the created
order. Lightfoot, however, believes such an interpretation ignores the
context of Pauls statement, and is "irreconcilable with other
passages in the Apostolic writings."50 Of course, since he gives no
examples of passages which are "irreconcilable" with such a view of
Colossians 1:15, we cannot take him seriously, here.
Is Jesus Christ "merely" a created being? It is important
that we keep in mind the true view of Jehovahs Witnesses
concerning Christ as first of the created order. He is not simply one
of the things made by God, but the only direct creation the Father
ever made. Lightfoot is on the right track, however, at least on this
point in reference to Christ, when he attempts to parallel the
meaning of "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 with the meaning of
"only-begotten" (monogenhv", monogenes).51
Christs creation is unlike any other, for it was done without the
use of a mediator, or instrumental agent. In this way, "firstborn"
encompasses more than simply being the first one brought forth; it
highlights the uniqueness of that "birth," which necessarily involves
superiority over those other beings who came into existence after
49
John Patrick, Clement of Alexandria (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and
Sons, 1914), 103, 104, note 6 (emphasis added).
50
Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, 145.
51
him.52 Christs superiority is manifest both in terms of the order of

his creation, as well as in the manner in which he was created.
Of course, nowhere does the Bible say anything about a created
being unable to give his life as Christ did, nor that a perfect
creatures sacrifice would somehow be of less value than one made
by God himself. God sent forth his only-begotten Son (Joh 3:16),
his firstborn, whom He "loves" (Joh 3:35; compare Mt 17:5; Joh
5:20).
Justin Martyrs "before all creatures." Lightfoot believes
his interpretation gains support from Justins Dialogue with Trypho,
where Justin, speaking of the Logos, states, "We know him to be the
first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures."53 But the truth
is Justin is not in harmony with Lightfoot at all, for Justin clearly
understood the Son to have had a created beginning. He confesses:
"He is the Son of God, and since we call Him the Son, we have
understood that He proceeded before all creatures from the Father
by His power and will."54
Earlier in his Dialogue Justin stated concerning the Logos: "But
this Offspring which was truly brought forth from the Father, was
with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed
with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon [Pr 8:22-31; see below]
has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten
as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God."55
With reference to these statements, Willis Shotwell observes: "The
language here is such that it cannot be argued that Justin considered
the Logos to be eternal. The most that can be said about the Logos is
that he was created before anything else."56
Does prototokos mean "sovereign"? Lightfoot next
proceeds to illustrate how "sovereignty" is a predominant meaning
of "firstborn." First he cites Psalm 89:27 (verse 28 LXX) where,
according to NWT, we read: "I myself shall place him as firstborn,
52
See below for further discussion on the connotation of "superiority" inherent in
the term "firstborn."
53
ANF 1, chap. 100, p. 249 (emphasis added).
54
Ibid (emphasis added).
55
Ibid., chap. 62, p. 228.
56
Willis A. Shotwell, The Biblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr (London: S.P.C.K,
1965), 105.
The most high of the kings of the earth." Here Jehovah said he
would "place," "make," (NASB) "appoint," (NIV) David as
"firstborn." We are not told that David was literally Jehovahs
firstborn.57 Here Jehovah is speaking of the preeminent position he
is giving to David; this preeminence is similar to that enjoyed by
those who are literally "firstborn" sons.
The Bible does not speak of Christs status as firstborn in terms
of a placement or appointment (see below discussion of literal
and figurative uses of "firstborn"). In our view, he is "the firstborn of
all creation" because of his having been created by the Father before
all those things he was instrumental in making.
To further support the meaning of "sovereignty" for "firstborn,"
Lightfoot points out that "the term firstborn . . . is given as a title to
God Himself by R. Bechai on the Pentateuch, fol. 124.4, Who is
primogenitus mundi, <lwu l? wrwkb awh?, i.e o{" ejstin
prwtovtoko" tou' kovsmou [who is firstborn of the world], as it
would be rendered in Greek."58 This reference to Bechais use of
"firstborn" toward God has been brought up in conversation with
this author more than once, and it is truly remarkable that those who
cite it so zealously seem so unaware of its utter lack of substantive
value.
Moule notes that "R. Bechai appears to be R. Bahya ben Asher,
a late writer (died 1340 [CE]), who is scarcely important for the
original meaning of our passage."59 The reason for this is not only
because Bechais work on the Pentateuch is nearly thirteen centuries
removed from the first-century use and understanding of "firstborn,"
but Bechais methods of biblical interpretation are highly
questionable, to say the least:
BAHYA (BEHAI) BEN ASHER BEN HALAWA: One of the

most distinguished of the Biblical exegetes of Spain. . . . Bahya
did not, like his eminent teacher, devote his attention to
Talmudic science, but to Biblical exegesis, taking for his model
57
Also, this reference to David as "firstborn" has nothing to do with his descent
from Jesse, as Ron Rhodes suggests (Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovahs
Witnesses [Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1993], 131).
58
Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, 145.
59
C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to
Philemon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957), 65.
Moses ben` Nahman, the teacher of Solomon ben Adret, who

was the first to make use of the Cabala as a means of interpreting
the Scriptural word. . . . Bahyas principal work was his
commentary on the Pentateuch. . . . The method of the Cabala,
termed by him "the path of light," which the truth-seeking soul
must travel. It is by means of this method, Bahya believes, that
the deep mysteries hidden in the Scriptural word may be
revealed, and many a dark passage elucidated. . . . Owing to the
large space devoted to the Cabala, the work was particularly
valuable to cabalists, although Bahya also availed himself of
non-Jewish sources.60
Apparently it does not matter to Lightfoot, or those who cite

him on this point, that Bechai relied on Jewish mysticism and
special revelation to help him interpret the Scriptures.61 Abbott is
correct when he says, "Rabbi Bechais designation of God as
firstborn of the world is a fanciful interpretation of Ex. xiii. 2."62
However, Bechai is hardly the extent of the evidence scholars have
put forth to support the notion that a Kyrios (=Lord)-christology
underlies Pauls use of firstborn in Colossians 1:15.
Literal and figurative uses of "firstborn." The notion of
temporal priority in the OT (LXX) use of prototokos is not in
dispute, neither is the notion of primacy of status, which was
accorded to the firstborn. Larry R. Helyer observes, "The fathers
first-born male possessed a privileged status in family and society."63
In view of this, the title "firstborn" (Hebrew: rwkb, bekhor) could be
60
The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 2 (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1925), 446
(emphasis added). See also, Isaac Landman, ed., The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia,
vol. 2 (New York: Ktav Publishing, 1940), 34; Cecil Roth and Dr. Geoffrey Wigoder,
chief eds., Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 4 (Jerusalem, Israel; New York: Macmillan,
1971), 105.
61
Nonetheless, some of those who use Bechai to support their claims regarding
Col 1:15 will criticize Jehovahs Witnesses for citing Johannes Grebers translation of
John 1:1. See Appendix C for a discussion of Grebers translation.
62
T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the
Ephesians and to the Colossians (ICC; Greenwood, S. C.: Attic Press, 1979), 212.
63
Larry R. Helyer, "The Prototokos Title in the New Testament" (Ph.D.
dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1979), 13. He further notes: "Within the
lifetime of his father, the first-born generally took precedence over his siblings with
regard to special affection and honor (cf. Zech. 12:10). . . . in the absence of the father,
the first-born son exercised authority over younger brothers and accepted responsibility
for them (Gen. 37:21-30; 42:37)" (ibid., 14-15).
used figuratively of those who are elevated to a superior position,

and given special privileges, without involving the notion of
temporal priority. Therefore, Ephraim is called "firstborn" (Jer 31:9)
even though Manasseh was Josephs firstborn son (Ge 41:51), for
the simple fact that Ephraim "was elevated to the rank of first-born
over his elder brother Manasseh."64
A similar use of "firstborn" is found, as noted earlier, in Psalm
89:27. Here David is said to have been placed (Hebrew: /tn,
natan; LXX: tivqhmi, tithemi) as firstborn. This obviously does not
involve literal temporal priority, but, rather, the giving of a favored
and exalted position. Similar in its application is the use of firstborn
toward the nation of Israel in Exodus 4:22.65 There is a parallel to
this verse in Sirach 36:12 (Brenton [36:11 in Rahlfs]), where
reference is made to "Israel, whom thou hast named thy firstborn"
(Brenton).66
These uses of firstborn, however, are not parallel to those texts
in NT where Christ is so designated. The NT does not use the title
firstborn to indicate a placement, adoption, or election of Christ
to a more favored position. Jesus is simply called firstborn and the
connotations of exaltation, strength, and dignity naturally follow
from this designation.
There is, however, one sense in which a figurative meaning
could be given to "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15, though this
would not necessarily apply to the use of this same term in
Hebrews 1:6 (see below). In 1 Peter 2:13 ktisis ("creation") is used
in reference to political figures, such as "kings" and "governors."
It is possible, then, that Colossians 1:15 could be a fulfillment of
Psalm 89:27, where "firstborn" is used figuratively. The one
called "firstborn," in the Psalm, is "placed" in this position and
64
Ibid., 22.
65
Helyer, ibid., 37, correctly observes: "The texture of OT theology leads us to
view the relationship between Yahweh and Israel in a religious or spiritual sense by
employing the category of election to sonship" (emphasis added). See also pages 44-45,
56 of his thesis.
66
Brentons use of "named" for Israel as Gods firstborn actually translates the
Greek word wJmoivwsa" (homoiosas), which involves making "someone like a person or
thing" (BAGD), clearly revealing the figurative sense for "firstborn" in reference to
Israel.
viewed as preeminent among "the kings of the earth."67 But this

interpretation is doubtful in Colossians 1:15 for at least two
reasons: 1) Christ is not said to have been "placed as" or "given"
the position of "firstborn" (see discussion above); and 2) the use
of pas ("all") in Colossians 1:15 appears to remove any suggestion
that "creation" in this verse refers only to political figures.68
Colossians 1:15 is not the only scripture where Christ is called
firstborn in relation to his being the first of a group or highest of a
class. For example, in Luke 2:7 it seems clear that the baby Jesus is
Marys firstborn in relation to her other children (Jesus "brothers"
[Luke 8:19-20]), and in Romans 8:29 he is "the firstborn of many
brothers" because he is the first "image" after whom God patterned
others who would similarly be "glorified." (Ro 8:17) In Hebrews 1:6
God speaks of bringing His firstborn into the world, and the
accompanying homage that would be paid to him. As Christ has
67
In this light, I will cite 4Q369, the "Prayer of Enosh," which has some
similarities with Psalm 89:27-28. Craig A. Evans, "A Note on the First-Born Son of
4Q369," DSD 2.2 (1995), 194, translates the key line (6), "And you made him a first-
bor[n] son to you." The term for "firstborn" in this fragment is missing but for one
letter, r (resh), and it is preceded by /b ("son"), which it modifies. Evans cites three
parallels between Psalm 89:20, 26-27 (Hebrew: 21, 27-28) and 4Q369: 1) David calls
God his Father in Psalm 89:26, which Evans takes as a parallel to line 10 in 4Q369, "as
a father to his son" (partially restored by Evans as wn]bl bak); 2) Psalm 89:27 states
God would "make" David his "firstborn," paralleling line 6 in 4Q369; 3) Psalm 89:27
says that the one placed in the position of "firstborn" would be "the most high of the
kings of the earth," and Evans finds a partial parallel to this in line 7, which he
translates as, "like him for a prince and a ruler in all your earthly land" (ibid., 198).
There are other non-biblical texts whose use of "firstborn" may have influenced Pauls
use of this same term in Col 1:15 and elsewhere. For example, Philo (On the Confusion
of Tongues 146 [in LCL 4]) speaks of "Gods firstborn, the Logos, who holds the
eldership among the angels, an archangel as it were." The Prayer of Joseph (dated to
the first century CE by J. Z. Smith [OTP2, 700]) refers to Jacob as though he were an
angel named "Israel." Fragment A of this document reads, in part: "Abraham and Isaac
were created before any work. But I, Jacob, who men call Jacob but whose name is
Israel am he who God called Israel which means, a man seeing God, because I am the
firstborn of every living thing to whom God gives life" (OTP2, 713; the end of line 7
refers to the "firstborn" as "the archangel of the power of the Lord, and the chief
captain among the sons of God"). These references clearly imply a temporal distinction
between the "firstborn" and "the angels" (Philo) and between "every living thing to
whom God gives life" (Prayer of Joseph).
68
Every other time pas is used with ktisis or ktisma ("creature") it refers to the
whole of creation or at least to a portion that includes more than just political figures.
(Ro 8:22; Col 1:23; 1Ti 4:4; Rev 5:13) The use of pas in 1Pe 2:13 modifies
ajnqrwpivnh/ ("human"), which limits the sense of ktisis in this verse.
already been called Gods "Son" (verse 2), the "reflection"

(ajpauvgasma, apaugasma; verse 3) of Gods glory, and the "impress"
(carakthVr, charakter; verse 3) of His being, which in this context
are clearly temporal terms, we can safely appreciate the temporal
emphasis on "firstborn" in Hebrews 1:6, as well as the
accompanying connotations of dignity, strength, and sovereignty.
But these latter connotations are not to be understood apart from the
temporal nuance that is so much a part of "firstborn," unless the
word is used figuratively in relation to exaltation/election, as in
Jeremiah 31:9, Psalm 89:27 and Exodus 4:22.
In Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5 Christ is called the
"firstborn from the dead" (prwtovtoko" ejk [ek is absent in Rev 1:5]
tw'n nekrw'n). This use of firstborn in relation to Christs
resurrection places emphasis on the -tokos element in prototokos,
for birth is clearly tied in with Christ's resurrection in NT.69 In
this way Christ is shown to have been the first one "born" from
the dead to a special kind of resurrection in which others would
follow, and over whom the second death would have no authority
(Rev 20:6).
Objections to a temporal meaning for "firstborn" in
Colossians 1:15. Returning to the use of firstborn in Colossians
1:15, Helyer believes several factors rule out the possibility that
"firstborn" here means that Christ was given life by God, and thus
a creation: 1) the predication of kyrios to Christ is seen as the
equivalent of referring to him as Jehovah of the OT 70; 2) the
application of certain OT texts to Christ ascribe to him a status
that would be untenable for a created being (for example, the
application of Psalm 102:25-27 to Christ in Hebrews 1:10-12,
which Helyer sees as an identification of Jesus as the "creator of
all things"71); 3) he believes the eikon ("image") title in Colossians
1:15 and the pleroma references in 1:19 and 2:9 ascribe "full
deity" to Christ72; 4) the o{ti (hoti) clause of verse 16 and the use
of proV pavntwn (pro panton, "before all") in verse 17; and 5) the
69
This can be seen from Pauls application of Psalm 2:7 to Christs resurrection
in Ac 13:33 (compare Heb 5:5).
70
Helyer, "The Prototokos Title," 251.
71
Ibid.
72
Ibid., 262.
lack of emphasis on the -tokos element of prototokos, "which with

the exception of Luke 2:7," in Helyers view, "is never
emphasized in the NT."73
Jesus as the "image" of God. The first of these objections
has been sufficiently addressed elsewhere in this publication,74 as
has the second.75 With regard to the first part of the third
objection, namely, that eikon ascribes full deity to Jesus, this is a
purely subjective statement, lacking any real credibility if "full
deity" is taken to mean equality of status with God Himself.
Jehovahs Witnesses do not deny Christs divinity, but they
declare in harmony with the Scriptures that neither is he equal to
the Father, nor is he the Almighty God, for only the Father is God
Almighty.76 The references to Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 have been
discussed already, and we find in these verses precisely that which
Helyer denies: Christs creation.77 Therefore, these two verses,
particularly 1:19, being part of the context of 1:15 and the over-all
scriptural teaching concerning Christ, support the belief that
Christ is a created being.
The significance of the o{ti [hoti] clause. Regarding the
fourth objection, Helyer maintains the hoti clause ("because by
means of him . . .")78 and the fact that Christ is said to be "before
all things" "unambiguously declare [Christ] to be the pre-existent
mediator of all creation." He then cites Martins observation, "If
the pre-incarnate Lord was the agent of all creation, and pre-
existed before everything, it leads to the conclusion that only God
73
Ibid. See also, Larry R. Helyer, "Arius Revisited: The Firstborn Over All
Creation," JETS 31.1 (1988), 63.
74
See pages 203-204.
75
76
Jesus and the angels are divine, for each of them has a substance or beingness
that makes each of them divine, that is to say, a substance which makes each one of
them an owner of power and mental properties that are superhuman even as each ones
substance or beingness means he is a also a unique person, that he is incorporating a
center of consciousness and a will uniquely his own. But we believe the language of
Scripture clearly reveals that none of these divine persons has the selfsame substance or
beingness uniquely defining the person of the Father as the One alone who is God
Almighty. See Chapter 2.
77
78
The use of hoti here is simply to introduce an independent sentence, and may
not need translating at all (see J. C. ONeill, "The Source of the Christology in
Colossians," NTS 26 [1980], 90-91).
can satisfactorily account for Christs being."79 Exactly! It is clear

that Christ could not belong to the group of things created through
him. That is precisely why NWT uses the word "other" in brackets
four times in verses 16-17.
In view of this fact, it should be obvious that the criticisms
which have been brought against NWT for its use of "other" in
these verses are without merit. Of course, Jehovahs Witnesses do
believe Christ is a created being, but not in the same class as those
creations he was instrumental in bringing forth, and thus "other"
excludes him from that group.80 Figure 4.1 on the following page
may help illustrate this point.
In figure 4.1 the depiction of ta panta as in some
(metaphysical) sense being located "in" the firstborn should not be
embraced without reservation. After all, we do not know precisely
in what sense ta panta was made "in him [= the firstborn]." It is
very possible that the first ejn[en]-clause in verse 16 should be
taken in an instrumental sense, as we find in NWT and other
translations, "by means of him."
This is probably the correct view of the matter, but it is also
possible that this first ejn-clause is used in the same way as the
second ejn-clause (see note 81), that is, locational. The use of two
locational ejn-clauses for the creation of ta panta seems unlikely,
but certainly not impossible, if we view the second ejn-clause as
merely a more specific reference to what was made "in him [= the
firstborn]," namely, the "the things in the heavens and the things
upon the earth."
79
Helyer, "The Prototokos Title," 262; see also, Helyer, "Arius Revisited," 63.
80
Regarding the use of "other" and words of similar import in the text of the
Bible, we should note that this is a rather common practice, particularly when the text
involves adjectives in comparison (see Lu 13:2; note the occurrence of panta). But
"other" is also used by many translators in passages where it is implied and used to
include what might otherwise be viewed as an excluded member of a group. In Ac 5:29
Peter is clearly not excluded from the group of "apostles," and in Heb 11:32 Samuel
was certainly a prophet. But we also note an appropriate use of "other" as excluding an
individual from a group. In Col 1:20 is it clear we should not include Satan among "all
things" reconciled through Christ.
Figure 4.1
Christs Relationship to "Creation" and "All Things"
hwhy
Created
"Creation [ktisis]"
"Firstborn"
(prototokos)
"All things"
(ta panta)
Created "in" (en, eis) and "through" (dia)
the preexistent Christ
There is also the sense of eij" aujtoVn (eis auton), which could
be viewed in the sense expressed by NWT and other translations,
namely, "for him." But it could also be viewed in a sense similar
to the locational view of the ejn-clauses discussed above.81 What
81
In any event, the sense of eis auton in this passage is not necessarily the same
as that in Ro 11:36, since the one spoken of in Ro 11:36 is the source (ex autou
[compare 1Co 8:6, ex autou]) of ta panta, and dia is here used in reference to the
principal cause (see Chapter 6, pages 320-323). In Col 1:16 the "firstborn," to which
the adverbial clause en auto refers, is shown to be someone other than the Creator, in
view of the passive verb ejktivsqh (ektisthe). If we change the passive clause to an active
one by making the verb active and by changing the subject to an object, it becomes
clear that Jesus is not the Creator, especially in view of the instrumental en auto. The
Father is the only one who could rightly be viewed as the Creator in this context, and
He is mentioned in verses 13, 14 and 19. Verse 19 is particularly instructive, for it, too,
uses the instrumental en auto in reference to Christ, and eujdovkhsen k.t.l. refers to the
action of the Father. Another passive verb, e[ktistai (ektistai) is used at the end of
we do know is that in some sense the "firstborn" was the passive

recipient of ta panta and he now "sustains all things [ta panta] by
the word of his power" (Heb 1:3).
The difference between pas ktisis ("all creation") and
ta panta ("all things"). The fact that the firstborn is excluded
from "all things" (ta panta) does not mean he is excluded from
"all creation" (pases ktiseos). Jehovahs Witnesses understand
Paul to have included Christ in the collective "creation" which, in
relation to Gods acts, is defined as that which has been brought
into existence, or which receives life from God (compare Joh
5:26; 6:57).82
On the other hand, ta panta, though used in a broad sense,
including the "things visible and the things invisible," is
nonetheless restricted per the context to that which came into
being through the agency of the firstborn.83 In fact, in verse 18 pas
is also used in a context-dependent sense, as there are certainly
many things in which Christ does not "hold the first place." And
in verse 20 ta panta is again used in a context-dependent sense, as
there are many who will not be reconciled to God through Christ,
namely, those who are in Revelation 21:8 spoken of as being
hurled into the "lake that burns with fire and sulpher."84
verse 16, and in an active clause has God doing the creating through and for (or
in[to]) Christ.
82
See Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 1 (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1988), 526.
83
It is possible to understand ta panta as strictly a reference to the creation of all
physical things. The locational ejn toi'" oujranoi'" kaiV ejpiV th'" gh'" ("in the heavens
and upon the earth") speaks of the place where ta panta was made, which could be
limited to the physical heavens and earth of Gen 1:1 (see Chapter 6, pages 315-319).
As for the things "invisible," this need not be limited to immaterial spirits or anything
else in the heavenly realm where God resides. (Ne 9:27; Job 16:19; Ps 11:4; 14:2; 18:6;
113:5-6; Mt 23:22) After all, much of what is "visible" to us today, due to the use of
space technology, was not "visible" or as visible to those who lived in ancient times. It
is possible the "invisible" things involved unseen planets and other heavenly bodies in
the physical universe, which "cannot be counted" (Jer 33:22).
84
The use of panta (a neuter form of pas), with or without the article, is used in
several passages to refer to those things made through the Logos or the Wisdom of
God. Note that in Col 1:16 panta is used twice with the article, but in verse 17 we find
panta used once with and once without the article. In 1Co 8:6 panta is used with the
article, but in John 1:3 panta is used without the article. See Chapter 6, pages 320-323
for a discussion of its meaning in reference to Christs mediatorial role in creation.
Therefore the genitive pases ktiseos is properly seen as

partitive, including Christ in the collective group of created things,
but dignified above it as "firstborn."85 Verses 16-17 exclude the
prehuman Christ from ta panta, which is contextually limited to
those things created through the Son.86 It is worth noting even the
early opponents of Arianism viewed the expression in 1:15 as a
partitive genitive, but they simply redefined "creation" as the "new
creation" (compare 2Co 5:17; Ga 6:15) and considered the human
Christ to be the firstborn of these.87
The emphasis on "birth" in "firstborn." As for Helyers
fifth objection, namely, that the -tokos element of prototokos is
only emphasized in Luke 2:7 in NT, we have already seen that
this view is entirely subjective, and, based on the use of firstborn
in NT, insupportable. It does not seem likely that only one
element of this word is emphasized in any of the NT texts
considered above; but the word is used in a sense much different
from those OT texts which, as shown by the context and
85
The idea that one can be dignified above the group to which he or she belongs
is not difficult to grasp, and can be illustrated by Sirach 49:16, which says that "Adam
was above every living thing in the creation" (uJpeVr pa'n zw'on ejn th/' ktivsei *Adavm).
Obviously Adam himself was a "living thing in the creation," but is here dignified
above it without any qualification. An even better example is Sirach 1:4, which says
that "Wisdom was created before all things" (protevra pavntwn e[ktistai sofiva,
protera panton ektistai sophia). Here Wisdom is clearly revealed as a created being, as
belonging to the category of creation, but is revealed as distinct from all other created
things, without using the word "other." The temporal description of Wisdom allows
panta to be used without creating confusion over whether Wisdom is, in fact, a creation
of God. Therefore, the use of "all things" in Col 1:15-17 should cause us no problems,
once we recognize the clear, temporal, and dignified sense for "firstborn" in this
context.
86
(Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany, 1998), 212-213, note 13, argues in circles when he
tries to deny the distinction between pas ktisis and ta panta. Since he does not support
his assertion with a critical analysis of either expression, his argument has no credibility
and appears to be founded merely on dogmatic conviction. He concludes with the
following non sequitur (an argument whose conclusion does not follow from the stated
premise[s]), "Admitting that the Son is excluded from all things makes the Son the
Creator." The rest of Whites discussion of Col 1:15-17 (The Forgotten Trinity, 109-
116) contains the usual assumptions and errors associated with a non-temporal meaning
for "firstborn" and Christs role in creation, all of which have been addressed in this
publication. For a discussion of Whites misuse of Gnosticism as a backdrop for Pauls
statements in 1:15-17 and 2:9, see Chapter 3, pages 155-158.
87
Lightfoot, Colossians, 146. See also, Abbott, Colossians, 213.
accompanying terms, denote dignity, exaltation, election, and

sovereignty, apart from temporal priority. In NT, and the majority
of cases in the OT,88 the fullness of the terms connotations is
conveyed, including temporal priority.
In conversations with this author, some have offered a rather
interesting argument for Christ being considered the "firstborn" in
any literal sense, namely, he would have to have a father, mother,
a brother or brothers and a sister or sisters. But this seems to me to
be a very strange position for one to take, that is, for "firstborn" to
be literally temporal the term must then also involve a human
father, mother, brothers sisters, simply because that is the case
when it comes to human firstborns.
However, when Jesus said his Fathers "house" (oi*kiva, oikia)
contained monaiV pollaiv (monai pollai, "many abodes" [rooms])
is it really necessary to take what the disciples considered an oikia
("house") as a point of comparison in every sense, before we say
Jesus words are literal? (Joh 14:2) If we say oikia is here used
figuratively we are assuming a literal "house" only exists in the
earth. But since the abodes of heaven came first, how could they
be viewed as anything but actual abodes? Instead, we should
simply take the sense of the term as we understand it (that is, as a
residence) and transfer it, as best we can, to the spiritual realm.
After all, we would not think to argue that for the term
"father" to have a literal application it would have to involve a
human mother. No, the term "father" has the sense of one who
gives life and safeguards or provides for his children. The
reference (the person to whom the term "father" is applied) simply
tells us on what plane (spiritual or physical) such senses are
understood. Since we do not know exactly how the generative
process of creation works in reference to Gods sons, it is enough
to know that there is a parallel with human procreation in terms of
the giving of life, but the specifics of the generative process are, of
course, different.
88
A check in any concordance of the OT for the use of the word "firstborn" will
show that it is predominantly used to indicate temporal priority. An excellent example
of this usage is Joshua 6:26, where the "firstborn" is contrasted with the "youngest"
child.
The Bible uses human words which, to the greatest extent

possible, communicate what is really the case with corresponding
items/beings in the spirit realm. Therefore, since we are not told
"firstborn," as used of Christ in Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:6,
does not convey the lexical sense of temporal priority, and since
Jesus is not said to have been "placed as" or "given" the position
of "firstborn," then the best and most natural way to understand
the term is to recognize what is true about a father and his
firstborn son, and transfer the same sense to Jesus and his Father,
especially since that is how they are described to us, throughout
the New Testament.
Of course, even if such an emphasis on the -tokos element
were present only in Luke 2:7, that would certainly not preclude
an emphasis of this same element in Colossians 1:15. One of
Helyers objections to Dunns view of Colossians 1:15-20
involves what Helyer believes is "a dubious assumption
concerning what [Paul] would have been able to believe as a
committed Jewish Christian monotheist," on Dunns part.89
Yet, Helyer himself makes a "dubious assumption" regarding
Jesus as the "incarnation of the eternal Son of God."90 Helyer
himself does not deny that his reading of Paul is "colored by the
lenses of Nicea and Chalcedon," to use his phrasing of a potential
rejoinder by Dunn. Indeed, he admits, "That may be." Of course,
it is true, for Helyers reference to Pauls affirmation of
monotheism "as fundamental for his converts" is no doubt the
very monotheism articulated by trinitarians of post-biblical times,
which is in direct conflict with the monotheism presented by Paul
in the two verses Helyer cites for comparison. (1Co 8:6; Eph 4:6)
Helyer does make some fine observations concerning "Pauls
cosmic Christology against the backdrop of his Jewish roots." 91
Jehovahs Witnesses understand Colossians 1:15 as an
instance where the apostle Paul applies the term "firstborn" to the
preexistent Christ in order to secure his position as the preeminent
one of Gods creation. Paul distinguishes Christ from mediated
creations, in terms of temporal priority, for "all [other] things" were
89
Larry Helyer, "Cosmic Christology and Col 1:15-20," JETS 37.2 (1994), 246.
90
Ibid.
91
Ibid., 240.
made through Christ. His own creation occurred prior to "all

things," and in an entirely different manner, a manner we find
articulated in another well-known and also controversial text.
Proverbs 8:22-31
Early Christian interpretations. One of the chief scriptural
texts that opponents of the Nicene confession pointed to in support
of their contention that the Son was a created being was Proverbs
8:22. Many modern English translations render this verse, "The
LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his
acts of old." (RSV) But the precise meaning of the Hebrew word
translated "created" (ynnq, a form of qanah) in the RSV has been
the subject of dispute, particularly, it seems, when this verse is
applied to the preexistent Jesus.
However, it was not the text as found in the original Hebrew
that served as the focus of many a discussion during the Nicene
crisis, but that of the LXX, which at this time was considered as
inspired and authoritative as the Hebrew Scriptures from which it
was translated.92 This made pro-Trinitarian rebuttals to Proverbs
8:22 difficult, for the LXX (in 8:23) translates qanah with e[ktisevn
(a form of ktizo, meaning "create" or "make"). This forced the
Trinitarians to look elsewhere for an explanation of this passage,
consistent with their understanding of Christ.
That they failed to provide an acceptable interpretation is
clear from Athanasius (c. 296373 CE) supreme effort, over
many pages, but ultimately resulting only in the following: "The
Lord created me a beginning of His ways, as if to say, My Father
hath prepared for Me a body, and has created Me for men in
behalf of their salvation." Therefore, Athanasius interprets
Proverbs 8:22 as a reference to the Words sojourn in the flesh.93
92
See Mogens Mller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint
(JSOTSup 206; CIS 1; England: Sheffield, 1996), 68-94.
93
"Four Discourses Against the Arians," NPNF 4, Discourse 2, chap. 19, p. 374.
This is Athanasius repeated conclusion throughout his lengthy discussion of this
passage. We might also note his assertion that "no one says that He begets what he
creates." (ibid., sec. 48) Of course, in human terms we typically do not refer to the
But this explanation is such a desperate attempt to reconcile

Athanasius view of Christ with this text, that no modern scholar
has, to this authors knowledge, championed it.
A reluctance to see the prehuman Jesus in Proverbs
8:22-31. One difference we have seen emerging from the time of
Athanasius to our day, is many Trinitarians have rejected an
identification of Christ with the Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs 8.
That is why, in part, Bowman argues: "If we take [Proverbs] 8:22
to speak literally about Christ, we must also assume that Christ is
a woman who cries in the streets (1:20-21), and who lives with
someone named Prudence (8:12) in a house with seven pillars
(9:1)!"94
Bowman acknowledges the possibility that Christ is in some
sense described in Proverbs 8:22, stating: "Assuming that
Proverbs 8:22 was a description of Christ, it would be just as
much a mistake to argue from Proverbs 8:22 that Christ was
created as to argue from 2 Samuel 7:14 that Christ would be a
sinner!"95 First of all, in Proverbs 8:22 we are not suggesting one
subject is spoken of and then aspects of this verse are applied
prophetically to a different subject, namely, Christ. That is what
conception and birth of a child as "creation." But creation (of a sort) is precisely what
takes place inside the mothers womb, resulting in the birth of a child. In relation to
Christs "birth" from God, whether we say he was "created" or "begotten" the basic idea
is the same: Christ was given life by the Father (compare Joh 5:26). No one thinks of
"begotten" in human terms to mean that the fetus has had in any sense a life of equal
duration to that of the one in whom he/she has been begotten. The dichotomy made by
Trinitarians between "created" and "begotten" amounts to little more than word magic.
While some fine distinction can be made between these terms, ultimately they amount
to the same thing: the bringing into being of that which did not previously exist. In this
connection we might ask in what sense the Father could be considered "begotten"? If
the Logos was begotten, and if this does not make him "less eternal" than the Father,
then what is the difference? What event took place that constituted the Logos
"begotten," and not the Father? Robert Bowman (Why You Should Believe in the
Trinity, 83) argues, "The Bible does not actually say that the prehuman Jesus was
begotten by the Father at some point in time." But it does not say the Logos was
begotten outside of time either! So there is really no reason to disassociate a critical
aspect of a term's meaning when the Bible provides no license for doing so. If the Bible
uses words like "Son," "begotten," "firstborn," and other words typically used with
temporal connotations, then we should be prepared to accept them unless we have very
solid, scriptural articulation at the hands of those Bible writers who used such terms, to
do otherwise.
94
95
Ibid., 61.
we have in 2 Samuel 7:14. A situation that occurred with

Solomon is fulfilled in a greater way in Christ (compare Mt 3:17).
But the latter part of 2 Samuel 7:14, which speaks of "doing
wrong," is never applied to Jesus. Proverbs 8:22 is simply a
straightforward identification of a being created by Jehovah (see
below), who was used in the making of all other things. Solomon
serves as a type for Christ in 2 Samuel 7:14. We have nothing of
the sort in Proverbs 8:22-31. What we do have is an identification
of a heavenly being associated with Jehovah, who is described in
terms that are used elsewhere only of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Answering some objections. Regarding Bowmans
objections to Proverbs 8:22-31 as a description of the pre-human
Jesus, we should note that there is a difference between Wisdom as
spoken of in Proverbs 8 and wisdom (the impersonal attribute) as
spoken of elsewhere in Proverbs. The only time Wisdom speaks
with the introductory formula, "I, Wisdom [hmkh-yna]," is in
Proverbs 8:12. We may also note here that "Prudence" need not be
personalized as is Wisdom, for the simple reason that "Prudence"
("shrewdness" NWT) never speaks! The meaning of Wisdoms
residing with "shrewdness" is simply "shrewdness" is a
dominant characteristic of Wisdom, "Wisdom inhabits prudence,
has settled down, as it were, and taken up her residence in it, is at
home in its whole sphere, and rules it."96
Regarding Bowmans third objection, namely, Wisdom actually
would have to reside in a house with seven pillars according to 9:1
in order to be a personal being in 8:12-36, we should point out that
Proverbs 9:1-4 reverts to a rather impersonal view of wisdom,
referring to it in the third person. Also, there is a marked difference
in the style and imagery of Proverbs 8:22-31 and "the instructions
and other wisdom poems."97 The vivid description Wisdom gives of
96
C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 6,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1993), 177.
97
R. N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs (JSOTSup 168;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 44. On page 35 Whybray isolates two sections of
Proverbs as portraying Wisdom in a different light than other sections: "The portrayal
of Wisdom in 1.20-33 and ch. 8 is not the same as in the instructions. She is no longer
spoken of in the third person, but is herself a speaker: apart from the short introductions
which set the scene (1.20-21; 8:1-3), the whole of these two long poems consists of her
words, which she delivers in public. Instead of being a shadowy if important figure, she
actual historical events that occurred while in association with

Jehovah "from times earlier than the earth" (8:23) sets chapter 8
apart from the rest of the book. Indeed, Whybray notes that in
contrast to ancient Egyptian and Babylonian creation accounts, the
temporal clauses in Proverbs 8:22-31 "constitute an ordered
statement of the actual creative process," a statement that is an
"orderly and detailed . . . presentation of the events of creation."98
Jesus as Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31. The fact is, only
one person shares the same descriptions given to Wisdom in
Proverbs 8, and that person is Jesus of Nazareth. Consider:
Figure 4.2
Parallels Between "Wisdom" in the OT and Christ in the NT
PARALLELS BIBLICAL TEXTS

Proverbs 8:22. Compare: Col 1:15;
1) First of Gods works
Rev 3:14.
2) Existed with God before the Proverbs 8:23-29. Compare: Joh 1:1,
creation of the earth 17:5
Proverbs 8:30. Compare: Joh 1:3; Heb
1:2; 1Co 8:6 (see below for more on the
3) Involved in the creation process
translation of amon [NWTs "master
worker"])
Proverbs 8:31. Compare: Joh 3:16;
4) Special fondness for humankind
10:17; 1Ti 2:5, 6
5) Wisdom and Christ are associated
Proverbs 8:35. Compare: Joh 14:6; 17:3
in a special way with life
See 1Co 1:24, 30; compare Mt 23:34 with
6) Christ is actually called "Wisdom"
Lu 11:49, where Jesus identifies himself
outside of Proverbs 8
as Wisdom99
now appears as a fully fledged character." Despite the similarities that exist between
1:20-33 and 8:1-36, Whybray also notes that "the two are very different" (ibid., 38).
See also, Whybray, The Book of Proverbs: A Survey of Modern Study (HBIS 1; Leiden:
Brill, 1995), 71-74.
98
R. N. Whybray, "Proverbs VIII 22-31 and its Supposed Prototypes," VT 15.4
(1965), 507-508. On page 511 Whybray notes the creation of the earth is not the main
point of Pr 8:22-31, but "the priority of wisdom over the other creatures."
99
For more on the prehuman Jesus as the Wisdom of God, particularly as it
relates to identity as the Logos in John 1, see Chapter 6, pages 311-315.
I suppose one could argue these parallel descriptions are mere

coincidence, but that does not seem to be a very likely conclusion.
Scholars have also noted various parallels between statements
concerning Christ in the NT and biblical and non-biblical literature.
In Chapter 6 of this publication I highlighted significant parallels
between the Johannine Prologue and biblical and non-biblical
Wisdom traditions. There are also parallels between these Wisdom
traditions and Pauls description of Christ in Colossians 1:15-20 that
deserve close attention.100
It seems to this author that the main reason the Wisdom of
Proverbs 8 is rejected by some as an identification of the pre-human
Jesus is because of what is said in 8:22, namely, that Wisdom was
begotten or created by Jehovah. But is "created" (or "begotten") an
accurate translation of the Hebrew verb qanah? Why do some
translations read "possessed" instead of "created"?
The Hebrew words qanah and *amon. Bruce Vawter
conducted a study of qanah, particularly as used in Proverbs 8:22,
and concludes: "There is no compelling evidence from other OT
texts to indicate a Hebrew qana = created, neither should the verb
in Prov 8:22 be translated in this fashion."101
Vawter believes Wisdom preexisted the created order and
"Yahweh took possession of a wisdom that he then proceeded to
utilize in his work of creation."102 But his theory is dead in the water
100
Jeffrey S. Lamp, "Wisdom in Col 1:15-20: Contribution and Significance,"
JETS 41.1 (1998), 50-51, points to a number of parallels between Col 1:15-20 and
Jewish Wisdom traditions. While I am not sure Lamp understands the true significance
of these parallels for NT Christology (note his reference to the "Arian controversy" on
page 52), he nevertheless is correct in calling attention to the parallels between what is
said of Wisdom and what is said of Christ.
101
Bruce Vawter, "Prov. 8:22: Wisdom and Creation," JBL 99 (1980), 213. In a
later article, "Yahweh: Lord of the Heavens and the Earth," CBQ 48.3 (1986), 463,
Vawter defends the position in his JBL article, "I proposed and still propose that there
is no evidence that the common Semitic qnh/y/w ever demands a translation which
associates its root meaning with that of creation or procreation." But Richard
Clifford (Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible [CBQMS 26;
Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1994], 118, note 7) is
correct when he says Vawters "argument is forced, particularly so in Deut 32:6
(Surely He is your father who created you [qaneka], // He made you and established
you)." The context is the key in determining the meaning of qanah, and in De 32:6, Pr
8:22 and other passages, the context clearly refers to creation or birth, whether
figurative or literal.
102
Vawter, "Wisdom and Creation," 215.
if the *amon in verse 31 is to be translated "nursling" or "darling

child," and refers to the youth or special relationship of Wisdom to
Jehovah when He created the world. For why, then, would Jehovah
take possession of a wisdom?
R. B. Y. Scott acknowledges the appropriateness of "little
child" as a translation of *amon, in view of Proverbs 8:22 (which he
translates "Yahweh begat me") and the parallel use of verbs in Psalm
139:13. However, he believes the "imagery of gay, thoughtless
childhood is inappropriate" in view of the "appeal to men to listen to
wisdom [in the first part of the chapter and in verses 32-36] because
of her primacy in creation."103
But this seems to miss the point entirely, for it is Wisdoms
relation to Jehovah as a child that makes her so dear to Him, as "the
one he was specially fond of day by day." (NWT) By the time of her
instructing men to listen to her, she is hardly the "thoughtless child"
Scott describes! Her existence from "times earlier than the earth"
(verse 23) has allowed her to obtain the wisdom and knowledge
from Jehovah that she now seeks to impart.
Scott rejects "master worker" and other similar translations,
believing this would conflict "with the express statements that
Yahweh himself performed the creative acts."104 But this really is
an unnecessary objection, since the role of Wisdom as a "master
worker" need not be confused with the actual creative process. In
fact, since Jehovah is the One who is seen as performing the
creative acts, the translation "master worker" may simply denote
Wisdoms role as a builder or fashioner of those things Jehovah
brought into existence.105
103
R. B. Y. Scott, "Wisdom in Creation: the *amon of Proverbs viii 30," VT 10.2
(1960), 217-219.
104
Ibid., 216-217, 220.
105
For further discussion of the possible meanings of *amon, see the summary by
Whybray, The Book of Proverbs: A Survey of Modern Study, 76-78; compare
Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs (SBT 45; London: SCM Press, 1965), 101-103; Scott,
"Wisdom in Creation," 213-223; "Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 15
February 1952, 127-128.
But if the meaning "little child" (Whybray) or "nursling" as

one scholar has recently argued,106 this would parallel the NT view
that Jesus preexisted as God's Son, his "child" (Heb 1:2). Returning
to the meaning of qanah, Whybray is correct when, with direct
reference to Vawter, he observes: "Scholars who argue that qanah in
the sense of acquired must imply that Wisdom is here seen as
having pre-existed before Yahweh acquired her are reading too
much into the text."107
A startling, modern example of reading ones view into 8:22-
31 is found in William Irwins article, "Where Shall Wisdom Be
Found?" At the beginning of his article Irwin acknowledges that
"Wisdom originated in some way with God long before his work
in creating the world," but he then suggests verse 23 means "prior
to eternity I was established"!108
It is somewhat surprising that nowhere in Vawters article is
there a reference to the article by C. F. Burney, wherein Burney
shows that qanah never has the sense of "possess, or own simply,
apart from the idea of possessing something which has been
acquired in one way or another."109 Burney concludes:
The idea of creation is closely connected with the idea of

acquisition as being one form of it; whereas the idea of
possession without acquisition stands sharply apart, and cannot,
as we have seen, be substantiated for a single occurrence of the
verb. We are justified, therefore, in concluding that [ynnq, the
form of qanah used in Prov 8:22] cannot rightly be rendered
possessed me, but must have the meaning gat me in some
sense still to be determined. . . . We arrive, then, at the
following rendering for the verse as a whole:The Lord begat
106
V. A. Hurowitz, "Nursling, Advisor, Architect? /wma and the Role of
Wisdom in Proverbs 8,22-31," Bib 80 (1999), 391-400.
107
R. N. Whybray, Proverbs (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 130. It
should be noted that references to Wisdom in Proverbs as "her" are due to the fact that
"wisdom" is a feminine noun. But this no more reveals Wisdoms "gender" than does
the use of the feminine word agape ("love") in 1Jo 4:8 mean God is a woman.
108
William A. Irwin, "Where Shall Wisdom Be Found?" JBL 80 (1961), 133,
140, note 32.
109
C. F. Burney, "Christ as the ARCH of Creation," JTS 27 (1925-26), 160.
Irwin, "Where Shall Wisdom Be Found?" 133, note 3, correctly cites the publication
data of Burneys article, but he mistakenly refers to the author as "Burkitt" throughout
his study.
me as the beginning of His way, The antecedent of His works,

of old.110
Context = "created." Of course, the context of Proverbs 8:22

is the deciding factor, as it speaks of Wisdom being "the beginning
of [Jehovahs] way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago"
(verse 22), "installed from the start" (verse 23), and "brought forth as
with labor pains" (verses 24, 25). These descriptions favor a
translation such as "created, "begotten," or "produced," not "buy" or
"get." Gale Yee makes these astute observations:
In Ps 139:13 the psalmist states that he was woven in the womb

of his mother. In Job 10:11 Job remarks to God that he was knit
together with bones and sinews. The process of gestation in both
cases is described metaphorically in terms of a craft.
Furthermore, significant for our structural study is the fact that in
Ps 139:13 hnq [qanah] parallels iks [sakhak, "weave together"],
which is the same situation here in Prov 8:22-23. While the usual
meaning of the root hnq [qanah] is to buy or acquire, the verb
is used in Gen 4:1 and Dtn 32:6 as well as in Ps 139:13 where the
parenting aspect is unmistakable. The third parallel verb in Prov
8:24, ytllwj [kholalti], I was brought forth (in labor), also
supports the birth imagery found in hnq [qanah] and iks
[sakhak].111
As Yee points out, the use of qanah in Proverbs 8:22 is similar

to Genesis 4:1, where Eve clearly did not mean she "acquired" or
"bought" Cain, but that she "produced," "begat," or even "created"
Cain "with the aid of Jehovah," meaning that she could not do so
unless Jehovah gave her the ability to have children. In this
connection, we should also note that when Jehovah "begat" Wisdom
110
Burney, "Christ as the ARCH of Creation," 164-165, 168.
111
Gale A. Yee, "An Analysis of Prov 8:22-31 According to Style and Structure,"
ZAW 94 (1982), 63, note 17. While Jehovahs Witnesses do not share Yees view that
"Wisdom functions as a literary device personifying the abstract concept of Hebrew
wisdom," they do agree Wisdoms "beginning is not only temporally but also
qualitatively distinct from the rest of the created world" (Gale A. Yee, "The Theology
of Creation in Proverbs 8:22-31," Creation in the Biblical Traditions [eds. Richard J.
Clifford and John J. Collins; CBQMS 24; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical
Association of America, 1992], 91).
this did not involve some sort of sexual act. No, "the meaning
begot here must be figurative and so equivalent to created. . . .
The point of this verse, as of the succeeding verse, is merely that
wisdom was created first."112
Revelation 3:14
Whether or not Jesus is a being whose existence had a
beginning is, needless to say, vitally important in determining his
position in relation to God. We have already discussed a few verses
which we believe reveal that Jesus was in fact created by God the
Father (Pr 8:22-23; Joh 5:26; 6:57; Col 1:15), but there are others.
One of these is Revelation 3:14. According to the RSV, this verse
calls Jesus the "beginning of Gods creation." But does this verse
truly refer to Christ as a created being?
The Greek word arche in the New Testament. Regarding
the use of this text by Jehovahs Witnesses, Ron Rhodes argues: "In
responding to the Watchtowers interpretation of Revelation 3:14, it
is critical to note that there is a wide range of meanings for the Greek
word . . . translated beginning in the New World Translation."113
While it is true that arche can have a meaning other than
"beginning," a check of all the occurrences in NT of arche followed
by a genitive expression (as we have in Rev 3:14) shows that it
always denotes a beginning or first part of something (see list of
examples below). Even when used without a genitive expression
arche means "beginning" some 32 times.114 Of the remaining 13
occurrences of arche in NT, 2 are used of the "four corners"
("extremities" NWT) of the earth.
The final 11 are used to denote "governments" or "rulers," and
with such a meaning are always used with other expressions
112
Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs, 101.
113
114
See Mt 19:4, 8; 24:21; Mr 1:1; 10:6; Lu 1:2; Joh 1:1, 2; 6:64; 8:25, 44; 15:27;
16:4; Ac 11:15; 26:4; Col 1:18; 2Th 2:13; Heb 1:10; 2:3; 3:14; 1Jo 1:1; 2:7, 13, 14,
24; 3:8, 11; 2Jo 1:5, 6; Jude 6; Re 21:6; 22:13.
denoting "power" (duvnami", dynamis) or "authority" (ejxousiva,

exousia).115
Therefore, the use of the singular arche in general, and when
used with a genitive expression specifically, favors (statistically, at
least) the meaning "beginning" in Revelation 3:14. We have found
no exceptions to this observation, particularly when the subject is a
person, and not a non-personal object. Nevertheless, Rhodes states,
"The authoritative Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature by William Arndt and F.
Wilbur Gingrich says the meaning of arche in Revelation 3:14 is
first cause."116
True, Bauers lexicon (BAGD) does list Revelation 3:14 under
definition "2. the first cause" (page 112). However, no biblical
passages are cited as parallels to this meaning. Also, we should point
out that BAGD went on to say regarding the use of arche in
Revelation 3:14, "the [meaning] beginning=first created is
linguistically [possible]."
Biblical parallels to the grammar of Revelation 3:14. It
is not only possible, but most likely the case when you consider the
fact that nothing precludes such an understanding, and all other
preferred translations seem to go contrary to the use of arche with a
genitive expression. Consider the following examples:
Matthew 24:8 (arch wdinwn): "beginning of birth pangs." The use

of "beginning" (arche) here refers back to "all these things" (panta . .
. tauta) which in turn has reference to the signs listed in verses 4
through 7. These signs are a "beginning" of the signs Jesus gives in
response to the disciples questions in verse 3. The genitive here is
therefore partitive in that the "birth pangs" are the whole of which
arche (the "signs" in verses 4 through 7) is a part. What is more,
arche here refers to those signs that occur first.
115
Lu 12:11; 20:20; Ro 8:38; 1Co 15:24; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:10;
2:15; Tit 3:1
116
Rhodes, Reasoning, 123. Rhodes (ibid., 124) also argues that "beginning" as
used of God in Rev 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13 "does not mean that [God] had a created
beginning." Of course, Rev 1:8 does not use arche in reference to God, and the word
"creation" is not used with arche in Rev 21:6 and 22:13, while it is used in a genitive
expression following arche in Rev 3:14. In Rev 21:6 and 22:13 arche is used of God
in that all He purposes to do starts and ends with Him.
Mark 13:19 (archs ktisews): "beginning of creation." Here

"beginning" is likely a reference to the beginning of the creation of
humankind and extends to the "tribulation" that occurred shortly
thereafter, no doubt a reference to the rebellion of Adam and Eve
recorded in Genesis 3. However, this tribulation will be eclipsed by
the severity of the tribulation that is to come according to Jesus
prophecy. The "beginning" here is part of the larger group of
"creation which God created" (Mr 13:19). "Beginning," then, may
here refer to what is "first," but neither does it refer to an "origin" or
"ruler." Rather, it appears to refer to a time period during which God
created, a time period that also included a tribulation involving our
first human parents.117
John 2:11 (archn twn shmeiwn): "beginning of the/his signs."
Philippians 4:15 (arch tou euangeliou): "beginning [or, start]

of the good news."
Hebrews 3:14 (thn archn ths %upostasews): The translation of

this part of Hebrews 3:14 is a bit tricky, and NWT does a fine job
with "the confidence we had at the beginning." 118 But that which is
here referred to as "beginning" is characterized by the meaning of
hypastaseos (NWTs "confidence"), so that it involves the start of
a persons trust or confidence in the good news.
Hebrews 5:12 (ths archs twn logiwn tou qeou ): Note the
similarity between this verse and Revelation 3:14. We find a
partitive genitive ("of the words," where "the beginning" [tes
arches] is considered part of "the words") used with arche and
followed by a genitive of origin [meaning that the "words"
originated from God] "of/by God" [tou theou]. The "elementary
117
See Chapter 6, pages 315-319 for further discussion of "beginning" in relation
to the creation periods mentioned in the Bible.
118
William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (WBC 47A; Dallas, Texas: Word Books,
1991), 82, note q, objects to "confidence" as a proper sense for hypastaseos, "since
examples of the word with this nuance cannot be found in early sources." But this
nuance fits quite well in Hebrews 3:14, as "confidence" or "trust" (both senses are
accepted by Louw and Nida [Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 376,
entry 31.84]) are what move a person to take that first step in rejecting "fear" and "sin."
(Heb 3:12-13) A Christian puts confidence in what the Bible says and is moved to
adjust his/her thinking accordingly. It is only by maintaining that "confidence"/"trust" in
God and Christ (with the help of the holy spirit) that one can make it "to the end."
things" [ta stoicheia] involve the "beginning" [arche] or "first"

things that are taught to a new believer, the "milk" (verse 13).
Hebrews 6:1 (ton ths archs tou cristou logon ): "the teaching
of the first things [NWT: primary doctrine] concerning Christ."
Here the reference is to those things that are foundational to the
truth about faith in Christ, upon which a Christian can build, or
mature.
Hebrews 7:3 (archn }hmerwn): "a beginning of days."
2 Peter 3:4 (ap archs ktisews ): "from the beginning of creation."
Examples from the LXX could also be cited.119 After

acknowledging that "beginning=first created" is a possible
alternative to the definition "first cause," BAGD refers us to the
article by C. F. Burney, which was cited earlier in our discussion of
Proverbs 8:22. Burney believes Revelation 3:14 is an allusion to
Proverbs 8:22, and with reference to the meaning of Revelation 3:14
he states the truth of the matter when he says that exegetes "have not
a shadow of authority for limiting in meaning to the source of
Gods creation."120
A conflict with Christ as the Creator? Rhodes believes
that Revelation 3:14 means that Christ is "the beginner of Gods
creation," thinking that this interpretation "harmonizes with other
New Testament passages about Christ as Creator." Rhodes then cites
Colossians 1:16, 17, Hebrews 1:2, and John 1:3 as examples of
other passages that he believes teach that Christ is the Creator.121
One of the problems with Rhodes argument is there are no
other "New Testament passages about Christ as Creator." The three
verses he cites speak of what God did through Christ. Rather than
speak of Christ as the Creator, the Bible consistently uses language
of Jesus that could never be used of an eternal almighty God, and
which reveals the simple truth that Jesus lives "because of the
Father" (Joh 6:57).
119
See Ge 10:10; 49:3; Ex 12:2; Nu 24:20; De 21:17; Job 40:19; Hosea 1:2.
120
Burney, "Christ as the ARCH of Creation," 177.
121
Rhodes, Reasoning, 125-126.
Returning to the issue of parallels to Revelation 3:14, another

example that is particularly striking in its similarity to Revelation
3:14 is Job 40:19. Here reference is made to "the beginning of the
Lords creation" (Greek: ajrchV plavsmato" kurivou, arche plasmatos
kyriou). The Greek word used here is a form of plasma, which can
refer to something formed, such as when Adam was "formed"
from the dust of the earth (Ge 2:7, 8). In Genesis 2:7, 8 the LXX
does in fact use a form of the Greek verb plasso (plavssw), which
means "to form." In Genesis 2:7, 8 the Hebrew uses a term that
more closely corresponds to plasso, in terms of "forming"
something. But in Job 40:19 the Hebrew text uses a term that
refers to the beginning of Gods "ways." It is, in fact, the same
word used to describe the creation of Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22.
Though the two references (Pr 8:22 and Job 40:19) use the
same Hebrew term ty?r (resheet, "beginning") in reference to
Gods "ways," the reference is different. The context of Job 40:19
refers to "beasts of the field" (verse 20), but the context of
Proverbs 8:22, as we have previously discussed, deals with
Wisdoms creation "before the earth" (Pr 8:23). This is no doubt
why the LXX uses a term relating to the things "formed" by God
for Behemoth in Job 40:19, but in Proverbs 8:22 the Hebrew for
"ways" is translated by the Greek for "ways" (ajrchVn oJdw'n aujtou',
"the beginning of his ways"). In any event, both Job 40:19 and
Proverbs 8:22 are parallel to Revelation 3:14 in their use of arche.
Also, in Revelation 3:14 it is said that Jesus is the arche of
"Gods creation," so whatever meaning we give to arche in this
verse it does not negate the fact that Jesus is distinct from the
being of God. The "creation" referred to in this text "belongs" to
(is "of" or "by" [tes, genitive of origin]) "God," not "of" or "by"
the arche.
There is no known example of arche meaning "origin" or
"active cause" in the NT or in the LXX. To suggest that we have
just such a use in Revelation 3:14 is special pleading, and the
burden of proof is on those who contend that the meaning is
different from the many parallel examples in the NT, and in the
LXX. Those who advocate "origin," "first cause" or "ruler" for
arche in Revelation 3:14 must provide concrete examples
supporting their position, and also explain the relationship

between "God" and the arche of His creation.
Conclusion
The Bible teaches that there is only one God in the absolute
sense of the word. The Supreme Deity is not spoken of as an essence
of being that is shared by three "persons." The Bible teaches that the
"one God" of Christianity is one person, the Father. Jesus made it
clear that this God, his God, is greater than he, and is his "head."
(Joh 14:28; 1Co 11:3) After Jesus restores the earth to a paradise,
fulfilling Gods original purpose, he will once again subject himself
to the Almighty, and God will be all things to everyone (1Co 15:28).
Those who restrict the meaning of proskyneo, when referring to
Jesus, to absolute worship (that is, worship in the highest sense of
the word) are not giving fair consideration to the full range of
semantic domains in which the word is used. In fact, in view of the
numerous instances where proskyneo is accepted by servants of
God, and where it clearly does not mean worship in the same sense
as God is worshiped, it is difficult to understand how Rhodes, or
anybody else for that matter, could come to such a conclusion.122
In the second part of this chapter we discussed the issues of the
origin of the Son of God. It is our belief that the three texts discussed
are most naturally interpreted as references to the unique creation of
the pre-human Jesus, the Wisdom of God.
With this knowledge, one can truly appreciate the great love
Jehovah displayed in sending His first and only direct creation to
earth, in order to teach us the Fathers will and give his life that
others might live. It gives new meaning to the statement "God is
love" when one considers the fact that He was not obligated to allow
His firstborn Son to experience such great suffering at the hands of
sinful men (1Jo 4:8).
122
See also Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2 (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1988), 1210-1212; "Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 15 November
1970, 702-704.
With the knowledge that Jesus Christ is Gods glorious Son, the
one through whom all else came into being, we can see why it is
necessary to pay "more than the usual attention" to him (Heb 2:1).
5
The I Am Sayings of Jesus
Their Meaning and Significance
The use of the words ejgwV ejimi (ego eimi, "I am"), particularly
in Johns Gospel, has attracted much attention among scholars
and Bible students alike. Some of these scholars, most notably
those of a Trinitarian persuasion, argue that the use of these words
by Jesus have a relationship to similar expressions used by
Jehovah in the book of Isaiah. Is this the case?
Few scholars still claim any direct relationship between the
use of ego eimi in the Fourth Gospel and the LXX translation of
Exodus 3:14. This once popular position of linking Jesus use of
ego eimi with Exodus 3:14 has faded, due in no small part to the
vulnerability this argument exhibits when confronted by
grammatical and contextually-based challenge. Still, in addition to
the passages in Isaiah, we will examine the alleged relationship
between Exodus 3:14 and Jesus use of ego eimi. Our primary
concern, however, is to uncover the meaning of ego eimi by
examining each significant occurrence of this phrase, in relation to
its respective context.
We will primarily focus on those instances where ego eimi
occurs without an expressed predicate (predicateless).1 Johns
Gospel contains a total of nine instances where ego eimi is used
without a predicate. (Joh 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5-6,
1
That is, where there is no image like "the light of the world" (Joh 8:12) directly
following the "I am" statement. The meaning of these predicateless phrases is either
self-contained (absolute), and requires no predicate to complete its meaning, or a
predicate is to be supplied mentally by the reader, and is understandable per the
context.
8) The Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) also use the phrase
with and without a predicate, and the evidence provided in this
chapter will show that the use of this phrase in the Synoptics
parallels that of John.
Another key objective is to see if a predicate is supplied by
the context of Jesus "I am" statements. But, even if such a
predicate is not directly stated, we are interested to see if one is
implied by the context. If the predicate is implied, is it consistent
with those examples where it is directly stated?
In addition to using ego eimi as a means of simple
identification (such as, "It is I"), it will be shown John uses the
phrase primarily as a means of identifying Jesus as the Christ or
Messiah, with such a predicate being supplied or implied from the
contexts in which the phrase occurs. Our investigation will show
that Jesus use of ego eimi need not be construed as "absolute," or
a simple existential phrase, without need of a predicate to
complete its meaning.
We will begin with a consideration of ego eimi in Johns
Gospel. Then we will examine the Synoptics to see what meaning
they attribute to the predicateless "I am" sayings of Jesus. In view
of the assertions often made in connection with these sayings, we
will consider the arguments of those who see in Jesus use of "I
am" an identity between him and Jehovah. The arguments will be
considered as objectively as possible, so that the readers can
determine for themselves the true import of the ego eimi sayings
of Jesus.
Johannine Usage
John 4:26
Jesus identity revealed to a Samaritan woman. We
begin with John 4:26, where Jesus, speaking to a Samaritan
woman, says, "I who am speaking to you am he" ( jEgwv eijmi, oJ
lalw'n soi, Ego eimi, ho lalon soi). To what are Jesus' words a
response? Prior to verse 26 Jesus had astounded the woman with
I Am Sayings of Jesus 245
his knowledge concerning her true marital status (verses 15-18).

Because of this, the woman says to Jesus, "I perceive you are a
prophet" (verse 19). Jesus then explains that salvation originates
with the Jews, and that soon the true worshipers would worship
the Father with spirit and truth (verses 21-23). The woman
responds to Jesus with the words: "I know that Messiah is
coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one arrives, he will
declare all things to us openly." It is to these words that Jesus
responds in verse 26.
Thus, it would seem to be rather obvious that the predicate to
be supplied from the context, specifically verse 25, is "Messiah"
or "Christ." Jesus responds by identifying himself as the one in
whom the woman expressed hope, the one who would someday
make all things clear respecting Gods will. Edwin Freed makes
the following observation regarding Jesus use of ego eimi in John
4:26:
Certainly one way, if not the only correct way, to convey the
meaning of the Greek ego eimi in this context is to understand
messias/christos of the sentence before it as the predicate with
which ho lalon soi is in apposition. In contrast to the Baptists
negative stagement [sic], Jesus is reported as affirming his
messiahship through the use of ego eimi.2
The Samaritan woman evidently understood Jesus response

as an affirmation of his messiahship. (Joh 4:29, 42) So we can see
that John uses the predicateless ego eimi early on in his Gospel as
a means of identifying Jesus as the Christ, the sent forth one of
God.3 William Loader comments, "In 4:26 Jesus identifies himself
with the Messiah, just as, by contrast John the Baptist had rejected
2
Edwin D. Freed, "Ego Eimi in John 1:20 and 4:25," CBQ 41 (1979), 290.
3
Earlier John used ego eimi in connection with the identification of the Messiah.
In John 1:19 priests and Levites sent by the Jews ask John the Baptist, "Who are you?"
He replies in verse 20, jEgwV oujk eijmiV oJ Cristov" (Ego ouk eimi ho Christos, "I am
not the Christ"). This denial is later repeated in a slightly different form, Oujk eijmiV ejgwV
oJ Cristov" (Ouk eimi ego ho Christos, "I am not the Christ"). (Joh 3:28) Freed notes
that the "Baptist's denial that he is the Christ, in the negative form of ego eimi, is part of
his positive testimony that is to follow" (ibid., 289).
such an identity for himself with the words, I am not in 1:21." 4

Meyer rightly says regarding the use of ego eimi in this verse, "I
am He, i.e. the Messiah, ver. 25, the simple Greek expression, and
not in imitation of Deut. xxxii. 39."5 There would seem to be no
reason to look to the LXX usage of ego eimi as having any
relation at all to this verse.
Beyond a Messianic interpretation? However, David
Mark Ball is convinced that there is such a connection. In his
recent study on the "I am" statements of Jesus, he does admit that
in John 4:26 "Jesus declares that he is the messiah for whom she
[the Samaritan woman] waits," and that "Jesus makes a claim
about his identity; he is the messiah." "But," he asks, "is this all
that this I am saying signifies for Jesus identity?"6 Ball then
points to the verbal analogies between this verse and Isaiah 52:6
(LXX). Let us look at them side by side:
Joh 4:26: levgei aujth'/ oJ jIhsou'": jEgwv eijmi, oJ lalw'n soi.
Isa 52:6 (LXX) diaV tou'to gnwvsetai oJ laov" mou toV o[nomav mou
ejn th'/ hJmevra/ ejkeivnh/ ojti ejgwv eijmi aujtoV" oJ lalw'n pavreimi
Joh 4:26 (RSV) Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am
he."
Isa 52:6 (Brenton) Therefore shall my people know my name in

that day, for I am he that speaks: I am present.
After making a similar comparison, Ball concludes:
If the phrasing of Jesus words is meant to direct the reader to

Isaiah, then Jesus claim to messiahship should be interpreted
not only in the context of a debate with the Samaritan woman,
4
William Loader, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structures and Issues,
2d ed. (New York: Lang, 1992), 79.
5
Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the
Gospel of John, trans. William Urwick (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 159.
6
David Mark Ball, I Am in Johns Gospel (JSNTSup 124, Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996), 179.
but also in the context of Isaiah 52. . . . When Jesus says, I am

he who speaks, he thus takes the words of Yahweh and
applies them to himself. . . . Through the ejgwV ejimi of 4.26,
Jesus identity as messiah is therefore qualified by the phrase
in which it is uttered. It is the whole phrase, and not only the
words ejgwV ejimi (ani hu), which points the reader to the Isaianic
passage, which in turn defines what is meant by messiahship. .
. . Jesus identity as messiah is therefore an identity which
includes an identification with Yahweh.7
That Jesus and Jehovah, in contexts where their identity is

under discussion or being made known, should use similar
language is not at all surprising. The real question is, Are they
revealed as the same Being in the contexts in which they are made
known to their respective audiences? There is nothing in the
context of Isaiah 52:6 that would suggest that the one speaking is
the Messiah, and conversely there is nothing in the context of
John 4:26 to suggest that the speaker is Jehovah.
In the context of Isaiah 52:6 Jehovah reminds the Israelites
that it is He,8 "the Sovereign Lord Jehovah" (verse 4), that is
speaking. This He does so they are mindful of the seriousness of
His words and the need to respond to them. In John 4:26 Jesus
words are simply an affirmation of his identity, as the one in
whom the woman expressed faith, the Messiah. The Samaritan
woman could hardly have detected an identification between
Jesus and Jehovah based on Jesus use of "I am he," 9 for
Samaritans did not accept Isaiah, or any other writings except the
Pentateuch, as canonical. Their messianism was centered on the
prophet greater than Moses referred to in Deuteronomy 18; this
7
8
Here the predicate "He" (aujtov") is supplied, but it is not found in Joh 4:26.
9
Jesus could have said *ani hu (Hebrew for "I am he"; see below for more on the
use of this expression), which John then translated into the Greek ego eimi. For a
discussion of whether or not Jesus actually taught in Greek on this and other occasions,
see Stanley E. Porter, Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice (SBG
6; New York: Peter Lang, 1996), 139-171. But note P. M. Caseys objections to
Porters view, "In Which Language Did Jesus Teach?" ExpT 108.11 (1997), 326-328.
See also Angel Senz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, trans. John
Elwolde (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 167-170.
figure was not identified as Jehovah, but Jehovah would

command him what to speak (De 18:18; compare Joh 12:49-50).
In John 4:26 there is no reason to read into the rather
common participle oJ lalw'n (ho lalon, "the one speaking") any
"identification with Yahweh," as Ball suggests. John uses ego
eimi in the same way the LXX of Isaiah uses it: self-identification.
The use of ho lalon is quite at home in both contexts, where two
different identities are being highlighted or revealed. Again, the
fact that Jesus and his Father should use the same language in
similar contexts (particularly where their identity is in question)
should not surprise us. (Joh 14:10; 12:49-50) But the identity
revealed by their words, in these two texts, is not the same.
As we have already discussed, in John 4:26 "it is probable
that this is one of the cases where, although the predicate is not
expressed, it is implied in the context: I that talk to you am the
Christ."10 Interestingly, Freed calls John 4:26 "the clue for
understanding all other passages where the words [ego eimi]
occur."11 Let us see how this is so.
John 6:20
Establishing the context. In John 6:20 Jesus strengthens
his disciples with the words, jEgwv eijmi: mhV fobei'sqe ("I am [he];
do not be afraid"). How should we understand the use of ego eimi
in this instance? Why were the disciples afraid in the first place?
Prior to verse 20 the disciples had boarded a boat and set out
across the sea for Capernaum. (verse 17) It had become dark and
the sea was rough due to a strong wind. (verse 18) After traveling
about three to four miles across the Sea of Galilee, they suddenly
beheld Jesus crossing the water toward their boat, "and they
became fearful." (verse 19)
The parallel accounts in Matthew (14:27) and Mark (6:50)
also record Jesus responding to the disciples with the words ego
10
J. H. Bernard and A. H. McNeile, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Gospel According to St. John, vol. 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928), 151.
11
Edwin D. Freed, "EGO EIMI in John VIII. 24 in the Light of Its Context and
Jewish Messianic Belief," JTS 33 (1982), 163.
eimi. But they do add a bit more which helps us understand why
the disciples were so fearful. Both Matthew and Mark record the
disciples reaction upon seeing Jesus approach them, "It is an
apparition!" This was apparently the only way they could account
for seeing this man walk across the water toward their boat.
Simple self-identification or something more? In light
of this additional information, we can see how ego eimi would
serve as a means of simple self-identification. Knowing their fear,
Jesus assures them, "It is [I], not a ghost [spirit]."12 So what we
have here "is simply an identification, It is I/me."13 Painter also
points out that there is certainly something significant to be found
in the frequent use of ego eimi in John, but various examples
where God, as speaker, reveals Himself using awh yna (*ani hu, "I
[am] he") "do not provide a basis for interpreting the Johannine
use because in all of these instances it is clear that God is the
speaker, I am the Lord, and there is no other."14
The view expressed in this study is one that sees ego eimi in
the LXX and the New Testament as having the same function:
self-identification. That identity may be simple ("It is I") or
unique ("I am Jehovah"; "I am the Messiah"; "I am the man who
was born blind" [Joh 9:9]). Ball, however, believes that when
Jesus said, "have no fear" (mhV fobei'sqe, me phobeisthe), "he
speaks not just as their friend but also speaks the words of the
LORD."15 He says this because there are several passages in the
LXX where the negative particle mhV (me) and the verb "to fear"
(phobeisthai) are used by God.
Ball even cites several examples where this combination is
used with ego eimi (Ge 26:24; 46:3; Jer 1:8, 17; 46:28 [26:28 in
the LXX]; compare Isa 41:10); but ego eimi is not used absolutely
in any of these verses, and not one of them bears a contextual
12
Loader, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, 79. Compare Luke 24:37,
where Jesus appeared in a locked room and the disciples became frightened, "imagining
they beheld a spirit." But Jesus replied by referring to his physical features, in order to
assure them "it is I myself [ejgwv eijmi aujtov"]." (NWT) Compare note 123 below.
13
John Painter, The Quest for the Messiah: The History, Literature and Theology
of the Johannine Community (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 227.
14
Ibid.
15
Ball, I Am in Johns Gospel, 185.
similarity with John 6:20, where there is confusion over

someones identity, and where the words could simply bear the
meaning "It is I." In the case of John 6:20, Jesus words ease the
disciples fear that they beheld "an apparition" (Mr 6:49).
While Abbott thinks the meaning may be "I am the Christ [or
Deliverer]," in harmony with the use of ego eimi in Mark
13:6,16 Ball believes "no predicate can be supplied from the
context of Jn. 6.20."17 Nothing in this particular sequence of
events in the context of John 6:20 would seem to allow for a
predicate such as "Christ" to be supplied, unless Abbott is correct
in saying ego eimi in this verse corresponds to the meaning
"derived through the LXX and Hebraic sources [and, we might
add, through the use in the Synoptics; see below]I am the
Saviour, or Deliverer."18
In this case, Jesus words would have some messianic
overtones which, during the actual event, would have provided
further comfort and security for the frightened disciples,
especially amidst a violent sea storm. This would also be a
reasonable conclusion in view of Johns continual use of ego eimi
in contexts where things relating to the Messiah/Christ are being
discussed.
A parallel to the "words and deeds of God"? The claim
that "we are intended in this passage to recall the coming of God
to the Israelites in their peril at the Red Sea"19 is entirely forced,
and not at all suited for the context of John 6:20. What we have
here is a simple identification, equivalent to, "It is me, Jesus, not
an apparition," or simply, "It is I." This conclusion seems
particularly justified in view of the parallel accounts in Matthew
and Mark, where the disciples are concerned that Jesus is "an
apparition," to which the reply, "It is I," would seem most natural.
16
E. A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1906),
182-183. Compare Mt 24:5. For a discussion of Mt 24:5 and Mr 13:6, see pages 147-
149 below.
17
18
Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 183.
19
George Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Themes: John (Dallas: Word
Publishing, 1989), 40-41.
On the other hand, Ball believes Jesus words convey both a

simple identification, "It is I," and an "identity which involves
intimate identification with the words and deeds of God."
According to Balls belief, unless one understands both of these
meanings in the "I am" statement of John 6:20, then he has failed
to recognize who Jesus really is.20 Of course, Jesus disciples
apparently understood what he said, and they identified him as
"Gods Son," not God. (Mt 14:33) There is nothing in the context
of John 6:20 to suggest Jesus was identifying himself "with the
words and deeds of God." He is merely concerned with easing his
disciples fears that he is an apparition, and this he does, so much
so Peter sought to join his master atop the waters (Mt 14:28-31).
John 8:24, 28
The implied predicates. In John 8 there is a heated
exchange between Jesus and the Jews while Jesus is teaching in
the temple. In verse 23 Jesus tells them: "You are from the realms
below; I am from the realms above. You are from this world; I am
not from this world." He continues in verse 24, saying, "I told you
that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins
unless you believe [ pisteuvshte, pisteusete] that I am he [ego
eimi]." (RSV) This is the first of three occurrences of ego eimi
without an expressed predicate in the eighth chapter of John. But
how are we to understand the use of ego eimi in verse 24?
According to Harner, it is used here with a double meaning.
Harner believes that ego eimi is used here in an absolute sense,
"signifying the unity of the Son and the Father"; but he also
argues that the use here allows for some predicate to be mentally
supplied by Jesus hearers, though he cannot say for sure just
what predicate they may have had in mind, particularly in view of
their question, "Who are you?" in verse 25.21 The use of ego eimi
in this verse does not appear to have anything to do with a "unity
of the Son and the Father." True, Jesus does speak of his relation
20
21
Philip B. Harner, The "I AM" of the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Johannine
Usage and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970), 43-44.
to the Father with the words, "he who sent me is true, and I
declare to the world what I have heard from him." (verse 26,
RSV) But how is this "a further commentary on this meaning [
namely, the meaning Harner here sees in ego eimi, which
allegedly signifies a unity between the Father and the Son] of
the phrase"?22 Is Jesus not simply continuing his conversation
with the Jews, revealing further details about himself and his
relationship with the Father in the process? These additional
details do not necessarily serve as a "commentary" on a particular
phrase Jesus had previously used.
As with John 4:26, Freed sees the ego eimi of 8:24 as a
reference to "Jesus' Messiahship."23 He states: "There is probably
no better reason for believing that the words refer to Jesus as the
Christ than to consider them in the light of the author's stated
purpose for writing his gospel: These [signs] are written that you
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that
believing [pisteuvonte", pisteuontes] you may have life in his
name (xx. 31). Belief in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. In
viii. 24 that proposition of faith is emphatically and categorically
stated."24
But there is much more to support this understanding of ego
eimi in John 8:24. Surely we can see how Jesus would tell the
Jews that they would die in their sins if they refused to believe
that he was the Messiah. Even if his enemies here failed to
recognize those things foretold in the Bible about the Messiah,
Jesus certainly knew them: "By means of his knowledge the
righteous one, my servant, will bring a righteous standing to many
people; and their errors he himself will bear. . . . and he himself
carried the very sin of many people, and for the transgressors he
proceeded to interpose" (Isa 53:11-12).
22
Ibid., 43.
23
Freed, "EGO EIMI in John VIII. 24," 163.
24
Ibid., 163-164. In the quote from John 20:31, Freed supplies the bracketed
word "signs" while I have added the Greek for "believing," showing the verbal
relationship between John 8:24 and 20:31. On page 167 of his article, Freed concludes:
"In John viii. 24 the words ego eimi reveal Johns unique concept of Jesus as the
Messiah. Unless the Jews believe in the Messiah, they will die in their sins."
Also, in Daniel 9:24-25 we have a prophecy about the time

when "Messiah the Leader" would appear, which is directly
linked with the finishing off of "sin" and the "atonement for
error." Therefore, for the Jews rejection of Jesus, the Messiah
who would carry their sin, they would be assured of "death
through sin." (Ro 5:12) Freed remarks: "When Jesus thrice stated
that the Jews would die in their sins unless they believed that ego
eimi, he was doing only what the Messiah was expected to do
reprove sinners."25 The context, then, in which the phrase ego
eimi is used, favors seeing another reference to Jesus as the Christ,
the sent forth one of God. Godet rightly points out the
"understood predicate was certainly the Christ."26
This same meaning seems clear in 8:28, where Jesus,
continuing his discussion with the Jews, says, "When you have
lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he [ego
eimi], and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as
the Father taught me." (RSV) Harner believes this verse also uses
ego eimi with a double meaning. He sees the phrase having a self-
contained meaning of unity between the Father and the Son, as
well as implying the predicate "Son of man," which is mentioned
in the same verse.27
25
Ibid., 164.
26
F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, vol. 2 (New York: Funk &
Wagnalls, 1886), 98. Harner (The "I Am" of the Fourth Gospel, 44, note 77) criticizes
Lagrange, (vangile selon Saint Jean, 7th ed. [Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1948], 236)
for seeing a reference to the Messiah in Joh 8:24, stating that such a conclusion is
"without any basis in the text." However, in view of the clear contextual evidence to the
contrary, as well as the use of ego eimi in John 4:26, we would suggest that Harners
observation is "without any basis." That the Jews should ask Jesus in verse 25, "Who
are you?" is surely no surprise, given their tendency to misunderstand the meaning of
Jesus words (compare Joh 6:48-52; 8:21-22). They clearly did not understand Jesus to
be claiming a divine title, for if they did they would not have asked who he claimed to
be (compare their misunderstanding of Jesus words in Joh 10:33). Nevertheless, Jesus
words in verse 25 (ThVn ajrchVn oJ ti kaiV lalw' uJmi'n, which have been variously
translated as "What have I been saying to you [from] the beginning" [NASB]; "Just
what I have been claiming all along" [NIV]; "Even what I have told you from the
beginning," [RSV]) in response to their question, show Jesus believed he had made his
identity quite clear (compare Joh 10:24-26).
27
Harner, The "I AM" of the Fourth Gospel, 44. Bernard and McNeile, Gospel
According to St. John, vol. 2, 303, agree the predicate for ego eimi is supplied from the
preceding clause of the sentence, "the Son of Man."
Again, there is no reason to conclude ego eimi has a self-

contained meaning of unity between the Father and the Son. True,
in both verse 24 and verse 28 Jesus refers to his relationship with
the Father, but Jesus often refers to his relationship with the
Father, in nearly the exact same words used here in verse 28 (Joh
5:19, 30; 7:16-17; 12:49-50). Yet, we do not find ego eimi used in
these instances. Also, as we have already considered, Jesus uses
ego eimi apart from any direct mention of his relationship with the
Father (Joh 4:26; 6:20; compare Joh 18:5-6, 8; see below).
Indeed, there is no reason why we should not expect to find
both a reference to Jesus as the Messiah and a reference to his
unique relationship with the Father in the same context
particularly in a context where Jesus enemies are disputing with
him over his identity and the source of his teachings.
Verbal analogies with the LXX of Isaiah? Ball believes
both John 8:24 and 28 are to be interpreted in the light of Isaiah
43:10, where, in addition to the use of ego eimi, we have the verbs
"know" (gnw'te, gnote) and "believe" (pisteuvshte, pisteusete), as
we do in John 8:24 (pisteuvshte) and 28 (gnwvsesqe, gnosesthe,
"you will know"). Ball concludes:
The clause to know and believe that I am thus carries with it

an exclusive soteriological function which explain [sic:
explains] why Jesus can say that those who do not believe that
I am will die in their sins (8.24). In John Jesus has been given
this exclusive soteriological function that in Isaiah was
reserved for God alone (cf. Jn 3.17; 4.42; 10.9). Jesus can use
the words ejgwV ejimi for himself in this way, because of his close
identification with the Father; he does nothing on his own
authority but speaks only as the Father has taught him (8.24).
It is Jesus exclusive role as the only begotten from the Father
(1.14), the Logos who was in the beginning with God and was
identified as God/god (1.1), the only one who has seen God
(1.18) that allows him to use these words of himself.28
28
Ball, I Am in Johns Gospel, 190-191.
While it may be true John used terms from the LXX of Isaiah
to express the "exclusive soteriological function" of Jesus
(compare 1Jo 4:14), the use of ego eimi in John 8:24 and 28 does
not speak of an "intimate identification of Jesus with the exclusive
God of Isaiah."29 The use of similar verb forms cannot be pressed
to support such a theory, for there is nothing unusual about their
occurrence together with Jesus words, so that we should see some
mystical connection between them and Jehovahs words in Isaiah
(LXX). Why? Because in both cases we are dealing with the
critical identity of individuals that calls for belief on the part of
those addressed, so that when they "know" they will be saved
through their "belief."
If we are going to look for a verbal analogy between John
8:24, 28 and the LXX of Isaiah, it may be that we are intended to
recall the opening words of Isaiah 53, "Who has believed
[ejpivsteusen] our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD
been revealed?" (NIV) This would certainly be consistent with the
context of John 8:24, where Jesus is revealed as the Messiah who
would bear the sins (Isa 53:4, 11) of the Jews, if only they
would believe and accept him. There is also a verbal relationship
between the use of uJyovw ("lift up") in John 8:28 and the use of the
same verb, in reference to the future Messiah, in the LXX of
Isaiah 52:13.
However, in Isaiah, God is not calling for the Israelites to put
faith in Him as the Messiah of Isaiah 11:3-11 or 53. He is the
Creator (43:1), Jehovah (43:11). Also, Jehovahs words in Isaiah
43:12 (la-yna, *ani *el, "I [am] God") provide the predicate for the
awh yna (*ani hu, "I [am] he" [=ego eimi]) in verse 13.30 There is
nothing to suggest such a predicate in John 8:24 or 28.
29
Ibid., 191.
30
In Hebrew, hu is itself a predicate ("he"), and thus can stand in apposition to a
predicate expressed or implied in the context. BDBG, p. 216 (5), says, "As an emph.
predicate, of God, I am He." But BDBGs reference to "Who is" as further defining "I
am He" does not show sensitivity to the context or the implied predicate (see below,
pages 297-302, for a discussion of the *ani hu passages in Isaiah). On the other hand,
Harner believes "the Septuagint translators evidently understood the pronoun hu as the
functional equivalent of the copula verb, am, is, etc., and thus rendered *ani hu
literally as ego eimi" (Harner, The "I Am" of the Fourth Gospel, 7, note 5). We do not
Jesus as the messianic Son of man. Ball believes "there

is no predicate in the context [of 8:28] with which Jesus can be
identified."31 This is hardly the case. Recognizing that "Son of
man" in verse 28 is at least a possible predicate for Jesus "I am"
statement, Ball provides the following three reasons for rejecting
it:
1) It would obscure the connection with verse 24, and verse 28

must be, according to Ball, a deliberate echo of that.
2) Jesus never says directly, "I am the Son of man."
3) The "I am" statement of Jesus in the main clause of verse 28

stands on its own, without the need of a predicate to complete
its meaning.
But to understand "Son of man" in verse 28 as the predicate

implied in Jesus "I am" statement of the same verse would not at
all obscure a connection with verse 24. In fact, it would help link
the two statements, for the "I am" saying of verse 24 clearly has a
messianic meaning (see discussion above), while the same is true
of the title "Son of man."32
As to whether or not Jesus ever explicitly confesses, "I am the
Son of man," we must simply reply that in the four Gospels Jesus
believe hu functions as a copula in the Isaiah passages translated by ego eimi. Although
such a use is seen in Hebrew and even more in Aramaic from the middle of the last
millennium before the Christian era, the LXX translators seem to have recognized that
hu stood in the place of another predicate (see below, pages 297-302), and that the
predicate would be identified and supplied after the copula (eimi) by the readers of their
translation. The LXX of Isaiah 52:6 seems to confirm that even if hu did serve as a
copula, it was not understood as such in every instance. See note 99 below. The
doubling of the pronoun in certain passages is not necessarily an indication that the
second pronoun serves as a copula, either. With reference to Isa 43:11, 25; 51:12; and
De 32:39, Francis I. Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch (JBLMS
14; Nashville; New York: Abingdon Press, 1970), 36, says, " *anoki *anoki yahwe, I, I
am Yahweh . . . the suspended pronoun is resumed by itself and is hardly a copula."
Regarding De 32:39, Isa 43:11, 25, 48:15, 51:12, and Hosea 5:14, Paul Sanders (The
Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 [OTS 37; Leiden: Brill, 1996], 238) believes the
repetition of *ani "enhances the emphasis." The difference between *anoki and *ani is
the former is the archaic form of the latter.
31
32
Compare Da 7:13-14. See also W. Horbury, "The Messianic Associations of
The Son of Man," JTS 36 (1985), 34-55.
refers to himself as the "Son of man" 78 times,33 and another five

times he is referred to as such by either Mark (8:31; 9:9), Stephen
(Ac 7:56), or John (Rev 1:13; 14:14). So it is not at all unusual to
find Jesus identifying himself as the "Son of man" in John 8:28.
Freed, who also sees "Son of man" as the implied predicate from
the context of John 8:28, offers this additional testimony:
That our interpretation of 8.28 as the Son of man being

identical with the earthly Jesus and that the implied predicate
of ejgwV ejimi is the Son of man is correct is confirmed in 9.35-
37. There, in accordance with his habit of repeating an idea of
a previous passage in a varying form in a later one, the writer
makes the point clear. Jesus words in reply to the question of
the man born blind, whom he had healed, are reported thus: oJ
lalw'n metaV sou' ejkei'nov" ejstin ("he that is speaking with
you is that one" [that is, "the Son of man"]). The Greek here is
clearly a variant form for that in 4.26 and 8.28. 34
Finally, we should note that in Mark 14:62 35 Jesus responds

to the high priests question, "Are you the Christ the Son of the
Blessed One?" with ego eimi, and goes on to say that they "will
see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming
with the clouds of heaven."
In this light, it seems reasonable to conclude that in John
8:28, as in 8:24, ego eimi is used to identify Jesus as the Messiah.
His relationship with the Father is made clear, not by his use of
ego eimi, but by the direct assertions he makes about their
relationship. Thus, ego eimi is best understood in verse 24 with
the predicate "Christ," and in verse 28 with the predicate "Son of
man." This is consistent with Jesus discussion with the Jews
33
Mt 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27, 28; 17:9, 12,
22; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44; 25:31; 26:2, 24 (twice), 45, 64; Mr 2:10,
28; 8:38; 9:12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26; 14:21 (twice), 41, 62; Lu 5:24; 6:5, 22; 7:34;
9:22, 26, 44, 58; 11:30; 12:8, 10, 40; 17:22, 24, 26, 30; 18:8, 31; 19:10; 21:27, 36;
22:22, 48, 69; 24:7; Joh 1:51; 3:13, 14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34
(twice); 13:31.
34
Edwin D. Freed, "The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel," JBL 86 (1967), 405-
406.
35
See below, pages 288-289, for discussion of this verse.
regarding sin, and his use of ego eimi in those verses previously
discussed, where his identity as the Messiah was either directly
(Joh 4:26) or indirectly (Joh 6:20) related to his use of this phrase.
While it is true that Jesus words in John 8:28 are not completed
by the predicate oJ uiJo"V tou' ajnqrwvpou (ho huios tou anthropou,
"the Son of man"), this is simply because it is understood from the
words he had just previously spoken. The same is true of "the man
who used to sit and beg." (Joh 9:8-9) He did not add any predicate
to his ego eimi saying, but it is clearly understood from the
context.
It is, therefore, no surprise that we find several translations
admitting the connection between Jesus' use of ego eimi and his
identity as the Messiah. For example, at John 8:24 in The Modern
Language Bible the main text reads, "I am He," but the footnote
states, "The Redeemer-Messiah." The main text of C. B. Williams
New Testament, at both 8:24 and 28, reads "I am the Christ," with "I
am He" in the footnote. The New Testament by James Kleist and
Joseph Lilly contains this footnote at John 8:24, "I am he: the one
for whom the Jews were waiting; the Messias."
Such an admission on the part of Jesus would naturally carry
with it the thought of a relationship between himself and the One
from whom he came. In this sense, Harner would be correct in
inferring an inherent sense of unity between Jesus and the Father
(through Jesus use of ego eimi), for such a thought would, again,
be naturally conveyed through his self-identification as the
Messiah (compare Ps 2; Isa 11:1-3; Da 7:13-14). But this thought
of unity is primarily borne out in the context in which ego eimi is
used, not in the phrase ego eimi itself. Commenting on John 8:24,
but with reference also to verse 28, Meyer states:
o{ti ejgwv eijmi] namely, the Messiah, the great name which every
one understood without explanation, which concentrated in
itself the highest hopes of all Israel on the basis of the old
prophecies, and which was the most present thought both to
Jesus and the Jews, especially in all their discussionsto Jesus
in the form, "I am the Messiah" . . . In opposition to the notion
of there being another, Jesus uses the emphatic ejgwv. The non-
mention of the name, which was taken for granted (it had been
mentioned in iv. 25, 26), confers on it a quiet majesty that
makes an irresistible impression on the minds of the hearers
while Christ gives utterance to the brief words, o{ti ejgwv eijmi.
As God comprehended the sum of the Old Testament faith in
[awh yna, *ani hu], so Christ that of the New Testament in o{ti
ejgwv eijmi.36
Meyer is correct in noting a similarity between the use of the

Hebrew *ani hu by God in the Old Testament and the use of ego
eimi in the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament). But how
is it similar? The evidence points to the conclusion that *ani
hu/ego eimi is used as a means of emphatic identification. In
addition to what has previously been said, the aforementioned
conclusion will be tested throughout the remainder of this chapter.
But what of those who would see in these Scriptures a connection
between the ego eimi in John 8:24, 28 and the LXX of Exodus
3:14? This will also be considered shortly. At this point it is
important to note in both John 8:24 and 28 there is nothing
precluding an interpretation of ego eimi as a reference to Jesus as
the Messiah or Son of man. In fact, the context seems to indicate
that this is the intended meaning.
John 8:58
NWT and the "perfect indefinite tense" (PIT). Before
we discuss issues relating to the translation and understanding of
John 8:58, we will first consider a matter involving a footnote in
the 1950 edition of the NWT, which has been used to mislead
people for far too long. The 1950 NWT footnote to John 8:58
says that ego eimi has been "rendered in the perfect indefinite
tense." Back in 1957 Walter Martin wrote that in this footnote the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society "invents a tense in the Greek
and titles it the perfect indefinite tense, a tense which does not
36
Meyer, The Gospel of John, 270-271.
exist in any known Greek grammar book."37 Similarly, John

Ankerberg and John Weldon point out that "there has never been
a perfect indefinite tense in Greek."38 Remarkably, even in a
publication as recent as 1996 Robert Morey makes this assertion
regarding the PIT in the 1950 NWT footnote: "But no such tense
exists in the Greek language. They deliberately made it up to
justify their mistranslation of ejgwV eijmi [ego eimi]."39 In light of
these grossly inaccurate and misleading comments, it is no wonder
few scholars write positively concerning the NWT or Jehovahs
Witnesses.
How these and other writers fail to see that "properly
rendered in" involves the English translation and refers to the PIT
in English is hard to imagine. Indeed, even Bowman is forced to
admit that "it may be . . . that the expression rendered in in that
footnote should be understood to refer to the tense of the English
rendering, although for many years JWs commonly defended it as
a Greek tense."40 Just how does Bowman substantiate that "for
many years JWs commonly defended it as a Greek tense"?
He quotes the personal testimony of a former Jehovahs
Witness who has taken an active stand in opposing the
Witnesses.41 To reference the testimony of one former Witness as
proof that "for many years JWs commonly defended it as a Greek
tense" is an unfortunate example of the extent to which Bowman
37
Walter R. Martin, Jehovahs Witnesses (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany
Fellowship, 1957), 36. The emphasis on "invents" is Martins. In his book, The
Kingdom of the Cults, Revised Edition (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship,
1977 [1965]), 78, Martin alleges that "the term perfect indefinite tense is an invention
of the author of the note."
38
John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Fast Facts on Jehovahs Witnesses
(Eugene, Oregon: Ankerberg Theological Seminary, 1988), 26. Ron Rhodes,
Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovahs Witnesses (Eugene, OR: Harvest
House, 1993), 116, makes almost the exact same observation as Ankerberg and
Weldon, using almost the exact same words, though he cites Bowmans discussion
(considered below) as support for his claim. Actually, though, Bowman contradicts
Rhodes on this matter involving the alleged invention of a Greek tense by the NWT
Committee.
39
Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Grand Rapids: Word
Publishing, 1996), 364.
40
John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 94.
41
Ibid., 151, note 18.
is prepared to go in order to present some semblance of an

argument against the Witnesses.
In 1978 the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society sent a letter
to Firpo Carr in response to a question about changes in the NWT
footnote to John 8:58.42 In that letter the Society makes it clear
just how they understand the "perfect indefinite tense":
In the first edition of the New World Translation of the

Christian Greek Scriptures released in 1950, the footnote on
John 8:58 explained why the New World Translation rendered
the Greek phrase ego eimi as "I have been." It was stated that
this phrase was properly "rendered in the perfect indefinite
tense." It was never meant to say that there is a "perfect
indefinite tense" in Greek. What was meant was that the Greek
present indicative ego eimi is here rendered into English in the
perfect tense, "I have been," with an idea of indefiniteness.
That is to say, no mention of the length of Jesus prehuman
existence is here given. . . . The translators of the New World
Translation are fully aware that there is no Greek tense known
as the perfect indefinite tense, but when we translate this
phrase into English, it is properly rendered in the perfect
tense.43
In view of the above, we can see that the NWT Committee

did not consider the "perfect indefinite tense" as a tense different
from the perfect, and they certainly did not have in mind a Greek
tense! Rather, the meaning of the note has to do with the fact that
"ego eimi is here "rendered into English in the perfect tense, I
have been, with an idea of indefiniteness."
Again, "perfect indefinite tense" as used in the 1950 NWT
footnote to John 8:58 simply refers to the perfect tense with an
indefinite sense. There is no invention of a new tense that would
make it separate and distinct from the perfect itself.
42
In a forthcoming essay entitled, "Before Abraham Was: Interpreting and
Translating John 8:58," which is part of a collection of essays in celebration of the
fiftieth anniversary of the NWT, I will further discuss this matter involving the PIT, and
consider the implications of the different NWT footnotes to John 8:58.
43
Letter to Firpo W. Carr from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, dated
February 7, 1978.
One dictionary circulating around the time when the NWT

used the PIT in their footnote to John 8:58, Websters New
Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language (1951),
gives ten definitions for "render" (when used as a transitive verb)
but only one definition relates to the issues involved in the
footnote to John 8:58: "7. To translate, as from one language into
another; as to render Latin into English." No other meaning could
reasonably be attached to "rendered in" as used in the footnote to
John 8:58 in the 1950 edition of the NWT.
It is understandable how a person or group of persons might,
at times, be seen as lacking clarity on their labeling of certain
tenses, and it may be the case that many readers of the 1950
footnote to John 8:58 did not readily understand what was meant
by the use of "indefinite." But I cannot think of any reasonable
explanation for misunderstanding what was meant by the words
"rendered in."
For Martin, Rhodes, Morey, Ankerberg, Weldon and others
to misunderstand this simple English expression and then share
their misunderstanding with others, perhaps misleading thousands
of people into thinking that "perfect indefinite tense" had to do
with the Greek language, is irresponsible to say the least.
The question of Jesus age. We now turn our attention to
a discussion of the meaning and translation of Jesus words in
John 8:58, a verse where ego eimi might at first appear to carry a
meaning different from those texts we have previously discussed.
In John 8:57 the Jews ask Jesus how he, a man not yet fifty years
old, could possibly have seen Abraham.44 Their question was
asked in response to Jesus statement that Abraham had seen his
"day" and rejoiced. (verse 56) Jesus answered them in verse 58
with the words, jAmhVn jAmhVn levgw uJmi'n, priVn jAbraaVm genevsqai
ejgwV eijmiv. These words have been variously translated as, "Truly,
44
More in line with the context and the actual statement made by Jesus would be
the reading kaiV *AbraaVm eJwvrakevn se ("and Abraham has seen you?"), supported by
a* P75 Sys 070 Sahidic and Coptic manuscripts and other witness. See Tjitze Baarda,
"John 8:57B: The Contribution of the Diatessaron of Tatian," NT 38.4 (1996), 336-
343. Of course, the reading, "You have seen Abraham?" may simply be the result of the
Jews (again) misquoting and misinterpreting the language used by Jesus (see ibid.,
336).
truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am" (NASB 45);
and "Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into
existence, I have been." (NWT) While the NASB translates ego
eimi as simply "I am," the NWT reflects a greater sensitivity to the
syntax as well as to the context in which Jesus reply is given.
Is eijmiv (eimi) "really absolute"? A. T. Robertson once
claimed G. B. Winer "exerted a pernicious influence" over
scholars who would have otherwise accepted passages such as
Titus 2:13 as affirming the "Deity of Christ."46 I have argued
elsewhere in this publication that Robertson and those who
followed him in condemning Winers sound use of theology in
grammatically ambiguous texts have failed to take note of
significant information when seeking to translate and interpret
certain passages.47
I believe it is fair to say if Winer, through his brief remarks,
has exerted such an influence upon the translation of Titus 2:13
and 2 Peter 1:1, then Robertson has exerted just as great (perhaps
even greater) an influence upon those seeking to interpret Jesus
words in John 8:58.
On more than one occasion I have had a Trinitarian refer to
Robertsons large grammar as the "last word" on ego eimi in John
8:58. In his grammar Robertson writes, "In Jo. 8:58 eijmiv [eimi] is
really absolute."48 His words are spoken in the context of his
discussion of the idiom he calls the "progressive present" and "the
present of past action still in progress." (It is also known as the
"Extension from Past," which we will discuss below.) In one brief
sentence, however, Robertson distances eimi in John 8:58 from
the "progressive present." But here he offers no argument in
support of his labeling eimi in John 8:58 as "absolute."
When Robertsons lack of supporting arguments are
mentioned to those who uphold Robertsons view of eimi, the
45
The NASB, in its 1960-1973 editions, contains the alternate reading, "I have
been."
46
A. T. Robertson, "The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ," The Expositor,
8th Series, vol. 21 (1921), 187.
47
See the Excursus after Chapter 6.
48
A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 880.
response usually involves a reference to Robertsons credentials

and his knowledge of Greek. This, of course, is meaningless in the
context of a discussion where the evidence presented is under
consideration. I would no more accept Robertsons words
concerning eimi in John 8:58 than I would accept Metzgers claim
regarding Colwells rule concerning John 1:1, in spite of
Metzgers impressive credentials.
Genuine scholarly analysis looks at the evidence and only the
evidence; those who are preoccupied with a persons credentials
or whether they are a "liberal" or "conservative" scholar give
evidence that they are not genuinely interested in a critical
analysis of the issues. Fortunately, most scholars and those who
study them avoid this fallacious outlook and are more concerned
with the facts, to which we will now give attention.
In his Word Pictures series Robertson had a bit more to say
regarding his view of eimi in John 8:58. He refers to ego eimi as
"the absolute phrase used of God," and points to the contrast
between the verb eimi and ginesthai as somehow indicating that
eimi conveys "timeless being."49 Below I will argue that this view
of the two contrasting verbs has been greatly misinterpreted. But,
surprisingly, Robertson cites John 9:9 as one of five parallels to
the use of ego eimi in John 8:58!
Regardless of whether he mistakenly referred to John 9:9, the
fact is the blind man whom Jesus healed uses the exact same
words as Jesus and Jehovah in the LXX (discussed later in this
section), ego eimi. So while the words are the same, the meaning
in each case may not be the same, and that is no doubt why
Robertson makes reference to the contrasting verbs, as if they
somehow reinforce his view of the phrase when used by Jesus.
When he says eimi is "absolute" Robertson means that the
words ego eimi do not require anything to complete the meaning
of the phrase, for, as quoted above, Robertson believes eimi here
conveys "timeless being."50 But there appear to be no undisputed
49
Broadman Press, 1932), 158-159.
50
Some Trinitarians seem to view ego eimi as an absolute expression denoting
eternal existence as well as an actual name for God. Morey, The Trinity, 364, claims
examples anywhere in Greek literature where eimi is used with an

expression of past time (such as "before Abraham came into
existence) but in an absolute sense which conveys "timeless
being."51
In fact, it really makes no sense to use an absolute expression
intended to convey eternal existence with an expression of past
time, for then we would have, "Before Abraham came into
existence I am eternal" or "I eternally existed." If the use of eimi is
meant to convey the eternality of the subject, then what is the
point of using the expression of past time at all?
Indeed, where in classical or other Greek literature do we find
an absolute use of eimi denoting eternality and used with an
expression of past time, where eimi could not be construed as part
of the "Extension from Past" (EP) idiom? The use of the past
expression "before Abraham came into existence" appears to be
conclusive evidence that eimi does not have an absolute meaning
conveying eternality in John 8:58.
that Jesus "used the divine name ejgwV eijmi in reference to Himself." But, as Barnabas
Lindars, "The Son of Man in Johannine Christology," in Christ and the Spirit in the
New Testament, In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, eds. B. Lindars and S.
Smalley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 54, note 25, points out that
ego eimi in John 8:58 "cannot be regarded as a title, because it requires the meaning I
am in existence." To illustrate, we would not say, "Before Abraham came into
existence Jesus," or "Before Abraham came into existence, God." The only way Jesus
could be claiming a title or name of God in John 8:58 is if it is in the form of an
understood predicate, such as "God" or "Jehovah." But the context does not support the
use of such a predicate, though another predicate (discussed later in this Chapter) is
supported by the context and the use of ego eimi in John and in the Synoptics. Though
Lindars makes an accurate observation in his above comments and in his discussion of
the implied predicate in 8:24 and 28 (ibid., 53), he is too dependent on the use of ego
eimi in 8:12, and he seems to place too much emphasis on the possible relationship
between John 8:28 and Isaiah 43:10, which was discussed earlier in this Chapter.
51
Charles H. Kahn, "The Greek Verb To Be and the Concept of Being," FL 2.3
(August 1966), 245-265, points out that absolute uses of eimi are not always existential.
He also observes that "the traditional dichotomy between the existential and the
predicative use of the verb would have to be rejected for Greek as a hopeless
oversimplification" (ibid., 259). Below we will explain how in John 8:58 eimi is used
existentially (that is, to denote existence) with an expression of past time and also
involves an implied predicate. Kahn also highlights the "durative connotations" of einai
(the infinitive form of eimi) in Parmenides, in contrast to the "developmental idea of
birth" in ginesthai. Below we will discuss the frequent misuse of these two contrasting
verbs in John 8:58.
Rather, it is used with an expression of past time to

communicate Christs existence from a time before Abraham was
born, to the present. But there is more to be said regarding this use
of a past expression and a present verb.
Understanding the "Extension from Past" idiom.
There is a clear and unmistakable reason why eimi is used with an
expression of past time in John 8:58. An idiom called the
"Extension from Past" (EP) by Kenneth L. McKay occurs when a
present verb is "used with an expression of either past time or
extent of time with past implications."52 John 8:58 well illustrates
this idiom. We have the present eimi used with an expression of
past time, prin Abraam genesthai. In such a situation, the "past
and present are gathered up in a single affirmation . . . the full
meaning is that something has been and still is."53
So when Leon Morris notes that Jesus said "I am" not "I
was"54 (that is, we find eimi not h\n [en] or h[mhn [emen]55), we
readily acknowledge that as being true, for the simple reason that
the present eimi signals that the existence continues to the present
time; Jesus words are not a mere assertion of preexistence, but of
an existence that extends from the past to present. Among those
commentators accepting John 8:58 as an example of the
aforementioned idiom, we find Meyer, Tholuck, Sanders and
52
K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5;
New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 41.
53
James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek,
typeset ed. (Lanham: University Press of America, 1979 [1988]), 84. Brooks and
Winbery label this idiom the "Durative Present." However, they do not specifically
refer to John 8:58 as an example of this idiom.
54
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971),
474. This argument is also used by E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber
and Faber Limited, 1947), 349; Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 122;
Harner, The "I AM" of the Fourth Gospel, 39, note. 73; and most recently by Morey,
The Trinity, 364.
55
But note that the Peshitta uses the time-indifferent particle of existence ith,
having the rendering *ena *ithai, which, similar to the English participle, must take its
time from the context. However, the Curetonian has an excellent translation, which
preserves the present and the past element found in the Greek, *ena *ith hawith ("I is
was")! One late cursive (157) actually reads, ejgwV h[mhn ("I was").
Mastin; among the grammarians, Winer, Blass and Debrunner,

Turner, and McKay are representative.56
McKay is also the only one of these grammarians to actually
translate John 8:58. He does so as follows, "I have been in
existence since before Abraham was born."57 Daniel Wallace
considers McKays classification of eimi as a present extending
from the past more "nuanced" than those who view eimi as a
historical present, but nonetheless he believes "John 8:58 lacks
sufficient parallels to be convincing."58 He does not specify what
kind of "parallels" he has in mind, though he likely is referring to
other uses of eimi as an extending-from-the-past present. If so,
56
Meyer, The Gospel of John, 293; Augustus Tholuck, Commentary on the
Gospel of John (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1859), 243; J. N. Sanders and B. A. Mastin,
A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (New York: Harper & Row,
1968), 236; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1961), 168, sec. 322 (cited erroneously as John 5:58); McKay, A New
Syntax of the Verb in NT Greek, 41-42; Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament
Greek, vol. 3, Syntax (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963), 62, sec. 1(c); George Benedict
Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, trans. J. Henry Thayer
(Andover: Warren Draper, 1897), 267.
57
McKay, "Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek," NovT 34 (1992), 212; A
New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, 42; and more recently, "I am in
John's Gospel," ExpT 107.10 (1996), 302. McKays use of "since" in his translation is
entirely appropriate, for it does not imply a beginning but a point of reference from
which the stative eimi extends. Nothing is being "added" to the text by using "since" in
the English translation. Jesus claims to have existed from a time before Abrahams
birth. That "time" may or may not be considered eternal in duration. Like the other
examples of the PPA we will discuss, context, immediate and larger, will have to tell us
whether or not Jesus existence had a beginning. Also, again, to object to the meaning
of the Greek text on the basis of English grammar, as some have attempted to do, is an
unfortunate error. We are dealing with a Greek idiom and the Greek language does not
have the same time-based system of verbs that exists in English.
58
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 531, note 48. At one time
Jehovahs Witnesses considered eimi in John 8:58 to be a historical present (see,
"Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 15 February 1957, 126-127). Even
Wallace agrees this view would not be impossible (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 530,
note 47). Jehovahs Witnesses, however, have changed their categorization of eimi in
John 8:58 from a historical present to an "Extension from Past" present (McKay,
Syntax, 41), as they believe the syntax reflects that of this particular idiom, namely, a
present verb associated with an expression of past time, used to denote an activity in the
past that continues to the present. This change took place as far back as 1984, which is
why Wallaces citation of the historical present in relation to the Witnesses view of
John 8:58 (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 530-531) is surprising, to say the least.
then we could cite at least two examples from the NT (Joh 14:9;
15:27) and at least four from the LXX (Ge 31:38, 41; Jg 16:17; Ps
90:2). But even if we had no other examples of eimi functioning
as part of this idiom, that is not grounds for dismissing such a use
in John 8:58. If it were, then what would we say about the use of
douleuvw (douleuo) in Luke 15:29? Here it is surely an extension-
from-past present, but nowhere else in the NT is it so used. What
about dokevw (dokeo) in 2 Corinthians 12:19? It is not used as a
present of past action still in progress (PPA) anywhere else in NT.
But who doubts its use as such in 2 Corinthians 12:19?
Of course, while we do have several instances where eimi is
used as a PPA, we should not expect to find too many contexts
where eimi is used to highlight someones prehuman existence.
The context and implications of John 8:58 are unique, and,
therefore, exact parallels may be few for this very reason (see later
on Ps 90:2). Still, this understanding of eimi fits well in the
context of Jesus discussion with the Jews, who want to know
how he, a man not yet fifty, could have seen Abraham (verse 57).
This part is the most important, for the goal of the translator
must be to find in eimi a meaning which is consistent with the
context, especially since "the tenses of ancient Greek do not signal
time except by implication from their relationship to their
context."59 McKay argues Jesus response in verse 58 would be
most naturally translated as he has done, "if it were not for the
obsession with the simple words I am." He adds:
If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we

surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is
in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowds
violent reaction.60
We will discuss the Jews reaction in verse 59 in greater

detail below. Again, the context must be carefully considered
when seeking to determine the time reference of Greek verbs.
McKay provides a good illustration of this in his discussion of
59
McKay, Syntax, 39.
60
McKay, "I am in Johns Gospel," 302.
Romans 11:7. He argues convincingly that Pauls use of ejpizhtei'

(epizetei) is not an "especially significant reference to past seeking
but an all-embracing has been seeking." This makes good sense in
a context where Paul refers to Israels past "seeking" as well as the
present situation, where Paul "is looking for a reaction from the
salvation of the gentiles to prompt a redirection of Israels zeal
into the right channel of faith, in order to add to the present-day
remnant."61
Robert Bowman has expressed disagreements with the view
that eimi is part of the aforementioned idiom, claiming that "most
grammars specifically state that accompanying the present tense
verb is some adverbial expression indicating the extent of the
duration of the time indicated by the verb."62 He then refers to
Burton, Goodwin, Dana and Mantey, and Robertson as scholars
supporting his position. But he misquotes each one of them in
relation to this issue concerning "some adverbial expression
indicating the extent of the duration of the time indicated by the
verb" (emphasis added). In fact, a simple reading of Bowmans
quotations from these scholars will reveal that not one of them
says anything about "the extent of the duration."
As quoted by Bowman, Burton simply notes that the
adverbial expression denotes duration and refers to past time.
Dana and Mantey merely point out that the verb is "generally
associated with an adverb of time" and Robertson observes that
"usually an adverb of time (or adjunct) accompanies the verb."
Bowman actually believes that Goodwin supports his view about
an adverbial expression denoting "the extent of the duration,"
even though Bowman quotes Goodwin who refers to the present
verb occurring with the Greek term pavlai (palai, "a long time")
"or any other expression of past time." The use of palai hardly
conveys "the extent of the duration"! McKay is one grammarian
who observes that the present verb is "used with an expression of
either past time or extent of time with past implications," but he
does not limit the occurrence of this idiom to instances where the
61
McKay, "Time and Aspect," 210-212.
62
extent of the duration in communicated; for him, "an expression

of past time" is enough.
Though various grammarians, such as those cited above,
specifically state that the present verb need only be accompanied
by "an adverb of time" (Dana and Mantey, Robertson), an
"expression of past time" (Goodwin) or "an expression of either
past time or extent of time with past implications" (McKay),
Bowman goes further, claiming: "In each case, the relevant
adverbial expression defines (whether in a vague, general manner
or very specifically and exactly) the period and extent of the
duration of the verb. These adverbial clauses make it explicit that
the action or condition described by the present tense verb is a
temporal one that began at some point in the past."63 He then cites
several texts (Lu 13:7; 15:29; Jo 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; 1Jo 3:8; Ac
15:21; 2Co 12:19; 2Ti 3:15; 2Pe 3:4; 1Jo 2:9) to illustrate his
point, and concludes: "All of these expressions refer to a period of
time beginning at some point (whether specified or not) in the past
and continuing up to the time of the speaker."64
It is interesting to note that Bowman claims that in "each
case" the adverbial expression "defines (whether in a vague,
general manner or very specifically and exactly) the period and
extent of the duration of the verb." He also points out that in his
view all "genuine" examples of this idiom "refer to a period of
time beginning at some point (whether specified or not) in the past
and continuing up to the time of the speaker." But if this
"beginning" is not "specified" then how can Bowman rightly
claim that such a reference always accompanies the verb in
instances of this particular idiom? He must infer this from his
understanding of the passage, possibly by involving other
passages that are related to the otherwise "vague" reference.
Notice how this must be done in other passages where some
beginning point is not specified and the extent of the duration is
not defined:
63
Ibid., 109.
64
Ibid., 110.
John 14:9. Jesus says to Philip, tosouton chronon met humon eimi. Here
tosouton chronon has a past reference and modifies the present eimi. In
English, we would not translate, "I am with you so much time," but "I have
been with you for a long time." Here "a long time" does not specify the length
of duration. It is important to note that both Jesus and Philip, the two direct
participants in the discussion, know how long they have been together.
Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to expect anything more specific than
tosouton chronon, in this context. Why should Jesus be more specific than he
was? Also, we know from the context that there was a beginning to the time
they spent together. (Joh 1:43) While this text does not use prin or pro (Greek
prepositions meaning "before" [see below]), it does not define the extent of
duration, either.
John 15:27. Jesus says to his disciples, ap arches met emou este. Here ap
arches ("from the beginning") modifies este ("you are"), providing a point
from which the disciples shared Jesus company. The use of apo is appropriate
since the participants in the discussion (Jesus and the disciples) both knew
when they first began to associate with one another. Still, arche does not tell
us when that happened, and if someone held to a particular view of arche that
demanded it refer to the arche in, say, John 1:1, it could result in quite a
creative view of Jesus relationship with his disciples! But, again, Jesus can
refer to a particular point from which he has been with his disciples, without
being specific in terms of time or location, because he knows that they know
what he means by ap arches.
Luke 13:7 and 15:29. In Luke 13:7 both the man in Jesus illustration and
the vinedresser know that for three years the man has come looking for fruit,
and even if the vinedresser did not have direct knowledge of this fact (that is,
if he was not in the vineyard for the entire three years, but came later) he
would have had no problem relating to the point of reference. In Luke 15:29,
in Jesus illustration about the prodigal son, the son who stayed with his father
laments, tosauta ete douleuo soi ("so many years I have slaved for you").
Obviously, both the son and his father know what period of servitude is meant
by tosauta ete ("so many years").
Acts 15:21. Here Mouses gar ek geneon archaion kata polin tous kerussontas
auton echei ("Moses for from generations ancient in every city those preaching
him he has"), is rendered by William Barclay, "For from ancient times there have
been those in every town who proclaimed the Law of Moses." In this text "from
ancient times" (ek geneon archaion) does not specify the extent of the duration.
We can determine, at least approximately, the extent of duration by consulting
other verses that pertain to the subject at hand. The "ancient times" James speaks
of in this verse obviously had their start sometime after Moses received the Law
from Jehovah.
However, when we come to John 8:58 it is important to note

the grammar of the passage contains the necessary past expression
and present verb to be considered an EP. The main difference
between this verse and the other examples of the EP idiom we just
considered is the point of reference65; in John 8:58 the details
about the time to which Jesus refers are not shared by both parties
involved in the discussion. In other words, how else could Jesus
state the fact of his preexistence and make his point that he has
seen Abraham? Bowman claims: "Had John wished to construct a
clause that did indicate duration, he could have said something
like, since (apo) Abraham came into existence; but as it stands,
prin Abraam genesthai does not fit the requirements of a clause
indicating the duration of a PPA verb."66
First of all, Bowman imposes his own "requirement" for "a
clause indicating the duration of a PPA verb." As we noted
earlier, not one of the grammarians Bowman cites says that the
"extent of the duration" is required. The grammarians cited
above simply mention an "expression of past time," an "adverb of
time," and one (whom Bowman did not have the opportunity to
cite) mentions both "an expression of either past time or extent of
time with past implications" (McKay). Second, if Jesus had said
apo tes genetes tou Abraam ego eimi ("I have existed from the
birth of Abraham") it would have implied he was a being who
lived from the time of Abrahams birth forward, but not
necessarily prior to that birth. By saying prin Abraam genesthai
("before Abraham came into being") he states the truth concerning
his preexistence and still answers the Jews question.
65
Another difference has to do with the fact that in John 8:58 it may be that we
are dealing specifically with existence prior to Abraham. His existence "with" someone,
as in John 14:9 and 15:27, is not under consideration or in view at all. The use of "with
you" (14:9) or "with me" (15:27), or the lack of such an expression, has nothing to do
with the EP idiom as such. Ultimately, all the features of the text have a bearing on the
uniqueness of the particular EP under discussion, but it does not affect the reality of the
EP itself. The only requirements for an EP are a present verb and a past expression (or
past implications gathered from the context), both of which we find in John 8:58. I
believe we do have an unstated, implied predicate in John 8:58 (see discussion below),
but either way it does not affect the use of the EP in John 8:58 or elsewhere.
66
There is really nothing more specific Jesus could have said,

since his existence predates the Jews knowledge of history. It is
the same with the use of pro ("before") in Psalm 90:2 and
Jeremiah 1:5 (discussed below). Since the past expression in all of
these texts goes beyond any date in history known by the
person(s) spoken to, then all that can be given in such instances is
a vague reference prior to the time that is known or recognized.
This point can best be illustrated by considering several examples
from the LXX.
Parallels from the LXX. There is no questioning the fact
that "before Abraham came into existence" is an adverbial
modifier for ego eimi. What else could it modify in this text? It is
not necessary for us to create an issue over the use of prin or pro,
since they are merely part of the adverbial expression that tells us
the reference point from which the existence or action denoted by
the verb extends. In John 8:58 Abrahams birth is not the
reference point; an undefined period of time prior to Abrahams
birth is the reference point.
Bowman argues that "a clause beginning with prin [or pro,
both meaning before] cannot specify duration up to the
present, since it refers to a period prior to the past event specified
in the clause."67 The first problem with this argument has to do
with the fact that Bowman is assuming that "duration" must be
specified by the adverbial clause, and that is not the case. Indeed,
as we noted earlier, the grammars make it clear a past expression
and a present verb are all that are needed for the EP idiom.
Duration is, of course, always involved when you combine the
past expression with the present verb. So a clause beginning with
prin or pro, together with a present verb, would simply convey
existence or action (depending on the verb used) from a time
before a certain event or action, up to the present. Let us illustrate
how this is so by using an example from the LXX, an example
that has not previously been considered in discussions relating to
the EP idiom or John 8:58 in particular.
67
Ibid., 110.
In Exodus 4:10 Moses confesses his inadequacy to God,

believing he is not qualified in his speech to present God to His
enslaved people, the Israelites. The NWT renders the Hebrew text
as follows: "I am not a fluent speaker, neither since yesterday nor
since before that nor since your speaking to your servant, for I am
slow of mouth and slow of tongue." The LXX offers a slight
variation. Brenton reads, "I have not been sufficient in former
times, neither from the time that thou hast begun to speak to thy
servant: I am weak in speech, and slow-tongued."
Brenton is here trying to capture the sense of an idiom used in
the Greek text, which literally says, "I have not been [ouch eimi]
suitable before [pro] yesterday nor before [pro] the third day."
Here we have a present verb (eimi) used with an adverbial clause
that begins with pro. In Exodus 21:36 we again find a present
verb (estin) used with the same pro-clause, "But if the bull is
known before [pro] yesterday and before [pro] the third day to
have been [estin (form of eimi)] one that gores . . ."68
Clearly, then, the use of "before" as part of the past
expression does not affect the EP idiom, where the existence or
action of the present verb extends from the vague reference point
indicated by the pro/prin-clause(s) to the time indicated by the
context as the present. In the case of John 8:58, as we have
already discussed, the Jews question has to do with how Jesus
could have seen Abraham, or how Abraham could have seen him.
Since Jesus existence precedes Abrahams birth, the only sensible
reply Jesus could have given which would remain consistent with
the truth about his preexistence would be to say he lived before a
certain time involving Abraham.
Indeed, Jesus reply highlights the fact that he existed before,
up to and beyond Abrahams birth, even to the present moment of
his speaking with the Jews. Since no other reference point could
be given that would rightly answer the Jews question, and to
which they could properly relate historically, Jesus answer is
quite appropriately vague in terms of the period of time from
68
Some LXX manuscripts (500 and 628) read h[mhn ("I was") instead of eimi in
Exodus 4:10, and in Exodus 21:36 at least one manuscript (19' ) uses h\n ("it was").
which his existence extends. But it is also very specific in that he

makes it clear that he existed prior to and during Abrahams life,
and that is how he could say that Abraham saw his "day."
Since the adverbial expression in John 8:58 (like several
other instances of the EP that we considered above) does not limit
Jesus existence, then we must consult other scriptures that pertain
to the subject of his preexistence in order to determine if that
preexistence had a beginning. John 8:58 cannot be used to prove
that Jesus had a beginning, nor can it be used to prove that he is
an eternal being. All it can be used to prove is that he existed
before Abrahams birth, up to the present moment of his speaking
with the Jews. When we consider what the Bible has to say about
Jesus prehuman existence it becomes clear that Jesus was created
by the One whom he calls "God" and "Father" (Pr 8:22-24; Mic
5:2; Joh 5:26; 6:57; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3; Rev 3:14).69
No human can point to an exact time when the Son of God
was given life by his Father, for such a time predates our
knowledge of history. It is enough to know that the Scriptures
teach that such an event did in fact take place. But we cannot
determine the precise length of time the Son existed before
Abraham.
The LXX contains other examples of eimi used as an
extending-from-the-past present. In fact, those who see in John
8:58 a reference to the eternal preexistence of Jesus often cite one
such parallel as an example of what they consider the true
implications of John 8:58. Godet and Hoskyns,70 among others,
claim that Jesus words denote absolute, eternal existence, and
that they recall those of Psalm 90:2 ([89:2] LXX), proV tou' o[rh
genhqh'nai kaiV plasqh'nai thVn gh'n kaiV thVn oijkoumevnhn kaiV ajpoV
tou' aijw'no" e{w" tou' aijw'no" suV ei\ ("Before the mountains existed,
and before the earth and the world were formed, even from age to
age, Thou art." [Brenton]), which speak of Gods eternal existence.
But is this verse truly a parallel to John 8:58?
It is true that Psalm 90:2 is proclaiming Jehovahs eternal
existence, but what specifically in the Psalm makes this point clear?
69
See Chapter 4.
70
Godet, Commentary on John, 122; Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 349.
First of all, we should note that in Hebrew it is the expression

<lwu-du <lwumw ("from everlasting to everlasting") that speaks of
the eternality of Jehovah, for the Hebrew completes the sentence
with la hta ("you are God"). The LXX translates the above
Hebrew expression as ajpoV tou' aijw'no" e{w" tou' aijw'no" ("from age
to age"), with suV ei\ ("you are") standing in the place of la hta
("you are God").71 If the LXX read simply "you are," without
"from everlasting to everlasting," the verse would then be speaking
only of Jehovahs existence prior to the creation of the earth.
However, in view of the subject, it is unlikely anyone would
object to an interpretation of the text that sees Jehovah as eternal!
Again, if we only had the present suV ei\ ("you are"), accompanied
with the past expression proV tou' o[rh genhqh'nai ("before the
mountains were created"), we would then be talking only in terms
of Jehovah existing before the mountains, without any specific
reference to how long He existed prior to their creation. That is
why Charles Thomson translates suV ei\, "Thou existed."72
The fact that Jehovah existed before the mountains, indeed,
even before the earth itself was formed, is particularly inspiring for
Moses because it helps make his point that God has been a refuge
for the Israelites "in all generations." (Ps 90:1, Brenton [89:1]) But it
is the use of "from everlasting to everlasting" that decisively portrays
Jehovah as eternal. Of course, notably absent from John 8:58 is
any modifying expression like "from everlasting to everlasting,"
which would have definitely made a connection between Jesus
words and the LXX of Psalm 90:2.
Another text from the LXX which has been considered a
grammatical parallel to John 8:58 is Jeremiah 1:5, where the LXX
reads, proV tou' me plavsai se ejn koiliva/ ejpivstamaiv se ("Before I
formed thee in the belly, I knew thee" [Brenton]). Here we can see
no scriptural explanation which holds that God knew Jeremiah
71
"God" apparently being an implied predicate in view of the assertion made. If
the LXX translators ignored the predicate ("God") in the Hebrew and intended an
absolute use of eimi, the context of Ps 90:2 does not suggest a predicate such as "God"
as much as Joh 8:58 suggests "Christ" or "Messiah" (see below). Each verse must be
interpreted independently, in light of its own context.
72
Charles Thomson, The Septuagint Bible, Edited, Revised and Enlarged by C.
A. Muses (Indian Hills, Colorado: Falcon's Wing Press, 1954), 946 (emphasis added).
from the eternal past. We are simply told that Jehovah foresaw the
one who would become Jeremiah, before he was actually
conceived, or had began to take form in his mothers womb. This
reminds us of Davids words, "My frame was not hidden from
thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the
depths of the earth. Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in
thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were
formed for me, when as yet there was none of them" (Ps 139:15-
16, RSV).
This is a case where Jehovah knew what kind of person
Jeremiah would be, even as He told Manoahs wife that she would
give birth to one who would take the lead in saving Israel from the
Philistines. (Jg 13:5) Jehovah knows those who will be born in
connection with his purpose, even as He has oversight of all
things, knowing the beginning from the end (Isa 46:10).
Jesus as the Messiah in John 8:58. However, does the
use of ego eimi serve only as part of an idiom designed to
highlight the fact that Jesus existed before Abraham, up to the
moment the words of John 8:58 were spoken? Let us consider
several contextual factors that would seem to suggest that ego eimi
in John 8:58 is also being used in a manner consistent with the
examples we have already discussed (and some we have yet to
consider), which show that ego eimi was used as a means of
identifying Jesus as the Messiah. We have already seen how the
context of John 8, specifically verses 24 and 28, uses ego eimi in
this fashion, but consider the immediate context of verse 58.
After Jesus tells the Jews in verse 53, "If anyone observes my
word, he will never taste death at all," they ask, "Who do you
claim to be?" Jesus responds by pointing out the futility of self-
glorification, and adds that the One the Jews say is their God is
actually Jesus Father and the One who will glorify the Son.
(verse 54-55) Then in verse 56 Jesus tells them: "Your father
Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and
was glad." (NIV) This prompts the Jews to ask how a man who
does not even appear fifty years old could possibly have seen
Abraham. Jesus responds by claiming to have been in existence
before Abraham was born. But whose "day" (verse 56) was it that
the mere thought of seeing it caused Abraham to rejoice?

According to Hebrews 11, Abraham is one of those who,
though he did not receive the fulfillment of the promises, "saw
them afar off." (verses 8-10, 13) Jehovah told him in Genesis
22:17-18: "I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your
descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the
seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their
enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth
bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice" (RSV).
Jesus words in John 8:56 indicate that Abraham "looked
forward to the arrival of the promised Messiah,"73 and Jehovahs
words in Genesis 22:17-18 may have given Abraham the
assurance needed to have seen the "day" of the Messiah, with eyes
of faith. Indeed, Paul, in Galatians 3:16, specifically links the
promise made to Abraham in Genesis 22:17-18 with the identity
of the "Christ"! So when it is said that in John 8:58 "there is
nothing to suggest Messiah as a predicate,"74 we suggest a
reconsideration of the context in which Jesus speaks.
Freed also shows such an interpretation would be consistent
with ideas expressed in Jewish literature which was likely
authored between the first half of the second century BCE and the
first century CE (AD). Freed contends that rather than see John
8:58 as one of the clearest instances of the absolute (predicateless)
use of ego eimi, and as such indicating some aspect of Jesus
divinity, "the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer
73
The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1991), sec. 69.
74
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi) (AB 29; Garden
City, New York: Doubleday, 1966), 555; so also Bernard and McNeile, Gospel
According to St. John, vol. 2, 322. F. Bchsel, "ejimiv," TDNT 2, 399-400, fails to
recognize the messianic aspects of John 8:24, 28, 58 and 13:19, causing him to express
disagreement with Zahns messianic view of 8:24, 28 and 13:19 (see discussion below).
Bchsel claims, "What is at issue is not so much what Jesus is as the fact that He is."
Actually, in the texts where ego eimi is used the emphasis is almost always on identity,
and so the issue has much more to do with who Jesus is than with "the fact that He is."
The only text where the emphasis might be more on existence than on identity is John
8:58, but here we are primarily dealing with preexistence, and the continuation of that
existence. His identity is also a key issue in this context, for one of the Jews questions
(8:54) was, "Who do you claim to be?"
was: Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God,

existed."75 He concludes his study, saying:
By using ego eimi three times (8:24, 28, 58) in a section of

marked controversy with the Jews, the writer characteristically
has developed his presentation of Jesus as the Messiah hidden
to Jewish understanding. At the same time, the words, put on
the lips of Jesus, are meant to reveal various aspects and
functions of the Messiah to those who can comprehend their
implications. Through the methodological devices of delaying
tactics and misunderstanding, the points he wants to make
come across with increasing effectiveness. At one point (8:31)
some Jews even come to fleeting belief. But finally, in a
preconceived and well-prepared emotional climax, the Jews, as
if suddenly realizing and rejecting the messianic implications
of Jesus words, take up stones to throw at him. They do not
understand that Jesus as ego eimi is the Messiah who existed
even before Abraham and whose person was represented by
the name.76
It is quite likely that eimi in John 8:58, in addition to being

the present verb in the Extension from Past idiom, is also used in a
manner similar to the other two occurrences of ego eimi in John 8
(and elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel) where the predicate to be
supplied is "Messiah" or "Christ." In this way Jesus answers the
question, "Who do you claim to be?" in verse 53, and the Jews
question in verse 57, as to how he, although a man "not yet fifty
years old," has seen Abraham. His response ties in nicely with the
75
Edwin Freed, "Who or what was before Abraham in John 8:58?" JSNT 17
(1983), 52-59.
76
Ibid., 57. In the Judaism prior to, during, and after the first century CE it was
thought that the name of the Messiah was preexistent. That is, it was predetermined by
God before the Messiah actually appeared. Thus, the Targum of Micah 5:1 (2) reads,
"And you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, you who were too small to be numbered among the
thousands of the house of Judah, from you shall come forth before me the anointed
One, to exercise dominion over Israel, he whose name was mentioned from of old, from
ancient times" (Kevin J. Cathcart and Robert P. Gordon, The Aramaic Bible, vol. 14,
The Targum of the Minor Prophets [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1989],
122).
teaching of Micah 5:2, which speaks of the preexistence of the

future ruler from Bethlehem, the Messiah.
"They picked up stones to throw at him." The response
of the Jews in verse 59 to Jesus assertion in verse 58 has moved
some to view his words as a divine claim, a claim that echoes the
name of God in the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, in verse 59 we are
told that the Jews "picked up stones to hurl at him [Jesus]." Did
they understand Jesus words as a claim to be the God of the Old
Testament? Or did they simply realize and reject the messianic
implications of Jesus words, as Freed claims? The evidence
favors the latter. We can see how a rejection of Jesus claim to be
the Messiah would involve their accusing him of blasphemy by a
consideration of Jesus trial before the high priest. Mark 14:60-64
informs us:
But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest
asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And
Jesus said, "I am [ego eimi]; and you will see the Son of man
seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds
of heaven." And the high priest tore his garments, and said,
"Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his
blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned
him as deserving death.RSV, emphasis added.
Yes, "the Jews regarded [Jesus] interpretation of and claim

to messiahship as blasphemy."77 There is nothing in the high
priests question that should lead us to conclude that they were
condemning him for anything else. The same is true regarding the
reaction in John 8:58. Realizing the implications of Jesus claim
to have existed before Abraham, the Jews took up stones to stone
the one who came to set them free (Joh 8:36).
Thus, for Jesus enemies to seize upon this claim of a man
not yet fifty (which was a claim to have existed before their
"father" Abraham [Joh 8:39]), as an appropriate occasion to rid
themselves of him, is not surprising at all. They, of course, not
appreciating the fact that Jesus was "from the realms above" (Joh
77
Painter, The Quest for the Messiah, 258-59.
8:23), could not imagine any "man" to have made such a claim
without blaspheming. They lacked an accurate understanding
regarding Jesus identity as the Word and Wisdom of God. (Pr
8:22-31; Joh 1:1) Commenting on the reaction of the Jews,
Loader says:
The dispute with the Jews heightens in the rest of ch. 8. . . .

The conflict reaches its climax when Jesus asserts his pre-
existence: "Before Abraham came into being, I am" (8:58).
Again the precise meaning of "I am" will depend on factors
outside the immediate passage. The attempted (8:59) stoning
might suggest blasphemous utterance of the divine name, but
need not here or elsewhere. Need it mean more than the
stupendous claim: I am in existence since before Abraham?78
No, it need not. Elsewhere Loader notes in John 8:58, "the

text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before
Abraham, still a majestic [and] unique claim but not an allusion to
the divine name."79 Although Loader is correct on this point,
Jesus words may also have some relation to his being the
Messiah. Also, the Jews reaction in verse 59 "does not mean that
Jesus had claimed to be God."80 This is confirmed by the events
recorded in Mark 14:60-64. We now proceed to the next
occurrence of ego eimi in the Fourth Gospel.
John 13:19
A messianic prophecy fulfilled. In John 13:19-20, Jesus,
after speaking of the one who would betray him, says: "I tell you
this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you
may believe that I am he [ego eimi]. Truly, truly, I say to you, he
who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who
receives me receives him who sent me." (RSV) Here Jesus tells his
78
Loader, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, 48.
79
Ibid., 52.
80
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2d ed. (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1978), 352.
disciples that when his prediction of what will occur in relation to

his eventual betrayal does in fact occur, it should produce a
feeling of recognition in the disciples minds as to Jesus identity.
This reminds us of John 8:28, when Jesus likewise told the Jews
that a future event would reveal his identity to them. Of course,
the context of John 8:28 helps us appreciate that Jesus was
speaking of his identity as the "Son of man." But here in John
13:19 Harner believes that "there is no possibility of
understanding a predicate from the context."81 However, we
believe the predicate is quite clear.
In verse 18 Jesus quotes a messianic prophecy from Psalm
41:9, which reads, "Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who
shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me." (NIV) Then in
verse 19 he tells the disciples that once this scripture has been
fulfilled, they will know that it is he about whom the scripture
speaks, the Messiah! The disciples would naturally have
associated Jesus' statement in verse 20 ("he that receives me,
receives him that sent me") with an identification of who he
claimed to be: the one sent by the Father (Joh 5:37; 8:18).
A relationship with Isaiah 43:10? Ball again believes that
because there are certain similarities in the language used by Jesus
in John 13:19 and Jehovah in Isaiah 43:10 (LXX), that "Jesus will
be seen to be identified with the Lord of the Old Testament." 82
As we have seen, the problem with this type of reasoning is that it
seems to assume that just because what Jehovah says and what
Jesus says are similar (that is, in this case, because they both call
for belief on the part of their hearers), that this somehow means
they should be identified as the same Being. Fortunately the
context of the verses in question puts matters in their proper
perspective.
In the context of Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah is bringing to the
Israelites attention facts that should remind them that He is the
81
Harner, The "I AM" of the Fourth Gospel, 37. Ball argues similarly (I Am in
Johns Gospel, 198, note 1), as does Brown (The Gospel According to John [xxiii-xxi],
555). Though Brown does acknowledge "some would supply an implicit predicate, the
Messiah, based on the rabbinical understanding of Ps xli" (ibid.).
82
Ball, I Am in Johns Gospel, 199-200.
true God, as opposed to the gods of the "national groups." (verse

9) But the context of John 13:19 in no way supports a similar
conclusion in relation to Jesus. In fact, it clearly mitigates against
it. (Joh 12:49-50; 13:3; 20) Also, in John 14:29 we see roughly
the same language as used by Jesus in John 13:19. In John 14:29
Jesus tells those around him the things that would soon occur, and
they should believe on account of the fact that he told them
beforehand:
Jn 13:19:
ajp* a[rti | levgw uJmi'n proV tou' genevsqai, | i{na pisteuvshte o{tan gevnhtai
o{ti ejgwv eijmi.
Jn 14:29:
kaiV nu'n | ei[rhka uJmi'n priVn genevsqai, | i{na o{tan gevnhtai pisteuvshte.
Jn 13:19 (RSV)
I tell you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may
believe that I am he.
Jn 14:29 (RSV)
And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place,
you may believe.
Yet, John 14:29 is uttered in a context where Jesus asserts

that he is going to One who is greater than he is. (Joh 14:28) Can
we imagine the God of Isaiah ever uttering such words? Also,
Jesus words in 14:28 are not limited to his human nature. 83 There
is nothing in the context of John 13:19 to support a connection
between it and Isaiah 43:10. Harner comments on the context of
John 13:19:
In 13:20 Jesus says to his disciples, Truly, truly, I say to you,

he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who
receives me receives him who sent me. The disciples, that is,
will realize that to receive Jesus is to receive the Father who
83
See Chapter 4, pages 192-194 for a discussion of Jesus words in John 14:28.
sent him, and with this realization they will grasp the meaning
of Jesus statement, ego eimi.84
"Sent by" God. Harner appears to be correct when he sees

verse 20 as a means of understanding the meaning of ego eimi in
verse 19. But in what sense? The disciples would naturally have
associated Jesus statement in verse 19 with an identification of
who he claimed to be. He was the one "sent by" the Father. (Joh
5:37; 8:18; 13:20) In turn, this identification would indicate a
union between the Father and the Son, the Son being the Fathers
"anointed one" (Ps 2).
The disciples understood that Jesus, the Messiah, was sent by
God, and that his works attested to his identity. His telling them
the things that were to take place in connection with his betrayal,
which prophecy he quoted from the messianic reference in Psalm
41, served as conclusive testimony that Jesus was "he," the
Messiah, whom God had sent. This is what they needed to believe
(Joh 17:3).
Jesus words in John 13:19 mean that he "is the promised
Messiah."85 He uses the prophecy of his eventual betrayal to build
his disciples faith in the things they had come to believe in
connection with him (Mt 16:16), at a time when their confidence
might otherwise have been shaken by his arrest and execution.
But the fulfillment of the prophecy would serve as a "seal of the
Messiahship."86 Thus, once again we find ego eimi used in a
manner consistent with Jesus identification of himself as the
Messiah.
John 18:5-6, 8
"Who are you looking for?" The final three occurrences
of ego eimi are found in John 18:5-8, the scene of Jesus arrest in
84
Harner, The I Am of the Fourth Gospel, 38-39.
85
John Calvin, John, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, ed. Alister McGrath
and J. I. Packer (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1994), 326. See also Meyer, The
Gospel of John, 395; Sanders and Mastin, The Gospel According to St. John, 311.
86
Tholuck, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 824.
the garden. There Jesus is confronted by Judas, Roman soldiers,

and representatives from the chief priests and Pharisees. (verse 3)
In verse 4 Jesus, aware of the events about to occur, asks the mob
before him, "Whom are you looking for?" After the crowd replies,
"Jesus the Nazarene," Jesus responds with the words ego eimi.
(verse 5) Verse 6 tells us that after Jesus answered them "they
drew back and fell to the ground." Then in verse 7 Jesus again
asks, "Whom are you looking for?" They once again reply, "Jesus
the Nazarene." Jesus answers, "I told you that I am he [ego eimi];
so, if you seek me, let these men go" (verse 8, RSV).
This would appear to be another example of simple self-
identification, as we saw in John 6:20. But in this case a predicate
is clearly implied by the context, for Jesus response is to their
request for "Jesus the Nazarene." In effect Jesus tells the crowd, "I
am he," or "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are seeking." The
name "Jesus" ( *Ihsou'", Iesous) is actually supplied after eimi in
B*. *Ihsou'" ejgwV eijmi (Iesous ego eimi) is found in a, and several
witnesses (A C G N Q Y) contain oJ *Ihsou'" ejgwV eijmi (ho Iesous
ego eimi).87 But what are we to make of the mobs reaction to
Jesus reply? Why did they draw back and fall to the ground?
"They drew back and fell to the ground." Although
Harner agrees that "Jesus of Nazareth" is the obvious predicate to
be supplied, he nonetheless believes that the phrase also "clearly
implies more than the everyday meaning of self-identification."88
That may be true, in that there is certainly something special about
the identity of "Jesus of Nazareth." But Brown goes too far when
he says "John intends I AM as a divine name." 89 Then what are
we to make of the crowd's reaction? Why does the revelation of
"Jesus of Nazareth" cause them to draw back and fall to the
ground?
87
However, it is uncertain whether in these last two variants "Jesus" should be
taken as the subject of levgei aujtoi'" ("Jesus said to them") or the predicate of e*gwV
ei*mi ("I am Jesus"). See, New Testament Greek Manuscripts, John, Reuben Swanson,
ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press; Pasadena: William Carey International
University Press, 1995), 239, for a complete listing of the variants and their witnesses.
88
Harner, The "I AM" of the Fourth Gospel, 45.
89
Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi), 818.
Tholuck is right in pointing to the "overwhelming impression

produced by Christ" in John 7:46.90 There the crowds, in response
to Jesus words recorded in verses 37-38, were saying, "This is for
a certainty The Prophet." Others would say, "This is the Christ."
(verses 40-41) In verse 31 the crowd begins to realize that Jesus
may be the Christ, and according to verse 32 the Pharisees, having
heard what the people were saying about him, "dispatched officers
to get hold of him." But according to verse 45 they were
unsuccessful. Why? In verse 46 the officers reply to the Pharisees,
"No one ever spoke the way this man does" (NIV).
Thus, the reaction of the mob in 18:6 is no surprise given the
confident, sudden self-identification Jesus makes. The soldiers
present likely remembered hearing about how impressive Jesus
was in his earlier encounter with the officers who were sent to
"get hold of him," but failed to do so because of the way he spoke.
Again, the context shows that Jesus words caused the crowds to
conclude, "This is the Christ." (Joh 7:41) The words "they drew
back and fell to the ground" need mean no more than that "the
men who came to make the arrest (some of whom at least did not
previously know Jesus even by sight) were so overcome by His
moral ascendancy that they recoiled in fear."91
Most likely, then, when Jesus unhesitatingly revealed himself
as the one whom they sought, those coming to arrest him were
taken aback by his fearless demeanor, particularly in light of their
presuppositions about the man which were based on what they
had heard or experienced.92 It was only after he told them to let his
90
Tholuck, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 380.
91
Bernard and McNeile, Gospel According to St. John, vol. 2, 586-587.
92
(Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 1998), 211, note 26, objects to Bernard and
McNeile when they say those who came to make the arrest "were so overcome by His
moral ascendancy that they recoiled in fear," and to my statement that those coming to
arrest him "were taken aback by his fearless demeanor." But this is hardly the extent of
my argument. My citation of Bernard and McNeile is merely part of my overall
argument, which clearly involves more than Jesus fearless demeanor! Indeed, White
does not present a counter exegesis to John 7; he does not explain the variants in
ancient manuscripts of Joh 18:5-6 which actually supply the understood predicate; and
he does not address the impression left on the soldiers who had come to arrest Jesus
earlier in the Gospel account, impressions that were so great that even Roman soldiers
(non-believers) could not arrest Jesus simply because of the way he spoke. Though all
disciples go (verses 8-9), and after he had prevented any defense

that his followers might raise (verses 10-11), the "soldier band and
the military commander and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus
and bound him." (verse 12) As James, Bishop of East Bengal,
observed:
There is no need to suppose that there was any particular

divine implications in his words to account for the fear of the
soldiery. For such men in such an age it was quite natural. But
to suppose that our Lord said "I am He (the Great One)" and
then repeated "I told you I am He," purposely instilling terror
into his enemies, neither suits the context, nor suits his own
divine humility.93
A summary of the "I am" sayings in John. In summary,

we can see that in John 4:26; 8:24, 28, and 13:19, the predicate to
be supplied from the context in which ego eimi occurs is directly
linked with Jesus identity as the Messiah, or Son of man. In John
6:20 and 18:5-6, 8, the meaning is that of simple self-
identification, "It is I," or "I am Jesus." In John 6:20 it is an
assurance Jesus is not some apparition whom the disciples should
fear, and in 18:5-6, 8, he identifies himself as the one whom the
mob is looking for, "Jesus of Nazareth."
Finally, in John 8:58 the present eimi, together with an
expression of past time or past implications (in this case, before
the birth of Abraham), speaks of Jesus past existence continuing
to the present moment of his debate with the Jews. However, in
view of the context in which the statement is made, and the
previous use of ego eimi in John 8:24 and 28, there is an
additional meaning to be found in Jesus use of ego eimi in John
8:58. It is a means of identifying Jesus as the Christ, the ruler from
Bethlehem whose "origin is from of old, from ancient days." (Mic
5:2, RSV) We now turn our attention to the Synoptic use of ego
eimi.
of these points are given as part of my interpretation this passage, White ignores every
single one of them.
93
James, Bishop of East Bengal, "I Am in the Gospels," Theology 62.468
(1959), 238.
EGO EIMI in the Synoptics

"Are you the Christ?" The phrase ego eimi, without an
expressed predicate, occurs in each of the three Synoptic
accounts. Two of these have already been considered to some
degree, but we shall review them nonetheless. We begin with
Mark 14:62 (Lu 22:70) where Jesus, on trial before the high
priest, is asked, "Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed One?"
Jesus responds: "I am [ego eimi]; and you will see the Son of man
seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of
heaven." (RSV) Clearly Jesus words answer the high priests
question in the affirmative, "I am the Christ."94 He even went
further and directly alluded to the messianic prophecy in Daniel
7:13-14.
Earlier we noted that the reaction of the high priest and other
members of the Sanhedrin reveal that they considered it
blasphemous for Jesus to call himself the Messiah, or Son of God.
(Lu 22:70-71) Brown believes that the charge of blasphemy
would be more understandable if "Jesus were claiming a divine
name rather than simply affirming his messiahship."95
If that were the case, and if Jesus claim to the role of
Messiah was not the most serious charge the Jews had against
him, then why did the high priest not ask him if he claimed to be
God? His question was specifically in reference to whether or not
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, "the Son of the Blessed One."
(Mr 14:61) It is this question Jesus answers, and his response
brings the condemnation of the Jews. Thus, ego eimi is again used
to identify Jesus as the Christ.
Simple self-identification. Another instance in which ego
eimi occurs without an expressed predicate, and which we
considered earlier, is Matthew 14:27 (Mr 6:50). Here Jesus
94
M. De Jonge, "The Use of the Word CRISTOS in the Johannine Epistles," in
Studies in John (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 67, parallels 1 John 5:1, which refers to "the one
believing that Jesus is the Christ," to 1 John 5:6, which speaks of "the one believing that
Jesus is the Son of God. He concludes that this use of "Christ" and "Son of God" shows
that the two expressions are here "interchangeable." The same appears to be true for
"Christ" and "Son of the Blessed One" in Mark 14:61.
95
Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), Appendix IV, 538.
crosses the sea towards his disciples who, upon catching sight of
him, cry out, fearing that an apparition is approaching them.
However, Jesus assures them it is he, not a spirit. Ego eimi is used
here as a means of simple identification, "It is I." Jesus actions
prompt those in the boat to acknowledge that he is "Gods Son,"
not God himself (Mt 14:33).
In Luke 24:36 some manuscripts96 have ego eimi used in a
sense similar to Matthew 14:27 and John 6:20. Jesus sudden
appearance to his disciples, as they are discussing his appearance
to Peter and Cleopas, frightens them, making them think he is a
spirit, a demon impostor.97 But Jesus assures them he is no such
"spirit." He even manifested wound marks resembling those he
received when he was impaled at Golgotha.98
"For false Christs and false prophets will arise." Our
final use of ego eimi in the Synoptics99 is Mark 13:6 (Lu 21:8).
Here Jesus, in response to his disciples question about "the sign
when all these things are destined to come to a conclusion," says:
"Take heed that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my
name, saying, I am he! [ego eimi] and they will lead many
astray." (RSV) Both Mark and Luke use ego eimi in this account
without an expressed predicate.
96
See New Testament Greek Manuscripts, Luke, Reuben Swanson, ed.
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press; Pasadena: William Carey International
University Press, 1995), 416, for a listing of the variants to this verse. The uncials G
and P read ejgwv eijmi mhV fobei'sqe, while one late cursive (579) transposes the words,
mhV fobei'sqe ejgwv eijmi. Both readings are equivalent to, "It is I; do not be afraid."
97
References to "a spirit" frequently denote a demonic spirit in Lukes Gospel. (Lu
4:33; 8:29; 9:39, 42) The fact that the disciples were frightened and terrified of Jesus
appearance also shows they may have thought they were beholding a demon, a "spirit."
What other "spirit" could they have thought they were beholding that would have made
them so "terrified"? See Chapter 7 for a discussion of Jesus post-resurrection body.
98
He was likely in a different body (compare Joh 20:11-18), otherwise there
would have been no need to produce physical evidence as to his identity. They would
have simply recognized him by his facial features, or perhaps by the sound of his voice.
His manifestation here is similar to that of angels in Genesis 19:1-3, where the angels
took human form so they could be seen by Lot, and they even ate a meal with him, as
Jesus did with his disciples (Joh 21:9-15).
99
Two other occurrences of ego eimi are used in the form of a question, where
the disciples and Judas expect a negative answer (Mt 26:22, 25).
But in Matthews account we find the predicate oJ cristov"

(ho christos, "the Christ") after ego eimi!100 (Mt 24:5) Mark and
Luke evidently believed that ego eimi would be readily
understood by their readers as a claim by others to be the
Messiah.101 Matthew, however, makes it certain by adding the
predicate ho christos.102
However, Brown, after referring to the Matthean passage,
says "the context does not clearly suggest the predicate."103 Was
Matthew wrong, then? That is the position taken by Manson,104
but it is a position that will receive no support here, as Jehovahs
Witnesses believe the Gospels are inspired, harmonious accounts
of Jesus life and ministry.
Further, the predicate ("the Christ") certainly is not out of
place in a context where Jesus speaks of those who would mislead
many, as part of a composite sign of the sunteleiva" tou' aijw'no"
(synteleias tou aionos, "conclusion of the age"). (Mt 24:3)
Additionally, Marks account goes on to speak of those who
would say, "Here is the Christ." He then adds, "For false Christs
and false prophets will arise." (Mr 13:21-22) So we have another
100
The Peshitta of Lukes account also has an expressed predicate, *ena *na
meshikha * ("I am Messiah"). Cursive 157 (12th cent.) likewise reads with Matthew,
*Egwv ejimi oJ CristoV" ("I am the Christ"). In uncials W Q and minuscules 13, 28, 69,
124, 565, 579, 700, 788, 1071 and 1346, Mark 13:6 reads the same as Matthews
account. In recording Pauls synagogue speech Luke transposes the predicateless ego
eimi and places it in the mouth of John the Baptist, "What do you suppose I am? I am
not he [ouk eimi ego]." (Ac 13:25) Here the implied predicate is, again, "Christ" or
"Messiah," the savior of whom Paul speaks (verses 22-23).
101
This shows that among the first-century Christians there was a tradition which
understood ego eimi as having messianic connotations. Thus Johns use of this phrase
in reference to Jesus may have come through the Synoptics. But the LXX undoubtedly
influenced him as well, as far as using a predicateless phrase is concerned (compare Joh
9:9).
102
In addition to the Greek of Matthew, the Shem-Tob Hebrew manuscript reads
*ani hu hammashiakh ("I [am] he, the Messiah") and the du Tillet text reads simply *ani
mashiakh ("I [am] Messiah"). The Peshitta and the Curetonian read the same, *ena *na
meshikha ("I am Messiah").
103
Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), Appendix IV, 538.
104
W. Manson, "The EGW EIMI of the Messianic Presence in the New
Testament," JTS 48 (1947), 137-145. On page 139 Manson says: "Does *Egwv ejimi in
the Markan passage really mean, as the author of Matthew took it to mean, *Egwv ejimi oJ
Cristov" ["I am the Christ"]? I cannot think so."
instance where ego eimi is used in connection with the identity of

the Messiah; though in this instance it is a case where others
would claim the title that rightly applies only to Jesus.
A summary of the "I am" sayings in the Synoptics. In
summarizing the use of ego eimi in the Synoptic Gospels,
Matthew 14:27 (Mr 6:50) and the gloss in Luke 24:36 use ego
eimi with the simple meaning of self-identification, "It is I." In
Mark 14:62 (Lu 22:70) and Mark 13:6 (Lu 21:8) the implied
predicate of ego eimi is "Christ," or "Son of the Blessed One."
This understanding of Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8 is confirmed by
Matthew 24:5.
We will now consider the possible backgrounds for the use of
the predicateless ego eimi in the Fourth Gospel, as well as the
Synoptics. It appears that the OT is the main source for the
Johannine use of this phrase,105 with some influence coming from
the Synoptics. The Synoptics use the phrase as a means of self-
identification in relation to Jesus, specifically as the Messiah.
However, in the LXX of Isaiah we find the phrase used in the
same way (that is, as a means of identification), but in reference to
an entirely different individuals identity. Therefore, we will
examine those passages where the LXX uses ego eimi as a
translation for the Hebrew *ani hu, to see what identity is made
known through the use of this phrase. But first we must give our
attention to another verse, which some believe has a direct
relationship with Jesus use of ego eimi.
105
For a discussion of the possible Jewish and Hellenistic backgrounds to the
Johannine "I am" statements, see Harner, The "I Am" of the Fourth Gospel, 17-30; Ball,
I Am in Johns Gospel, 24-32, 36-39.
Exodus 3:14
Ego eimi: the "unique name of God"? Beasley-
Murrays discussion of word themes in Johns Gospel contends
that John 8:20 [sic; 6:20 or 8:28?], 24, 58 and 13:19 "recall the
unique name of God made known to Moses in the vision at the
burning bush (Ex 3:14) and certain affirmations of God in the
central chapters of the book of Isaiah, notably in 43:10-13, 25;
45:5, 6, 18, 21, 22."106 We will discuss the use of ego eimi in the
LXX of Isaiah shortly. But in response to those who claim that
John 8:24, 28, 58, or 13:19 recall the "unique name of God" in
Exodus 3:14, we suggest a reconsideration of the contexts in
which ego eimi is used by Jesus. Barrett puts the matter
succinctly:
It is not always noted that this interpretation [which sees a

taking up of the divine name in those places where Jesus uses
the phrase ego eimi] is inconsistent with the passages
themselves. This is particularly clear in 8.28, where with the
knowledge that ejgwV ejimiv there goes, included in the same o{ti
clause, and I do nothing of myself, but speak as the Father
taught me. Is it simply intolerable that Jesus should be made
to say, I am God, the supreme God of the Old Testament, and
being God I do as I am told. The context of 13.19 is similar.
Having prophesied what is to come in order that, when the
prophecy is fulfilled, You may believe that ejgwV ejimiv. Jesus
goes on in the next verse to declare not only He who receives
anyone I send receives me but also He who receives me
receives him who sent me. The juxtaposition is perhaps not
quite as sharp as in chapter 8, but it is again intolerable that
Jesus should be made to say, I am God, and I am here because
someone sent me. . . . If a translation of ejgwV ejimiv in these
verses is sought I should be inclined to offer the colloquial
English, I'm the one, that is, It is at me, to me, that you must
look, it is I whom you must hear.107
106
Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Themes: John, 41.
107
C. K. Barrett, Essays on John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), 12-13.
While Barretts suggested translation could be more specific

in identifying Jesus as the Christ, the one to whom the Jews
should look for freedom from their sin, his observations on the
context and how it dismisses any attempt to see the divine name in
Jesus words are worthy of note. Immediately after Jesus allegedly
claimed to be Jehovah he says he cannot do anything of his own
initiative? Jehovah initiates everything He does! He is not dependent
upon anyone for His actions. He is Almighty. He Himself proclaims:
"My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,
calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far
country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed,
and I will do it" (Isa 46:10-11, RSV).
Jesus also said in John 8:28 that he was "taught" by the Father.
This after he claimed to be Jehovah? How could Jehovah be taught?
Who could teach the "Grand Instructor"? (Isa 30:20) Such a thing
could not be said in reference to the "God of knowledge." (1Sa 2:3)
Again His own Word tells us, "Who has taken the proportions of the
spirit of Jehovah, and who as his man of counsel can make him
know anything? With whom did he consult together that one might
make him understand, or who teaches him knowledge, or makes him
know the very way of real understanding?" (Isa 40:13-14) Surely,
then, the view which sees a connection between Jesus words in
John 8:24, 28 and Exodus 3:14 (LXX) is arrived at by ignoring the
context in which the statements are made. Why, then, have so many
made this connection?
The translation of Exodus 3:14. Apparently those who
connect John 8:58 with the LXX of Exodus 3:14 assume that the
LXX is an accurate translation of the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14. Such
is not the case. But even if the LXX translation were accurate in its
rendering of Exodus 3:14, this "passage hardly warrants the
suggestion that ejgwv eijmi functions alone as the divine name, since
here it is not alone (compare Exod. 6.7; 7.5; 20.1)."108 The LXX
reads, ejgwv eijmi oJ w[n (ego eimi ho on, "I am the Being" or "I am the
One who is"), identifying God as the ho on; He is not called ego
108
Margaret Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup 69;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 85.
eimi. Still, the LXX is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew

hyha r?a hyha ( *ehyeh *asher *ehyeh [NWT: "I shall prove to
be what I shall prove to be"]).
The meaning and translation found in many English versions
assumes a present meaning of the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 which is,
as Charles Gianotti points out, "unjustified in light of the imperfect
form [hyha, *ehyeh] used." He also notes Bernhardts observation
that the imperfect form of this verb never has present meaning, but
that, for this, the perfect form is used. Gianotti then concludes:
"Significantly, most interpreters translate [hyha] in Exodus 3:12 as
future (i.e., I will be [hyha] with you). Yet, two verses later, why
should not the same translation suffice?"109
It should and it does. Of all that Jehovah could have revealed
to his chosen people, of all the various aspects of His personality He
could have highlighted, He chose to reveal Himself as a God who
could be relied on, as One who would fulfill all of His promises to
His people. He would "prove to be" (NWT) the deliverer of the
Israelites, as He promised (Ex 3:7-12; compare 12:51).
Exodus 3:14 in the LXX and other Greek versions of the
OT. But, why, then, did the LXX translate Exodus 3:14 by ego eimi
ho on? Why did the translators not offer the more accurate
translation we find in Aquila followed by Theodotion, e]somai o}"
e]somai (esomai hos esomai, "I will be what/who I will be")?110 It
may have been that the translators were simply "faced with
making sense out of a sentence which would be a tautology [to a
109
Charles Gianotti, "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH," BSac 39
(January-March 1985), 42. We should point out, though, as does Gianotti (p. 50, note
32), that Bernhardt "admits to a possibility of a present tense rendering in Ruth 2:13,
but agrees otherwise the meaning is always future." We would add to Ruth 2:13 the
possibility of a present meaning in Job 12:4 and 17:6.
110
We cannot let the translation of the LXX be our sole guide to understanding
the Hebrew, just as we should not let the Hebrew be our sole guide for determining the
meaning of Greek words, for often the meanings are not the same. See Moiss Silva,
Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics, Revised and
Expanded ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 53-73. The LXX translators may have
been influenced by various factors, leaving us with an imprecise understanding of the
Hebrew of Ex 3:14, but one which was more at home in their Hellenized environment.
Greek mind] if rendered literally."111 Yes, it may be ho on is

simply a "straightforward attempt to make an acceptable Greek
version of the Hebrew."112 But why would the Jewish translators
accept a less-than-literal rendering of the Hebrew? It should be
remembered the Jews for whom the LXX was compiled, residing in
Alexandria, had become thoroughly Hellenized. Gianotti correctly
observes: "It is relatively easy to imagine the backslidden Jews, a
few hundred years after the Exile, having lost touch with the
character and nature of their God YHWH. In such a condition they
would have been influenced by a popular view of the nature of deity
as propagated in their environment."113
The context of Exodus 3:14. It is clear, then, that our
"primary understanding of Exodus 3:14 should come, rather, from a
contextual understanding of the passage as well as from an analysis
of the meaning and usage of the Hebrew term hyh (hayah, "to be
111
John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SBLSCS 30; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1990), 33.
89 112
Ibid., 34. William R. Arnold, "The Divine Name in Exodus iii. 14," JBL 24
(1905), 126-127, states: "The Greek rendering of [hyha, *ehyeh], oJ w[n [ho on],
introduces a concept as foreign to the Hebrew mind as it is to the Hebrew verb. . . .
Thus the Hebrew for I am that I am is not hyha r?a hyha, *ehyeh *asher *ehyeh],
nor does it differ from that clause only in the matter of the tense of the verb. A nominal
instead of a verbal sentence is required. The Hebrew for I am that I am is yna r?a yna
[*ani *asher *ani], just as I am he is [awh yna, *ani hu]. The Imperfect hyha can only
[or, more accurately, almost always] mean[s] I am in the act of becoming, or I will
become, or I will be . . . In no way can it be rendered I am. . . . hyha in this sentence
can only mean I will be or become (something) . . . Not merely the most natural, then,
but the necessary construction of hyha r?a hyha is I will be what I will be. So much
for the literal meaning of the Hebrew clause." Jehovahs Witnesses reject, however,
Arnolds theory that *ehyeh *asher *ehyeh of Exodus 3:14a is "a Midrashic gloss on
14b" (ibid., 129). Earlier S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew,
3d. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892), 43, sec. 38, note 1, showed his preference for
the translation, "I will be that I will be."
113
Gianotti, "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH," 43. Alexander
MacWhorter, "Jehovah Considered as a Memorial Name," BSac 14 (1857), 111, with
direct reference to Ex 3:14 asks, "May not the Septuagint have given us, instead of the
historical YAHVEH, God of the Scriptures, the philosophical Qeov", or God, of Plato,
and the school of Alexandria?" Also, L. M. Pkozdy, "I shall be that which I shall be,"
BT 7.4 (October 1956), 147, observes, "The translation I am that I am is weakened by
its very origin which appears in the LXX and betrays obviously the influence of
Hellenistic philosophy of religion with its central idea of the deity as the absolutely
independent Being."
[exist]") and its imperfect form hyha."114 The context of Exodus

3:14 helps us appreciate how we should understand the use of
*ehyeh ("I will be") in this text. On this note, Gianotti states:
Gods manifestation to Israel is yet future at the time of the

burning bush incident. This [hyha] is Gods promise that He will
redeem the children of Israel. The people were in great need.
They needed not so much to know the facts about Gods
character or that He was simply a covenant God present in their
time of need, but to be reassured that this God would meet them
in their time of need, proving true His character and promises.
This in fact constitutes what God promised Moses in Exodus
3:12, namely, that God would be present and working on Moses
behalf in the difficult task ahead. Surely nothing less would have
encouraged Moses to go. . . . Whatever the situation or need (in
particular, the redemption from Egypt, but also future needs) God
will "become" the solution to that need.115
We therefore conclude that no connection can be legitimately

made between Exodus 3:14 and the ego eimi sayings in John. As
McKay observes, "The emphatic words used by Jesus in the
passages referred to above [one of which is John 8:58] are
perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo the words
of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greek version . . . however
much the modern English versions of the relevant passages,
following the form of the Hebrew words, may suggest it." 116 We
now proceed to those passages in Isaiah which are commonly
considered a likely background to the Johannine use of ego eimi.
*ANI HU and the LXX of Isaiah
114
Gianotti, "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH," 42.
115
Ibid., 46. J. Wash Watts, A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 67, observes: "The argument that has continued for
two millenniums over the translation of that verse in the Septuagint [Exodus 3:14] and
over the part it has played in the English translation I am what I am or I am that I am
has surely confirmed the charge that I am is not a proper translation for a Hebrew
imperfect. . . . In view of the strong emphasis in the early verses of the chapter upon
Yahwehs keeping of his promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the second imperfect
could be a repetition of this great truth. . . . a statement of Yahwehs faithfulness so
brief as to be amazing and so meaningful as to be inspiring."
116
McKay, "I am in Johns Gospel," 303.
Both Brown and Harner argue that the Old Testament,

particularly the book of Isaiah, is the most likely source of
influence for the use of ego eimi in the Fourth Gospel. Brown
asserts that "Jesus is presented as speaking in the same manner in
which Yahweh speaks in Deutero-Isaiah."117 Harner agrees,
saying: "Second Isaiah supplied John with a solemn expression
that was eminently suited for expressing the unity of the Son and
the Father and that had at the same time a strong connotation of
monotheism which also served to express the Christian belief that
God continued to be one."118
We will now consider the passages from Isaiah that are
considered to have had the greatest influence on the Johannine use
of ego eimi. The Hebrew of each text will be given, followed by
the LXX, and then the English of the RSV with explanatory
comments on each verse:
Isaiah 41:4
!AvarI hw"hy> ynIa] varome tArDoh; arEqo hf'['w> l[;p'-ymi

aWh-ynIa] ~ynIrox]a;-ta,w>
tiv" ejnhvrghsen kaiV ejpoivhsen tau'ta ejkavlesen aujthVn oJ
kalw'n aujthVn ajpoV genew'n ajrch'" ejgwV qeoV" prw'to" kaiV
eij" taV ejpercovmena ejgwv eijmi
Who has performed and done this, calling the

generations from the beginning? I, the LORD, the
first, and with the last; I am He.
117
Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), 537. For a discussion of the
Witnesses view concerning the authorship of Isaiah, see "Where is Modern Catholic
Scholarship Heading?" Awake! 22 March 1973, 18-19; Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 1
(Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988), 1221-1223; "All Scripture Is
Inspired of God and Beneficial," 2d. ed. (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1990), 118-119.
118
Harner, The "I AM" of the Fourth Gospel, 57.
The use of *ani hu ("I [am] he") in this verse appears simply
to refer back to the One who had just previously been mentioned,
hwhy (YHWH, "Jehovah"), while in the LXX ego eimi refers back
to the ejgwV qeov" (theos, "God") of the same verse. So *ani hu is
used to identify the speaker as the One who in this context is
spoken of as being active against the nations, the One who chose
Israel as His servant, the covenant God of Israel, Jehovah. The use
of ego eimi in the LXX of Isaiah 41:4, therefore, is similar to
Johns use of the phrase in reference to Jesus. It is used without a
predicate, but a predicate is implied or directly expressed in the
context.
This usage is also observable in Isaiah 45:18, where the
Hebrew hwhy yna (*ani YHWH, "I [am] Jehovah") is translated by
ego eimi. Of course, in the LXX the predicate kuvrio" (kyrios,
"Lord"), or possibly ho theos (both titles at times stand in place of
the tetragrammaton), is understood per the context.119 In verse 18
the predicates kyrios and ho theos ("God") are in fact supplied by
some manuscripts,120 and in 45:19 ejgwv eijmi ejgwv eijmi kuvrio" (ego
eimi ego eimi kyrios) translates hwhy yna (*ani YHWH, "I [am]
Jehovah").121
Isaiah 43:10-13
W[d>Te ![;m;l. yTir>x'B' rv,a] yDIb.[;w> hw"hy>-~aun> yd:[e ~T,a;
yr:x]a;w> lae rc;An-al{ yn:p'l. aWh ynIa]-yKi Wnybit'w> yli
hy<h.yI al{ Wnymia]t;w>
[;yviAm yd:['l.B;mi !yaew> hw"hy> ykinOa' ykinOa'
yd:[e ~T,a;w> rz" ~k,B' !yaew> yTi[.m;v.hiw> yTi[.v;Ahw> yTidG> h: i ykinO
lae-ynIa]w: hw"hy>-~aun>
aWh ynIa] ~AYmi-~G:
119
Unless, of course, the LXX retained the divine name. We believe this to be
true, based on the fact that all known fragments of the LXX and other Greek
translations down to the second century CE contain the tetragrammaton or IAw. See
Chapter 1, pages 43-45.
120
See footnote apparatus in Joseph Zieglers Isaias (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1983).
121
See below discussion of Isa 43:25 for the meaning and translation of the
double ego eimi.
gevnesqev moi mavrture" kajgwV mavrtu" levgei kuvrio" oJ qeov"

kaiV oJ pai'" o}n ejxelexavmhn i@na gnw'te kaiV pisteuvshte kaiV
sunh'te o{ti ejgwv eijmi e[mprosqevn mou oujk ejgevneto a[llo"
qeoV" kaiV met= ejmeV oujk e[stai ejgwV oJ qeov" kaiV oujk e[stin
pavrex ejmou' swv/zwn ajnhvggeila kaiV e[swsa wjneivdisa kaiV oujk
h\n ejn uJmi'n ajllovtrio" uJmei'" ejmoiV mavrture" kajgwV mav rtu"
levgei kuvrio" oJ qeov" e[ti ajp= ajrch'".
"You are my witnesses," says the LORD, "and my servant

whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and
understand that I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor
shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides
me there is no savior. I declared and saved and proclaimed,
when there was no strange god among you; and you are my
witnesses," says the LORD. "I am God, and also henceforth
I am He."
In verse 10 *ani hu/ego eimi stands without an expressed

predicate, though it is expressed in the context.122 The archaic
form ykna (*anoki, "I") is followed by the divine name in verse
11. In verse 12 la (*el, "God") follows yna (*ani). Israel is
reminded that Jehovah alone is God, not the idol gods of the
nations, as none of them has ever had or will ever have actual
existence (compare Isa 43:1-9).
The end of verse 12 reads, "You are My witnesses, says the
Lord [Heb: hwhy, "Jehovah"; LXX: "God" or "Lord," or possibly
the divine name], and I am God [la-yna, *ani *el; LXX: kuvrio"
oJ qeov", "the Lord God" (some manuscripts add ejgwv, ego, "I,"
before "Lord")]." (NIV) Verse 13 begins by saying, "Also, all the
time I am the same One [ *ani hu]." (NWT)123 Again the predicate
la (or *el, "God") is supplied by the context.
122
See notes 123 and 124.
123
The LXX reads e[ti ajp= ajrch'" ("even from the beginning"), showing God
has always been what He now claims to be. NWT correctly translates the Hebrew, "I
am the same One." H. W. F. Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E.
Cowley, 2d Eng. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 437, note 1, tells us: "The
separate pronouns,apart from their employment as the subject in noun-clauses . . . [are
used in] the sense of the same (oJ aujtov" [ho autos; when used in the attributive position,
the Greek third person personal pronoun is translated "same" and is, thus, an adjective.]) or
(one and) the same, [awh] is used in Is. 41:4, 43:10, 13; 46:4, 48:12 (always [awh yna])."
Isaiah 43:25
rKoz>a, al{ ^yt,aJox;w> ynI[]m;l. ^y[,v'p. hx,mo aWh ykinOa' ykinOa'
ejgwv eijmi ejgwv eijmi oJ ejxaleivfwn taV" ajnomiva" sou kaiV
ouj mhV mnhsqhvsomai
"I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my

own sake, and I will not remember your sins."
Brown, though he acknowledges that the Hebrew and LXX

translation can bear the meaning reflected in the RSV translation,
nonetheless believes this verse may also be understood as, "I am I
AM who blots out transgressions," a translation which sees the
second ego eimi as a name.124 He also notes that the same may be
true of Isaiah 51:12. This would lend support to the view that the
Johannine use of ego eimi, in reference to Jesus, is an implication
of his divinity. But in Isaiah 45:19 this interpretation is very
questionable, "as it requires that what is duplicated is not the verb
but the tetragrammaton, which is rendered first by ejgwv eijmi and
then by kuvrio"."125 Davies provides sufficient refutation of
Browns claims:
Brown insists that the doubling of the I am in the Septuagint

translation of Isa. 43:25, I, I am he who blots out your
transgressions: ejgwv eijmi ejgwv eijmi oJ ejxaleivfwn . . . means that
Harner (The "I AM" of the Fourth Gospel, 7, note 5, par. 2) notes that the LXX reflects this
understanding at one point, in Isa 52:6, where the LXX translates*ani hu as ego eimi
autos ("I am he"). Compare Lu 24:39, where ego eimi autos is used for the same
purpose (identity), though the identity is made manifest not simply because of the
words ego eimi autos, but because Jesus words are completed by a predicate ("Jesus")
which is implied through the reference to the wound marks from his execution, as these
would naturally have been associated with Jesus of Nazareth.
124
Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), 536. But note Isa 43:11
(Hebrew: hwhy ykna ykna, "I, I am Jehovah"; LXX: ejgwV o& qeov", "I am God"), where
the divine name is found, not hu ("He"). This suggests that the hu of verse 25 stands in
the place of the divine name in verse 11. Some LXX manuscripts read ejgwv eijmi ejgwv
eijmi qeov" or kuvrio", ("I, I am God" or "Lord") similar to Isa 43:25. See the footnotes
to Isa 43:11 in Zieglers Isaias.
125
Elizabeth Harris, Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth
Evangelist (JSNTSup 107; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 131.
the second I am is a declaration of the divine name. In other

words, God declares, I am "I am" (= divine name), who blots
out your transgressions. Were there evidence that elsewhere I
am is the divine name, this would be a possible, but not a
necessary reading of the Septuagint of Isa. 43:25 (and cf. Isa.
51:12). Without such evidence, however, Browns suggestion
is merely fanciful, an attempt to find later Catholic
christological doctrine in the Fourth Gospel. The only evidence
from Scripture which he cites in support of his case is the
Septuagint of Isa. 52:6, Therefore my people should know my
name, because I am he, who speaks (ejgwv eijmi aujtoV" oJ lalw'n);
I am here (pavreimi). Brown interprets my name and I am as
parallel expressions which should be identified, but if I am is
a name in the second clause, it is impossible to translate, since
a verb not a name is required. Lindars rightly rejects Browns
argument as unconvincing (1972: 336). He points out that if
Jesus ejgwv eijmi in 8:58 is to be understood as a name, the
statement should read Before Abraham was, I am "I am." It is
better, as in the case of Isa. 52:6, to allow ejgwv eijmi its verbal
force.126
Davies goes on to argue in John 8:58 (which she translates,

"Before Abraham was, I am he") Jesus words go back to the start
of the discourse, were he stated, "I am the light of the world."
(8:12) As the light of the world, "Jesus fulfills Gods promise to
Abraham, that in him all the nations of the earth would be
blessed (Ge 12:3). He is therefore superior to Abraham."127
Isaiah 43:25 identifies God as the One who wipes out
transgressions, 51:12 tells us that Jehovah is the One comforting
the people, and 52:6 emphasizes that the people will know Gods
name because he is the One speaking and who will thus cause it to
happen (compare Eze 20:4).
126
Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel, 85.
127
Ibid., 85-86.
Isaiah 46:4
ynIa]w: ytiyfi[' ynIa] lBos.a, ynIa] hb'yXe-d[;w> aWh ynIa] hn"q.zI-d[;w>
jLem;a]w: lBos.a, ynIa]w: aF'a,
e$w" ghvrou" ejgwv eijmi kaiV e$w" a]n kataghravshte ejgwv
eijmi ejgwV ajnevcomai uJmw'n ejgwV ejpoivhsa kaiV ejgwV ajnhvsw
ejgwV ajnalhvmyomai kaiV swvsw uJma'"
[E]ven to your old age I am He, and to gray hairs I will

carry you. I have made, and I will bear; I will carry and
will save.
Here Jehovah highlights the fact that unlike the idols of Bel
and Nebo, who have not been able to deliver their worshipers,
Jehovah is the same One who has been with them "from the
belly," (verse 3) and who will continue to be with them until the
days of their "grey-headedness." Jehovah emphasizes His identity
as the same One who provided escape for the Israelites long ago.
(Isa 46:9) Therefore, *ani hu/ego eimi is again used as a means of
self-identification. Harner is probably right in suggesting that the
second ego eimi in 46:4 (LXX) represents a variant Hebrew
reading.128
Conclusion
We have seen that the LXX translation of *ani hu is used in a
manner consistent with the use of the same phrase in the Fourth
Gospel and the Synoptics: self-identification. This in no way
suggests that the identity of the speaker is the same in each case.
The identity of the speaker must be determined from the context in
which the phrase is used. In the case of the Fourth Gospel, John
uses the phrase, in reference to Jesus, in the same manner as the
Old Testament does in reference to Jehovah. He also uses it in
128
Harner, The "I AM" of the Fourth Gospel, 7, note 5, par. 1.
John 9:9 to identify a blind man whom Jesus healed. Thus, Davies
rightly observes:
[T]he expression functions in these Scriptural examples [that

is, Isa 43:10 and Joel 2:27] in exactly the way it functions in
Jn 18.5, 8, 6.20 and 9.9, namely, to allow the speaker to
identify himself. Of course, the self identified in each
instance is different. In the prophetic oracles God identifies
himself as God, and in the Fourth Gospel the man born blind
identifies himself as the man born blind. 129
Those instances in Johns Gospel where simple self-

identification is not intended (Joh 4:26; 8:24, 28, 58, and 13:19),
are completed by a predicate which is either implied or directly
stated in the context. Although this is likely also the case with
John 8:58, eimi is part of an idiom designed to highlight the fact
that Jesus existence extends from a time before the birth of
Abraham, to the present.
While the use of ego eimi in John at times signifies something
special, various examples where God reveals Himself using *ani
hu "do not provide a basis for interpreting the Johannine use
because in all of these instances it is clear that God is the speaker,
I am the Lord [Jehovah], and there is no other." 130 The context
in which the statements are made in the Fourth Gospel and in the
Synoptics will not allow for an identification between Jesus and
the Speaker in Isaiah, Jehovah. He is the God of the Messiah, and
the One who "sent forth His Son as Savior of the world." (Mic
5:4; 1Jo 4:14) By means of the phrase ego eimi, Jesus identity as
the promised Messiah is made manifest, and by accepting him as
the Christ we may gain life everlasting in paradise (Isa 11:1-11).
129
Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel, 85.
130
Painter, The Quest for the Messiah, 227.
6
The Logos of God
When the apostle John spoke of the Word (Logos), or pre-

human Jesus Christ, did he intend for his readers to identify the
Word as the second person of a consubstantial (essence-sharing)
Triad? How should the predicate qeov" (theos), in reference to the
Logos, be translated? Did John understand the Logos to be "God,"
"a god," or "divine"? What exactly does the New World Translation
mean when it offers "a god" as a translation for John 1:1c? Does the
fact that the Word existed with God in the beginning mean that the
Logos is eternal, as God is? When John said all things were made di*
aujtou' (di autou, "through him"), was he teaching that the Word
was the Creator, or the medium of Gods creative acts?
These and other questions will be the focus of our discussion in
this chapter. Scholars and critics frequently make light of Jehovahs
Witnesses translation of John 1:1c. Now it is time to put the
spotlight on the real issues, and show that not only does NWT offer
an acceptable translation of this passage, but it captures all the
essential elements conveyed by John through the context and
construction of the third clause of the opening verse of his Gospel.
First, though, let us consider how the Greek term lovgo" (logos) is
understood by Jehovahs Witnesses, and others.
Potential Sources Informing Johns Use of Logos

The Logos in Hellenistic thought. It seems that Heraclitus
(a philosopher who was born around 550 BCE, and who sought to
explain the universe in which we live) was the first to use the term
logos in reference to "an underlying cosmic principle of order."1 For

Heraclitus, the term also meant a discourse, teaching, word,
reputation, relation, proportion, meaning and truth. According to G.
Fries, "Heraclitus has the whole field of meaning in mind in each
individual use of the word."2
Platos concept of logos differs from that of Heraclitus in
that, for Plato, logos had more to do with "rational explanation"
than with a cosmic principle ordering the material world.3
Because he connected logos with rational thought, Plato believed
that "man alone of living beings has logos," since "his actions are
determined by the word, and he himself is capable of speech and
understanding."4 Aristotle also used logos in reference to rational
speech. Speech and reason (both identified by Aristotle as logos),
then, were the distinguishing factors between humans and the
lower animals.5 This distinguishing factor (human rationality) is
something "beyond the realm of the material" for both Plato and
Aristotle, though the same cannot be said of the Stoic view of
human rationality (logos).
In Stoicism the logos was viewed as the creative power that
"extends throughout matter,"6 working in all things. It gives life and
animation to non-living things.7 There is a great, general logos from
which all power proceeds, and to which it all eventually returns. The
Stoic logos is both a "rational power of order and a vital power of
conception."8 Bultmann is correct, then, when he states that no
connection exists between the Stoic concept of logos and the
Johannine use of the term, aside from the fact that "both are of
1
Thomas H. Tobin, "LOGOS," ABD 4 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 348. See
also, R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1971), 24; H. Kleinknecht, "lovgo"," TDNT 4 (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1967), 80-81; G. Fries, "lovgo"," NIDNTT 3 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1978), 1081.
2
Fries, "lovgo"," 1081.
3
Tobin, "LOGOS," 348.
4
Fries, "lovgo"," 1083.
5
Tobin, "LOGOS," 348; see also Kleinknecht, "lovgo"," 84, e.
6
Kleinknecht, "lovgo"," 85.
7
This is similar to the Neo-platonic view of the logos, though the two views are
not entirely identical. See ibid., 85-86.
8
Ibid., 85. Fries, "lovgo"," 1084, refers to the Stoic logos as "the constitutive
principle of the cosmos, which extends right through matter."
The Logos of God 307
fundamental significance for the world." Of course, he also rightly

points out that "the understanding of the world is so totally different
in each case."9
In the "mystery religions" and Hermetic understanding there are
some interesting ideas associated with the logosinteresting in
terms of their similarity with the Johannine view of Jesus as the
logos. For example, founders of various mystery cults combined
their "revelations" with Greek thought, leading to, in some circles,
the idea that Isis created Osiris as the logos, who then "ordered and
made manifest the material world."10 In Hermeticism "a concept
[such as logos, or even righteousness and light] is hypostatised
[that is, made into a real person] as a god, or identified with a god."11
It is not unreasonable to believe that John was aware of the
Greco-Roman views concerning logos, and popular views about
logos in Greco-Roman society may have contributed to his
decision to use the term. However, there is little resemblance
between Johns developed view of Jesus as the logos and the
Hellenistic views considered above. Still, the use of such a term in
reference to the Jewish Messiah would no doubt have attracted the
attention of many who embraced a Hellenistic view of logos.
Philos view of the Logos. In the first century CE there
were Jews who made use of middle Platonist and Stoic thought. It
is possible certain Jewish groups were calling an archangel by the
title of logos, as did Philo (see below), and they would not have
found Johns reference to the logos as something unintelligible.
But the fact that some Jews in the first century CE may have used
the title for an archangel cannot alone suffice for the use of the
title in Johns writings. The question is, was Johns concept of the
logos the same as that of Philo? It is possible that Philos use of
the term logos influenced John to use this same term, but did
Johns use of the term have the same meaning as it did for Philo?
Philo used the term logos in relation to biblical (OT LXX)
literature, but his understanding of the logos was heavily
influenced by unbiblical philosophy. Philos view of the logos is
9
Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 24.
10
Tobin, "LOGOS," 349; Kleinknecht, "lovgo"," 86; Fries, "lovgo","1085.
11
Kleinknecht, "lovgo"," 87.
presented differently by scholars, some believing that Philos

logos was a property of God (his mind and his essence), which
then became the place (within God) for attracting pertinent
properties of God together with His ideas, and, finally, becoming
external to God.12
Then we have scholars like Traketellis, who believes that
Philo presents the logos as an agent or intermediate for God.13 In
support of this we find that Philo identifies the logos with the
glory of God that came upon Mount Sinai when God spoke to
Moses.14 Philo argues that God did not actually leave his place;
rather, He projected some of His glory by means of a suitable
agent, to represent Him. Alan Segal states: "Philos concept of the
logos is a combination of divine intermediation and the Stoic
world spirit. Logos is equivalent with the intelligible world; but
because it can be hypostasized [that is, it can become an
individual being], the logos can be viewed as a separate agent and
called a god."15
When you consider the totality of Philos teaching concerning
the logos it is easy to see how he might simply have conceived of
the logos as a manifestation of God, not as an actual "second god"
(Questions and Answers on Genesis 2.62; compare On Dreams
1.238-240). Still, there is also something to be said for the belief
that Philo actually viewed the logos as a being distinct from God,
his "Firstborn," "an archangel," one who intercedes between God
and creation.16 Andrew Chester puts the difficulties associated
with obtaining a consistent interpretation of Philos works in
perspective:
12
H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy, vol. 1, 2d. ed.
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962), 229-233.
13
Demetrius C. Traketellis, The Pre-Existence of Christ in the Writings of Justin
Martyr (Missoula, Mt.: Scholars Press, 1976), 76.
14
See Philos Questions and Answers on Exodus, Book 2, 37-39.
15
Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About
Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 23.
16
See On the Confusion of Tongues 146; Who is the Heir 205-206; Questions
and Answers on Exodus 2.94; On the Unchangeableness of God 138; On the
Cherubim 36.
It is notoriously difficult, however, to know precisely how to

evaluate Philos language and ideas here, as throughout his
works. Thus, for example, it is not always clear that his use of
[logos] is meant to represent the Logos, as a technical term.
Equally problematic is the fact that since Philos system is so
conflate and his works are so voluminous, it is not possible to
establish a single, consistent philosophy; this is scarcely
surprising since, as we have already noted, Philo fuses together
various concepts drawn from different philosophical and
biblical traditions, but it poses obvious problems for the
interpretation both of individual passages and of his thought as
a whole. It can, however, be said that clearly for Philo the
Logos is not identical with God, and in some sense at least is
obviously subordinate to him.17
Therefore, while Philo makes some statements that might be

viewed as commensurate with the Johannine logos, namely, those
that relate to intermediacy and divinity in relation to the logos, he
also incorporates Platonic and Stoic ideas we do not believe
influenced Johns use of the this same term.
Still, it may be that John made use of the term logos because
it had been made popular in Jewish and other circles by Philo and
others, in relation to biblical literature. But, again, it is doubtful
that John used logos with precisely the same meaning that we see
in Philos writings. John reveals that the rider of the white horse
in Revelation 19:11 was known as ho logos. It is possible, then,
that the term is simply part of the revelation John received, which he
then began to use in reference to the preexistent and risen Christ,
from its revelation to him onward.18
Memra theology in the Johannine Prologue? It is
possible that groups who followed an early Memra (Aramaic for
"word") theology were using terminology equivalent to that of
17
Andrew Chester, "Jewish Messianic Expectations and Mediatorial Figures and
Pauline Christology," in Paulus und das antike Judentum, eds., Martin Hengel and
Ulrich Heckel (Tbingen: Mohr, 1991), 50.
18
But this raises the whole issue of whether or not John originally received the
book of Revelation in Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek. It may be that John was already
familiar with the term, perhaps having even used it for Christ in his ministry, and he
used it to translate the Hebrew/Aramaic term (dabar or memra) when and if he
prepared the Greek version of a possibly Hebrew/Aramaic original.
Philo, and they may have used such language in reference to

Jehovahs chief angel. Hayward, however, denies that the Memra
was any kind of intermediary, and he also denies that it was used
as a replacement for the divine name.19
Rather, Hayward sees it as "a means of speaking about His
[Gods] presence with His people in the past and in the future, in
creation and in history."20 But there is no doubt that John conceives
of the Logos as an intermediary who reveals God to men (Joh
1:18).The Targumic personification of Memra might at first appear
to support an intermediary of some sort. R. E. Brown refers to the
Targum Onkelos which, in Exodus 3:12, instead of God saying "I
will be with you," reads, "My Memra will be your support."
Still, Brown believes, in harmony with Hayward, that "this is
not personification, but the use of Memra serves as a buffer for
divine transcendence." He also acknowledges any connection
between Memra and the Prologues use of logos relates to the
Johannine (Christian) belief that Jesus "pre-eminently
incorporated Gods presence among men."21 However, Joseph
Fitzmeyer has raised the question of whether Memra was
personified or used as a buffer for Jehovah only in later Targumic
tradition.
Fitzmeyer refers to the Qumran Targum of Job (11QtgJob),
where there are no examples of a "buffer usage" for Memra,
which we do find in the later "Second Targum of Job." He
therefore concludes: "It seems to me that Qumran evidence puts
the burden of proof on those who would maintain an early date for
the buffer or personified usage of [memra] in the discussion of the
Johannine [logos]."22
Wisdom as the Logos in Johns Prologue. Another
possible background to the Johannine Logos, and the one that we
believe is the most likely to have had an impact on Johns
19
C. T. R. Hayward, "The Holy Name of the God of Moses and the Prologue of
St Johns Gospel," NTS 25 (1979), 16, 19, 23.
20
Ibid., 23.
21
R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (i-xii), (AB 29; Garden City, New
York: Doubleday, 1966), Appendix II, 524.
22
Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, The Semitic Background of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 94-95.
thinking and conception of the logos, is found in the OT

understanding of "Wisdom." Brown rightly notes that "in the OT
presentation of Wisdom, there are good parallels for almost every
detail of the Prologues description of the Word."23 E. J. Epp
singles out several Wisdom hymns which he believes influenced
Johns view of Jesus as the Logos, "in content and in form." 24
Whether these concepts actually influenced John or they are
simply consistent in several respects to his use of logos is another
matter.
Epp refers to parts of Proverbs 8:22-35, Sirach 24:3-9, 23-32,
Baruch 3:9-4:2 and Wisdom of Solomon (Wisdom) 7:21-9:18.
Below I will reproduce several points listed by Epp that I believe
parallel statements in the Johannine Prologue. I have checked
through the references, and omitted those that do not seem to involve
some connection between the Prologue and Wisdom literature. I
have also added my own observations, and reorganized the
categories accordingly.
Figure 6.1
Parallels Between the Johannine Logos and Wisdom Traditions
NON-
PARALLELS BIBLICAL TEXTS BIBLICAL
TEXTS
John 1:1-3. Compare: Sirach 24:9; Wisdom
1) Preexistence
Proverbs 8:22-31 7:21; 8:5-6; 9:1-2, 9
John 1:1, 2, 18. Compare:
2) Relationship with God Wisdom 8:3; 9:4, 9-10
Proverbs 8:27-30
23
Ibid., 523.
24
Eldon J. Epp, "Wisdom, Torah, Word: The Johannine Prologue and the
Purpose of the Fourth Gospel," in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic
Interpretation, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 130.
John 1:3, 10. Compare: Wisdom 7:22; 8:4-6;

3) Role in creation
Proverbs 8:27-30 9:1-425
Sirach 24:32 (light);
John 1:4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16,
4) Associated with light, life, truth Wisdom 7:10, 26, 29
17. Compare: Proverbs
and salvation (light); 8:13, 17 (life);
8:6-8 (truth), 35 (life)
9:18 (salvation)
Sirach 1:15; 24:8, 10-
John 1:9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 12;Wisdom 9:10, 17-
5) Appearance in the world and
16, 18. Compare: Proverbs 18; Baruch 3:12; and
association with mankind
8:31 especially 1 Enoch
42:226
Wisdom 7:25-26
(which has some
6) Characterized by Gods glory John 1:14 (compare 17:5)
similarities with Heb
1:3); 9:10-1127
In his presentation of Wisdom parallels to Johns Prologue,

Epp also lists parallel thoughts found in Jewish literature
concerning Torah ("Law"), which was occasionally equated with
Wisdom in pre-Rabbinic literature (compare Baruch 4:1; Sirach
24:23; 4 Maccabees 1:17; 2 Baruch 38:2-4; 77:16). According to
Epp, "Torah comes naturally to mind in a Wisdom hymn context."
After showing the close connection between grace, truth and
Gods Law, Epp points to the Prologues reference to "grace and
truth" (verse 17) which comes through Jesus as evidence that
"Torah has been displacedsuperseded by Jesus Christ!"28
Other scholars have recognized the obvious similarities
between the Prologue and biblical and non-biblical Wisdom
25
Wisdom 9:1 refers to God who "made all things by means of [his] word
[logos]." But then Wisdom 9:2 uses sophia ("wisdom") as a parallel to logos. Also, in
Sirach 24:3 Wisdom says, "I came out of the mouth of the Most High." This shows the
close correspondence between Wisdom and Gods "word," which is highlighted by the
imagery associated with coming out of the mouth of the Most High.
26
1 Enoch 42:2 refers to Wisdoms attempt to "make her dwelling among the
children of men," but finding "no dwelling" and returning to her place "among the
angels."
27
In Brentons edition of Wisdom 9:11 he translates the last part of this text as
"preserve me in her power," when it should be translated "protect me in her glory [th/'
dovxh/ aujth'", te doxe autes]."
28
Epp, "Wisdom, Torah, Word," 139. Compare Brown, The Gospel according to
John (i-xii), 523, who writes, "John 1:17, with its contrast between the Law and Jesus
Christ, may indicate that, in part, the Johannine doctrine of the Word was formulated as a
Christian answer to Jewish speculation on the Law."
traditions. But some have offered other solutions for certain

sections of the Prologue, which they do not believe are reflected in
the Wisdom traditions. Thomas Tobin argues the "logos hymn is
obviously rooted in Jewish wisdom tradition or perhaps more
accurately in the tradition of Jewish wisdom speculation." But he
believes that "significant elements in the hymn cannot be
explained simply on the basis of texts from Jewish wisdom
literature."29
Tobin believes Johns use of the preposition dia ("through")
instead of the instrumental dative that is commonly found in the
Wisdom literature, the reference to the Logos as theos (G-god),
the use of monogenes ("only-begotten") and other differences
between the Prologue and the biblical and non-biblical Wisdom
traditions, point to the conclusion that various elements in the
Prologue were "part of the larger world of Hellenistic Jewish
speculative interpretations of biblical texts."30
While Johns Hellenized environment may have contributed
to the use of various terms and ideas, many of the Jewish
interpreters to whom Tobin refers, such as Philo, were themselves
dependent on Wisdom traditions.31 In view of the numerous
similarities between Philos writings concerning the logos and
what we see written in the Prologue, there is no reason to think
that everything in John 1:1-18 is dependent on Wisdom traditions.
Indeed, John may very well have made use of some of the
terminology associated with the logos and Wisdom as expressed
in literature from Hellenized Jewish interpreters.
Many commentators believe that John made use of an
existing Wisdom hymn and modified it to fit with the good news
concerning Jesus. But there is no way to know if John did in fact
make use of such a hymn. While it is clear that he draws upon
ideas associated with OT and non-biblical Wisdom traditions, we
lack a complete hymn that matches a significant portion of the
29
Thomas H. Tobin, "The Prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish Speculation,"
CBQ 52.1 (1990), 253, 254.
30
Ibid., 254, 268.
31
Tobin himself acknowledges this fact: "Philos use of logos must be seen
within the tradition of Hellenistic Jewish wisdom speculation since Philo, in continuity
with his predecessors, identified wisdom (sophia) with logos" (ibid., 257).
Prologue. It is, of course, entirely possible that John constructed

the Prologue apart from an existing hymn, based on traditions
(biblical and non-biblical) that he accepts as true in relation to the
preexistence and coming of Jesus Christ.
In the Prologue, Jesus becomes the fulfillment and realization
of those things associated with Wisdom, Torah, the OT "word
[Hebrew: davar] of God" (in some respects) and non-biblical
traditions concerning Gods "word" and Wisdom. In the OT
Gods "word" is personified and perhaps even hypostatized (that
is, considered as an existing being). It is sent to heal (Ps 107:20)
and accomplish Gods will. (Isa 55:11) The apocryphal work
Wisdom of Solomon (18:15) also presents a hypostatized logos,
who is portrayed as a warrior who comes forth from Gods throne.
Similarly, 4 Ezra 6:38 speaks of the "word" that
"accomplishes [Gods] work." By using logos, John uses a term
that is a lightning rod for all sorts of speculation, which is related
to other concepts (Wisdom, Torah, Memra, logos in Hellenism,
and davar in the OT [LXX: logos, rema]32) he can use to advance
the truth about the one who is the reality behind the speculation,
who became flesh and dwelt among us as Jesus of Nazareth.
Any exegesis of statements in the Prologue concerning the
logos should reflect an understanding of the traditions that lie behind
the terms used. There does not seem to be any tradition from which
John could have drawn that would have provided him with a matrix
from which he could have further developed a Trinitarian concept of
God. Indeed, the OT and non-biblical Wisdom traditions stand in
stark contrast to the concepts that would later be adopted at Nicea,
which is why there were radical attempts to reinterpret Wisdom texts
such as Proverbs 8:22-31.33
We believe John had a more biblically grounded concept of
the one whom he designated ho logos in John 1:1 than Philo and
others who tried to blend Stoic, Platonic and biblical ideas
32
J. H. Charlesworth, "The Jewish Roots of Christology: The Discovery of the
Hypostatic Voice," SJT 39.1 (1986), 19-41, argues the "voice" that John "saw" in Rev
1:12 is to be understood literally (as translated in NWT), namely, as a hypostatic (truly
existing) "voice" that is identified with the resurrected "Son of man," which is "in some
way indebted to the development of the hypostatic Wisdom" (Ibid., 39).
33
together in their use of the term logos. To John, the logos became
the man Jesus Christ (Joh 1:14) and served as Gods chief
spokesman, revealing the Fathers will. (Joh 8:42; 12:49-50) As
Jesus himself said, "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him
that sent me." (Joh 7:16) Now we will consider other statements
made by John concerning the one whom he called logos, and which
have served as a bone of contention between Jehovahs Witnesses
and the churches and denominations in Christendom.
The Johannine Logos

"In the Beginning." We start by considering the meaning of
the first two clauses of John 1:1, which according to nearly every
English translation read: "In the beginning was the Word [clause A],
and the Word was with God [clause B]." To a reader familiar with
the Hebrew Bible, or just the opening words of Genesis 1:1 in any
English translation, the question naturally comes to mind, Is the
"beginning" here referred to the same "beginning" mentioned in
Genesis 1:1?
At one time, as recent as 1993, in fact, Jehovahs Witnesses
believed the "beginning" of John 1:1 referred, not to Genesis 1:1,
but to the "beginning" of Proverbs 8:22 and Revelation 3:14.34
With reference to this connection, we read: "John 1:1-16. Verses 1
and 2 read: In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning
with God.
Here John calls the prehuman Jesus by the title Word. This
identifies the function he performed as Jehovah Gods
Spokesman. And when John states that in the beginning the
Word was, it means that the Word was the beginning of
Jehovah's creative works, the beginning of the creation by God.
(Revelation 3:14)"35 This understanding is evidently why the 1984
34
See Chapter 4 for a discussion of these two verses.
35
"Follow the Light of the World," The Watchtower, 1 April, 1993, 11, par. 14
(emphasis added). See also, Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2 (Brooklyn: Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society, 1988), 52, 94, 1000.
NWT Reference Bible gives Proverbs 8:22, Colossians 1:15 and

Revelation 3:14 as cross-references next to the first occurrence of
"beginning" in John 1:1a. Does this mean Jehovahs Witnesses
reject any connection between John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1?
According to Robert Bowman, "The JWs resist this conclusion
[which equates the beginning of Genesis 1:1 with the beginning
of John 1:1] because they wish to deny that the Word existed
before the absolute beginning of time, since this would mean that
the Word was God."36 Of course, John 1:1 does not say anything
about the Logos existing "before" the beginning, but "in" the
beginning. This will be discussed in greater detail below.
Additionally, the "beginning" of John 1:1 is nowhere defined as
"the absolute beginning of time." I do not necessarily accept this
expression, as it seems to assume that time is "something" when it is
really just an abstraction. Another fact which seems to have escaped
Bowmans notice is that the cross-reference to John 1:2 ("This one
was in the beginning with God") specifically links the "beginning"
of this verse to Genesis 1:1. The fact that the word "beginning" is
mentioned in nearly all of the cross-references given to the
"beginning" of John 1:1, 2 shows that the NWT Committee is
perhaps simply giving their readers parallel thoughts and
expressions to use in discerning the meaning of the word
"beginning" in the opening verses of the Prologue.
Whatever the case, the Witnesses present understanding of
the "beginning" of John 1:1 can be gathered from the following:
"John 1:1 says that the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence)
was with God in the beginning. So the Word was with Jehovah
when the heavens and the earth were created. God was
addressing the Word when He said: Let us make man in our
image. (Genesis 1:1, 26)"37 The reason the Witnesses at one time
thought John 1:1 was referring to the origin of the Word was
because of the use of ajrchv (arche, "beginning") in Revelation
3:14 and the LXX of Proverbs 8:22. However, the entire context
of Genesis 1:1 shows the creation of the physical universe is in
36
John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 20-21.
37
Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society, 1995), 39 (emphasis added).
view, not the creation of the heavens where God resides, nor his
heavenly creatures, and thus it does not refer to a so-called
"absolute beginning of time." The heavenly hosts had apparently
already been created some time prior to Genesis 1:1 (and, hence,
John 1:1 as well), for in Job 38:4-7 Jehovah asks Job:
Where were you when I laid the earths foundation? Tell me, if
you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you
know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were
its footings set, or who laid its cornerstonewhile the morning
stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?NIV.
Even though John 1:1 does not say Jesus was "before" the
beginning, the evidence shows that this is the beginning of the
physical universe and that he therefore must have preceded it (or,
at least this part of the "beginning"; see below), as did the other
holy angels, or sons of God. When John said the Word was ejn
ajrch'/ (en arche, "in the beginning") he undoubtedly had in mind
the same "beginning" of Genesis 1:1, which, in the LXX, reads
the same as John 1:1 (en arche).38
To further demonstrate that the "beginning" of Genesis 1 and
John 1 are limited in time to the creation of the physical universe,
consider the quotation of Psalm 102:25 in Hebrews 1:10: "In the
beginning [kat ajrcav", kat arkhas], O Lord, you laid the
foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your
hands." (NIV)39 Again we see that what was created in the
"beginning" is limited to the physical universe. However, no one
can be dogmatic here, and Jehovahs Witnesses are not dogmatic
about it. There appear to be two possible interpretations for the
"beginning" of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1.
38
The fact that the Greek article does not precede arche in John 1:1 does not
break the connection with Genesis 1:1, which likewise contains an anarthrous (=
without the article) arche. Samuel Green (Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek
Testament [New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1912], 190, sec. 219) states: "Some
prepositional phrases omit the Article; in most instances denoting time, place, or state."
See also R. Khner, Grammar of the Greek Language, trans. B. B. Edwards and S. H.
Taylor (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1853) 314, sec. 244.
39
For a discussion of the application of Psalm 102-25-27 to Christ in Hebrews
1:10-12, see Chapter 3, pages 170-174.
The first, as illustrated in figure 6.2, is that the "beginning" is

a time period of unspecified duration that begins with the creation
of the Logos, making him the beginning of the beginning, which
is taught in Proverbs 8:22-24 and Revelation 3:14. Once this
period of time began, the creation of spirit beings in heaven
followed, then the physical universe, and finally the creation of
humans.
We end figure 6.2 with the creation of humans, for Jesus
specifically states that our origin is "from the beginning" (ajp
ajrch'", ap arches) in Matthew 19:4, and in Mark 10:6 it is stated
more precisely that we were made male and female "from the
beginning of creation" (ajpoV ... ajrch'" ktivsew", apo ... arches
ktiseos). Compare 2 Peter 3:4, where "creation's beginning"
(ajrch'" ktivsew", arches ktiseos) again refers to the creation of
humankind. The Logos, then, would naturally have been in this
beginning as it extended from the time of his creation to that of
man and woman.
The alternative view, as reflected in figure 6.3, sees the
"beginning" as strictly a reference to the creation of all physical
things. The Logos had a beginning, but his beginning would not
be that of Genesis/John 1:1, nor would it have taken place in this
"beginning," for it would likely have preceded it by "countless
billions of years."40
Figure 6.2
"the beginning"
Creation Creation of
of spirits "heavens and earth"
Creation Creation of
of Logos humankind
40
The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1991), Introduction, p. 4.
Figure 6.3
"the beginning"
Creation of Creation of
"heavens and earth" humankind
Creation Creation
of Logos of spirits
When "was" the Word? There is no justification at all for

understanding h\n (en, "was") as denoting anything other than the
Words existence with God "in the beginning," whether this
beginning is that of figure 6.2 or figure 6.3. The use of en does not
mean the Logos is eternal,41 anymore than ejn ajrch'/ h\san oiJ
a[ggeloi (en arche esan hoi angeloi, "in the beginning were the
angels") would mean the angels are eternal. There is a contrast
between en in verses 1 and 2 (in reference to the Words existing
with God in the beginning) and ejgevneto (egeneto, "came to be,"
in reference to the "things" created in this part of the "beginning").
But this is simply a contrast between that which was existing (the
Word) during the time period to which John refers, and that which
came into existence, namely, the physical universe. It is not
necessarily a contrast between an eternal being and created
things.42
"All things" in John 1:3. That "all things" (pavnta, panta)
may be limited to the physical universe, or even the physical
things of this earthly realm, can be seen from Psalm 8:5 (8:6 in the
41
This is the contention of Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 21; and others.
42
Even as far back as 1850, Trinitarian scholar Moses Stuart, "Exegetical and
Theological Examination of John 1:1-18," BSac 7 (January, 1850), 16, acknowledged:
"To say, as some have said, that h\n [was] of itself denotes timeless existence (like
ejstiv [is] in QeoV" ejstiv [God is]), seems not to be well founded in the laws of
grammatical usage. The assertion of the eternity of the Logos depends not on the use of
h\n [was], but on the nature of the declarations respecting him." Of course, we do not
find any such declarations in the NT. Indeed, the Prologue speaks of the Logos in
temporal terms, as the "only-begotten god." (Joh 1:18) See later in this Chapter for a
discussion of Joh 1:18.
LXX), where the RSV reads: "Thou hast given him [man]
dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things
[LXX: panta] under his feet." Clearly, in this case, man is given
authority over the works of Gods hands, namely, the physical
creations of this earthly realm. So the all-inclusive statement does
not necessarily mean, as some have suggested, that the Logos
cannot be a created being, for the context, being directly related to
the "beginning" of Genesis 1:1, is discussing the creation of all
physical things.43 This reference to "all things" would not include
the invisible heavens or its inhabitants, which brings us to another
question.
Is the Logos the Creator?

The role of the Logos in creation. When John wrote that
the Word was with God in the beginning, he undoubtedly had in
mind, as previously discussed, the beginning of Genesis 1:1. In
Genesis 1:26 God said, "Let us make man in our image." It is no
doubt with this reference in mind that the beloved apostle wrote,
with reference to the Logos, "All things came into existence through
him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."
(Joh 1:3) However, the Greek word translated "through" by NWT
and many other Bible versions, diav (dia), has been the subject of
considerable misunderstanding.
Ron Rhodes criticizes Jehovahs Witnesses understanding of
Christs role in creation, believing that because the Greek
preposition dia is also used of the Fathers role in creation in
Romans 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10, the Logos did not have a
"secondary, lesser role" in creation.44 While it is true dia is used of
the Father in the aforementioned passages, it is not used to express
the same meaning. In BAGD, page 180, we are told dia refers to
Christ "as intermediary in the creation of the world [John] 1:3, 10; 1
Cor 8:6; Col 1:16." However, on the same page this lexicon says
43
Compare note 85 in Chapter 4, page 225.
44
that when dia is used of the Father it speaks of Him as the

"originator of an action." Similarly, Zerwick, speaking of dia used
with the genitive case, says:
The causal sense with the genitive, which of itself expresses only
intermediary or instrumental causality (through), e.g. God speaks
diaV tou' profhvtou [dia tou prophetou, "through the prophet"],
may also cover the principal cause, e.g. Rom 11,36 . . . So too 1
Cor 1,9; 12,8; Heb 2,10; 13,11; 1 Pet 2,14 etc. Hence too much
stress must not be laid on the use of the preposition diav with the
genitive as expressing the role of mediator, where it is used of
Christs (the Words) action as creator (Jo 1,3, 10; Col 1,16) or
redeemer (Rom 5,9).45
Thus, dia may denote either an "intermediary" or "principal

cause." An excellent example of dia used for the "principal cause" is
found in 1 Corinthians 1:9, where it is said that God is the one "by
whom you were called [di* ou| ejklhvqhte, di hou eklethete] into a
sharing with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." Clearly dia is used here
of God, as distinct from "his Son Jesus Christ," and is used for the
principal cause. But elsewhere dia is used of the intermediary agent
that God used for His call, namely, "through the good news" (diaV
tou' eujanggelivou, dia tou euangeliou).2Th 2:14.
In view of these the two different meanings dia can express,
Zerwick points out that too much stress must not be laid on the use
of the preposition as expressing the role of mediator, where it is used
of Christs action in creation. We do not believe we are placing
unwarranted stress on dia as it relates to Christ's role in creation.
Why? Because, as stated by lexicographer C. L. Wilibald Grimm,
after citing 1 Corinthians 8:6 in what has come to be called
"Thayers Lexicon," the action of the Logos "is expressly
distinguished from the first cause" of creation.46 In 1 Corinthians 8:6
"Paul chose his prepositions very carefully in order to distinguish
45
Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples (Rome: Pontificii
Instituti Biblici, 1963), 38, sec. 113 (emphasis added).
46
Grimm-Thayer, 133.
between God the Father, who is the ultimate source of creation, and
Christ, the Lord, through whom this activity took place."47
God as the source of creation. According to Paul, the Father
is the one "out of whom all things are" (ejx ou| taV pavnta, ex hou ta
panta) and the Son is the one "through whom all things are" (di
ou| taV pavnta, di hou ta panta). Therefore, the Father is the source
of creation and the Son is the agent through whom He created.
Pauls careful use of the two prepositions ek and dia in 1
Corinthians 8:6 helps us appreciate and understand what he means
elsewhere when he uses the preposition dia in reference to either the
work of the Father or the Son, in creation.
It seems highly unlikely that we would have a reference to the
Father as the source in one passage, and then a reference to Him as
the agent in another. It is also unlikely that while 1 Corinthians 8:6
reveals Christ as the intermediary agent in creation, John 1:3 speaks
of him as the Creator! The Bible never refers to Jesus as the one
"from whom" or "out of whom" all things came.
In Romans 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10 dia "is used of God, who
is the final Cause and the efficient Cause of all things."48 This is
consistent with the meaning Paul was so careful to attribute to the
Father in 1 Corinthians 8:6. When dia is used in reference to the
action of the Son of God in creation it denotes "mediate and not
original authorship,"49 for he is expressly distinguished from the
original cause of creation in 1 Corinthians 8:6. So,
although diav is occasionally used to express agency, it does not

approximate the full strength of uJpov. This distinction throws light
on Jesus relation to the creation, implying that Jesus was not the
absolute independent creator, but rather the intermediate agent in
creation. . . . Jn. 1:3 . . . Heb. 1:2. . . . The Passive With
Intermediate Agent. When the agent is the medium through
which the original cause has effected the action expressed by the
passive verb, the regular construction is diav with the genitive . . .
47
Clarence T. Craig, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (IB 10; New York:
Abingdon Press, 1953), 93.
48
James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3d ed., vol. 1,
Prolegomena (Edinburgh: T. &. T. Clark, 1978), 106.
49
Ibid.
All things were made through him. Jn. 1:3. Here God the Father
is thought of as the original cause of creation, and the lovgo"
[Logos] as the intermediate agent.50
Many English Bibles translate dia as "by" rather than

"through." Modern English readers would naturally associate
causation with "by" and agency with "through." In view of the
distinction made in 1 Corinthians 8:6 between God as the source
of all things and the Son as the intermediary agent, it would be
more consistent to translate dia in John 1:3 (as well as Colossians
1:16 and Hebrews 1:2) as "through," expressing the Sons
secondary role in creation as a "master worker," a role that is more
fully outlined in Proverbs 8:22-31.51 Therefore, Plummer and
Robertson point out "the AV [in 1Co 8:6] is very inaccurate,
translating . . . diav [dia] by instead of through."52
Understanding the relationship between God and the
Logos in creation. Bowman, however, claims otherwise. He
states, "The idea that the supreme God required a junior partner
to do the dirty work of creating the world is a pagan idea, not a
biblical one."53 We assume Bowman is here trying to discredit the
view of Jehovahs Witnesses concerning Christs role in creation,
but since what he says does not resemble their view we cannot be
sure. For example, Jehovahs Witnesses do not believe God
"required" anyone to assist Him in creating anything. Jehovah
gave His only-begotten Son the glorious honor of working with
Him, not in "creating the world," but in forming or designing
50
H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament (New York: Macmillan Company, 1928), 102, 162.
51
On the meaning of Proverbs 8:22-31, see Chapter 4, pages 228-236.
52
Alfred Plummer and Archibald Robertson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 2d ed. (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1950), 168.
53
Robert M. Bowman, Jr. Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to
Jehovahs Witnesses (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 69. He then refers to chapter 4 of
his book as a basis for such a conclusion, but nowhere in chapter 4 is this subject
discussed. Apparently he meant chapter 3, p. 44, where he attempts to connect the
Arian view of creation with the Gnostic/Neoplatonic view. But no such connection can
be made. The Arians did not believe there were two conflicting Gods, one a good God
who sent Jesus as a revealer, and another, identified as the God of the OT, who created
the physical world out of preexisting matter, which was considered negative and
deficient of being. Jehovahs Witnesses do not believe such teachings, either.
those things God called into existence. This is hardly what we

would call "dirty work"!
Bowman cites Genesis 1:1 and Isaiah 44:24 as proof that God
could not have used anyone as a "master worker" when He created
the universe. Of course, not only does his conclusion ignore the
teaching of Proverbs 8:22-31, but his citations do not in any way
contradict the Witnesses understanding of the Logos role in
creation. Genesis 1:1 says God "created [arb, bara] the heavens
and the earth," but this does not say God did not use another, His
Son, as the agent of His creative acts. Also, in Isaiah 44:24
Jehovah is revealing the absurdity of worshiping idols, as they are
"all of them an unreality" (Isa 44:9; see also verses 8-17), while
He is the True God, the Creator, "stretching out the heavens by
myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?" (verse 24)
Isaiah 44:24 is not to be taken as contradictory to the teaching
of Proverbs 8:25-27: "Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth; before he had made the earth
with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he
established the heavens, I was there." (RSV, emphasis added)
There was someone with God when He founded the earth, but not
some idol god of the nations. Isaiah 44:24 does not in any way
conflict with the biblical teaching that Gods "Wisdom," His Son,
was with Him when He stretched out the heavens. Why, even
the angels were present at that time and shouted in applause!
(Job 38:7) Jehovah alone created all things through the agency of
the Logos.
Bowman also claims that Jehovahs Witnesses are
embarrassed by the fact that dia is used of the Father in Romans
11:36 and Hebrews 2:10, which is (allegedly) why NWT translates
dia as "by" in those verses, while in John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6,
Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2, where it is used of Christ, NWT
reads "through."54 But, again, his observation fails to appreciate the
meanings dia can have in a given context. Translating dia as
"through" in reference to Jesus preserves the distinction made by
Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:6, while translating dia with a causal sense
in reference to the Father in passages such as Romans 11:36 and
54
Hebrews 2:10 preserves this same distinction. The Father is the

source of creation, and the Son the intermediary agent. Thus, it is no
surprise to find Origen (ca. 185ca. 253 CE), when discussing
John 1:3, acknowledging:
And the Apostle Paul says in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "At the
end of the days He spoke to us in His Son, whom He made the
heir of all things, through whom also He made the ages,"
showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the
"through whom" belonging, when the ages were being made to
the Only-begotten. Thus, if all things were made, as in this
passage also, through [diaV] the Logos, then they were not made
by [uJpoV] the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And
who else could this be but the Father?55
"Apart from him nothing has come into existence." As

for the meaning of "apart from him [the Logos] not even one thing
came into existence" (Joh 1:3 NWT), this again must be understood
in light of the context. Johns reference to the "beginning" of
Genesis 1:1 shows that "all things" in this context have to do with
the physical universe, as discussed above. True, in Colossians 1:15-
17 Paul expands on the things created through the Son, including
not only "the things visible" (taV oJrataV, ta horata) but also "the
things invisible" (taV ajovrata, ta aorata). But Paul does not
directly refer to the "beginning" of Genesis 1:1, and although he
makes a far more inclusive statement regarding the things made
through the Son, he is careful to point out that Christ is "the
firstborn of all creation," thus showing he is not uncreated, but
had an origin unlike that of any other created being.56
Also, it may be that John simply assumes his readers will
understand his all-inclusive statement to naturally exclude both
the Father and the one (the Logos) through whom "all things"
were made. That "all things" (panta) are not simply all created
things is clear from the quotation of Psalm 8:6 in 1 Corinthians
15:27: "For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it
says that everything [panta] has been put under him, it is clear
55
Origens Commentary on John, ANF 10, Book 2, chap. 6, p. 328.
56
See Chapter 4, pages 212-228, for a discussion of "firstborn of all creation."
that this does not include God himself, who put everything under
Christ." (NIV) Just as it is clear that God is not one of those
"things" placed in subjection to Christ, so it is also clear that God
and the Logos are to be excluded, in view of the context, from the
"things" that came into existence through the Logos. If panta
denoted only created things, then there would seem to be no
reason to specifically exclude God in 1 Corinthians 15:27, as this
would have been evident from Pauls use of panta.
The Use and Abuse of Colwells Rule

Colwells rule according to Colwell. When answering the
question, How should John 1:1c be understood? it used to be rather
common for supporters of the translation "the Word was God" to
cite an article written by E. C. Colwell in the Journal of Biblical
Literature.57 For example, Walter Martin says, "Colwells rule
clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (TheosGod)
never takes an article when it precedes the verb (was) as in John
1:1."58 But the "rule" to which Martin refers is actually stated by
Colwell as follows, "Definite predicate nouns which precede the
verb usually lack the article."59 Martins "never" is hardly equivalent
to Colwells "usually."
The reason Colwells work has so often been cited in defense of
the translation "the Word was God" is because of what Colwell
stated on page 21 of his article: "Loosely speaking, this study may
be said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun
before the verb without the article, and to have decreased the
definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article."
57
E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New
Testament," JBL 52 (1933), 12-21.
58
Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, Revised Edition (Minneapolis,
Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship, 1977), 75. Martin also says, "There can be no direct
object following was since according to grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no
objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back to the subject, in this
case, Word (Logos)" (ibid.). Whoever said there is a direct object following "was"?
Certainly not Jehovahs Witnesses!
59
Colwell, "A Definite Rule," 20 (emphasis added). On page 18, note 14,
Colwell himself lists 15 exceptions to his rule.
Bowman realizes some might recognize in Colwells statement "a

logical blunder," but, nevertheless, he believes, "Colwell is not
necessarily saying that an anarthrous predicate noun is most
likely, as a matter of statistical measure, to be definite if it
precedes the verb."60 Yet that is precisely what Colwell is saying!
One could speculate on what Colwell meant by "loosely
speaking," but Bowmans statement clearly does not represent
what Colwell had in mind. In fact, right after Colwell says his rule
may, "loosely speaking," have increased the definiteness of an
anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, he reveals that he
did in fact, contrary to Bowmans claim, believe that an
anarthrous predicate noun is most likely definite if it precedes the
verb. Consider his words:
The opening verse of Johns Gospel contains one of the many

passages where this rule suggests the translation of a
predicate as a definite noun. KaiV QeoV" h\n oJ lovgo" looks
much more like "And the Word was God" than "And the Word
was divine" when viewed with reference to this rule.61
Is Colwell not doing the very thing Bowman asserts he does

not? Yes, he is. He uses a "rule" which merely asserts the
probability of articularity of definite predicate nouns (that is,
whether or not the noun has the article) which precede and follow
the verb (see below), as a means of determining definiteness! He
states that John 1:1c "looks much more like" a definite noun
("God") than a qualitative one ("divine") "when viewed with
reference to this rule."
60
Bowman, Jehovahs Witnesses, 68. He believes a "fair understanding" of
Colwells article is to see him as "simply saying that we should be more readily
prepared to acknowledge as definite those anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the
verb where context does not demand them to be construed as indefinite" (ibid.). We
will argue that this is not a fair reading of Colwells article, for Colwell saw far more
than this in his rule. But even if Bowman is correct in his understanding of what
Colwell believed his study amounted to, such an understanding does not follow from
Colwells article.
61
Colwell, "A Definite Rule," 21 (emphasis added).
Therefore, though Bowman attempts to resurrect the

credibility of Colwells article by asserting "Colwell is not
necessarily saying an anarthrous predicate noun is most likely, as
a matter of statistical measure, to be definite if it precedes the
verb," we can see that that is precisely what Colwell would have
us believe. In this light, Bowmans "fair understanding" of
Colwells conclusions is really a misunderstanding. This is
somewhat surprising since Bowman refers to Colwells comments
on John 1:1. However, Bowman does acknowledge, "Colwells
application of this conclusion to John 1:1, however, does appear
to go beyond the evidence of his own study."62
Misuse of the rule. Colwells application of his rule to John
1:1c definitely goes beyond the evidence of his own study. In
addition to Colwells own comments on John 1:1 (cited earlier),
Daniel Wallace states that Colwell told one of his students, Harry
Sturz (who later became Wallaces first Greek professor), that he
believed his rule suggested that anarthrous predicate nouns
preceding the verb would normally be definite.63 The precise
reasons why this is unacceptable were first articulated by Paul
Dixon:
The only other conceivable value of Colwells rule [that is,

other than for textual criticism] is to say it is possible to have
an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb that is
definite (but, did we not already know that?), and that because
Colwell apparently found some. Yet, it is most important to
see that the rule says nothing about the probability of
definiteness (contrary to what Colwell and Blum would have
us believe), nor can it, as Colwell has not considered both
definite and non-definite nouns. Because Colwell considered
only definite predicate nominatives then his rule applies only
when definiteness has already been determined, then, the
probability of articularity may be ascertained. . . . Assuming
the rule is valid, its value is almost exclusively for textual
62
Bowman, Jehovahs Witnesses, 68.
63
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 259.
criticism. The rule may not be valid, however, as its underlying

assumptions are highly questionable.64
Though Bowman cites Dixons thesis in his book, and agrees

that "Colwells rule cannot determine the correct translation of
John 1:1," he still argues that it is "not legitimate to dismiss
Colwells rule, as some otherwise knowledgeable JWs have
done."65 But the truth is, the only real value offered in Colwells
article is that anarthrous predicate nominatives which precede the
verb, and which have already been determined to be definite,66
sometimes lack the article. It does nothing to determine
definiteness, as Dixon correctly observes.67
It is truly remarkable when you consider the scholars and
critics who have abused Colwells research in an attempt to
legitimize a preferred translation of John 1:1, which is often done
in response to NWT's "a god" translation. For example, in
addition to Walter Martin, whose misuse of Colwell was
discussed earlier, Bruce Metzger says "a god" in NWT is a
"frightful mistranslation" and "overlooks entirely an established
rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, . . . and
64
Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate
Nominative in John" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 18, 23.
Wallace, Greek Grammar, 262, says that Dixons thesis "demonstrates that the
anarthrous preverbal PN [predicate nominative] is still closer to definiteness than is the
anarthrous post-copulative predicate nominative." I see nothing in Dixons thesis that
would indicate such thinking on Dixons part.
65
66
Whether or not Colwells examples should be considered definite nouns is also
questionable. See, Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3, Syntax
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963), 184; D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1984), 86-87. Carson notes "it is a fallacy to argue, on the basis of the
fact that a predicate noun preceding a copulative verb is anarthrous, that it is highly
likely to be definite. Statistically this is no more likely than the conclusion it is
indefinite" (ibid., 87). But Dixons study shows that of the 53 pre-copulative
constructions in John, he did not consider one of them indefinite. (Dixon,
"Significance," 32) However, that does not mean Dixon is against using the English
indefinite article(s) in translating Greek qualitative nouns. Below I will argue that
qualitative nouns can not only be translated with an indefinite article, but that many
anarthrous preverbal nominatives have an indefinite sense.
67
Dixon, "Significance," 55.
the Word was God."68 The "established rule" which allegedly

"necessitates" the translation "the Word was God" is none other
than Colwells "rule," as shown in the footnote to Metzgers
comment. His assertion about NWTs translation of John 1:1 in
relation to Colwells "rule" is an extreme case of wishful thinking.
It is unfortunate that such inaccurate statements made by
scholars like Metzger have been allowed to mislead so many into
thinking Jehovahs Witnesses mistranslated John 1:1, and ignored
an "established rule of Greek grammar." Other scholars and critics
have followed Metzgers lead and used Colwells rule to support
their conclusions regarding John 1:1.69
The most incredible statement made in connection with
Colwells rule, or rather, Metzgers abuse of it, is from William
Barclay. After referring to Metzgers article, he asserts that
Jehovahs Witnesses deliberately distort the truth, particularly in
their translation of John 1:1, which he says is "grammatically
impossible"!70 Below we will expose the bias and scholarly
ineptitude that give rise to such accusations.
68
Bruce M. Metzger, "The Jehovahs Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology
Today 10.1 (April 1953), 75 (emphasis added).
69
For example, Robert Countess, The Jehovahs Witnesses New Testament: A
Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 2d
ed. (Philipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982), 48-56; C. Kuehne, "The
Greek Article and the Doctrine of Christs Deity," Journal of Theology 15.2 (June,
1975), 9-22; Ed Miller, "The Logos was God," EQ 53 (1981), 65-77; Richard Young,
Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville,
Tennessee: Broadman, 1994), 66; and Gerald Stevens, New Testament Greek (New
York: University Press of America, 1994), 77, note 7, all appeal to some degree to
Colwells article in disputing the translation "the Word was a god." David Alan Blacks
statement is a classic example of misstating Colwells rule: "Colwells rule states that
anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the copula are usually definite in
meaning" (Learn to Read New Testament Greek [Nashville: Broadman Press, 1993],
182).
70
William Barclay, "An Ancient Heresy in Modern Dress," ExpT 65 (October
1957), 32. Barclay makes other inaccurate statements in his brief article, such as,
"According to Jehovahs Witnesses only one hundred and forty-four thousand can be
saved" (ibid.). By consulting virtually any publication of Jehovahs Witnesses the
falsity of this statement will be revealed. See Chapter 10.
Jehovahs Witnesses, P. B. Harner and John 1:1

The case for a qualitative translation. In the Journal of
Biblical Literature, Volume 92, 1973, Philip B. Harner wrote an
article entitled, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark
15:39 and John 1:1." In his study Harner suggests that "anarthrous
predicate nouns preceding the verb [of which the second occurrence
of qeov" (theos) in John 1:1 is an example] may function primarily to
express the nature or character of the subject."71
Jehovahs Witnesses have cited Harners article several times in
various publications when discussing the meaning of John 1:1. For
example, in the 1984 Reference Edition of the New World
Translation we read:
In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark

15:39 and John 1:1," . . . p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such
clauses as the one in Joh 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate
preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They
indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis
for regarding the predicate theos as definite." On p. 87 of his
article, Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative
force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be
regarded as definite."72
It is extremely important to understand why Harners analysis is

cited by Jehovahs Witnesses in support of their translation of John
1:1. From the quote above, taken from the NWT Reference Bible,
we can see that Harner did not regard a definite translation of theos
in John 1:1c ("the Word was God") as correct. He understands the
noun theos, in reference to the Logos, as qualitative. What, though,
does he mean by qualitative? Before we answer this question, let us
first determine what he means by and why he objects to taking theos
as a definite noun in John 1:1c:
Commentators on the Fourth Gospel, as far as I know, have not

specifically approached the meaning of this clause from the
71
Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns," 75.
72
Appendix 6A, 1579 (emphasis added).
standpoint of the qualitative force of theos as an anarthrous

predicate preceding the verb. In many cases their interpretations
agree with the explanation that is given above. But consideration
of the qualitative meaning of theos would lend further
clarification and support to their understanding of the clause. J.
H. Bernard, for example, points out that Codex L reads ho theos
instead of theos. "But this," he continues, "would contradict the
preceding clause." In a similar way W. F. Howard writes that
theos and ho logos are not interchangeable. Otherwise, he
continues, "the writer could not say the Word was with God."
Both writers, in effect, are arguing that the predicate theos
cannot be regarded as definite in this clause. In terms of our
analysis above this would mean that clause B should not be
assimilated to clause A.73
What Harner means when he says, "clause B should not be

assimilated to clause A"74 is that we should not understand Johns
use of theos, in reference to the Word, as interchangeable with that
of toVn qeovn (ton theon; hereafter referenced in the nominative ho
theos) in John 1:1b, with whom the Word existed. Otherwise, to put
it his way, "There would be no ho theos which is not also ho
logos."75 This would, according to Harner, contradict the preceding
clause where John states that the Word was "with God" (ho theos).
Yet, this type of confusion has been the trademark of
translations that offer a rendering which, to an impartial reader, is
contradictory (that is, "the Word was with God and the Word was
God"). Harner refers to R. E. Brown who regards the translation "the
Word was God" as correct "for a modern Christian reader whose
Trinitarian background has accustomed him to thinking of God as
a larger concept than God the Father."76
To think of God "as a larger concept" in this case would be to
understand the translation "the Word was God," not as a reference to
Jesus (the Word) as "God the Father" (with whom he existed in the
73
Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns," 85 (emphasis added).
74
The clauses he refers to here are the different ways John could have written John
1:1c, which are listed on page 84 of Harners article.
75
Ibid.
76
Ibid., 86 (emphasis added). The reference to Brown is from his The Gospel
according to John (i-xii), 5.
beginning), but as a reference to the Word as one who has the same
nature (or, in Trinitarian terms, "essence of being") as ho theos. At
the same time, they attempt to maintain a Trinitarian distinction (see
below) between the Father and Son. Indeed, as stated by Harner on
pages 86 and 87 of his article: "In terms of the analysis that we have
proposed, a recognition of the qualitative significance of theos
would remove any ambiguity in his [Bultmanns] interpretation by
differentiating between theos, as the nature that the Logos shared
with God, and ho theos as the person to whom the Logos stood in
relation. Only when this distinction is made clear can we say of the
Logos that he was God." After referring to the translations of John
1:1c in the RSV and The Jerusalem Bible ("the Word was God"),
NEB ("what God was, the Word was"), and the translation offered
in the Good News for Modern Man ([TEV] "he was the same as
God"), Harner observes:
The problem with all of these translations is that they could

represent clause A [which, according to Harner and others, would
identify the Father and Son as the same "person"], in our analysis
above, as well as B. This does not mean, of course, that the
translators where not aware of the issues involved, nor does it
necessarily mean that they regarded the anarthrous theos as
definite because it precedes the verb. But in all of these cases the
English reader might not understand what John was trying to
express. Perhaps the clause could be translated, "the Word had
the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing
Johns thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos [the
Word], no less than ho theos [the God], had the nature of theos.77
Harner, then, is against the translation "the Word was God"

because it might not clearly convey the "personal" distinction
between the Word and the God with whom he existed. He favors a
translation which allows for just such personal distinction between
the two, and which represents Johns thoughts, as he understands
them, as meaning that the Word, no less than "the God," had the
nature of theos. This leads Bowman to conclude, "To use Harners
77
Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns," 87 (emphasis added).
article in defense of the rendering the Word was a god, then,

betrays a complete misunderstanding of his article."78
The Witnesses use of Harners article. True, if citing
Harners article were for the purpose of using his conclusions as
evidence that Harner himself understood theos in John 1:1c as a
reference to a being who, though having the nature of God, was
nonetheless some sort of inferior divine being, this would then
betray a misunderstanding of his article. However, although
Jehovahs Witnesses understand the Word to be a divine being
under the authority of Jehovah God, that is not the purpose for
which they quote Harners work.
Jehovahs Witnesses have cited Harners work to support the
view that theos in John 1:1c "cannot be regarded as definite."79 As
noted above, Trinitarians, past and present, have argued for a
definite translation of theos in John 1:1c, citing Colwells article in
support of their conclusions. However, as Bowman states, "Arguing
that theos is definite in this context actually is inconsistent with the
Trinitarian distinction between the Father and the Son."80 Jehovahs
Witnesses (and Trinitarians) object to the teaching that in John 1:1
theos and ho theos are both referring to the same person. But is that
not precisely what the translation "the Word was God" causes most
to believe? Harner argues for a qualitative translation that would
show a distinction (as understood by Trinitarians) between the
Father and the Word, and also convey to the English reader that the
Word has the same nature as the One with whom he existed (ho
theos, the Father, Jehovah).
Jehovahs Witnesses agree with Harners assessment that the
"qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun
[theos, as used in relation to the Logos] cannot be regarded as
definite." They do not agree with Harner, however, if he would use
his analysis as a basis for concluding that the Words possessing the
nature of God means that the Word shares a Godhead beingness
with the Father. Nor do they agree with Harner if he believes the
qualitative force of the predicate makes the Word a being equal to
78
79
Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns," 87
80
"the God" as to His Almightiness; that is, a being who is

ontologically equal to "the God" in every respect and to the same
degree. Just as we would not conclude on the basis of the anarthrous
predicate noun preceding the verb in John 6:70 (diavbolov" ejstin,
diabolos estin) that Judas Iscariot was equal in every respect to
Satan the Devil. While Harner and Dixon argue that the qualitative
force of diabolos (devil) is more prominent than its definiteness,81
Wallace believes diabolos is actually a monadic (one-of-a-kind)
noun, and as such should be translated as a definite noun, "one of
you is the devil."82
Wallace objects to the translation, "one of you is a devil"
(found in KJV, RSV, NIV and others; NWT has "a slanderer")
because he sees this as a purely indefinite translation, indicating
the existence of more than one devil. He apparently does not
realize that the English indefinite article can highlight the
qualitative aspect of a noun, or a substantive adjective. This will
be discussed in greater detail below. But the fact that there is only
one devil in the absolute sense of the term does not mean that
another person cannot be so described, due to his or her owning or
displaying the nature or qualities known to belong to the original
Devil, Satan.
In his response to the objection that his suggested rendering
of this passage would identify Judas with the Devil (Satan),
Wallace argues: "Yes, that is trueon the surface. Obviously that
is not what is literally meantany more than it is literally true
that Peter is Satan (Mark 8:33 and parallels)."83 But if "the devil"
does not literally mean Judas is Satan, why should "a devil" be
taken to mean there is literally a second "devil" equal in nature to
Satan? Both translations seem to indicate that Judas evil
inclinations are manifestly Satanic. However, the use of "a"
prevents a literal identification between Judas and Satan. We thus
agree with Dixon: "It is best, therefore, to take diavbolo"
qualitatively. A good rendering might be: one of you is a devil." 84
81
Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns," 83, note 20; Dixon,
"Significance," 49-50.
82
Wallace, Greek Grammar, 249, 265.
83
Ibid., 265.
84
Dixon, "Significance," 50.
There is also no reason why an indefinite sense could not be

attributed to diabolos in this passage. The use of the English
indefinite article serves a similar purpose in NWTs "a god"
translation, as we will see.
Jehovahs Witnesses have not misused Harners work.
Although Bowman says they misunderstand Harners use of
"qualitative" to mean "that the noun takes on some sort of vague
and weakened adjectival force," this in no way is the case. The
Witnesses cite Harner because he argues that theos in John 1:1c is
qualitative, not definite. Therefore, to use Harners article in
support of this view is certainly appropriate, since that is one of the
primary purposes of his article!
Further, to agree theos in 1:1c is a reference to the specific
nature of the Word does not mean we have to agree that such a
reference makes him completely equal in every respect to God. As
with John 6:70, one can be said to have the qualities or nature of
another, but that does not necessarily make them equal in every
respect, let alone owners of the same "essence of being." We argue
the context of John 1:1 not only fits better with a qualitative
emphasis for theos in John 1:1c, but also demands an indefinite
sense so the use of the English article "a" is entirely appropriate.
The Trinitarian approach to John 1:1. E. C. Colwell
attempted to use a certain grammatical construction to prove,
among other things, that Jesus was God and that John 1:1
supported this teaching. For years Trinitarian scholars used and
abused Colwells rule, citing it to condemn Jehovahs Witnesses
and their New World Translation. But all the while most of these
scholars and critics were oblivious to the fact that what they were
advocating was in conflict with the very doctrine they were
seeking to uphold, the Trinity.
Trinitarians are forced to make a distinction between the
"persons" mentioned in John 1:1, as they cannot accept the biblical
distinction between God and the Word as two beings called theos.
Since the doctrine of the Trinity will not allow Jesus to be
considered G-god in any other sense than that which is true for the
Father, somehow Trinitarians must see past the obvious and clear
distinction between God and the Word in terms of theos and explain
the passage in such a way so that it ultimately agrees with their view
of God.
Trinitarians make a distinction between ho theos and theos in
terms of the Father and the Son as "persons." They sometimes argue
that if John had said that the Word was ho theos that this would
have made the Father and the Word the same "person," and thus an
advocate of modalism. Modalism teaches that God assumed various
modes of operation for specific purposes, and, hence, this view
distorts the Trinitarian distinction between the persons of the
"Godhead."
Returning to John 1:1c (NWT), we should keep in mind that
Jehovahs Witnesses have expressed their understanding of this
passage by translating the predicate nominative theos as "a god,"
which fits perfectly with the OT teaching of God and His
heavenly hosts. We have already discussed how the use of the
indefinite article is intended to emphasize the nature of the Logos.
Dixon agrees that the English indefinite article can effectively
bring out the force of the Greek qualitative noun. He states,
"Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative
noun in the English idiom is by prefacing the noun with a." 85
Still, Dixon does not accurately portray Jehovahs Witnesses
understanding of the predicate theos, for he considers it an
example of a strictly indefinite translation.86 In my correspondence
with Dixon via certain Internet forums pertaining to the study of
Greek and biblical theology, Dixon has made it clear that he objects
to the use of the indefinite article in translating John 1:1c because he
thinks this would obscure the qualitativeness of the noun, making it
seem as if the indefinite nuance is the most prominent. His point is a
valid one, if in fact the primary emphasis of theos in John 1:1c is
qualitativeness.
Theos in John 1:1c.Qualitative, indefinite, or both?
The studies made for determining the significance of anarthrous
85
Dixon, "Significance," 47. See also page 34.
86
Ibid., Introduction, 1. That even the 1950 translation of John 1:1 is to be
understood as primarily qualitative can be seen from the following statements in the
Appendix to John 1:1: "[Theos in John 1:1c] tells of a certain quality about the Word or
Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God"; "[the anarthrous predicate]
points to a quality about someone" (p. 774, emphasis added).
predicate nouns preceding the verb are highly subjective. For

example, Don Hartley has written a thesis wherein he seeks to
demonstrate, among other things, that the placement of a singular
anarthrous PN (predicate nominative) count noun87 before a copula
or linking verb (PN-V) changes the semantics of the noun "to favor
quality."88 Hartley contends that for mass nouns89 the fronting or
placement of the noun before the verb is simply "out of regard for
the larger discourse."90
But Hartley does not make a good case at all for the semantic
change of a predicate count noun to a purely qualitative noun, and
there seems to be no good reason to take predicate fronting as
conveying anything other than emphasis or focus in relation to a
particular topic or point of contrast. When it is a matter of contrast
the predicate can be fronted to a preverbal position to emphasize the
predicate and set it up against another fronted or extraposed91 term to
achieve an emphatic contrast.
Before we elaborate on this point, we will consider the basis
for Hartleys contentions regarding singular PNs in the preverbal
position. In his thesis92 Hartley lists "Six Theoretical Categories"
for predicate nominatives. One of these six categories is Q-D
(qualitative-definite). He describes Q-D nouns as emphasizing
"qualities, nature or essence." But because this category can only
include, according to Hartley, mass nouns and plural count nouns
(which cannot be indefinitized) then they must be considered Q-D
87
A count noun is a noun that can be counted, such as "tiger." Count nouns can
be used in the singular and plural, take a numeral (one tiger, two tigers, three tigers) and
an indefinite article ("a tiger"). But, as we will attempt to demonstrate, the same noun
can be countable in one instance and used as a "mass noun" in another. See note 89
below.
88
Don Hartley, "Criteria for Determining Qualitative Nouns With a Special View
to Understanding the Colwell Construction" (M.A. thesis, Dallas, 1996), 9, note 30.
89
A "mass noun" (non-count noun) is a term that cannot be counted and which
does not take indefinite articles or numerals. But context is very important (contra
Hartley) in determining whether a term a count or non-count noun. Indeed, even in
syntactically parallel sentences one might use a count or non-count noun. For example,
in the sentence "I will not eat fish" we have "fish" used in a non-count sense, but in "I
will not eat a fish" we have "fish" used as a count noun.
90
Ibid., 9, note 30.
91
Meaning that the element, whether a single word or an entire phrase, is moved
to the clause-final position.
92
Ibid., 42-45.
as opposed to Q (qualitative) nouns, which stress "qualities,

nature or essence of concepts, beings or things." Hartley restricts
nouns in the Q category to singular count nouns because they can
be indefinitized, whereas mass and plural count nouns cannot.
But here we must make an important qualification regarding
Hartleys thesis. When Hartley says mass and plural count nouns
cannot be indefinitized, or that singular count nouns can be
indefinitized, he means that their lexical form can or cannot be so
changed. We can change the lexical form of an English count
noun so it is properly used in the plural: "I saw a tiger" to "there
are tigers at the zoo." But true mass terms cannot be so changed.
However, Hartleys methodology is inadequate for it does not
take into account the fact that a terms meaning is not bound by
its lexical form, and, hence, to classify a term based on its lexical
form and then to attach a certain semantic that does not agree with
the classification is inherently flawed. If a noun is countable in its
classification and purely qualitative in its sense (that is, its sense is
equal to that of a mass noun), then it is really not countable at all!
A better approach is to simply recognize that one lexical form may
be used as a mass noun in one instance, and as a count noun in
another. This approach can be illustrated by considering several
texts from Appendix D, by Al Kidd. For example, "Fire" is not a
count noun in Matthew 3:11, 12, but it is a count noun at
Matthew 25:41. "Wine" is not a count noun in John 2:9, but it is a
count noun for both its uses in John 2:10.
If a noun is used in a purely Q sense (as is true of many mass
nouns), then it cannot be pluralized in the particular context where
it is said to have such a sense. For example, we cannot pluralize
pneuma ("spirit") in its second use in John 4:24. But we can in its
first use (though not in reference to a singular subject, of course),
for here in reference to God it is countable whereas the latter use,
in reference to ones form of worship, it is mass (uncountable).
Therefore, we need not always classify pneuma as a count noun
because it displays the characteristics of a count noun in some
instances. The context in which the term is used is a proper guide
for classifying a term, and that classification can then tell us the
proper sense.
Hartley, though, attempts to create rigid lexical categories,

and then he attaches a preferred sense to them so that he can,
ultimately, maintain a certain belief about God and the Word in
John 1:1. Of course, Hartley no doubt has some admirable
motivations for his research, but I contend that in this case they
are built on the foundation of his theology, and, as can be seen by
a consideration of his thesis, it forces him to make highly unusual
claims about various passages involved in the PN-V construction.
By rigidly holding to a subjective view concerning the lexical
form of a term, and then proceeding to attach a sense to the lexical
form that best fits with his view, Hartley frequently misses the
true semantic of the PN-V construction, as we will now
demonstrate.
Unfortunately, Hartley also frequently misuses his statistical
analysis in his thesis. In this light, it should be pointed out that
Hartleys statistics and percentages are based on his understanding
of the sense of the count/mass term in question. A notable
example of Hartleys attempts to bend the semantics of a term to
fit his preferred classification involves the proper name "Elijah" in
Mark 6:15 and John 1:21. The grammatical construction is Elias
estin and su Elias ei, respectively. It would seem rather obvious
for us to translate these passages as "It is Elijah" (Mr 6:15) and
"Are you Elijah?" (Joh 1:21) But Hartley argues that "the Jews
were expecting an Elijah-like figure to appear based upon Old
Testament texts." He then refers to Malachi 4:5 which says
nothing about an "Elijah-like figure." Rather, it straightforwardly
states, "I am sending to you people Elijah the prophet."
Hartley then tries to go outside the context of both Mark 6:15
and John 1:21 to statements made by an angel (Luke 1:17) and
Jesus (Matthew 11:14), in an attempt to link their words with an
alleged Jewish view concerning an "Elijah-like figure." But Jesus
does not say anything about "likeness." Really, had any NT
passage made such an equation of Jesus as Jehovah similar to that
which Jesus makes between John the Baptist and Elijah, then we
should doubt that Hartley would have traveled the exegetical path
(that is, he would likely not in such a case have adopted the
hermeneutic) of "likeness"! There is no reason to take the
statements and questions in Mark 6:15 and John 1:21 as involving

anything other than Johns ontological identity.
As for Jewish ideas associated with Elijah, one gets the
feeling Hartley is so intent on proving a particular (Q) sense for
PN-V nouns, even when they are proper names, that he would use
his thesis as a basis for speculation concerning Jewish
eschatology, speculation that flies in the face of the facts. Hartley
offers no evidence in support of his claim the Jews were expecting
an "Elijah-like" figure. Even later Christian interpolations into
Jewish literature of the first to the fourth centuries CE contains
expectations concerning the literal coming of Elijah. (See, for
example, the fourth chapter of the Apocalypse of Elijah.) There is
certainly nothing about an "Elijah-like" figure in Sirach 48:1-12,
nor do we find any such lingering tradition in the Targums or in
the Mishnah.
In fact, if the use of su Elias ei by the Jews in John 1:21 were
meant to be understood in reference to an "Elijah-like" figure,
then we should ask, How is it that John could rightly have denied
being such a figure when he replied, ouk eimi ("I am not")?
Clearly John understood the Jews use of Elias to be in reference
to the historical prophet Elijah, not to one who simply had
qualities like him, which John certainly did have. That is why
Jesus could say, "Elijah has already come." (Mt 17:12) But the
fact that John denied what the Jews meant by the term shows that
they were wondering if he was indeed the actual historical figure
Elijah, not just an "Elijah-like" figure. Hartley eventually
concedes that the Q classification is not right for Elias in the
aforementioned PN-V texts, but he still believes that his reasoning
shows that it is not "as far fetched as would first seem"!93
Another example where Hartleys preferred view for PN-V
texts overrides good judgement is Luke 7:39. Here a Pharisee
observes the treatment given to Jesus by a woman whom he
considers "a sinner" (hamartolos esitn). Hartley believes that this
example is "clearly qualitative." He reasons: "That this last example
is qualitative and not indefinite is brought out further by the
preceding clause, If he were a prophet (i.e., exercising prophetic
93
Hartley, "Criteria for Determining Qualitative Nouns," 61.
abilities) he would have known what kind of woman this was who
touched him, that she is sinful. The kind of woman she was is
answered by the predicate construction, she was sinful."94
But Hartleys conclusion is based primarily on a misquotation
of Luke 7:39, which he translates above, in accordance with his
misquotation. Though Hartleys translation only has the Pharisee
reflecting on "what kind of woman" she is, the text actually has the
Pharisee thinking, "If this man were a [or the] prophet he would
have known who [tiv", tis] and what kind of woman [kaiV potaphV hJ
gunhV, kai potape he gune] is touching him, that she is a sinner."
Because Hartley ignores the reference to who she is95 and focuses
only on what kind of woman she is, he can give the impression that
his switch from a noun ("a sinner") to an adjective ("sinful") is
justified per the context. Obviously, "sinful" does not answer the
question concerning who the woman is. Hartleys attempt to
obfuscate this point by omitting relevant portions of the text from his
translation is alarming, to say the least.
It is of interest to note that in Luke 7:37 the PN hamartolos ("a
sinner") is extraposed (placed after the verb), and the subject gune
("a woman") is fronted (placed before the verb), likely to highlight
or focus upon the fact that it was a woman who performed the
honorable acts toward Jesus. But the placement of the same
predicate in the preverbal position in verse 39 shifts the focus to the
fact that this woman was "a sinner."
In this discourse there seems to be a double focus achieved by
the contrasting verb-predicate (verse 37) and predicate-verb (verse
39) word orders.96 The semantics of the noun do not change with its
placement in relation to the verb, but the focus of the discourse does
change, and emphasis can be effectively communicated through
fronting and extraposition.
Even when it comes to the use of mass terms in the PN-V
position, Hartley discounts the meaning that is signaled by the use
of certain mass terms. For example, regarding sarx ("flesh") in
94
Ibid., 62.
95
There are no variants that omit tis.
96
See Richard Stuart Cervin, "Word order in ancient Greek: VSO, SVO, SOV, or
all of the above?" (Ph.D dissertation, University of Illinois, 1990), chapters 3 and 4 for
more on fronting and extraposition in ancient Greek.
John 1:14, Hartley believes it is here used as a mass term,

conveying only a qualitative nuance. He points to the use of the
mass term in John 1:14 as an indication John wanted to assure his
readers theos in 1:1c "would also be taken as qualitative by the
careful reader." He concludes, "The only differences between
John 1:1 and 1:14 lie in the lexemes and verbs, not so much
semantics."97
After considering the use of "flesh" (sarx) in Galatians 5:19,
it becomes clear that the noun is here used as a mass term in
reference to our sinful human tendencies. It is not literally
referring to our composition, but the corrupting influence at work
inside each one of us, due to our fallen nature. But an entirely
different semantic is signaled in John 1:14. The Word is the
subject and he is said to have become "flesh."
Will Hartley hold that sarx in John 1:14 can legitimately be
taken to signal flesh and flesh alone, that is, without form or
figure? Is it not entirely reasonable to accept that the semantic
signal ("flesh") conveys the idea of becoming "a human"? Even if
we view sarx as signaling "human" (that is, "the Word became
human") this would still involve his becoming "a human."98
The Bible makes clear use of "flesh" in reference to
individual humans, and collections of humans. Consider the use
of sarx in the LXX of Genesis 6:13, or its use in Romans 3:20.
Will anyone question that these are references, not to the material
composition called "flesh," but to human beings? However, when
we consider Pauls use of sarx in 1 Corinthians 15:39 or the use
of sarx in Revelation 19:18, then it becomes clear that we are in
fact dealing with material composition, not with people.
Even in 1 Corinthians we can see an indefinite semantic for
flesh in that we have different "types" of flesh: 1) bird flesh, 2)
97
Hartley, "Criteria for Determining Qualitative Nouns," 68.
98
Another example of the subjective element influencing Hartleys statistics is his
classification of "bread" in Matthew 4:3 as Q-D (Hartley, "Criteria for Determining
Qualitative Nouns," 53-54). Hartley fails to notice that while "a bread" and "breads"
might sound strange, "a loaf of bread" and "loaves of bread" are perfectly acceptable
inferences. Indeed, Matthews account uses the plural artoi ("breads" or "loaves of
bread") and Lukes account uses the singular artos ("bread" or "a loaf of bread"). The
Greeks had no trouble using "breads," but this is due to the particular semantic signaled
by the lexeme.
human flesh, 3) fish flesh, etc. We find the plural form of sarx in
Revelation 19, again showing different types of flesh, though it
also makes a distinction between the flesh of different ranks of
humans.
Since humans are not the only creatures composed of flesh
we could use "human" in 1:14, but "flesh" itself is not restricted to
"humanity," and so the signal (sarx) coupled with the reference
(ho logos) is what tells us that we are talking about "a human
being." Therefore, usage warrants that sarx in John 1:14 be
classified as Q-I, which I view as a noun with an indefinite
semantic, having a primarily qualitative emphasis.
That is to say, the term is used to emphasize the type of being
Jesus has become, in contrast to the type of being he was (theos).
The qualitative-indefinite semantic signaled by "flesh" is indeed
parallel to that signaled by the predicate in John 1:1c. The intent
is to highlight the fact that "a divine being" who existed "with
God" became "a human being" and preached the word of God
among us. This, then, shows the importance of listening to the
account of Jesus life and ministry that John is about to relate.
Of course, discerning the particular emphasis that is meant by
the fronting of the PN is itself a subjective process. There are many
examples where one scholar has judged the primary nuance as
qualitative, when in fact it may just as equally be considered
primarily indefinite or definite. Daniel Wallace cites savbbatovn
ejstin of John 5:10, which he translates, "It is Sabbath." He then
says: "Although this could be translated it is the Sabbath or, a bit
less naturally, a Sabbath, one must remember to argue from sense
rather than from translation. The point the Pharisees were making
had to do with the kind of day on which this man was working
hence, a qualitative noun."99
True, the kind of day is the issue, but does the qualitative
nuance follow from the syntax or from the noun "Sabbath"? If the
Jews are understood as saying to the cured man, "It is a Sabbath,
which makes it unlawful for you to carry the cot," the use of the
noun "Sabbath" indicates what "kind of day" is at issue. Thus, there
is no reason why John 5:10 could not be considered primarily
99
Wallace, Greek Grammar, 264.
indefinite, with the qualitative aspect following naturally from the

use of the noun in question. There is no reason why contextual and
grammatical considerations cannot allow the anarthrous predicate
nominative to have a qualitative-indefinite or qualitative-definite
sense.
Let us consider three examples where we believe a
qualitative-indefinite semantic is evident. The first is found in
Acts 28:4, where those in Malta mistakenly said of Paul, foneuv"
ejstin oJ a[nqrwpo" ("the man is a murderer"). In translations of
this verse the qualitative-indefinite aspect of the noun is usually
brought out by means of the indefinite article.
The indefinite aspect seems clear enough, and the qualitative
nuance naturally follows from the noun used to describe Paul.
How can he be a murderer without owning the qualities of a
murderer? This text provides an exact parallel to John 1:1c, where
we have an anarthrous preverbal nominative followed by an
articulated subject.
The second example comes from The Martyrdom of
Polycarp,100 where in reply to the magistrate attempting to
persuade him to revile Christ, Polycarp says, "If you vainly
suppose that I will swear by the genius of Caesar, as you say, and
pretend that you are ignorant of who I am, listen plainly: I am a
Christian [Cristianov" eijmi]."
Polycarps reply reveals not only the group to which he
belongs (indefinite), but he reminds the proconsul who he is (tiv"
eijmi), that is, what kind of person he is (qualitative). He is a
Christian, who cannot discard the character forged through years
of Christian servitude (compare 11:1). Can we doubt that the
proconsuls herald meant anything other than that Polycarp had
claimed to belong to the group known as "Christians" when he
announced, Poluvkarpo" wJmolovghsen eJautoVn CristianoVn ei\nai
("Polycarp has confessed that he is a Christian" [12:1])?
Finally, in John 4:19 the Samaritan woman says to Jesus, "I
perceive you are a prophet [ profhvth" ei\ suv]." (NWT) Wallace
believes this verse offers "the most likely candidate of an
100
The text is that of Kirsopp Lakes The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2, LCL 25, 324.
indefinite pre-verbal PN [predicate nominative] in the NT."101

However, he also notes the woman "seems to be focusing on the
attributes of a prophet, rather than merely listing Jesus as a
member of that class."102 This is where the whole matter becomes
quite subjective.
Did the woman perceive (qewrw', "I perceive") that Jesus was
a prophet and that he, therefore, possessed the qualities of a
prophet, or did she perceive that he had the attributes of a prophet,
and was, therefore, a prophet? It is simply a matter of emphasis,
and that emphasis is not always easy to detect.103 Regardless of
how it is viewed, the noun in this instance does not lose either its
qualitative or its indefinite aspect (compare Joh 9:17).
Professor Arthur W. Slaten makes the following comments
regarding the use of the indefinite article when translating qualitative
nouns from Greek to English: "It should be observed, however, that
the prefixing of the indefinite article in English does not always
result in making the noun indefinite. That qualitative character
which is in Greek denoted by the absence of the article is in English
frequently expressed by employment of the indefinite article."104 He
further states:
This principle may best be precisely summarized in the form of a

definition. A qualitative noun is a noun (in Greek always
anarthrous) whose function in the sentence is not primarily or
solely to designate by assignment to a class but to describe by the
attribution of quality, i.e., of the quality or qualities that are the
marks of the class designated by the noun. The effect is to
ascribe to that which is modified the characteristics or qualities
of a class and not merely to ascribe to it membership in that
class. It is connotive rather than the denotive sense that emerges.
In the sentence "Frederick is a prince" the word "prince" is either
designative, marking Frederick as a member of a class, a son of a
monarch, or qualitative, describing Frederick as the possessor of
101
102
Ibid., 266.
103
Compare ibid., 266, note 26. See Appendix D for further discussion of
anarthrous preverbal count nouns.
104
Arthur Wakefield Slaten, Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and Their
Translation in the Revised Version (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1918), 5.
the superior character presumed to distinguish the son of a

king.105
The primary reason NWT uses "a" in John 1:1c is to emphasize

the qualitative aspect of the noun. In this way it has a similar
function to "a" in John 6:70. However, while the syntax may be
enough to argue for an indefinite-qualitative understanding, the
context, which specifically distinguishes the Logos as theos from the
God (ho theos) he is "with" (pros), demands an indefinite sense for
the predicate in John 1:1c.
The logic of pros and the OT understanding of God forces us
to distinguish between the theos the Logos is, and the theos he is
"with" (the Father), otherwise you have a form of modalism.
There is no way around it, for John does not distinguish the two in
Trinitarian terms of "person" but in terms of theos, and if we
identify the two as the same theos then we ipso facto identify
them as the same person, at least from a biblical standpoint.
Nowhere does the Bible define "God" as a substance of being that
is shared by three persons, and the Bible does not use or define the
term "God" as a reference to a tri-personal being.
Wallace believes that "divine" could be a misleading
translation of the predicate in John 1:1c, as it has come to be used
with a variety of meanings in English, many of which fail to
capture the full import of Johns use of theos. But the same is true
of "God," which has led many into the error of thinking that Jesus
is the Father. Nonetheless, Wallace believes "the Word was God"
is the "simplest and most straightforward translation."106
Of course, he, like Brown before him, would recommend that
advocates of such a translation explain that while Jesus is "God"
he is not the Father. For, according to Wallace, "The construction
the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way
he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct
from the Father."107 But there is a more concise way John could
have communicated the precise distinction Wallace makes, had he
simply written, oJ lovgo" h\n proV" toVn patevra [or, proV" qeoVn
105
106
Wallace, Greek Grammar, 269, note 31.
107
Ibid., 269 (emphasis Wallaces).
patevra], kaiV qeoV" [or, oJ qeoV"] h\n oJ lovgo" ("the Word was with
the Father [or, with God the Father], and the Word was
God"). If John had wanted to state that the Word was God but
distinct from the Father, then the above, or some variation thereof,
is all John need have written.
Had John done so, there would then be some justification for
distinguishing the two in terms of "person," although not
necessarily in the later Trinitarian sense in which the Father and
Son are distinguished as "persons" within God. However, as John
1:1 stands in our Greek texts today, a distinction can only be
made in terms of theos, without reading later theology into the
text. We agree that ho theos is the Father, but since John is careful
to distinguish the being of the Father (ho theos) from that of the
Word, we must also do so in our translations of this passage.
John begins his Gospel by identifying One who is ho theos.
He uses the article here to indicate a certain identity, to alert his
readers that this God is the One known to them throughout the
OT, who is from the "beginning." Then he uses an anarthrous
predicate nominative preceding the verb to forcefully introduce
another being who existed with God, and who is himself a divine
being. This scene fits well against the backdrop of Genesis 1,
particularly Genesis 1:26 (compare Pr 8:22-31). NWT is simply
bringing out the qualitative aspect of the noun emphasized by the
syntax John used, as well as the indefinite sense demanded by the
context which shows a relationship between two beings, both of
whom are identified and distinguished in terms of theos.
Does "a god" conflict with biblical monotheism? John
1:1 proves that God and the Logos cannot be the same God, as
they are said to be "with" (prov", pros) one another. By changing
the discussion to terms of "person" Trinitarians explain that the
Word can be with God and be God because, they say, He is not
the Father and ho theos refers to the Father. But even though we
agree that ho theos is a reference to the Father, Johns distinction
shows the Word cannot be the same God as the Father.
If the Word were the same God as the God with whom he
existed in the beginning, then, since that one is ho theos, the Word
(if he were the same God) would also be the ho theos of John
1:1b, because, according to Trinitarians, the Word and the Father
can be only one God. But John makes it clear that the two are not
the same God by describing one as ho theos and the other as theos
(not as "Father" and "Son") in a text where their relationship with
each other is in view.
In making this distinction, the apostle shows the Word has
the same kind of nature and qualities that "the God" (not simply
the "person") he existed with has, and is a being distinct from
Him. But how can this understanding be correctly conveyed to the
English reader and still remain faithful to the biblical teaching that
there is only "one true God"?Joh 17:3.
As we discussed earlier in this chapter, and also in Chapter 2,
the translation "the Word was God" in John 1:1 is difficult to
understand unless it is read by a person who has been taught to
interpret it according to Trinitarianism. But even then it does not
seem to make much sense to most Trinitarians, though this does help
them understand how Jesus could be "with" God and at the same
time be "God," without contradicting their view of biblical
monotheism. However, there is nothing unbiblical at all about
recognizing a category of living gods that serve the Most High God,
and who are not equal to Him. There is only one God in the sense
that the Father is God, but there are others whom He created who are
rightly called gods in the Bible.108
On the other hand, Robert Bowman maintains that "for JWs to
translate a god is in one sense grammatically possible, but only if
they are willing to adopt a pagan interpretation of the entire
verse."109 But which translation, as well as the understanding
attached to it, is really guilty of clashing with the Bibles teaching
that there is only one true God? This is the key point in determining
the proper translation of John 1:1c, for grammatically it could be
rendered "the Word was God," "divine," or "a god."110
108
109
110
Compare Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in
Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), p. 60, sec. D. 3. a.(1), who states that
"from the point of view of grammar alone, qeoV" h\n oJ lovgo" could be rendered the
Word was a god . . . But the theological context, viz., Johns monotheism, makes this
rendering of 1:1c impossible" (emphasis added). C. H. Dodd, "New Testament
Translation Problems II," BT 28.1 (1977), 101-102, makes a similar comment, stating:
"The Word was a god. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." But he
Regarding the translation "the Word was God," William Loader

makes the following observations: "Grammatically this is a possible
translation, but not the only one. The statements meaning, and so its
translation, must be determined by its context. It could also be
translated: the Word was a god or the Word was divine.
Grammatical considerations alone fail to decide the question, since
all three translations can be defended on grammatical grounds."111
Though Loader, like Bowman, Harris and others, senses a
conflict between the translation "a god" and the Judeo-Christian
belief of only one true God (which we discussed in Chapter 2), he
nonetheless concludes:
It is true, on the most natural reading of the text, that there are
two beings here: God and a second who was theos but this
second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the
absolute over against which the second is defined. They are not
presented as two equal gods.112
A closer look at the presentation of Jesus divinity in Johns

Gospel will also prove helpful in determining how we should view
him in relation to God the Father.
The Logos as "a god"

"My Lord and my God." When the risen Jesus confronted
Thomas with wound marks in his hands and feet,113 Thomas, who
had previously expressed doubts about Jesus resurrection,
exclaimed to him, "My Lord and my God! [oJ kuvriov" mou kaiV oJ
qeov" mou, ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou]." (Joh 20:28) The use
nonetheless believes it is unacceptable, for "it runs counter to the current of Johannine
thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole." We have argued Harris, Dodd,
and others who argue similarly, fail to consider the proper theological context of Johns
statement, which actually favors a translation such as NWTs. See Chapter 2, pages 96-
119.
111
William Loader, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structures and Issues, 2d
ed. (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), 155.
112
Ibid.
113
See Chapter 7 for a discussion of Jesus resurrection body.
of the article in this statement is sometimes pointed to by

Trinitarians as somehow supporting their theology, and
contradicting that of Jehovahs Witnesses. But does it?
While the use of the article would be expected when "a
substantive in the Nominative case is used in a vocative sense and
followed by a possessive,"114 it may be Thomas never intended to
call Jesus "God" at all, but merely directed his exclamation of praise
to both Jesus and the Father, the latter being directly responsible for
the resurrection of the Lord (compare Ga 1:1; 2Co 4:14; Heb
13:20), which is what Thomas doubted. Some Trinitarians argue
that article-noun-kaiv-noun constructions, such as those found in
Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1,115 are evidence Jesus is God.116
They often argue if two persons were in view the article would
surely have been repeated before the second of the two kaiv-joined
nouns. But is that not precisely what we have in John 20:28? So it is
quite possible that as the article distinguishes the nouns in
Revelation 20:6 (tou' qeou' kaiV tou' Cristou', tou theou kai tou
christou, "of God and of the Christ"), it is likewise intended to
distinguish Thomas "Lord" from his "God" in John 20:28. But
the use of the article in John 20:28 is not conclusive, as several
examples from the NT reveal.117
There is no question Thomas was speaking to Jesus in John
20:28, as Jesus was the object of his astonishment and wonder.
Thomas now believed, for the evidence stood before him in the
person of Jesus, and Thomas reply was spoken to him (ei\pen
aujtw'/, eipen auto). But was it directed to him? This question
arises not only from the aforementioned observations on the use of
114
C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1959), 116-117.
115
See Excursus, pages 388-405.
116
We construe them to mean "God" as understood by Trinitarians today, or at
least by the fourth century CE. But the problem is Trinitarian theology is not articulated
in the writings of the New Testament. That is not to say that Trinitarians do not attempt
to see in the Scriptures the framework for their theology, but even they must admit that
there is no explicit articulation of their "Godhead," which one would expect if the
writers of the NT had seen fit to call Jesus theos in a manner consistent with the later
doctrine of the Trinity. Unless, as we argue, they were doing so against the backdrop of
the OT, which made it quite acceptable to refer to other, inferior divine beings who
served Jehovah. Again, see the discussion of biblical monotheism in Chapter 2.
117
See Excursus, page 408.
the article in John 20:28, but on the context, and the form of the
words used. Margaret Davies explains:
Naturally, the interpretation of Thomass words was hotly

debated by early church theologians who wanted to use it in
support of their own christological definitions. Those who
understood My Lord to refer to Jesus, and my God to refer
to God [the Father] were suspected of christological heresy in
the fifth century CE. Many modern commentators have also
rejected that interpretation and instead they understand the
confession as an assertion that Jesus is both Lord and God. In
doing so they are forced to interpret God as a reference to
lovgo" [logos]. But it is perfectly appropriate for Thomas to
respond to Jesus resurrection with a confession of faith both
in Jesus as his Lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus.
Interpreting the confession in this way actually makes much
better sense in the context of the Fourth Gospel. In 14.1 belief
both in God and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which
Thomas is particularly singled out. . . . If we understand
Thomass confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this
confession in 20.31 becomes an anti-climax.118
It is manifest that Thomas reply was in response to his

conviction that Jesus had indeed been raised from the dead. It
would not be out of place for Thomas to offer an exclamation of
praise to the Father as "Lord" and "God," for He proved to be
such by raising His Son from the dead. Another fact that seems to
favor this conclusion is the use of the word "Lord." Thomas
words are not recorded with "Lord" in its typical vocative (direct
address) form (kuvrie, kyrie); rather, the nominative form (kuvrio",
kyrios) is used. Of course, students of ancient Greek are likely to
respond quickly by pointing out that numerous words lost their
vocative form to the nominative by the time the NT was written.
That is true, for the most part.
The fact is "Lord" retained its vocative form in classical
Greek, the LXX, the NT, and the papyri, with barely a handful of
118
Margaret Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup
69; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 125-126.
cases where ho kyrios is used as a vocative.119 Abbot observes:

"The Egyptian Papyri use kuvrie freely, but never, so far as
alleged, o& kuvrio" vocatively. Thus, a great mass of evidence from
all extant Greek [shows] that, had the vocative been intended,
kuvrie would have been employed. This is confirmed by the Latin
versions, which have dominus."120 The only example from the
LXX which has kyrios used as a vocative is Psalm 35(34):23,
where Jehovah is addressed with the words oJ qeov" mou kaiV oJ
kuvriov" mou (ho theos mou kai ho kyrios mou, "my God and my
Lord"). But here "God" precedes "Lord." This is the opposite of
John 20:28, and significant in explaining why the nominative is
used as a vocative: "[Lord in Psalm 35:23 (34:23 LXX)], as it
follows the nominatival form of the vocative, oJ qeov" mou, it is
rendered for conformity oJ kuvriov" mou. In Jn [20:28], oJ kuvrio"
precedes oJ qeov"."121
It should not be understood from this that simply because
Abbott did not believe "Lord" in John 20:28 is used as a vocative
that he did not believe Thomas conferred upon Jesus the titles
"Lord" and "God." Abbott did in fact believe that Thomas Lord
"has become to him one with his God, so that [Thomas] may say,
My Lord is also my God."122 Harris is aware of the issues
surrounding the use of kyrios in John 20:28, and argues that ho
kyrios may be considered a nominative of address in Johannine
usage in view of John 13:13 (uJmei'" fwnei'tev me JO didavskalo"
kaiV JO kuvrio", humeis phoneite me Ho didaskalos kai Ho kyrios,
119
I am grateful to David D. Schuman for sharing with me his research on the use
of the vocative kyrie versus the use of the nominative kyrios, which is discussed in
detail in his unpublished monograph, Did the Apostle Thomas Call Jesus "God" at
John 20:28? In addition to his research on this point, I would add that the use of kyrie
with a possessive is not uncommon. In the LXX it is found in Jg 4:18 (some
manuscripts, including B, use kyrie mou in 6:13, 15, 22); 1Sa (1Ki in LXX) 25:24; 2Sa
(2Ki in LXX) 7:18, 19 (twice), 20, 22, 25, 28, 29; 14:9, 19, 22; 16:4; 19:27; 1Ki (3Ki
in LXX) 1:13, 17, 18, 20, 24; 2:38; 18:7; 2Ki (4Ki in LXX) 4:16; 6:12. In NT the only
occurrence of kyrie with a possessive is in Rev 7:14.
120
Edwin Abbott, Johannine Grammar (London: Adam and Charles Black,
1906), 94, sec. 2049.
121
Ibid., 93, sec. 2049, note 2 (emphasis added).
122
Ibid., 94, sec. 2050. Compare F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983), 394, who, although stating, "The words [My Lord and my God] are
to be construed as nominative, not vocative" (emphasis added), nonetheless believes
Thomas is affirming Christs deity in this passage.
"You address me as, Teacher and Lord") and Revelation 4:11

(a]xio" ei\, oJ kuvrio" kaiV oJ qeoV" hJmw'n, axios ei, ho kyrios kai ho
theos hemon, "You are worthy, Lord, even our God").
While kyrios in Revelation 4:11 may be an instance of a
nominative for a vocative,123 there is a question of whether or not
John 13:13 should rather be considered a nominative of
appellation124 similar to jApolluvwn (Apollyon, "Destroyer") in
Revelation 9:11. But we are certainly not going to accept the idea
that ho kyrios is somehow more at home in John 20:28 than kyrie
because the latter is occasionally used in the polite form of
address, "sir."125 There is no reason to think that kyrie could not
convey the formal solemnity of the occasion, even as it does in
Luke 10:21 or Acts 7:59.
However, even though Jehovahs Witnesses are aware that
Thomas words, in whole or in part, may be applied to Jesus God
and Father,126 they still maintain that Thomas is directly
addressing Jesus as his "Lord" and "God." Jehovahs Witnesses
have no problem addressing Jesus with the words, "My Lord and
my God." This can be done in a manner patterned after the
numerous references to angels as "God" where they stand in His
place (Ge 18:1-5; Jg 13:9, 19-22), even speaking as though they
were Jehovah (Ex 3:2-5; Ac 7:30, 38).127
Additionally, Jesus could be so addressed in view of the
position given to him, and the authority with which he has been
endowed. Such a confession, as in the case of Thomas, is
qualified not only by the context (Joh 20:17), but also by the
123
But even here we find the variant kyrie in some witnesses, and a reads kyrie
ho kyrios. In Rev 4:11 we find the possessive hemon ("our") used at only once, after
theos. But John 20:28 uses a possessive with both kyrios and theos. Compare 2Th 2:16
as it reads in a* D2 F G. See Excursus, page 384, note 56.
124
Which means the nominative form serves as the naming case regardless of
how the noun is used in the sentence.
125
126
Society, 1988), 55, says: "Some scholars have viewed this expression as an exclamation
of astonishment spoken to Jesus but actually directed to God, his Father." Compare H.
A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Early Church Fathers, 3rd ed. (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1976), 181 who notes, "this exclamation may have been
addressed by Thomas not to Jesus but to God."
127
See "Has Anyone Seen God?" The Watchtower, 15 May 1988, 21-23.
whole of Scripture. The use of later Chalcedonian Christology

does not come into play in verses such as John 20:17, either. Here
Jesus, in the same state Thomas addresses him, says that the
Father is his God, again differentiating between the two in terms
of theos, as well as acknowledging the Fathers superiority over
him, as his God. What is certain about John 20:28 is that Thomas
words are in no way an affirmation of anything agreeable to
Trinitarianism, for Thomas had no concept of a consubstantial
Trinity.
Thomas words can be understood within the context of the
OT presentation of God, where angels are called "gods" and often
represent Jehovah as "God." But there is not a hint of anything
akin to Trinitarian theology for us to draw upon in explaining
Thomas words, unless we are to assume that Thomas, and the rest
of the disciples for that matter, somehow obtained an articulated
understanding of God consistent with later Trinitarian theology.
However, even Trinitarians acknowledge that the doctrine was not
fully developed until later centuries, when various controversies
brought forth the need for clarity respecting the Bibles
presentation of God and Christ. If the first-century Christians
believed in a triune God, it is truly remarkable that they would
speak of Christ as "God" in a Trinitarian sense without ever
having to articulate in what way Christ, the Father and the holy
spirit are the same God.
Jehovahs Witnesses believe that NT references to Christ as
theos were understood in relation to the OT concept of God,
which allowed for the recognition of other, secondary gods,
without compromising the Israelite faith of only one true God
(compare Isa 9:6). Jews such as Thomas could readily appreciate
the fact that Jesus belonged to this secondary category of gods,
even though Thomas was just beginning to understand the details
of Jesus role in Gods purpose. Interestingly, the Jews likely
developed an understanding of Jesus godhood from the founder
of Christianity himself, when in the context of one of his debates
with them Jesus accepted the title theos in a sense paralleling that
of others in the Bible, who are also called "gods" (Joh 10:33-36).
The Logos as "the only-begotten god." The Prologue
further distinguishes between God and the Logos in verse 18. In
this verse, after affirming that "no man has seen God at any time,"
we are told that the Logos is the monogenhV" qeoV" (monogenes
theos, "only-begotten god"). For purposes of this discussion we
will accept this as the original reading, due to its manuscript
support and because we believe a scribe would be more likely to
change "god" to "son" in view of fact that John uses "Son" with
monogenes elsewhere in his Gospel account.128 But how should
verse 18 be translated? Does monogenes mean "only-begotten"
(NWT, NASB), "One and Only" (NIV), "only Son," "unique," or
"one of a kind"?129
According to John Dahms: "It seems clear that monogenes,
when used of persons, was always understood to include the idea of
generation. This understanding did not have its beginning at the time
of the Arian controversy."130 Many who embrace the doctrine of the
Trinity are not particularly fond of referring to Christ as an "only
begotten god," and therefore prefer translations which render John
1:18 otherwise.131 However, as Dahms points out:
We have examined all of the evidence which has come to our

attention concerning the meaning of monogenes in the Johannine
128
For a discussion of the textual variants relating to this verse, see Mastin, "A
Neglected Feature," 37-41; B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament, 3d corrected ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975), 198; Elizabeth
Harris, Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist (JSNTSup 107;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 101-109. The NWT Reference Bible (1984) also lists in
its critical apparatus several key variants and their witnesses. But for a complete listing
of the variants, see, New Testament Greek Manuscripts, John, Rueben Swanson ed.
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press; Pasadena: William Carey International
University Press, 1995), 8.
129
Gerard Pendrick, "MONOGENHS," NTS 41 (1995), 587-600, is one of the
more recent scholars to voice support for "unique," "one of a kind."
130
John V. Dahms, "The Johannine Use Of Monogenes Reconsidered," NTS 29
(1983), 228.
131
Remarkably, Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Grand Rapids:
Word Publishing, 1996), claims: "The only ones who do not admit that monogenhV"
qeoV" [monogenes theos] is the true reading of the Greek text are Arian cults who still
depend almost exclusively on nineteenth century anti-Trinitarian writers." Because he
assumes Trinitarianism in his interpretation of NT (and OT) texts, Morey is completely
unaware of how lethal this reading is to Trinitarianism. Indeed, theos is not only
predicated of one of the "persons within God" but it is here modified by a temporal
adjective! In view of this, many Trinitarians try to restrict the meaning of monogenes to
"only" or "unique," but these attempts fail to convince for reasons under consideration
in this section.
writings and have found that the majority view of modern

scholarship has very little to support it. On the other hand, the
external evidence, especially that from Philo, Justin and
Tertullian, and the internal evidence from the context of its
occurrences, makes clear that only begotten is the most accurate
translation after all.132
While we would not go quite as far as Dahms in stating that

monogenes, when used of persons, always includes the idea of
generation, we believe his findings in relation to the Johannine use
of monogenes are accurate. Arguments against monogenes meaning
"only-begotten" usually relate to its etymology (origin and
development). Monogenes is usually referred to as a combination of
two words, movno" ([monos] meaning "only") and gevno" ([genos]
meaning "kind"), hence the meaning, "one of a kind," "unique."
While there is no dispute as to the meaning of monos, genos,
being related etymologically to givgnomai ("to become"), could
very well convey the notion of "birth." Dahms133 points to several
words ending in -genhv" where the idea of derivation is present
(diogenhv" ["sprung from Zeus"], ghgenhv" ["earthborn"], eujgenhv"
["well-born"], suggenhv" ["inborn"]), and Pendrick134 lists a
couple other examples (aijqrhgenhv" ["born in clear sky"] and
palaigenhv" ["born long ago"]).135 Of course, there are also words
ending in -genhv" that do not convey the notion of "birth."136 So
both Dahms and Pendrick agree usage, not etymology, must be the
proper guide in determining the meaning of monogenes.
That monogenes in non-filial contexts can and often did
convey the meaning "one of a kind" or "unique" in classical and
patristic Greek literature is readily acknowledged.137 But in filial
contexts where monogenes is used of an offspring, the idea of
132
Ibid., 231.
133
Ibid., 222-223.
134
Pendrick, "MONOGENHS," 588.
135
Definitions for all these examples ending in -genhv" come from Henry G.
Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. with supplement, rev. H. S.
Jones and Roderick McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968).
136
Pendrick, "MONOGENHS," 587. He cites qhlugenhv" ("of female sex") and
eJterogenhv" ["of different kinds"] as examples where the idea of "birth" is not present.
137
See Ibid., 588-590.
generation seems always to be present, or at least implied, in the

NT. Pendrick considers several examples outside the NT that also
convey the idea of generation, but concludes that in most passages
where monogenes is applied to offspring "the notion of birth or
derivation is at the least not required, and in a few cases positively
forbidden by the context."138 While this may be true to some
extent, we are primarily concerned with the usage of monogenes
in the NT. Since even Pendrick agrees that monogenes
"occasionally" carries the connotation of birth, its meaning in
John 1:18 must be considered apart from other uses of the term
which do not share the peculiarities of this verse.
Before we discuss John 1:18, let us examine the other
occurrences of monogenes in NT. Pendrick notes that it is used
nine times and he believes that its use in Hebrews 11:17 can
hardly carry any idea of derivation, since Abraham had fathered
Ishmael in addition to Isaac. Pendrick believes the connotation
"unique" fits well here, as Isaac was the special child of
promise.139 But the fact is, while Pendricks interpretation is
certainly possible, in human terms a child must have two parents,
and Isaac was the only-begotten son of both Abraham and Sarah,
Hagar being the mother of Ishmael. So from this perspective Isaac
could indeed be considered Abrahams only-begotten son, being
the sole child of Abraham and Sarah. There is also the possibility
that a "unique" generation is meant, given the fact that God
intervened and allowed Sarah to conceive a child, in spite of her
old age (Ge 18:9-14).
Regarding the three uses of monogenes in Lukes Gospel
(7:12; 8:42; 9:38), either "only-begotten" or "only" is equally
acceptable.140 This leaves us with the final five occurrences of
monogenes in NT, all of which are found in the Johannine
writings. (Joh 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) Pendrick believes both
"positive and negative considerations" argue that monogenes in
these five passages should be understood in the sense of "unique"
138
Ibid., 590.
139
Ibid., 592-593.
140
The NWT Reference Bible (1984) has "only-begotten" in the text of these
three verses, with "only" in the footnote. Pendrick (ibid., 593-594) seems to think
"only" or "single" are the only viable translations here.
or "only."141 But the "positive considerations" Pendrick cites

really prove nothing of the sort. In fact, they flatly contradict the
teachings of the Bible. Pendrick argues: "Because Jesus is the only
Son of God, His sending into the world is the supreme proof of
Gods love for the world. Here as elsewhere in John and 1 John,
monogenhv" emphasizes Jesus unique status as the only son of
God."142
Yet, Jesus is not Gods only son. (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) If we
translate monogenes as "unique" in these passages (especially
1:18) then we invite the question, in what way is the Logos
unique? The translation "only-begotten" is the only one answering
this question and at the same time remaining true to the biblical
teaching that God does have other sons. In John 1:14 monogenes
is used as a substantival adjective, with "son" understood. In 1:18
it is an adjectival modifier for theos ("only-begotten god"), and
similarly modifies "son" in 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9.
Indeed, everywhere else we find an adjective immediately
preceding a noun of the same gender, number and grammatical
case in the NT it always modifies the noun it precedes. In such a
situation we never find the adjective substantivized (treated as a
noun) nor do we find the noun that follows is taken in apposition
to the substantivized adjective. We also do not have any other
examples of an adjective immediately preceding a noun of the
same gender, number and case where the noun that follows is
placed before the adjective, and then the adjective is
substantivized and taken in apposition to the noun! Rather, the
adjective always modifies the noun that follows. So the
translations "the only Son, who is God," "God, the only Son," or
"God the one and only" are not well founded.
Pendricks negative argument is simply that Jesus is never
spoken of as having been "begotten" in Johns Gospel or letters.143
Pendrick believes it is uncertain whether 1 John 5:18 (ajll oJ
gennhqeiV" ejk tou' qeou' threi' aujtovn, "but the one born from God
is protecting him") applies to Jesus or the believers John
141
Ibid., 594-595.
142
Ibid., 595 (emphasis added in the first instance, original in the second).
143
Ibid., 596.
previously mentioned. However, 1 John 5:18 is not as uncertain as

one might think. Though the variant eJautoVn (heauton, "himself")
is found in place of aujtoVn (auton, "him") in a good number of
witnesses,144 the context and the use of threi' (terei, "protecting")
weigh heavily in favor of auton.
If the reflexive heauton is adopted then we have a case where
the believer who is spiritually "born" from God "protects
himself," so that "the wicked one does not fasten his hold on
him." But in John 17:15 Jesus requests that the Father protect
(thrhvsh/", tereses) the disciples, and in 2 Thessalonians 3:3 Paul
refers to the "Lord" (Jesus) who fulavxei ajpoV tou' ponhrou' ("will
guard you from the wicked one").145 In view of this, and the
absolute use of ho gennetheis, it is safe to conclude that 1 John
5:18 is referring to Jesus Christ, and therefore shows that the idea
of Jesus "birth" from God was well known to John.
As for the Old Latin and the Vulgate, Pendrick notes that
these "regularly" translate monogenes by "unicus" (unique), but
Jerome also uses "unigenitus" (only-begotten) in several passages
of christological significance, including John 1:18.146 Also,
Dahms notes Hilary of Poitiers (ca. 315367 CE), when quoting
John 1:1-14 and 1:18 in his De Trinitate, uses unigenitus. Dahms
then concludes, "It is hardly conceivable that he could have made
such a [use of unigenitus] without more ado unless his readers
were familiar with unigenitus in their Latin New Testaments."147
Pendrick would no doubt attribute Jeromes use of
"unigenitus" to influence from the meaning monogenes allegedly
came to have during the controversy between the Arians and
Trinitarians. In fact, Pendrick concludes the meaning "only-
begotten" was only fully "guaranteed" after the development of
144
See Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 718, for a listing of key variants for
both readings. He also points out the UBS Committee "understood oJ gennhqeiV" [ho
gennetheis, the one born] to refer to Christ." Apparently this is due in part to the fact
that the absolute use of ho gennetheis is never used by John of the believer.
145
Although the use of threvw with eJautou' is not unknown in NT (see, 1Co
7:37; Jas 1:27; Jude 6, 21), the specific reference to protection from "the wicked one"
(oJ ponhrov") in 1Jo 5:18 ties in better with the view expressed elsewhere in the Bible,
where either God (Mt 6:13) or Christ (2Th 3:3) guards or rescues us from Satan.
146
Pendrick, "MONOGENHS," 597. Compare Dahms, "Monogenes," 225-226.
147
Dahms, "Monogenes," 226.
Trinitarian theology, which took place during the third, fourth and
fifth centuries CE.148
But Pendrick does not do a good job of explaining how,
allegedly, a shift in meaning from "unique" to "only-begotten"
came about in the writings of apologists like Justin Martyr (ca.
110165 CE), who clearly taught the Logos generation from the
Father: "God begat before all creatures a Beginning, who was a
certain rational power proceeding from Himself, who is called by the
Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again
Wisdom, again Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; . . . For
He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the
Fathers will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of
will."149
Whereas Justin and other religious writers of the second and
third centuries CE would often refer to Christ as "only-begotten,"
they always considered the Father to be the "unbegotten, unutterable
God."150 The reference to the Word as the "only-begotten god"
shows that he is not the same God as the Father, nor His equal.
Justin evidently understood this, for he argued: "There is, and there
is said to be, another God [qeoV" . . . e{tero"] and Lord subject to
the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He
announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all thingsabove whom
there is no other Godwishes to announce to them."151
If we translate monogenes in John 1:18 as "unique" this does
not explain how the Logos is "unique" or "a unique god." The
translation "only god," in reference to the Logos, is incorrect from
a biblical standpoint, as understood from both a Witness and
Trinitarian point of view. Also, it is likely John would have
simply used movno" (monos, "only") as he does in John 5:44 (tou'
148
Ibid., 600.
149
Dialogue With Trypho, ANF 1, 227.
150
Ibid., 263 (emphasis added). One exception is Ignatius (Eph 7:2 [ANF 1, p. 52,
chap. 7]), who refers to Jesus as "flesh and spirit, born and unborn [ajgevnnhto"]." Ignatius
also calls Jesus "the only son [tou' movnou uiJou']" of the "Father Most High." (Rom,
preface) Pendricks suggestion that this use of movno" (monos, "only") is a "reflection of the
Johannine monogenhv"" is without basis. Ignatius shows no awareness of Johns use of
monogenes (or, perhaps, chose to ignore its implications, and therefore made no use of it),
which is probably why he refers to Jesus as "unbegotten."
151
Dialogue With Trypho, 223 (emphasis added).
movnou qeou', "the only God") if "only" is what he meant in John

1:18.
It is legitimate to translate monogenes as "only-begotten."
Particularly so in reference to Jesus, for it explains how he is
"unique" as Gods Son, being the only one to directly derive his
existence from Him. All the other "sons of God" were given life
through the agency of the Logos, and thus did not have the kind
of direct derivation the Logos received from God.152 The reference
to the Word as an "only-begotten god" shows that he is not the same
God as the Father. The Father was not "begotten." He does not
derive His existence from anyone, for He is the "source of life." (Ps
36:9) Jesus, however, made it clear that he lives "because of the
Father" (Joh 6:57).
Inconsistencies in NWTs translation of theos? It is
truly remarkable that scholars like Robert Countess suggest NWT
is inconsistent in its translation of theos. He states: "The first
section of John1:1-18furnishes a lucid example of NWT
arbitrary dogmatism. Qeov" occurs eight timesverses 1, 2, 6, 12,
13, 18and has the article only twiceverses 1, 2. Yet NWT six
times translated God, once a god, and once the god."153
Countess criticism of NWT and the 1950 Appendix to John
1:1c, as it relates to the anarthrous theos, reflects a lack of
appreciation and understanding of NWTs avowed principle of
literal translation. Should we criticize NWT for translating the
vocative Kuvrioi (Kyrioi) as "Sirs" (Acts 16:30) because this
152
Robert Gordis, "The Begotten Messiah in the Qumran Scrolls," VT 7 (1957),
191-194, discusses a passage from "The Rule of the Congregation," found in 1QSa,
which he restores and renders as follows: "This is the order of sitting for the men of
renown invited to the convocation, to the counsels of the Community: When (God)
begets the Messiah, with them shall come the Priest, . . . " The same reading is given by
Martnez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 127; Craig A. Evans, "A Note on the
First-Born Son of 4Q369," DSD 2.2 (1995), 186. Gordis conclusion, "If the
proposed restoration *el, which has much to recommend it, is adopted, our passage is
highly important as a source for the concept of a Divinely begotten Messiah" ("The
Begotten Messiah in the Qumran Scrolls," 194). Compare Micah 5:2, where the pre-
human origin of the Messiah is also taught. Evans, "A Note on the First-Born Son of
4Q369," 187-188, lists four reasons why this restoration should be adopted, but he
believes the text might be a reference to the fact that "someday God will raise up a
messianic figure," instead of some sort of divine generation.
153
polite, ordinary form of address does not agree with NWTs use
elsewhere of the English "Lord" (Master), which we see as an
exalted title for an articulated kuvrio" (kyrios) at John 13:13, 14
NWT? True, literal translation seeks to standardize the vocabulary
in the target language, but not at the expense of meaning. This is
the fundamental flaw Countess makes in his attack against NWT.
Fidelity must also be given to the context, and in the case of John
1:1 theos is provided a context unlike any other in the NT.
Given that Countess authored his analysis before the release
of the NWT Reference Bible (1984), it is not as surprising to find
him failing to treat adequately our understanding of theos in John
1:1c as it is to see other, more recent scholars fail similarly. For
example, Dan Wallace cites Countess charge of inconsistency on
the part of NWT towards theos, and even offers a further critique
of other anarthrous terms in the Johannine Prologue which are not
translated with an indefinite article. He says that NWT is
inconsistent for not rendering "beginning" (1:1, 2), "life" (1:4),
"from God" (1:6), "John" (1:6), and other terms with "a."154
While such an argument shows no familiarity with our 1984
Reference Bible Appendix to John 1:1, it also misses the point of
the 1950 NWT Appendix to John 1:1! Even though the authors of
the 1950 Appendix did not have the advantage of considering the
studies of Harner and Dixon concerning anarthrous preverbal
nominatives, they did not render theos as "a god" in John 1:1c "on
the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article."155
The citations of the three grammars and especially footnote
"b" in the 1950 Appendix show that the Committee was primarily
discussing the translation of anarthrous predicate nominatives.156
So most of Countess and Wallaces examples are not at all
relevant. Also, nowhere in the 1950 Appendix does it say that all
anarthrous constructions are qualitative or should be translated
with an indefinite article. The Committee clearly did not believe
154
155
Ibid.
156
Indeed, in footnote "b" they list 20 anarthrous predicate nominatives (Joh
4:19; 6:70; 9:5, 24, 25 28; 10:12 [sic10:13], 33, 36; 11:49, 51; 12:6; 17:17; 18:37
[twice], 19:21), 16 of which precede the verb or participle, as in John 1:1.
that to be true, as their translation repeatedly reveals (see

Wallaces examples above).
We can allow for some ambiguity as to what the 1950 NWT
Committee thought constituted a qualitative or indefinite noun, as
they do parallel theos in Acts 28:6 with theos in John 1:1c, and
this is not a grammatical parallel. But the 1984 Appendix leaves
no room for doubt, as it relies heavily on Harners analysis to
show that theos in John 1:1c is primarily qualitative. Additionally,
none of the examples given by Countess or Wallace have a
context where theos is used of two individuals who are said to be
"with" one another, and where the first theos is articulated and the
second is an anarthrous preverbal nominative.
Jehovah as "a God." Bowman refers to Luke 20:37-38,
where we read: "But that the dead are raised up even Moses
disclosed, in the account about the thornbush, when he calls Jehovah
the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob. He is a
God not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him"
(emphasis added). After making the point that even Jehovah is called
"a God" in NWT, Bowman states: "If this were the qualitative or
indefinite sense to which the JWs attributed theos in John 1:1,
there would be no problem. In that case, we would understand the
expression a God as we do in Luke 20:38 and Mark 12:27, not as
implying one God in contrast to another God, or a deity of a lesser
nature in comparison to another deity, but simply as speaking of the
only true God from the standpoint of his naturewhat kind of a
God he is."157
In Luke 20:38 and Mark 12:27 the reason why "a God," in
reference to Jehovah, is a reference specifically to what kind of God
he is (that is, a God of the living), and not necessarily intended to
imply a contrast of one God to another, is because there is no other
God mentioned in the context of Jesus discussion with the
Sadducees with whom he could be contrasted! Such is not the case
with John 1:1, as ho theos and theos are differentiated by the use of
the Greek article, and by the fact that they are said to be "with" one
another.
157
Bowman, Jehovahs Witnesses, 48-49.
There is also no need to infer that "a God" in these verses

should refer to a god of a lesser nature in comparison to another
because, again, there is no other God in this context to whom such a
comparison could be made. Also, the description, "the God of
Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" unequivocally
reveals this One as the Almighty God, Jehovah. This would make
any suggestion of inferiority biblically incorrect, as He is the "Most
High." (Ps 83:18) To interpret theos ("a god") in John 1:1c as a
reference to one who is inferior to ho theos ("the God") does not
present a problem at all, since the Bible calls Jesus, not the "Most
High," but the "Son of the Most High." (Lu 1:32) Jesus relationship
to "the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob" is described by
Peter, in Acts 3:13, this way:
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers,
has glorified his servant [toVn pai'da aujtou', ton paida autou]
Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned
him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.NIV.
Conclusion
The Johannine Logos is presented to us against the backdrop
of Wisdom traditions that tell us about a being who was with God
prior to the creation of the physical universe, and who was Gods
first and greatest creation. Indeed, John himself communicates in
plain language that this one, the Logos, was "with God" in the
"beginning" when the heavens and the earth were made. It was
through this one that God made the universe, even every single
thing in it.
This "only-begotten god," an owner of divinity that reflects
and magnifies his God and Father (1:18), came to earth so that
God might reconcile us to Him, through His Messiah. (1:14, 16-
17) The concepts associated with the term logos in Johns day
were many, and he seems to have deliberately chosen this term,
not only as an appropriate and effective replacement for
"Wisdom," but also to stimulate the interest of those still adhering
to various Greek, Jewish, and other insufficient philosophies. As
the Logos, the prehuman Jesus served as a conduit, a chief

messenger and spokesman for God, communicating His thoughts
and will to His spiritual and physical creations. During his
sojourn in the flesh, Jesus role remained essentially the same,
only instead of acting with the power of a spiritual being existing
with God in heaven, he condescended and took on the limitations
of humanity. He was "a god," and he became "a man" for mans
sake (compare Php 2:6-11).
The New World Translations rendering of John 1:1 has been
grossly over-criticized, primarily by those who have a different
view of Jesus, a view that is itself predicated on post-biblical
theology. The use of pros ("with"), the articulation of theos in
1:1b, and the word order of clause C all point to a distinction and
a relationship between the God and another spiritual being who is
also divine. Perhaps the best way this could be expressed is, "the
Word was with God, and the Word was a divine being." This
would emphasize the qualitative aspect of the noun (theos)
indicated by the word order, and also maintain the distinction
between the god the Word is and the God he is "with."
The NWT translation of John 1:1 cannot be faulted, as it
preserves the distinction John made between ho theos and theos,
and also highlights the qualitative nature of the noun through the
use of the English indefinite article. It is also consistent with the
OT concept of God, with which John was obviously well familiar.
Excursus
The Significance of Article-Noun-Kaiv-Noun Constructions In
Passages Relating to the Divinity of Christ
In christological discussions centering on passages where the

divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ may or may not be asserted, one
inevitably comes to several verses where the interpretation hinges
on how we interpret article-noun-kaiv-noun constructions. In 1798
Granville Sharp put forth his Remarks on the Use of the Definitive
Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing Many
New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages which are
wrongly Translated in the Common English Version.1 In his
monograph Sharp articulated a rule of Greek grammar which has
survived many controversies and critical reviews, although it is
almost always misunderstood in one way or another, even by its
proponents. But times are changing.
Daniel Wallace has taken a giant step forward in clarifying
Sharps rule, so that its true exegetical value can be realized, and
the abuses, hopefully, eliminated. His doctoral thesis2 contains
excellent historical information on the controversy surrounding
Sharps rule, as well as insights into Sharps life and other
writings.
Wallace also offers several explanations to what some have
considered exceptions to Sharps rule, and in the process he has
helped refine it. Sharp also qualified his rule by imposing various
limitations on it. Wallace has limited it even further. To help us
appreciate the differences between Sharps rule and Wallaces
revision of it, let us consider them side by side:
1
Throughout this study we will quote only from the first American edition of
Sharp's work, published by B. B. Hopkins, Philadelphia, 1807.
2
Daniel B. Wallace, "The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Kaiv
in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance" (Ph.D. dissertation: Dallas
Theological Seminary, 1995). Wallaces Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An
Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 270-290,
also contains a valuable discussion of Sharps rule.
Sharp:
When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case,
[viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of
personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or
connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or
ill,] if the article oJ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the
said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the
second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the
same person that is expressed or described by the first noun
or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-
named person.3
Wallace:
In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek),
when a single article modifies two substantives connected by
kaiv (thus, article-substantive-kaiv-substantive), when both
substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and
semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper
names or ordinals), they have the same referent.4
Though not given in his actual statement of the rule, Sharp

also excluded proper names and plural nouns.5 Thus, two key
differences between Sharps rule and what Wallace considers the
"Sharper" rule are: 1) this rule would not apply when the Greek is
that which is used to translate another language (for example,
from Hebrew to Greek, as in the case of the LXX), and 2) the
nouns must not only be grammatically singular, but semantically
singular as well (that is, not generic nouns, which are used in a
general or universal sense). Wallace makes other refinements to
Sharps rule, particularly as they relate to proper names and what
constitutes them.
The focus of this excursus will be to discuss the application
of Wallaces refined version of Granville Sharps rule to four
passages which are most often considered in this light, namely,
Ephesians 5:5 (tou' Cristou' kaiV qeou'), 2 Thessalonians 1:12 (tou'
qeou' hJmw'n kaiV kurivou jIhsou' Cristou'), Titus 2:13 (tou' megavlou
3
Sharp, Remarks, 3.
4
Wallace, "Multiple Substantives," 134-135, 279.
5
Sharp, Remarks, 6.
Excursus 369
qeou' kaiV swth'ro" hJmw'n jIhsou' Cristou'), and 2 Peter 1:1 (tou'
qeou' hJmw'n kaiV swth'ro" jIhsou' Cristou').6
We believe a careful examination of the evidence will reveal
that while these passages appear to fit the specifications of the
"Sharper rule," there are several reasons for seeing them in a
somewhat different light than the 78 passages listed by Wallace as
meeting the requirements of the rule.7 However, before we discuss
these four passages of christological importance, we will consider
several other exceptions to Sharps rule, and what it is that makes
them exceptions.
Exceptions to Sharps Canon

The response by Calvin Winstanley. Among the first to
respond to Sharps work was Calvin Winstanley.8 Winstanley was
the only one who actually sought to prove Sharp wrong by citing
examples in Greek literature where his rule did not hold. Wallace
considers the second edition (1819) of Winstanleys work "the
latest and most complete list of exceptions to Sharps rule,"
referring particularly to the "categories of exceptions which he
found."9
Sharp did provide an answer to Winstanleys first edition
(1805),10 but even Wallace acknowledges "Sharps response to
[Winstanleys] work was less than satisfactory."11 This is because
Sharp did not address the exceptions Winstanley listed from
6
Sharp also applied his rule to Ac 20:28, 1Ti 5:21, 2Ti 4:1, and Jude 4. In the
case of Ac 20:28 and Jude 4 they are removed from consideration due to textual
uncertainty. We will discuss 1Ti 5:21, 2Ti 4:1, and also Eph 5:5 later in this Excursus.
7
Wallace, "Multiple Substantives," Appendix, 283-289.
8
Calvin Winstanley, A Vindication of Certain Passages in the Common English
Version of the New Testament. Addressed to Granville Sharp, Esq. (Cambridge:
University PressHilliard and Metcalf, 1819). The first edition of Winstanleys work
was published in 1805. We will be quoting only from the 1819 edition.
9
Wallace, "Multiple Substantives," 59 (emphasis original).
10
Granville Sharp, A Dissertation on the Supreme Divine Dignity of the Messiah:
in reply to a Tract, entitled, "A Vindication of Certain Passages in the Common
English Version of the New Testament" (London: B. Edwards, 1806).
11
Wallace, "Multiple Substantives," 56, note 101.
sources other than NT, and simply replied that his rule "relates
only to the language of the inspired writers of the Greek
Testament."12 Still, Wallace believes the exceptions given by
Winstanley "can be readily explained on sound linguistic
principles."13
Although they will have little impact on our main focus
(namely, to determine whether or not the four significant passages
referred to earlier are subject to the limitations of Sharps rule),
we will consider two categories of Winstanleys exceptions. Also,
we will consider how Wallace explains them "on sound linguistic
principles."
Translation Greek. The LXX translation of Proverbs 24:21
has caused more than a few problems for those who wish to have
Sharps canon preserved without exception. C. Kuehne authored a
six-part series of articles wherein he sought to expound upon what
he considers "evidences of Christs deity," particularly in relation
to passages involving Sharps rule.14 When Kuehne comes to the
point of our present inquiry, namely, whether or not Proverbs
24:21 (fobou' toVn qeovn uiJev kaiV basileva) is an exception to
Sharps rule, he states:
The translators of the Septuagint appear in many places to

have been overly servile to the Hebrew text, translating into
Greek at times with an almost slavish literalism. In this verse
the Hebrew text lacks an article before the word king. That
the Septuagint should also lack the article is therefore not
surprisingespecially since the two nouns, God and king,
are so distinct that no confusion could possibly have arisen
through the omission of a second article.15
12
Sharp, Dissertation, 56 (emphasis original).
13
Wallace, "Multiple Substantives," 134.
14
C. Kuehne, "The Greek Article and the Doctrine of Christs Deity," Journal of
Theology 13 (September 1973), 12-28; (December 1973), 14-30; 14 (March 1974), 11-
20; (June 1974), 16-25; (September 1974), 21-33; (December 1974), 8-18. Kuehne
also wrote two articles in this same journal concerning Colwells rule. See Chapter 6,
pages 326-330.
15
Kuehne, "The Greek Article," (June 1974), 19 (emphasis added).
Excursus 371
The fact is, though, some books of the LXX, including

Proverbs, did not comply strictly with the Hebrew text. Thus,
Mller points out: "In the case of some books, for example, the
books of Jeremiah, Job, Proverbs, the divergencies are so
considerable, even with respect to volume, that it must be assumed
that the Hebrew text underlying the translation cannot have been
identical with the text we know today."16 Also, the general
argument that "God" and "king" are "so distinct that no confusion
could possibly have arisen through the omission of a second
article" is not entirely convincing. After all, God Himself is called
"King" in the Psalms alone no less than 20 times!17 But if the
argument is made specific to Proverbs then Kuehne may have a
point, since God is nowhere else in Proverbs referred to as
"King"; it is always applied to a human ruler. The significance of
this distinction will be seen shortly.
That Proverbs 24:21 is not referring to one person with the
titles "God" and "king" is clear from the plural reference that
follows, "and do not disobey either of them [ aujtw'n]." This is
significant since it shows that even though this text is clearly
referring to two persons, the translation used to convey this is
what is claimed to involve only one person. Wallace offers three
admittedly speculative explanations for the anarthrous basileva.18
But he nonetheless agrees that Proverbs 24:21 (LXX) "does stand
as an exception to Sharps rule." The reason for this, Wallace
16
Mogens Mller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint
(JSOTSup 206; CIS 1; England: Sheffield, 1996), 40.
17
See, for example, Ps 5:2; 10:16; 24:10; 29:10; 44:4; 47:2, 6, 7, 8; 68:24;
74:12; 84:3; 93:1; 95:3; 96:10; 97:1; 98:6; 99:1; 145:1; 146:10.
18
Wallace, "Multiple Substantives," 125-127. The three explanations he gives
are: 1) the translator, using formal fidelity and dynamic equivalence in his translation,
may have been distracted by ynb ("my son"), resulting in an unintentional violation of
Greek grammar; 2) the translator may have deliberately chosen the anarthrous basileva,
believing that the location of the syntactically unrelated uiJev disrupted the semantics of
Sharps rule; (However Wallace himself acknowledges that verbs, adjectives and
pronouns occasionally interfere with article-noun-kaiv-noun constructions; in any event
"the kaiv in Prov 24:21 still connects the two accusatives syntactically, in spite of the
presence of the vocative." [Ibid., 126, notes 116, 117].); and 3) "the syntax of poetry is
known to deviate from that of prose in many and substantial ways. . . the article is
frequently dispensed with for metrical convenience" (Ibid., 126-127).
believes, is uncertain, though he feels "it is almost exclusively tied

to the LXX as translation Greek."19
Of course, the fact that Greek was used to translate the
Hebrew text of Proverbs 24:21 is really not the issue, as the
translators, had he/they been aware of Sharps rule, could have
translated the passage in a manner consistent with the meaning of
the Hebrew text, without using a Sharp construction. As it is, they
were either unaware of the limitations of Sharps rule or they
ignored its implications in this instance. But why? The reasons
given by Wallace are not very convincing, and there would appear
to be a much simpler explanation.
Although we disagree with Kuehnes suggestion that the
LXX is simply "overly servile to the Hebrew text," his statement,
"the two nouns, God and king, are so distinct that no confusion
could possibly have arisen through the omission of a second
article," is worth a closer look. In an attempt to rid himself of the
exception to Sharps rule in Proverbs 24:21, Kuehne unknowingly
provides the same answer that one might very well offer in reply
to the four christologically significant passagesin the NT! This is
particularly true for 2 Peter 1:1, where God and Christ are clearly
distinguished in the next verse (see below for further discussion of
2Pe 1:1).
Wallace realizes the implications of this argument, and we
will consider his response in our discussion of the possible
exceptions to Sharps rule found in Patristic Greek literature. In
any event, the significance of Proverbs 24:21 as an exception to
Sharps rule does not weigh heavily on our interpretation of any
of the four Christologically significant passages. Still, it does
stand as an exception, probably for the reason Kuehne gives,
namely, there was no reason to repeat the article since the identity
of God and the "king" in the LXX of Proverbs 24:21 was not
dependent on the use of the article, but on the sense of the terms
as used in this context.
The longer version of Ignatius contains this passage in his
epistle to the Smyrnaeans (ANF 1, chap. 9, 90). Wallace also
19
Ibid., 127.
Excursus 373
notes that other, later Fathers quote it as well. We fail to see how
these references should be excluded on the basis of being
considered "translation Greek." After all, these writers, had they
understood the idiom in the Greek of Proverbs 24:21 to denote
one person and not two, could have cited it in a way that would
have been free from ambiguity; the Fathers were known to
reference certain passages of Scripture in less-than-exact fashion
(see below on Titus 2:13).
Indeed, while John Chrysostom (c. 350407) and John of
Damascus (c. 675749) quote Proverbs 24:21 verbatim,20 the
longer version of Ignatius contains a rewording of the text, fhsiVn,
uiJeV, toVn QeoVn kaiV basileva (Migne 853.10). Here we can see that
while Ignatius or those responsible for the longer version of his
epistle to the Smyrnaeans chose to change the wording of the
passage in some respects (note that the vocative huie comes before
ton theon [compare note 18]) no change was made concerning the
article-noun-kai-noun construction.
The LXX of Proverbs 24:21 does not reflect a sensitivity to
any known rule that might have otherwise moved the translators
to present a different translation in this theologically sensitive
passage, and those Fathers who quote the passage do not make
any changes so as to correct the LXX per their knowledge of a
rule governing the use of the Greek article. This is true even where
we find that liberties have been taken with other portions of the
text (Ignatius).
The syntax of Sharps rule is not of itself a valid guide for
interpretation, for the terms involved in the construction are
equally if not more significant for proper exegesis in terms of
telling us their generic or proper character. We could exclude the
quotations of Proverbs 24:21 in Ignatius based on the possible
generic character of basilea. But this only underscores the fact
that the syntax of Sharps rule does not tell us anything definitive
in the first place; rather, the meaning of the text must be
determined from an analysis of the sense of the terms in their
respective contexts.
20
I have verified the citations in Wallace, "Multiple Substantives," 127, note 121.
If we begin by assuming that the presence of a particular

construction clinches the interpretation, then basilea in Proverbs
24:21 or its quotation in various Fathers is not generic, for
Sharps rule makes it specific to the referent in the first part of the
construction! That is why I believe that we should not look simply
for Sharps rule, but for the sense of the terms involved in the
construction, and then proceed with our exegesis. This approach
is further validated by several examples from the patristic
writings.
Patristic Greek. Before we begin our analysis of the four
key texts in the NT, a discussion of the most significant
exceptions in extra-NT literature, namely, those found in Patristic
Greek writings, is in order. One of the first to react to Sharps
monograph was Christopher Wordsworth. In support of Sharps
canon he sent him six letters wherein he sought to buttress Sharps
rule by appealing to the understanding of the Greek "Fathers" who
lived and wrote during the centuries following the death of the last
apostle. According to Wordsworth, "If Mr. Sharps rule be true,
then will their interpretations of those texts [including the four
key NT passages] be invariably in the same sense in which he
understands them."21
In his Six Letters, Wordsworth claims that, in the Fathers,
there is a universal acceptance that the four christologically
significant passages teach Christs divinity. In view of this, he
believes that even if Sharps rule was not the ground work for
affirming Christs divinity in those passages, "there can no longer
be any doubt respecting the required translation; and if, in the
ignorance of all this evidence, a different one had been adopted, or
a notion entertained, that the texts might, from some supposed
ambiguity in the expression, admit of two interpretations, no one
would deny but that either of those errors must be renounced, and
mens ideas be reformed according to the standard of the
primitive authorities."22
21
Christopher Wordsworth, Six Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq. on his Remarks
on the Uses of the Definitive Article, in the Greek Text of the New Testament (London:
F. and C. Rivington, 1802), 3.
22
Excursus 375
What must be remembered with respect to the interpretation

certain theologians gave to the four christologically significant
passages, is this: No one objects that the construction of these
texts can bear the meaning some Fathers or even modern-day
scholars give to them. But, as Moses Stuart points out: "If the
writer [of Titus 2:13] designed to make swth'ro" [Savior]
merely an explicative or attributive of qeou' [God] in this case,
he would, beyond all doubt, have expressed himself as he now
has; but if he did not design this, but meant to make the usual
distinction so often made in Pauls epistles, between God the
Father and Christ, he might still have used the same expression.
The whole argument then, on either side, so far as the article is
concerned, falls to the ground."23
Stuarts dismissal of the article, however, is not for good
reason. He refers to note 7 in his article to show that Middletons
statement, "It is impossible to understand qeou' kaiV swth'ro" [in
Titus 2:13] otherwise than of one person,"24 has "little ground" to
stand on.25 But most of his examples are not singular nouns of
personal description,26 and, hence, are not subject to the
limitations of Sharps rule. Nevertheless, we do believe Stuart is
correct in saying that in passages such as Titus 2:13 the authors
words can be construed grammatically to refer to one person or
two, though for different reasons, which will be considered as we
discuss each of the four christologically significant passages in
turn.27
23
M. Stuart, "Hints and Cautions Respecting the Greek Article," Biblical
Repository 4.13 (January 1834), 323. Stuart did believe, however, that Titus 2:13 calls
Christ "the great God," but for reasons other than those relating to the use of the article.
His reasons shall be considered shortly.
24
Thomas Fanshaw Middleton, The Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the
Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament, New ed., Revised by Hugh J. Rose
(London: J. G. & F. Rivington, 1833). 394. All references to Middletons work will be
from the 1833 edition.
25
Stuart, "Hints and Cautions," 322.
26
The only valid example he gives is Acts 3:13, toVn a{gion kaiV divkaion ("the
holy and righteous [one]"), where the adjectives are substantival and both refer to one
person, not two.
27
C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1959), 109, also agrees that in passages such as Titus 2:13
it is possible that two persons are in view. But he does not explain why this is
Still, the truth is the Fathers do not give Sharp the kind of
support Wordsworth believed. It is not until the fourth or fifth
century CE that he finds support for Sharps view of Ephesians
5:5,28 and for 2 Thessalonians 1:12 he cannot produce even one
quotation in support of Sharps interpretation.29 Regarding Titus
2:13, Kuehne notes that Wordsworth cites a large number of
Greek and Latin Fathers who support Sharp. Kuehne then
concludes, "The Greek interpreters uniformly ascribe both titles,
the great God and Savior to Jesus Christ."30 But the fact is
Wordsworths first citation from the "Greek Fathers" regarding
Titus 2:13 is indeterminate.31 His second citation comes from
"possible." If we are going to assert that such a meaning is possible, then we must at
least give a credible reason why this is so.
28
Wordsworth, Six Letters, 12-38. From the writings of Justin Martyr (who died
about 165 CE), there is evidence that "Christ" was indeed considered a proper name by
some post-biblical writers (evidence from the NT will be evaluated below). Justin
wrote, "His Son . . . is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and Gods
ordering all things through him; this name itself also containing an unknown
significance" (ANF 1, 190). Justin here contrasts the name "Christ" (CristoV" . . .
o[noma . . . aujtoV) with various terms such as "God," "Creator," and "Lord" which he
does not view as "names" (oujk ojnovmatav ejstin). Still, there is some ambiguity as to
whether Justin views "Christ" as a name in the same sense as "Jesus," to which he next
refers. In making it known a second time that "God is not a name" he prefaces his
statement with a comparison between "God" and "Christ," using o}n trovpon, meaning
"in the same way as." This could be understood as meaning that "God" is not a "name"
in the same way that "Christ" is not a name, even though Justin clearly uses o[noma in
reference to "Christ." Below we will examine the use of "God" in the NT and other
writings, showing that it frequently serves as a semantic signal for the Father, and thus
functions as the equivalent to a proper name in the writings of Paul, Peter and
elsewhere.
29
Ibid., 39-47. On page 39 he begins his third letter to Sharp by saying: "On your
next example (2 Thess. i. 12) my references are few; so few, that at the most, I have not
more than one quotation, exclusive of those which are derived from the regular
commentators: and so indeterminate, that in all which I can produce, there is not one of
the passages which is decisive, either way, with respect to the required [that is, Sharps
required] interpretation." Similarly, Wordsworth cannot find support for Sharps
interpretation of 1Ti 5:21 or 2Ti 4:1 (Six Letters, 48-64).
30
Kuehne, "The Greek Article," Theology 14 (March, 1974), 17 (emphasis
added).
31
It comes from Clement of Alexandrias Exhortation to the Heathen (written
sometime toward the end of the second century CE), chap. 1, p. 173 of Wilsons
translation (ANF 2). His rendering, "looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the
glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," shows that Wilson understood
two persons to be in view. Also, there does not appear to be anything in the context to
Excursus 377
Hippolytus (c. 170235 CE), in his Treatise on Christ and

Antichrist. It reads according to Salmonds translation, "looking
for the blessed hope and appearing of our God and Saviour." 32
The context shows that these words are applied to Jesus, but there
are several reasons why this text from Hippolytus cannot be
considered representative of the true interpretation of Titus 2:13.
Abbot gives a lucid explanation of the problem:
Hippolytus (De Antichristo c. 67), in an allusion to the

passage [Titus 2:13], uses the expression ejpifavneian tou' qeou'
kaiV swth'ro" hJmw'n ["manifestation of our God and Savior"] of
Christ, which may seem to indicate that he adopted the
construction just mentioned [that is, in Titus 2:13]. But it is to
be observed that he omits the th'" dovxh" ["of the glory"], and
the megavlou ["great"], and the jIhsou' Cristou' ["Jesus Christ"]
after swth'ro" hJmw'n ["our Savior"], so that it is not certain that
if he had quoted the passage fully, instead of merely borrowing
some of its language, he would have applied all the terms to
one subject.33
The significance of Abbots observation will be more fully

explored when we discuss the use of the proper name "Jesus"
together with "Christ," "Lord," and "Savior." After Hippolytus
there is no support for Sharps interpretation of Titus 2:13 until
Athanasius (c. 296373 CE) and then Cyril of Jerusalem (c.
315368 CE), who along with other Fathers "were influenced in
part by theological motives in choosing (b) [= our great God and
Saviour, Christ Jesus.]."34 As for 2 Peter 1:1, Wordsworth cannot
cite a single Father in support of Sharps interpretation.35
support the idea that Clement was speaking of only one person (Jesus Christ) when he
quoted Titus 2:13.
32
ANF 5, 219.
33
Ezra Abbot, "On the Construction of Titus ii. 13," JBL 1 (1882), 7-8.
34
J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (London: A. & C. Black, 1963), 246.
Abbot ("Titus ii. 13," 8) likewise points out: "It is true that many writers of the fourth
century and later apply the passage to Christ. At that period, and earlier, when qeoV" had
become a common appellation of Christ, and especially when he was very often called
our God or our God and Saviour, the construction of Tit. ii. 13 which refers the
qeou' to him would seem the most natural. But the New Testament use of language is
widely different; and on that account a construction which would seem most natural in
However, our primary concern at this point is whether or not

the Fathers employed the construction articulated by Sharp in his
first rule, even though two persons were intended. In his response
to Sharps Remarks, Winstanley lists several such examples.36
Two of these exceptions have yet to be given a satisfactory
explanation, though there have been a few seemingly desperate
attempts to do so.
Exceptions to Sharps rule in Patristic literature . The
first example we will consider is a citation from Justin Martyr
(who died about 165 CE) that has, to my knowledge, never before
been mentioned in a discussion of exceptions to Sharps rule. In
his Dialogue with Trypho (110.55) Justin refers to Christians as a
"vine planted by God and Christ the Saviour."37 Here tou' qeou'
precedes kaiV which is followed by swth'ro" Cristou'. This text
parallels Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 (both of these texts are
discussed later in this Excursus) in using the article with theos but
not before soteros, the noun following kai.
the fourth century, might not even suggest itself to a reader of the first century. That the
orthodox Fathers should give to an ambiguous passage the construction which suited
their theology and the use of language in their time, was almost a matter of course, and
furnishes no evidence that their resolution of the ambiguity is the true one. The cases
are so numerous in which the Fathers, under the influence of a dogmatic bias, have
done extreme violence to very plain language, that we can attach no weight to their
preference in the case of a construction really ambiguous, like the present [Titus 2:13]"
(emphasis added). Wallace ("Multiple Substantives," 251, note 214) replies by saying,
"What seems to be a significant blow to Abbots sweeping statement is the fact that the
patristic writers did not invoke the language of 1Tim 5:21 or 2Thess 1:12 in their
appeals to Christs deitythe very passages which have [as we will see below] proper
names and are thus not valid examples of Sharps rule." Of course, Wallace seems to
assume that, like the compound names "Lord Jesus Christ" (2Th 1:12) or "Christ Jesus"
(1Ti 5:21), "Savior Jesus Christ" cannot likewise be considered a compound proper
name and, so, also an invalid example of Sharps rule. This matter will be considered in
greater detail below. But all this aside, it is hard to understand the logic of Wallaces
objection here, for he seems to forget that the Fathers of the fourth century and
following applied both nouns ("Christ" and "God") of Eph 5:5 to Jesus, yet Wallace
considers Cristov" the equivalent of a proper name! See the discussion of Eph 5:5
below.
35
Wordsworth, Six Letters, 105-108.
36
Winstanley, Vindication, 9-11.
37
ANF 1, 254. Mignes text reads, &H gaVr futeuqei'sa uJpoV tou' Qeou'
a[mpelo" kaiV swth'ro" Cristou', oJ laoV" aujtou' ejsti.
Excursus 379
This example from Justin further parallels Titus 2:13 in that,

following the Sharp construction, a third person singular pronoun
(aujtou', "of him") is used where, if two persons were in view, one
might have expected a plural pronoun (as in the LXX of Pr
24:21). However, even though 2 Timothy 4:1 speaks of "God and
Christ Jesus" (tou' qeou' kaiV Cristou' jIhsou') Paul follows with
the singular autou in reference to Christ alone. That "Christ" is
here the equivalent to a proper name will be demonstrated below,
but here we should note the unmistakable use of "Christ Jesus" as
a proper name in 1 Timothy 6:13. For further discussion of this
text, see below under "Ephesians 5:5." Thus, we need not be
deterred by the use of the singular pronoun in Titus 2:13 or in the
present passage from Justin (compare 2Pe 1:2, 3).
If we go back ten chapters in Justins dialogue and trace his
use of "God," it is clear that he has only one referent in mind, and
that referent does not change. In every one of the thirty-six uses of
"God" (excluding our present passage) it is either used in such a
way as to identify the referent as the "Father" or the term is used
without any qualification, suggesting that no change in referent
has been made. In fact, God and Jesus are regularly distinguished
in these chapters, and elsewhere in Justins writings.
It is true, however, that Justin does, on occasion, call Jesus
theos, and it is quite possible that he does so again in this text. But
the context does not suggest it, and "God" is so frequently used in
reference to the Father that he most certainly could have Him in
mind here; the use of "Savior Christ" is itself semantically
restricted to Jesus. If Justin did intend to apply theos to Jesus in
this passage then it would be with the meaning he elsewhere
attributes to the term when used of Jesus, as "another God and
Lord subject to the Maker of all things."38 Justin further describes
this one as "Wisdom" who was "God begotten of the Father"
(compare Joh 1:18).39 This is not to suggest that Justin believes in
two ontologically equal Gods, but that "God" is one of the titles
38
ANF 1, 223.
39
ANF 1, 227.
that the Christ "received from the Father."40 Justin says that
Christians should "reverence no other god." But he then points out
that "since God wishes it, he [a Christian] would reverence that
angel who is beloved by the same Lord and God."41
Still, in view of the context and Justins use of theos in the
preceding chapters of his Dialogue, we should take the reference
to "God" in 110.55 as a reference to the Father. This, then,
provides a parallel text to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 in its use of
theos and soter, as terms that have a generally fixed reference so
that their use in article-noun-kaiV-noun constructions does not
subject them to the restrictions of Sharps rule, at least not in all
cases.
One of the next two examples from the patristics is found in
the Martyrdom of Polycarp 22:1, where Polycarp calls for dovxa
tw'/ qew'/ kaiV patriV kaiV aJgivw/ pneuvmati ("glory to God and the
Father and the Holy Spirit").42 Here the article is found only
before qew',/ which would, according to Sharp, make aJgivw/
pneuvmati ("holy spirit") a further description of the Father! The
second example is from Clement of Alexandria, where he gives
praise tw'/ movnw/ patriV kaiV uiJw/' ("to the only Father and Son").43
From these examples we can see that if Sharps rule is true in all
cases, then these writings contain instances where the Father is
identified as both the Son and holy spirit, presumably in some sort
of modalistic sense.
These examples from the patristics texts refer to God, the
Father, the Son or the holy spirit. It is significant that we find
exceptions to Sharps rule in patristic literature that involve
roughly the same terms or subjects as the four New Testament
passages mentioned at the beginning of this excursus.
40
ANF 1, 242. Notice, in addition to his specific mention of the titles "King,"
"Christ," "Priest" and "Angel," Justin then refers to the "other titles which He bears or
did bear."
41
ANF 1, 246.
42
The Greek text and English translation is that of Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic
Fathers, vol. 2 (LCL), 341.
43
Paedagogus 3.12. In the ANF this text can be found in vol. 2 of Clements
Instructor, p. 295.
Excursus 381
Wallace offers two explanations for these exceptions to

Sharps rule: 1) "It is just possible that by the second century the
terms used for the first person of the Trinity became so fixed that
the writers regarded them as virtual proper names." But he goes on
to point out that there "are problems with this view," as one would
have expected similar phrases (such as, "the God over all" [Ro
9:5] and "Almighty God" [Rev 16:14]) to likewise have been
regarded as equivalents of proper names, but they are occasionally
applied to both the Father and Son in the writings of the Fathers. 44
2) Wallace considers it a better approach to "recognize that we are
assuming too much about their [the Fathers] own christological
articulation ... of the distinctions between members of the
Trinity."45 He goes on to argue that these alleged exceptions to
Sharps rule are really just examples of the Fathers overstating
their case. But the facts show otherwise.
Though Wallace gives examples of certain Fathers who use
language which he apparently construes as modalistic,46 he does
not illustrate how this is allegedly the case with either Polycarp or
Clement. He also claims that "in their [the Fathers] zeal to defend
the deity of Christ they proved too much."47 But nowhere in the
Martyrdom of Polycarp is there an attempt to "defend the deity of
Christ." There is an account of Christian martyrdom, and an issue
of loyalty relating to Caesar and Christ does arise (8:2), but this is
hardly an occasion which would lead to confusion over the
identity of the Father and the holy spirit. Also, in Clements
Instructor, where our second example comes from, Clement
44
See Chapter 3, pages 143-152 for a discussion of Romans 9:5.
45
Wallace, "Multiple Substantives," 268-269.
46
For example, he quotes Ignatius (Eph 1:1) who speaks of "the blood of God,"
but this is not necessarily an indication that Ignatius identified the Father with the Son.
The fact is Ignatius understood Christ to be qeov" in some sense, but nonetheless
maintained a clear distinction between the Father and the Son, for he refers to "the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (oJ pathVr *Ihsou' Cristou' [Eph 2:1]), he talks of
singing "to the Father through Jesus Christ" (diaV *Ihsou' Cristou' tw/' patriv [Eph
4:2]), and he speaks of those who are joined with God "as the Church is to Jesus Christ,
and as Jesus Christ is to the Father" (wJ" hJ ejkklhsiva *Ihsou' Cristw/' kaiV wJ"
*Ihsou'" CristoV" tw/' patriv [Eph 5:1]).
47
Ibid., 269.
speaks of Jesus as "the Son of God, the child of the Father." 48 He

also talks of "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus," and further
states:
He [Jesus] proclaims His Father to be good, and to be the

Creator. And that the Creator is just, is not disputed. And
again he says, My Father sends the rain on the just, and on the
unjust. In respect of His sending rain, He is the Creator of the
waters, and of the clouds. And in respect of His doing so on
all, He holds an even balance justly and rightly. And as being
good, he does so on just and unjust alike. . . . Our Lord says in
His prayer, Our Father, who art in heaven. And the heavens
belong to Him, who created the world. It is indisputable, then,
that the Lord is the Son of the Creator; then the Lord is the
Son of Him who is just."49
Wallace is not saying that such distinctions are never made in

the Fathers, but he does state that "they are not consistently
made."50 While that may be true, he does not demonstrate how
this is so in the writings of Polycarp or Clements Instructor, and
even if he were to show that there was some form of modalism
present in these works, it would not automatically mean that the
examples under consideration were intended to convey this kind
of thinking. Rather, there seems to be a much more likely
explanation for the construction of these examples from Polycarp
and Clement.
In his attempt to discredit the force of Winstanleys
exceptions from the Fathers, Kuehne states concerning the
example from the Martyrdom of Polycarp: "One would indeed
have expected a repetition of the article before aJgivw/ pneuvmati
[holy spirit]. Yet its absence here could hardly result in any
ambiguity, for the distinction between the first and the third
persons of the Trinity was apparently deemed too clear for any
48
ANF 2, 215.
49
50
Ibid., 270, note 266.
Excursus 383
confusion to arise."51 Of course what Kuehne fails to realize is this

very same line of reasoning could be used in relation to the four
christologically significant passages in NT. Wallace understands
the implications of this kind of argument, which is why he
ventured to offer the two alternative explanations just considered.
Still, we believe Kuehne was correct in his explanation of the
patristic exceptions, but, again, failed to realize that this could
also be true of the four passages from the NT we are most
interested in, namely, 2 Thessalonians 1:12, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter
1:1, and Ephesians 5:5. It is to these four passages that we now
turn our attention.
Sharps Rule and the New Testament

There are forty-four instances in the New Testament where
only nouns are involved in Sharps rule, and sixteen times these
are in the form of oJ qeoV" kaiV pathvr ("the God and Father"),
while seven (Eph 5:5; 2Th 1:12; 1Ti 5:21; 6:13; 2Ti 4:1; Tit 2:13;
2Pe 1:1) potentially call Christ qeov", if Sharps rule is valid in
each of them.52 Three of these seven (1Ti 5:21; 6:13; 2Ti 4:1) are
usually ignored when it comes to discussions centering on the
question of whether or not Christ is called "God" in Scripture.
These three will be considered when we discuss the meaning of
Ephesians 5:5, since the nouns involved in these texts are the
same.
We believe that the following analysis will reveal that in each
of the four christologically significant passages there is a reason,
other than that given by Sharp, Wallace, and others, why only one
article precedes the first of two nouns connected by kaiv.
51
Kuehne, "The Greek Article," Theology 14 (June, 1974), 18-19. See also the
note by Rose in Middletons Doctrine of the Greek Article, 58-59, note 1, where he
says "the distinction between the persons of the Trinity was, of course, deemed too
clear for any confusion to arise."
52
Excluding these seven passages, Wallace ("Multiple Substantives," Appendix,
283-288) lists eighty-seven texts that fit the requirements of Sharps rule: thirty-seven
nouns, forty-one substantival participles, five substantival adjectives, and four
involving mixed constituents.
Ephesians 5:5. In this passage the apostle Paul reminds the

Ephesians that "no fornicator or impure man, or one who is
covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom
of Christ and of God [ejn th'/ basileiva/ tou' Cristou' kaiV qeou']."
(RSV, emphasis added) Here the RSV makes a clear distinction
between "Christ" and "God." But is this distinction justified?
According to Sharp, this passage should, in accordance with
his first-stated rule, be translated "in the kingdom of Christ, (even)
of God," showing an identification of Jesus as God in this
passage.53 Middleton agrees, stating: "On the whole, I regard the
present text, as it stands in the Greek, to be among the least
questionable of the authorities collected by Mr. Sharp, and as
being, when weighed impartially, a decisive proof, that in the
judgment of St. Paul, Christ is entitled to the appellation of
God."54
When we come to Winstanley, however, there is a much
different sentiment expressed. He argues that Cristov" "assumes
the nature of a proper name,"55 which would put Ephesians 5:5
outside the parameters of Sharps rule. Kuehnes sole objection to
this is that if Cristou' is taken as a quasi-proper name in this
passage, then it should be anarthrous and in the second position.56
53
Sharp, Remarks, 28-29.
54
Middleton, Doctrine of the Greek Article, 367.
55
Winstanley, Vindication, 23. See note 29 above.
56
Kuehne, "The Greek Article," Theology 14 (June, 1974), 20. Of course, even if
this were true, the possibility would still remain that qeov", standing in the second
position, could have the force of a proper name as in 2Th 2:16. UBS 4 and NA26 contain
the reading, oJ kuvrio" hJmw'n jIhsou'" CristoV" kaiV [oJ] qeoV" oJ pathVr hJmw'n ("our
Lord Jesus Christ and God our Father"). The article before qeov" is enclosed in brackets,
for it is lacking in B D* K 33 1175 1739 1881 and other witnesses, though it is found in
a* D2 F G and others. The article also occurs before qeov" in several other witnesses
(including A I Y), but these readings contain different variants of oJ pathVr hJmw'n (see,
B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3d edition [New
York: United Bible Societies, 1971], 637). If oJ qeov" is the true reading, it is difficult to
understand its articularity, being in the second position, if indeed qeov" is here the
equivalent of a proper name. On the other hand, if oJ kuvrio" hJmw'n jIhsou'" CristoV"
kaiV qeoV" oJ pathVr hJmw'n is the true reading, with an anarthrous qeov" following kaiv,
then several possibilities exist: 1) Jesus Christ is identified as "God the Father"; 2) it is
an exception to Sharps rule; 3) it is an invalid example of Sharps rule because qeov",
standing in the second position, has the force of a proper name; 4) the entire phrase
qeoV" oJ pathVr is taken together as the equivalent of a proper name, as oJ pathVr
Excursus 385
However, the fact is Cristov" is often arthrous in the writings of

Paul, even though "the messianic designation comes to be a
personal name."57 Wallace, though admitting that "one would be
hard-pressed to view this [Christ] as less than a proper name in
the epistles,"58 believes that nothing definite can be said about the
position of Cristov" in this passage, for even though he examined
mixed constructions such as this (which involve a proper name
and a personal noun) in the NT and papyri, all having the proper
name in the second position, almost none of these mixed
constructions applied both nouns to the same person.59
Similarly, 1 Timothy 5:21 (tou' qeou' kaiV Cristou' jIhsou'
["of God and Christ Jesus"], 6:13 (tou' qeou' . . . kaiV Cristou'
jIhsou'), and 2 Timothy 4:1 (tou' qeou' kaiV Cristou' jIhsou') all
have the proper name in the second position and are thus clearly
not governed by Sharps rule. Xristov" ("Christ") does not need
the article to stand on its own apart from tou' qeou', particularly in
these examples since it is accompanied by jIhsou' ("Jesus"). Note
also that in 1 Timothy 6:13 tou' zw/ogonou'nto" taV pavnta is
clearly in apposition to tou' qeou', and tou' marturhvsanto" ejpiV
Pontivou Pilavtou thVn kalhVn oJmologivan is in apposition to
Cristou' jIhsou'.
The Hebrew equivalent to the Greek christos ("Christ") is
mashiach ("Messiah") The Hebrew Bible never uses mashiach
with the article. Laurin believes that by the time the events of John
restricts the anarthrous qeov" to a person who is everywhere in the New Testament
distinguished from "our Lord Jesus Christ" (see, for example, Ro 15:5-6; 1Co 1:3; Eph
1:3, 17); or 5) oJ kuvrio" hJmw'n jIhsou'" CristoV" is a compound proper name and is,
therefore, distinct from what follows.
57
Robert W. Funk, "The Syntax of the Greek Article: Its Importance for Critical
Pauline Problems" (Ph.D. Dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1953), 192. In
Ephesians, when Paul uses Cristov" by itself (that is, apart from an accompanying
term such as *Ihsou'" ["Jesus"]), we find that it is anarthrous seven times (1:3; 2:12;
4:15, 32; 5:21, 32; 6:6), and twenty times it is arthrous (1:9, 12, 20; 2:5, 13; 3:4, 8, 17,
19; 4:7, 12, 13, 20; 5:2, 14, 23, 24, 25, 29; 6:5). When used together with *Ihsou'", it
is anarthrous thirteen times (1:1 [twice], 2, 5; 2:6, 7, 10, 13; 3:6, 21; 5:20; 6:23, 24),
and arthrous only twice (3:1 [supported by P 46 a2 A B (C) D2 Y], 11) Thus, it is hardly
a surprise that we find Cristov" preceded by the article in 5:5.
58
59
Ibid., 247, note 202.
4:25 take place mashiach "has become a proper name."60 The

Hebrew Bible does not identify the Messiah as Jehovah God. In
fact, he is distinguished from Jehovah in almost every way
possible: The kings of the earth are prophetically said to take their
stand against Jehovah and against "his" anointed one (Ps 2:1-2);
Isaiah says the one who comes from the root of Jesse (the
Messiah) would have Jehovahs spirit upon him, and serve in the
"fear of Jehovah" (Isa 11:1-3); and the messianic Son of man
receives royal authority from Jehovah, "the ancient of days" (Dan
7:13).
Still, Isaiah 9:6 does say the future Messiah would be called
"mighty God,"61 and Ephesians 5:5 would fit well with this
description, for the reference to the "kingdom" in Ephesians 5:5
parallels the "princely rule" of Isaiah 9:6. In this case it could be
that Ephesians 5:5 refers to Christ as theos in a qualified sense,
but this is not a necessary conclusion, as the kingdom is a
possession of both Christ and God. (Rev 11:15; 12:10) In any
event, the OT makes it clear that Jehovah is the God of the
Messiah, and the NT maintains this same distinction. (Mic 5:4;
Eph 1:3, 17; Ro 15:5-6; Rev 3:12) So there is a semantic
distinction between Jehovah and His Christ, which is impossible
to miss when the texts are examined apart from post-biblical
theology.
From a purely grammatical perspective, Ephesians 5:5 does
not fall into the general category of article-noun-kaiV-noun
constructions, for it contains the equivalent of a proper name in
the first position, while none of Wallaces eighty-seven examples
fit this description. Therefore, it would seem only natural to
maintain the same distinction in our English translations of
Ephesians 5:5 as the apostle Paul does some twelve other times in
this epistle, between "Christ" and "God."62
2 Thessalonians 1:12. This is another text where we
appear to have all the requirements of Sharps rule. The portion of
this verse we are concerned with reads, kataV thVn cavrin tou' qeou'
60
61
See Chapter 2, pages 81-84 for a discussion of this verse.
62
1:1, 2, 3, 17; 2:4-5, 10, 19-20; 3:10-11; 4:32; 5:2, 20; 6:23.
Excursus 387
hJmw'n kaiV kurivou jIhsou' Cristou'. The RSV reads, "according to

the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." As we can see,
the article, in Greek, only precedes qeou' ("God"), yet the RSV
translates this verse as if it were also before kurivou jIhsou'
Cristou' ("Lord Jesus Christ"). Is this justified, or should the
translators have followed Sharps suggested rendering, "according
to the grace of the God and Lord of us, Jesus Christ," or
"according to the grace of Jesus Christ, our God and Lord"?63
According to Middleton, "Kuvrio" *I. Cr. is a common title of
Christ, and is often used independently of all that precedes it";
therefore, its occurrence in 2 Thessalonians 1:12 "affords no
certain evidence in favor of Mr. Sharp."64 C. J. Davis has
produced a chart listing all the occurrences of compound names
for Jesus with kuvrio", concluding that "when kuvrio" is joined to
qeov" by kaiv, kuvrio" generally lacks the definite article."65 In fact,
when following kaiv, kuvrio" has the article only once (1Th 3:11),66
while every other time it is anarthrous.67 So it is no surprise we
find it is anarthrous in 2 Thessalonians 1:12, for while tou' qeou'
hJmw'n kaiV kurivou might be understood of one person, "the simple
addition of jIhsou' Cristou' to kurivou makes the reference to the
two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article."68
2 Thessalonians 1:12, like Ephesians 5:5 (and 1Ti 5:21; 6:13;
2Ti 4:1), contains the equivalent of a proper name, in this case a
compound proper name. It is therefore not a valid example of
Sharps rule, as even Wallace acknowledges.69 These uses of
compound proper names, or nouns that may serve as the
equivalent to a proper name (for example, "Christ"), may or may
63
Sharp, Remarks, 34.
64
Middleton, Doctrine of the Greek Article, 381, 382.
65
C. J. Davis, "The Use of the Articular and Anarthrous Kuvrio" in the Pauline
Corpus" (M. A. thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1989), 31-33.
66
Davis (ibid., 33) notes the repetition of the article here may be because hJmw'n
occurs with each noun. This may also be why, if original, the article precedes qeov" in
2Th 2:16.
67
Ro 1:7; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Ga 1:3; Eph 1:2; 6:23; Php 1:2; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1,
2, 12; Phm 3. Davis citation of 2Th 2:12 as containing the reading tou' qeou' hJmw'n
kaiV kurivou *Ihsou' was apparently made in error.
68
Abbot, "Titus ii. 13," 15.
69
Wallace, "Multiple Substantives," 250, note 211.
not take the article, but in either case the nouns are applied to
different individuals (compare 2Ti 4:1 with Rev 20:6)
Titus 2:13. This text is perhaps the most frequently cited
passage when discussing Sharps rule, and most commentators
and grammarians of recent times see this as an instance where
Christ is not only called "God," but "the great God."70 Richard
Young, after stating that in Titus 2:13 "the construction tou'
megavlou qeou' kaiV swth'ro" hJmw'n (our great God and Savior)
means that our savior, Jesus Christ, is God," goes on to say that
the translations of Phillips ("the great God and of Jesus Christ our
savior") and the KJV ("the great God and our Savior Jesus
Christ") tend to "separate the nouns." But NWT ("of the great
God and of our Savior Christ Jesus"), according to Young,
"separates the two nouns even more."71 Is the separation indicated
by these (and other72) translations justified?
Naturally, Sharp believed this text applied to one person,
Jesus Christ. In his words, "The text in question, if the truth of the
original be duly regarded, must inevitably be rendered, Expecting
the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of our great God
and Savior, Jesus Christ."73 Middleton believes "it is impossible
to understand qeou' and swth'ro" otherwise than of one person."74
Wallace, with more caution than Sharp or Middleton, states,
"Titus 2:13 appears to be secure as a reference to Christ as
qeov"."75 But there are problems with this view. Again we raise the
issue of whether or not one of the two nouns should be considered
a proper name. Here the question must be posed with respect to
both "the great God" and "Savior Jesus Christ."
70
See Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in
Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 185, for a listing of some
grammarians, commentators, and lexicographers who favor a one-person translation of
Titus 2:13, as well as a list of some who favor a two-person translation.
71
Richard Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and
Exegetical Approach (Nashville: Broadman, 1994), 63.
72
See Chapter 3, page 161.
73
Sharp, Remarks, 46-47.
74
Middleton, Doctrine of the Greek Article, 394.
75
Excursus 389
We begin with the question of whether or not tou' megavlou

qeou' could have been a fixed title of the Father so that the first-
century Christians regarded it as a virtual proper name. We noted
earlier in our discussion of the patristic exceptions that Wallace
considered it possible for the descriptions "the only Father" and
"the God and Father" to be considered virtual proper names. In
light of the OT description of Jehovah as "the great God" 76 it is
equally possible, if not more likely, that "the great God" was
understood as the equivalent of a proper name, and a clear
reference to the Father.
The use of this title for Jehovah in Psalm 85:10 is of
particular interest. There we are told that Jehovah "alone" is "the
great God." Since the OT makes it clear that Jehovah is the God of
the Messiah (Mic 5:4; Rev 3:12) and Paul refers to the Father as
the God of Jesus (Ro 15:5,6; Eph 1:3, 17; 2Co 1:3; 11:31), a
description such as "the great God" which is, in the OT, restricted
to Jehovah, would naturally create a semantic distinction between
"the great God" (the Father, Jehovah) and Jesus Christ. Since
Jesus can only have one who is God to him, if we take the
expression "the great God" as a reference to Jehovah, then it is
ipso facto a reference to the Father.
Consequently, if "the great God" is a fixed expression for
Jehovah, the Father, then there is no doubt it could stand on its
76
Abbot ("Titus ii. 13," 19) lists a number of examples from the LXX which
"show how naturally Paul might apply this designation to the Father." See (as numbered
in the LXX) De 7:21 (qeoV" mevga" kaiV krataiov", "[is] a great and powerful God");
10:17 (oJ qeoV" oJ mevga" kaiV ijscuroV" kaiV oJ foberov". This is the text as printed in
Rahlfs edition of the LXX. One might have expected foberov" to be anarthrous. But
the reading is uncertain, as A [and the Gttingen] has the article before all three
adjectives, and in B the article is found only before mevga". In the case of the former, we
would translate, "The great God, the strong and the fear-inspiring [One]." If we take
mevga" as the only adjective with the article, then it would read, "The great God, strong
and fear-inspiring." It is also possible to translate each, respectively, "God, the great,
the strong and the fear-inspiring One," or "God, the great, strong, and fear-inspiring
One."); Neh 8:6 (toVn qeoVn toVn mevgan, "the great God"); Ps 77[76]:13[14] (tiv" qeoV"
mevga" wJ" oJ qeoV", "who is a great God as is our God?" [revealing, of course, that
Jehovah is a "great God," and that He is distinguished as such from others]); 85:10 (o{ti
mevga" ei\ suV . . . suV ei\ oJ qeoV" movno" oJ mevga", "For you are great . . . you alone are
the great God"); see also Ezr 5:8 (2 Ezra in Rahlfs); Neh 4:14; Ps 95(94):3; Isa 26:5;
Jer 39(32):19; Da 2:45 and 9:4 (note the two readings in Rahlfs).
own in Titus 2:13. The first descriptive phrase is made specific by

having a restricted reference (Ps 85:10), and the second noun
("Savior") is without question restricted to the person named,
"Jesus Christ." Indeed, even without the added description of
"great," theos in Pauls writings is clearly restricted to the Father,
as the following chart reveals:
Figure E.1
Use of qeov" in the Pauline Corpus
Grammatically
Book Frequency For the Father For Jesus For others
Ambiguous
Rom 15377 152 0 0 178
1Co 10679 104 0 280 0
77
In 15:19 theos occurs in P46 a D1 but not in B. See Metzger, A Textual
Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 537, for an explanation about UBS3s use
of theos in brackets (the same reading is found in NA26).
78
Romans 9:5 could grammatically be taken in reference to ho Christos ("the
Christ"), but there are several reasons why it should be seen as a doxology to the Father.
See Chapter 3, pages 143-152. Another verse which, though not grammatically
ambiguous, does put "God" and "Christ" in close relation to one another, is 8:9. It
reads: "However, you are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if Gods
spirit truly dwells in you. But if anyone does not have Christs spirit, this one does not
belong to him." The context of Romans 8 is very similar to Galatians 4, for in both
chapters Paul highlights the minding of spiritual things versus fleshy desires, and he
also refers to the spirit they have received, which cries out, "Abba, Father!" (Ro 8:13)
In Galatians 4:6 he says, "Now because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of his
Son into our hearts and it cries out: Abba, Father!" Naturally the use of "his Son"
involves the Father; it is easy to see the consistency in Romans 8:9, where "God" refers
to the Father, and where "Christ" refers to "his Son." The spirit the Christians have been
given is indeed Gods spirit, for He sent it forth; it comes from Him. This spirit makes
them "Gods children" which constitutes them "heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with
Christ" (Ro 8:17).
79
The use of theos in 1:14 is textually uncertain. a* B and others have theos, and
a C D F G and others do not. See Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
2
Testament, 544, for an explanation about UBS3s use of theos in brackets. The same
reading is given in NA26.
80
1Co 8:5. See Chapter 4, pages 201-202.
Excursus 391
2Co 79 78 0 181 082

Gal 3183 30 0 184 0
Eph 31 30 0 0 185
Php 2386 22 0 187 0
Col 21 21 0 0 0
88
1Th 36 36 0 0 0
81
Satan (2Co 4:4).
82
While they are not listed as grammatically ambiguous, there are five uses of
theos that are sometimes translated as adjectives. In 1Co 1:12 NWT reads, "godly
sincerity," which could mean simply "the sincerity of [or given by] God." Plummer (A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the
Corinthians [ICC; New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1915], 25) states: "The exact
force of tou' Qeou' is uncertain; superlative, approved by God, divine, godlike,
godly have been suggested and are possible; but derived from God or God-given
is more likely to be right, and the gen. probably belongs to both nouns; God-given
holiness (simplicity) and sincerity." In 7:9 Pauls refers to the fact that the Corinthians
were "saddened in a godly way," or "according to God[s way]," that is, a sadness in
harmony with Gods will, as it lead them to repentance (ejluphvqhte eij" metavnoian).
The same is true regarding kataV qeoVn in verses 10 and 11. Pauls reference to "godly
jealousy" in 11:2 reveals that he has the same concern for preserving the (spiritual)
chastity of Christs bride and presenting them to him (see the latter part of verse 2), as
God does.
83
In 1:15 theos is found in P46 and B, but not in a A D. In 3:21 theos is found in
a A D, but not in P46 or B. See Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 590, 594-595.
84
Paul refers to "those who by nature are not gods," which is likely a reference to
idols or other man-made gods that do not really exist. See Chapter 2, page 99, note 90.
85
Though I do not think it is truly ambiguous, I list Eph 5:5 in this category since
it is possible that theos was here given as a title for Christ, in view of the messianic
reference in Isaiah 9:5-6. But, again, it is unlikely that this is the case, for several
reasons. See page 386. In any case, if Paul is here using theos in reference to Christ it is
not used in a sense commensurate with the Trinitarian definition for God, nor with the
distinctions they create for the "persons within God." See Chapter 2, pages 56-59 for
further discussion of this point.
86
In Php 1:14 tou theou occurs in a A B D* the Vulgate, Syriac and Coptic
witnesses; P46 and D2 omit.
87
Php 3:19, "their god is their belly."
88
The variant reading tou theou in 1Th 2:16 (found in D F G 629) is not included
in this total.
2Th 18 16 0 289 090

1Ti 22 22 0 0 091
2Ti 13 13 0 0 092
Tit 13 12 0 0 193
Phm 2 2 0 0 0
Heb 68 67 0 0 194
Totals 616 605 0 7 4
After considering these numbers it is easy to understand what

Professor Ezra Abbot meant when, over a hundred years ago, he
wrote: "I do not see how any one can read the Epistles of Paul
without perceiving that, in speaking of the objects of Christian
faith, he constantly uses qeov" as a proper name, as the
designation of the Father in distinction from Christ."95
Figure E.1 substantiates the view that, for Paul, theos was
basically restricted to the Father, thus serving as the equivalent to
a proper name. A careful analysis of the discourse of Pauls
writings, including the letter to the Hebrews, shows that
throughout each letter there are numerous texts that use theos in
reference to the Father, as distinct from Jesus Christ. Then, as the
discourse continues, Paul uses theos without any indication that it
89
In 2Th 2:4 the first use of theos is generic, and the third is in reference to "the
man of lawlessness" (verse 3).
90
The semantic significance of the expressions in 2Th 1:12, tou theou hemon in
contrast to kyriou Iesou Christou ("Lord Jesus Christ"), leaves little room for doubt as
to the application of theos in this text, but grammatically it is possible to take theos in
reference to Jesus in this verse (compare note 83), even if we take "Lord Jesus Christ"
as a fixed expression.
91
The construction in 5:21 and 6:13 is really not ambiguous, since it is quite
evident that Christou Iesou is the equivalent to a proper name. See pages 376, note 28,
and page 377, note 34.
92
In 2:14 theos is omitted in A D, the Vulgate and in the Syriac witnesses. For
Christou Iesou in 4:1, see pages 387-388.
93
Tit 2:13. See discussion of this text in this Excursus.
94
Heb 1:8. See Chapter 3, pages 164-169 for a discussion of this text.
95
Ezra Abbot, "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," JBL 1 (1881), 121. See
Chapter 3, pages 143-152 for a discussion of Romans 9:5.
Excursus 393
has a different referent, or is being used with a different

meaning.96
Of course, we would expect to find some other articulation
for theos if in fact Paul had ever used the term for a consubstantial
triad of "persons."97 Several times theos is used in of the Father in
reference to the position He occupies in relation to His Son.98
96
Here is a list of those texts that explicitly use theos in reference to the Father,
as distinct from Jesus. This is done in one of several ways, either through an explicit
distinction that is made between God and Jesus, the additional description of God as
"the Father," or the reference is to "his Son" (or "Gods Son") and other, similar
descriptions/qualifications that effectively distinguish the theos to which reference is
made, from Jesus. Most of the time these additional descriptions/qualifications are
made in the same verse in which theos is used, but there are instances where the
immediate context makes the aforementioned distinction, as is the case with our first
example from the book of Romans. ROMANS: 1:1 (note the use of theos in this verse
in relation to tou' uiJou' aujtou', "the Son of him" in verse 3), 4, 7 (second occurrence),
8, 9; 2:16; 3:22, 23 (compare verse 24), 25 (note that here Paul refers to "God" as the
one who "sent him [Jesus Christ (verse 24)] forth," while John says that the "Father"
[1Jo 4:14] "sent forth his Son," showing that the two terms "God" and "Father" were
practically interchangeable in the first century CE; the same could not be said of "God"
and "Son" as these very same texts [and others] reveal); 5:1, 10, 11; 6:10, 11, 23; 7:25
(first occurrence); 8:3, 17; 10:9; 15:6; 16:27; 1CORINTHIANS: 1:3, 9, 24 (twice);
3:23; 6:14; 8:6; 11:3; 15:15, 24, 28; 2CORINTHIANS: 1:2, 3 (twice), 19, 20; 4:4
(second occurrence); 5:18, 19; 11:3; 13:(13)14; GALATIANS: 1:1, 3, 4, 15 (note the
use of "his Son" in verse 16); 2:20; 3:26; 4:4, 6; 4:14; EPHESIANS: 1:2, 3, 17; 2:4
(compare verse 5); 3:10 (compare verse 11); 4:6, 13, 32; 5:2, 5 (see pages 384-386),
20; 6:23; PHILIPPIANS: 1:2; 2:6 (twice), 9, 11; 4:20; COLOSSIANS: 1:2, 3, 15;
2:12; 3:1, 17; 1THESSALONIANS: 1:1, 3, 9 (twice; note the use of "his Son" in verse
10); 3:11, 13; 2THESSALONIANS: 1:1, 2, 12 (see pages 386-388); 2:16;
1TIMOTHY: 1:1, 2; 2:5 (twice); 5:21 (see page 377, note 34); 6:13 (see page 387);
2TIMOTHY: 1:2; 4:1 (see pages 387); TITUS: 1:1 (twice), 4; 3:4 (see verse 6);
PHILEMON: 1:3; HEBREWS: 1:1, 9 (twice); 2:17; 4:14; 5:10; 6:6; 7:3; 7:25; 9:14
(twice); 9:24; 10:7, 12, 21, 29; 12:2, 23 (compare verse 24); 13:15, 20. These
references reveal that those instances where Paul uses theos in a positive sense without
specifically mentioning the Father, or distinguishing Him from Jesus, the term conveys
a semantic signal for the Father. There is no evident change in Pauls thought when he
uses theos specifically for the Father, and when he uses it without a specific reference
to the Father. The few exceptions are noted in figure E.1.
97
Aside from a couple ambiguous passages (see figure E.1 and the
accompanying notes), when Paul uses the term positively, that is, not in reference to
false gods, it always refers to the being of the Father. The term is never used in
reference to a Trinity of "persons." See Chapter 2, pages 56-63 for a discussion of the
post-biblical distinction between a "person" and a "being."
98
See, for example, Ro 15:5, 6; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 11:31; Eph 1:3, 17; Heb 1:9.
Attempts to downplay the significance of these references based on a false dichotomy
between Jesus human nature and his divine nature (a qualification that is never made in
Because "the great God" is made more specific by the use of

"great" it has even greater restrictive force than theos alone, or
even an actual proper name (like "Peter" or "James") which can be
applied to more than one person (though the context would limit
the reference). According to the OT LXX, "the great God" was
only considered applicable to one person. (Ps 85:10) Thus, J. E.
Huther rightly observes: "The addition of the adjective megavlou
indicates that qeou' is to be taken as an independent subject."99
The subsequent mention of our "Savior Jesus Christ," then,
creates a semantic distinction between the Father and Jesus, for
this expression contains a proper name ("Jesus Christ") which
removes all doubt about the application of the term "Savior" in
this instance.
In addition to the evidence from the OT LXX which supports
the view that "the great God" was a fixed expression for the
Father, Jehovah, the Dead Sea Scrolls also distinguish "the great
God" from His Son, the Messiah. The Aramaic "Son of God" text
(4Q246), which is strikingly similar to Luke 1:32-35, speaks of
the "Son of the Most High" (column 2, line 1) whose "kingdom
will be an everlasting kingdom" (column 2, line 5). In line 7 of
column 2 we are told that "the great God [ abr la100] will be his
patron."101
the Bible regarding the Fathers position as theos in relation to Jesus) are merely
appeals to post-biblical theology.
99
J. E. Huther, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles of Timothy
and Titus (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1883), 303.
100
G. A. Cooke, A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1903), 250, refers to inscriptions and coins where the two terms used in this
description (abr la) are combined to form the proper name labr ("Rabel"), which is
used for the last Nabataean king.
101
John J. Collins, "A Pre-Christian Son of God Among the Dead Sea Scrolls,"
BR 9.3 (June 1993), 37. mile Puech, "Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and
Qumran Messianism," in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
eds. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich (STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 546, dates
this manuscript to sometime prior to 150 BCE. This would indicate "the great God"
was an established designation for Jehovah for some time in Jewish, non-biblical
literature. Indeed, the close relationship between 4Q246 and Luke 1:32-35 would seem
to indicate that Christians other than Paul were familiar with the term, if in fact the
angel Gabriel made use of an existing tradition (as found in 4Q246) in announcing the
birth of the Messiah. The parallels between 4Q246 and the book of Daniel, which also
uses the expression "the great God" in reference to Jehovah (see note 76), are also
Excursus 395
There are also references to "the great God" in the OT

Pseudepigrapha. For example, 3 Enoch 22B:5 refers to "YHWH,
the God of Israel," as "the great God." In the Sibylline Oracles
reference is made to "the great God" no less than forty-six
times!102 Two of the references in the Sibylline Oracles (1.324 and
3.776) are particularly interesting. Both are considered Christian
interpolations that refer to "the son of the great God," where "the
great God" is clearly used of the Father. So there is evidence that
sometime during Pauls life or shortly thereafter, Christians
recognized "the great God" as a description of the Father.
In the OT Apocrypha 3 Maccabees 7:2 uses tou' megavlou
qeou' and the superlative of mevga" (mevgisto", "greatest") modifies
theos in several texts (2 Maccabees 3:36; 3 Maccabees 1:9, 16;
3:11; 4:16; 5:25; 7:22 [Codex A reads megalou]). This usage is
similar to what we find in Josephus, who regularly refers to the
God of the OT as oJ mevgisto" qeov".103 In Philos work On the
Special Law Books (4.177) he quotes Deuteronomy 10:17-18,
where oJ qeoV" oJ mevga" ("the great God") is used. In On the
Cheribum (30.1) Philo refers to tou' megavlou kaiV filodwvrou qeou'
("the great and bountiful God"), and in On Dreams (1.94) He is
significant in establishing the importance of the language of 4Q246. See Chapter 2,

pages 90-95 for further discussion of this text.
102
J. J. Collins discusses the dates and content of each book in OTP1, 317-324
and in the introduction to each book. Books 1 and 2 (the Jewish portion of which is
dated between 30 BCE to 250 CE, and the Christian portion dated to no later than 150
CE) use "the great God" seven times (1.165; 1.268; 1.283; 1.324; 1.399-400; 2.27;
2.317). Book 3 (dated confidently to between 163 and 45 BCE) uses the description
twenty-nine times (3.71; 3.91; 3.97; 3.194; 3.246; 3.274; 3.284; 3.297; 3.306; 3.490;
3.549; 3.556; 3.557; 3.565; 3.575; 3.584; 3.632; 3.656; 3.657; 3.665; 3.671; 3.687;
3.702; 3.740; 3.773; 3.776; 3.781; 3.784; 3.818). Book 4 (dated to the late first century
CE [the original oracle is dated to sometime after the death of Alexander]) refers to "the
great God" three times (4.6; 4.25; 4.163) and in Book 5 (dated to between 70 and 80
CE) it is used twice (5.176; 5.406). In Book 7 (no precise date is given, though it
should probably be dated to sometime before the third century CE) it is used once
(7.24). In Book 8 (dated to about 175 CE) it is also used once (8.135). In Book 11
(dated tentatively to about the turn of the era) it is used twice (11.85; 11.87) and in
Book 13 (dated to about 265 CE) it is used once (13.54).
103
See A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, Karl H. Rengstorf, ed.,
vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 63-70. Examples include The Antiquities of the Jews 6.86;
7.353; 8.319 [megalou is a variant reading for megistou]; 9.133, 288-289; 11.3, 90;
and others.
called tou' pavnta megavlou qeou' ("the infinitely great God" [LCL
translation]).
The description "the great God" is frequently found in Greco-
Roman literature. Rather than list the many different references
here, the reader is better off consulting the different sources that
list instances of the "great God" in Greco-Roman literature.104 If
in Titus 2:13 Paul is making use of the description "the great
God" as it is used in Greco-Roman society, then the semantic
signal ("the great God") would not necessarily signal the concept
associated with the same description as used in the OT LXX. Paul
may be using the expression with a sense common in different
cultural and religious circles, such as when he contrasts the pagan
lords and gods with the "one God" and "one Lord" of Christianity.
(1Co 8:4-6) In this light, Pauls intent could have been to put
Christ in the place of the great gods of Greco-Roman religion,
without using the term "God" in the same sense as when he refers
to the Father as the "one God."
Thus, it is possible, in view of the fact that Jesus is the "only-
begotten god" (Joh 1:18) and because he was (and since his
resurrection is again) "in the form of God" (Php 2:6-9), that Paul,
against the Greco-Roman religious usage of this expression, called
Jesus "the great God" in a manner consistent with the biblical
presentation of Jesus as a divine being under the authority of the
One who is God and Father to him. This use of "the great God,"
then, would be in contrast to the Greco-Roman deities, not in
contrast to or as a means of identifying him with "the great God"
of the OT LXX.
However, if the sense of the descriptive phrase "the great
God" is taken from the OT LXX, then it is restricted in its
application to Jehovah, the Father, the God of Jesus. (Mic 5:4; Ro
15:5-6). But rather than dogmatically assert that "the great God"
must relate to the OT LXX and other related uses of this
104
See W. Grundmann, "mevga"," TDNT 4, 529-530; E. A. Sophocles, Greek
Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Period, vol. 1 (New York: Frederick Ungar,
1957), 577; J. H. Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 392-393. See also Corpus Hermeticum,
tractate 12.
Excursus 397
expression for the God of the Jews, we must consider all the
options. I therefore hold out the possibility that Paul could have
borrowed the term from Greco-Roman society and applied it to
Jesus in view of fact that the Bible speaks of him as theos in a
qualified sense.
Still, in view of the Synoptic teaching that Jesus is said to
appear "in the glory of his Father" (Mt 16:27; Mr 8:38; Lu 9:26
[see discussion of this point below]) and Pauls obvious familiarity
with this teaching (notice that he refers, not to the appearing of the
great God, but to the "appearing of the glory of the great God") it is
more likely that "the great God" is distinct from Jesus in Titus 2:13.
Paul was obviously familiar with the LXX, and was no doubt
familiar with the expression "the great God." In view of the above
considerations, it is likely that he used it in reference to the One
whom he elsewhere consistently refers to as theos, namely, the
Father.
For a Trinitarian interpretation to fit with Pauls words in
Titus 2:13 it would have to be shown "the great God" was
understood by Paul as in some way consistent with the meaning,
"the great God the Son the second person of a consubstantial
triad," for that is the meaning of the expression when applied to
Jesus by Trinitarians. Since this cannot be demonstrated, and in
view of the evidence we have presented above and will present
below, it is quite likely that Paul uses the description "the great
God" as a semantic signal for the Father, Jehovah. It is thus the
equivalent to a proper name, and therefore Sharps rule does not
necessarily apply in this instance. But like "Christ Jesus" and
"Lord Jesus Christ," might "Savior Jesus Christ" also be
considered a compound proper name?
According to Alford, "there is no doubt that swthvr [Savior]
was one of those words which gradually dropped the article and
became a quasi proper name."105 He appears to base his
conviction on the fact that in a few instances swthvr, in Pauls
writings, is used without the article. But the fact is 1 Timothy 1:1
and 4:10 are the only verses cited by Alford where Paul
105
Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, vol. 3, rev. Everett F. Harrison (Chicago:
Moody, 1958), 420 (emphasis added). See also, Winstanley, Vindication, 49-50.
(excluding Tit 2:13) uses the anarthrous swthvr, and they are both
applied to God (Eph 5:23 and Php 3:20 are two other examples
where swthvr is anarthrous). The other seven occurrences of
swthvr in Pauls writings (1Ti 2:3; 2Ti 1:10; Tit 1:3, 4; 2:10; 3:4,
6)106 have the article, but none of them follow kaiv, as is the case
with the example from Titus 2:13. So we do not see swthvr, by
itself, as a "quasi proper name."107 But what about the use of
swthvr together with jIhsou' Cristou'? Abbot states:
In the case before us, the omission of the article before

swth'ro" ["Savior"] seems to me to present no difficulty; not
because swth'ro" is made sufficiently definite by the addition
of hJmw'n ["of us"] (Winer), for since God as well as Christ is
often called "our Saviour," hJ dovxa tou' megavlou qeou' kaiV
swth'ro" hJmw'n, standing alone, would most naturally be
understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the
addition of *Ihsou' Cristou' to swth'ro" hJmw'n changes the case
entirely, restricting the swth'ro" hJmw'n to a person or being
who, according to Pauls habitual use of language, is
distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as
oJ qeov", so that there was no need of the repetition of the article
to prevent ambiguity.108
Against this view, Harris states: "It is not clear, however, that
an appositional noun that precedes a proper name is necessarily
anarthrous. Second Timothy 1:10 has diaV th'" ejpifaneiva" tou'
swth'ro" hJmw'n Cristou' jIhsou' [through the manifestation of our
Savior Christ Jesus], while in four other passages in the Pastorals
[namely, 1Ti 2:3; Tit 1:3; 2:10; 3:4] swthVr hJmw'n is articular
106
Pauls use of swthvr seems to alternate between God and Christ, "God being
the primal source of salvation, and Christ the medium of communication." (Abbot,
"Titus ii. 13," 11) Thus, 2Co 5:18 tells us, "But all things are from God, who reconciled
us to himself through Christ" (NWT).
107
Abbot, "Titus ii. 13," 4, footnote, says with regard to Alfords remarks, "I find
no sufficient proof of his statement that swthvr had become in the N. T. a quasi proper
name." Wallace, "Multiple Substantives," 263, note 247, citing Harris, makes a similar
point.
108
Abbot, "Titus ii. 13," 14.
Excursus 399
preceding the anarthrous quasi-proper name qeov"."109 But none of

the examples Harris gives are parallel to Titus 2:13, for only in
Titus 2:13 does "our Savior Jesus Christ" follow kaiv. The
significance of this was also seen in our discussion of the
compound name "Lord Jesus Christ."110
Additionally, Harris tries to establish a connection between
the use of the expression "God and Savior" by first-century Jews
in reference to Jehovah, which, he says, "invariably denoted one
deity, not two," and the use of "God" and "Savior" in Titus
2:13.111 But this is quite beside the point, as the situation in Pauls
writings is such that the term "Savior" is applied to two
individuals, namely, God and Christ.
Therefore, sensitivity must be given to each instance where
"Savior" is used; we must not arbitrarily assume that just because
the two titles "God" and "Savior" are used together in such close
proximity that they ipso facto apply to one person. The semantic
signaled by the use of "Savior" for God and for Christ is not the
same, and can be easily illustrated based on NT soteriological
statements.112
Indeed, the NT does not merely use "God and Savior," but
"Savior" is, in this pairing of terms, always followed by "Jesus
109
110
Similarly, Wallaces examples from The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 58
(London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1991) do not parallel Titus 2:13. He refers to
several documents where Christians of the 6th through the 7th century call Christ their
"God and Savior." But in none of these examples do we have a description of the great
God, nor do we have swthvr used together with "Jesus Christ." The construction is
invariably *Ih[s]ou' Cri[s]tou' qeou' kaiV [s]wth'ro["] hJmw'n (P. Oxy 3936, 3937
[598 CE], 3938, 3939 [601 CE], 3949 [610 CE], 3954 [without hJmw'n], 3955, 3956
[611 CE], 3958 [614 CE], 3959 [620 CE], 3961 [631/2 CE]). Still, even if they were
parallel "all of these references are late" (Wallace, "Multiple Substantives," 253, note
219), so that by this time "God" was a common description of Christ, though with a
much different meaning than it had, say, in Johns Gospel. (Joh 1:1, 18) These
documents were apparently written with the Trinitarian concept of God in mind. Thus,
P. Oxy 3940 [604 CE] speaks of "the immaculate and consubstantial trinity, father, son
and holy spirit," and 3957 [611(?)612 CE] tells of "the holy and consubstantial trinity,
father and son and holy spirit, and of our mistress the mother of god, and of all the
saints."
111
112
See the chart and discussion of this issue regarding the use of "Savior" for
God and for Christ in Chapter 3, on page 163.
Christ," changing the idiom from that used by the Jews of the
Diaspora and those in Palestine. Even Harris acknowledges: "If
the name *Ihsou'" Cristov" did not follow the expression,
undoubtedly it would be taken to refer to one person; yet *Ihsou'"
Cristov" is simply added in epexegesis."113
But the fact that "Jesus Christ" does follow the expression
gives cause for carefully considering the application of the terms,
not in accordance with non-biblical uses of "God and Savior," but
in light of the biblical presentation of God and His Christ. "Jesus
Christ" may indeed be added in epexegesis, but this does not mean
it defines both "God" and "Savior," especially not in Titus 2:13,
for reasons considered earlier.
In this case, the only issue that remains is whether or not the
proper name "Jesus Christ" is also epexegetical to "the great God."
If so, then Paul appears to be using it to contradict the use of the
same expression ("the great God") in Greco-Roman religion. But
if Paul is drawing from the OT LXX then the expression is fixed
to Jehovah, the Father, the God of Jesus, who sent Jesus as Savior
of the world. (Ps 85:10; Mic 5:4; 1Jo 4:14) This would create a
semantic distinction between "the great God" and "Savior Jesus
Christ" that is unavoidable from a biblical perspective.
In Titus 2:13 it is likely that "Savior Jesus Christ" is a
compound proper name, separate from "the great God" in identity,
but related in connection with the manifestation of the Son in the
Fathers glory. Even if "Savior Jesus Christ" is not a compound
proper name, the use of the proper name "Jesus Christ" certainly
restricts the application of "Savior," which, if "the great God" be
taken in reference to the Father, creates a semantic distinction
between the two. The context, drawing from the Synoptic
teaching of Jesus appearing in the Fathers glory at his future
manifestation, also supports this distinction.
The use of ejpifavvneia ("manifestation") in Titus 2:13.
Earlier we mentioned that Stuart believed Titus 2:13 applied only
to Jesus, not because of the presence or absence of the article, but
113
Ibid.
Excursus 401
because he believed the context, specifically the use of ejpifavvneia,

indicates as much. He asks:
Where in the New Testament, is the ejpifavvneia of God the

Father asserted or foretold? It is Christ who is to appear "in the
clouds of heaven, with great power and glory." . . . I know of
no New Testament analogy for any other than he, who is to
make such a development of himself. How can I then refer this
ejpifavneia in Tit. 2:13 to God the Father? . . . On other and
very different grounds, then, than that of the presence or
absence of the article in this case, I arrive at the full
persuasion, that ["the great God and Savior"], are both
appellatives applied in this case to ["Jesus Christ"]. 114
However, Abbot, responding to a similar argument by Ellicot,

points out that this argument is really founded on a mis-statement
of the question:
The expression here is not "the appearing of the great God," but
"the appearing of the glory of the great God," which is a very
different thing. When our Saviour himself had said, "The Son of
man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels"
(Matt. xvi. 27, comp. Mark viii. 38), or as Luke expresses it, "in
his own glory, and the glory of the Father, and of the holy
angels" (ch. ix. 26), can we doubt that Paul, who had probably
often heard Lukes report of these words, might speak of "the
appearing of the glory" of the Father, as well as of Christ, at the
second advent?115
Thus, in accordance with Matthew 16:27 and Mark 8:38,

Paul could speak of the manifestation of the Son in the glory of
"the great God." Far from proving that Jesus is called "the great
God" in this passage, the use of ejpifavvneia seems to support the
teaching Christ will appear "in the glory of his Father," the "great
God."
114
Stuart, "Hints and Cautions," 323.
115
Abbot, "Titus ii. 13," 4-5.
Some Bibles translate ejpifavneian th'" dovxh" as "glorious

manifestation" (NWT) or "glorious appearing" (KJV, NIV), while
others read, "the appearing of the glory." (RSV, NASB) Though
"glorious manifestation" is grammatically possible, we must take
note of Abbotts insights and other reasons given by scholars for
preferring the RSV translation. Harris notes that "to render th'"
dovxh" by the adjective glorious not only obscures the relation
between verses 11 and 13 but also weakens the import of the term
dovxa [glory]."116 He continues:
It is one thing to say that a persons appearance will be

"resplendent" or "attended by glory." It is another thing to
assert that his own "glory" will be revealed. A further problem
with the KJV rendering is that nowhere in the NT is ejpifavvneia
used of the Father (but five times of Christ)or are two
persons said to appear at the Last Day? . . . [As Abbot pointed
out earlier] it is not the Father himself who will be visibly
manifested but the glory that belongs to the great God. It is
unlikely that th'" dovxh" is a "Hebrew" genitive ("the glorious
appearing of the great God") or that "the appearance of the
glory of the great God" is simply a circumlocution for "the
great God will appear."117
The fact that "no man may see [Jehovah] and yet live" is also
strong testimony that the Father Himself will not appear. But, as
was the case with Moses, His glory will be revealed, this time
along with that of His Son (Ex 33:20-22; Mt 16:27).
2 Peter 1:1. With reference to both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter
1:1, G. B. Winer states: "For reasons which lie in the doctrinal
system of Paul, I do not regard swth'ro" [Savior] as a second
predicate by the side of qeou' [God], as if Christ were first styled oJ
mevga" qeov"[the great God] and then swthvr [Savior]. The Article
116
117
Ibid., 176, 184 (5. b). Jehovahs Witnesses often use Bible translations other
than NWT, as does the Watchtower Society in their publications. They recognize that
while NWT is an excellent translation, others are more accurate or more explicit in
various places. The Witnesses are well aware of the fact that no translation of the Bible
is perfect.
Excursus 403
is omitted before swth'ro", because the word is made definite by the

Genitive hJmw'n [of us], and the apposition precedes the proper
name: of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ. Similar is 2
Pet. 1:1, where there is not even a pronoun with swth'ro"."118
A. T. Robertson took issue with Winers appeal to the
"doctrinal system of Paul," and insisted that several instances of
the same idiom in 2 Peter (1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18) are reason enough
"for one to translate 2 Peter i. 1 our God and Saviour Christ
Jesus."119 Grammatical, theological, contextual and other
considerations must be equally considered when translating any
passage. Grammar is not the sole criterion by which a text should
be translated. Other factors, such as the authors habitual use of
language and the presupposition pool that he shares with his
readers, must be considered along with the possibilities presented
by the grammar of the sentence, paragraph, or discourse.120
Regarding Robertsons appeal to grammatical parallels in the
book of 2 Peter, we believe that rather than being evidence in
support of the view that Christ is called "God" in 2 Peter 1:1,
these "parallel" examples are proof to the contrary. A
consideration of the alleged parallels will help illustrate the point:
2 Peter 1:1 tou' qeou' hJmw'n kaiV swth'ro" jIhsou' Cristou'

2 Peter 1:11 tou' kurivou hJmw'n kaiV swth'ro" jIhsou' Cristou'
2 Peter 2:20 tou' kurivou [hJmw'n] kaiV swth'ro" jIhsou' Cristou'
2 Peter 3:2 tou' kurivou kaiV swth'ro"
2 Peter 3:18 tou' kurivou hJmw'n kaiV swth'ro" jIhsou' Cristou'
118
George B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, trans. J. Henry
Thayer (Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1897), 130.
119
A. T. Robertson, "The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ," The Expositor,
8th Series, vol. 21 (1921), 184, 187. See also his Grammar of the Greek New
Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 786.
120
For an informative and helpful discussion of the legitimate use of theology in
Bible translation, see Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation:
With a Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovahs Witnesses (Huntington
Beach, CA: Elihu Books, 1999).
From the above comparison we can see that four out of the
five articulated nouns are the same; one is significantly different. In
2 Peter 1:1 we have qeov" and in the other four Peter uses kuvrio".
The question we ask is, Why would Peter call Christ "God" in verse
1, but in 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18 use "Lord"? That he might do just
that is, of course, not impossible. But he uses "Lord" for Jesus in a
number of instances. In addition to the four passages above, he refers
to Christ as kuvrio" in 1 Peter 1:3, 2:3, 13, 3:15, 2 Peter 1:2, 8, 14,
16, a total of 12 times. Yet nowhere else in his letters121 does he call
Jesus "God." However, when referring to the Father, Peter uses qeov"
45 times, excluding 2 Peter 1:1 (1Pe 1:2-3, 5, 21 [twice], 23; 2:4-5,
10, 12, 15-17, 19-20, 3:4-5, 17-18, 20-22; 4:2, 6, 10-11 [three
times], 14, 16-17 [twice], 19; 5:2 [twice], 5-6, 10, 12; 2Pe 1:2, 17,
21; 2:4, 3:5, 12).
Thus, it is very likely that in 2 Peter 1:1 the apostle did not
repeat the article before the second noun because the use of qeov" in
the first verse made it clear enough that he was speaking of the
Father, while the addition of "Jesus Christ" after swth'ro" would
have stood on its own as a second subject.122 This would give us
another example of an opening reference to both God and Jesus
Christ, which is typically made in the epistles of the New Testament.
As Karl Rahner observed: "St Paul often speaks of the Father as the
qeov" where he predicates kuvrio" of Christ; and a mention of the
Father as well as the Son is to be expected at the beginning of 2
Peter, in accordance with the usual practice at the beginning of a
letter."123
Of course, it would appear that Peter removes all doubt as he
goes on to distinguish Christ and God in the very next verse. (2Pe
1:2) But this cannot be used to say that he could not have called
121
Jehovahs Witnesses accept Petrine authorship (or dictation through Silvanus
in the case of 1 Peter) for both 1 and 2 Peter. See, "All Scripture Is Inspired of God and
Beneficial," 2d ed. (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1990), 251-254.
122
Compare the statement in F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 145, sec. 276 (3), "swth'ro" hJm. *I.
Cr. may be taken by itself and separated from the preceding."
123
Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 1, trans. Cornelius Ernst (Baltimore:
Helicon Press, 1961), 136.
Excursus 405
Christ qeov" in verse 1, and then use qeov" of the Father in verse 2.
However, this seems unlikely given his preference for calling
Christ "Lord" and reserving the term "God" for the Father. And,
again, as is the case with Titus 2:13, the second noun, "Savior," is
joined to "Jesus Christ," creating a compound proper name which
makes it sufficiently definite to stand on its own as a second
subject, without the article.
The proper name "Jesus Christ" may be used in apposition to
"Savior," in which case "Jesus Christ" restricts the application of
"Savior," much the same way as the repetition of the article could
have done. We must look at the grammatical, theological and
contextual factors in order to properly understand and explain the
meaning of this and other passages. We must not perform
"limited" exegesis by considering only the grammar or only the
theology of the author in question.
Indeed, there are Trinitarian scholars like Murray Harris who
would label the rendering "a god" in John 1:1 as "impossible" due
to his view of Johns "theological context."124 Also, Trinitarians
perceived view of the theology of the letter to the Hebrews
certainly has an impact on how they translate the grammar of
passages like Hebrews 3:2. This text could be translated, "He was
faithful to the one that made him," or "He was faithful to the one
that appointed him." Due to the fact that Trinitarians will not
accept Jesus as the first of Gods creations, they would also
exclude this rendering because of their theology.
1 John 5:20. Another text that has been linked to the GS
rule is 1 John 5:20. However, Wallace has two concerns about
classifying 1 John 5:20 as a legitimate Granville Sharp (GS)
construction. They are, does the adjective aijwvnio" (aionios,
"everlasting") and the change in gender between theos ("God")
and zwhV (zoe, "life") nullify the construction?
Regarding his first concern, Wallace admits that in other
examples, such as Revelation 20:1, "the postpositive adjective
effectively breaks the construction."125 But he then presents four
124
125
reasons why 1 John 5:20 should be understood under the confines

of Sharps rule, in spite of the postpositive adjective aionios:
1) He believes the limited pool of examples containing a trailing

adjective with the second noun "is hardly a large enough data base
on which to build a compelling principle."126 Of course, we could
argue similarly regarding those examples containing a proper name
with the second noun.
2) Wallace points to zoe aionios as a rare example of an attributive

adjective used without the article in the noun-adjective order. This
is a legitimate observation, and should be carefully considered.
3) He then highlights what he initially calls "one parallel to 1 John

5:20 in the papyri."127 He adds that the parallel is only in terms of
the adjective, and further notes that it is not even completely
parallel in this respect, since the adjective occurs with the first
noun, not the second. Still, he believes that "the principle is the
same." But I fail to see how this is the case, since we are concerned
with whether or not the postpositive adjective used with the second
noun in a kai-joined phrase can account for its use without the
article. Also, Wallaces example (humas . . . tous theous megistous
kai antilemptoras [P. Lond. 23:17-18]) contains plural nouns.
Thus, it is not a proper parallel to 1 John 5:20.
4) Wallace argues that "the most natural reading of 1 John 5:20 is to

see the subject, houtos ["this one"], as referring to both theos and
zoe. This is a subjective observation, and it may or may not be true.
But in this context (see below) it may be equally natural to
understand theos and zoe as having different referents, though
closely associated with each other. (Compare Jesus close
association of aionios zoe ["everlasting life"] with a knowledge of
the Father ["the only true God"], in John 17:3, and the fact that 1
John 5:20 speaks of the Son coming to give us a knowledge of "the
true one.")
Regarding the change in gender, Wallace notes that no other

GS construction in NT contains this mixture.128 He offers the
following two considerations:
126
Ibid., 273.
127
Ibid.
128
Ibid., 274.
Excursus 407
1) In mixed constructions of this sort the NT and the papyri regularly

use a second article.
2) Wallace sites just one example from a fourth century CE letter (P.
Oxy. 1298) that contains a GS construction with two masculine
nouns followed by a feminine abstract noun, and where the nouns
have the same referent. But there is no postpositive adjective used
with the feminine noun.
Wallace concludes by observing that of the seventy or so

instances in which houtos has a personal referent, about forty-four
of them refer to the Son. But this argument has little force behind
it. If houtos were used exclusively of the Son, then there might be
some significance to this observation, but since it is used of
Nicodemus, and even of the antichrist (!), it can hardly be
significant in this instance, as somehow limiting the referent to the
Son (Joh 3:2; 2 Joh 7).
There are two very significant observations to keep in mind
when interpreting 1 John 5:20, and for some reason Wallace does
not address either one of them. The first has to do with the
immediate context. In the first part of 1 John 5:20 we are told that
the Son of God has come and given us the ability to know ton
alethinon ("the true one"). This creates a distinction between the
two, for one gives us a knowledge of the other, but ton alethinon
is clearly the most natural antecedent for ho alethinos theos ("the
true God"), who is distinguished from Jesus (zoe aionios
["everlasting life"]compare 1Jo 1:2) ho huios autou ("the Son
of him" [autos = "the true one"]). The reference to "the Son of
him" appears to be decisive evidence for applying ton alethinon
("the true one") to the Father. It is only natural, then, to view ho
alethinos theos and ton alethinon as the same individual, namely,
the Father.
The second observation has to do with the fact that Jesus
restricted the application of ho alethinos theos to his Father in
John 17:1-3 (note the use of monos ["only"]).129 So if ho alethinos
theos is a title that is said to belong "only" to the Father, and if
Jesus was the one commonly understood as "everlasting life" (1Jo
129
1:2) then we likely have a situation where both nouns and their
accompanying adjectives created a semantic distinction between
the two. The concepts associated with each semantic signal, in the
mind of John and his readers, were only properly associated with
distinct individuals.
Conclusion
What must not be forgotten in all this discussion about the
absence of the article before the second noun in an article-noun-kaiv-
noun construction, is that even if the article were repeated this would
not guarantee that both nouns are not to be applied to the same
person. Consider John 13:13, oJ didavskalo" kaiV oJ kuvrio", or
Revelation 1:5, oJ prwtovtoko". . . kaiV oJ a[rcwn, or Matthew
22:32, oJ qeoV" jAbraaVm kaiV oJ qeoV" jIsaaVk kaiV oJ qeoV" jIakwvb.
The latter example is especially interesting, considering the
parallel account in Luke 20:37, toVn qeoVn jAbraaVm kaiV qeoVn
jIsaaVk kaiV qeoVn jIakwvb.
Are we to understand that in Lukes account there is only one
God spoken of, while in Matthew there is a God for Abraham, a
God for Isaac and a God for Jacob? Therefore, it is not legitimate
to argue that the repetition of the article in the christologically
significant passages previously discussed would have made it
clear two persons are in view.130
Even if Christ were called "God" in Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1, it
would not add two verses "to the side of the Trinitarian
argument."131 The Bible writers show no awareness of the Trinity
doctrine, which arose centuries later, and with much controversy. In
fact, the writings of the apostles stand in direct contradiction to such
130
See also Rev 1:17; 2:8, 26; 12:9; compare Rev 20:6. This inaccurate argument
is frequently advanced by those who try to convince others that only one person (Jesus
Christ) is in view in passages such as Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. For example, Robert
Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Grand Rapids: Word Publishing, 1996), 354,
says regarding 2 Peter 1:1, "If Peter wanted to indicate that two persons were in view in
II Peter 1:1, all he had to do was to add the article before the second noun."
131
Robertson, "The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ," 187.
Excursus 409
a teaching. The author of Titus 2:13132 speaks of the "God and

Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" many times (Ro 15:5-6; 2Co 1:3;
11:31; Eph 1:3, 17), and Peter does the same. (1Pe 1:3) So if these
verses did call Jesus qeov" it would be with the understanding
communicated throughout the Bible that Jesus is a divine being who
is dependent on the Father, his God, for his authority and life (Joh
5:26-27).
It would be another qualified reference to Jesus as qeov",133 with
the understanding that Jesus has one who is God to him. This is
hardly equivalent to the Trinitarian understanding of God, which
would explain these qualifying references in terms of Christ
allegedly having two natures in one person. Such a teaching is
foreign to the whole of Scripture. Before he came to earth Jesus was
divine. (Joh 1:1) When he came to earth he was a man, "lower than
the angels." (Heb 2:9; compare 2Co 8:9) When he returned to
heaven he became a "life-giving spirit" (1Co 15:45).
In Ephesians 5:5 (as well as 1Ti 5:21, 6:13, and 2Ti 4:1),
Cristov" is the equivalent of a proper name, and, therefore, does
not fit the general description of the nouns in the other eighty or
so article-noun-kaiv-noun constructions in the New Testament. It is
similar with 2 Thessalonians 1:12, where the compound name
"Lord Jesus Christ" does not require the article to be considered a
second subject. In Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 the use of swthvr,
together with "Jesus Christ," puts these examples outside the general
category of article-noun-kaiv-noun constructions, which do not have
the equivalent of a proper name in either the first or second position.
This is not to say that such constructions cannot describe one
person with two nouns, for, clearly, in the case of 2 Peter 1:11, 2:20,
3:18 and Jude 4, they do. There are several grammatical differences
between 1 John 5:20 and the other christologically significant
article-noun-kai-noun texts, and both nouns are modified by
adjectives and appear to be semantically restricted to distinct
individuals. It also appears rather obvious that we should identify
132
Jehovahs Witnesses do not consider the letter to Titus deutero-Pauline. See
"All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial," 239-240.
133
ho alethinos theos and ton alethinon as the same individual, who

is distinct from "the Son of him."
When we interpret grammatical constructions, which involve
compound proper names or their semantic equivalents, we cannot
simply turn to other constructions that are not precise parallels (that
is, which do not contain proper or compound proper names) and
say, "It must be rendered this way or that way." Each verse has its
own peculiarities that must be carefully weighed before a rule of
grammar, which is loaded with limitations, is allowed the final say.
7
"The Temple of His Body"
John 2:19-21 and the Resurrection of Christ
In John 2:19-21 we read: "In answer Jesus said to them: Break

down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Therefore the
Jews said: This temple was built in forty-six years, and will you
raise it up in three days? But he was talking about the temple of his
body." These verses are used by some in an attempt to support the
teaching that Jesus rose from the dead in the same body in which he
died, and that he possesses this very same body in heaven today.
Regarding the teaching of John 2:19-21, Ron Rhodes has this to say,
"Jesus said here that He would be raised from the dead bodily, not as
a spirit creature."1 It is true that Jesus spoke of rising from the dead
in a body, but would this be in the same body he had while on earth?
Is this what John 2:19-21 teaches? What do the rest of the inspired
scriptures have to say on this matter? Our discussion will focus on
the answers to these and other related questions.
References to "resurrection" or "resurrection body," unless
otherwise indicated, refer to the resurrection of those chosen from
among humankind to rule as kings with Jesus Christ in the spirit
realm of heaven (compare Lu 12:32; Joh 14:2-3; 1Co 4:8; 2Ti 2:12;
Rev 1:6; 2:26-27; 3:21; 5:9-10; 14:1-3). The Bible calls this the
"first resurrection," the participators of which are to be "priests of
God and of the Christ, and rule with him for the thousand years"
(Rev 20:4-6).
1
"The Temple of His Body"

Harmonizing the accounts. Jehovahs Witnesses believe
and teach that Jesus Christ was raised to life in a body. However, the
question must be asked whether Jesus was raised in the same body
he had during his human life on earth? As we have seen, those who
answer yes would likely cite John 2:19-21 (referred to above) as
evidence in support of their belief. But it should be pointed out that
far from being evidence in support of such a position, it is actually
evidence to the contrary. The reason for this will be made clear after
we examine a few scriptures that are directly related to John 2:19-
21. To begin with, let us consider Mark 14:55-58:
Meantime the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were

looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they
were not finding any. Many, indeed, were giving false witness
against him, but their testimonies were not in agreement. Also,
certain ones were rising and bearing false witness against him,
saying: "We heard him say, I will throw down this temple that
was made with hands and in three days I will build another not
made with hands."
After Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane he was

then taken before the Sanhedrin. False witnesses were brought forth
who accused Jesus of threatening to tear down the literal temple in
Jerusalem; this was part of their misunderstanding of what Jesus had
said. However, in one of the false witnesses testimony we are given
a bit more insight about what Jesus may have actually said.
Although the Jews misunderstood what Jesus meant by "tear down
this temple and in three days I will raise it up," this does not
preclude them from recalling how Jesus described the body that
would be raised. (Joh 2:19) If their recollection was correct, then the
body that Jesus said would be raised was not the same body that was
torn down. For the body that was to be put to death was one "made
with hands." But the body that would be raised was "another
[a!llon, allon] not made with hands" (Mr 14:58).
Matthews record of the testimony of the false witness does not
mention anything about another temple not made with hands. (Mt
"The Temple of His Body" 413
26:61) So it is possible that Mark simply added these words to the

testimony of the false witnesses because this description more
accurately reflected "the sense in which he and his fellow-Christians
understood Christs saying."2 Of course, Marks account is probably
just more specific in recounting the testimony of the false witnesses.
"A house not made with hands." Yet, how can we be
certain that this testimony of the "false witnesses," with reference to
Jesus description of his body and the body that would be raised is
accurate? How can we be sure Jesus actually said he would build
another body not made with hands? Fortunately the Scriptures give
us additional evidence to support this as the correct conclusion. The
apostle Paul confirmed this when he wrote the following, recorded
in 2 Corinthians 5:1-3, in a discussion concerning the heavenly
resurrection body:
For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn
down, we have a building from God, a house not made with
hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan,
longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven; inasmuch
as we, having put it on, shall not be found naked.NASB,
emphasis added.
Here we see the description the apostle Paul gives matches

perfectly with the one Jesus is said to have given. (Mr 14:58) In
John 2:21 it does not say, He was talking about the temple of his
physical body; it simply says Jesus spoke of "the temple of his
body." This "body" is one "not made with hands." Paul also said
that it was "from heaven." Such is not the case regarding our present
physical forms which exist in the likeness of the first man Adam,
who was made from the dust. (Ge 2:7)
So we can see Jesus followers understood his words in John
2:19-21 to mean he would "destroy the Temple that is made with
hands, and in three days he will build another, not made with hands
[footnote refers to Mark 14:58]."3 Elements of this understanding
2
Marcus Dods, The Expositors Greek Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
repr. 1979), 442.
3
Lucius Nereparampil, Destroy This Temple: An Exegetico-Theological Study on the
Meaning of Jesus' Temple-Logion in John 2:19 (Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications,
1978), 87.
can be found in the writings of others who lived after the death of
the apostles. Consider the words of Cyprian (c. 205258 CE), who,
when referring to Jesus words at John 2:19, said: "Also in the
Gospel the Lord says: . . . After three days another shall be raised
up without hands."4 The body made with hands is far different
from the body that is from heaven. Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:1
that this "earthly house" (their present physical body) would be
"dissolved" (NWT), "demolished" (Barclay), "destroyed" (NIV).
Whereas the house not made with hands is "everlasting in the
heavens."
"I Will Raise It Up"

A figurative or literal expression? When Jesus uttered the
above words, as recorded in John 2:19, did he intend for his
followers to believe that he would raise himself from the dead? If so,
the New Testament writers must not have understood him correctly.
Why do we say that? Because in their writings the Father, not the
Son, is always credited for having raised Jesus from the dead.5
According to the Bible, Jesus is now "living forever and ever,"
and he has the keys of death and Hades. (Rev 1:18) Jesus words in
John 2:19 ("I will raise it up") are figurative, even as his use of the
term "temple" was figurative. Commenting on his statement, H. A.
W. Meyer observed:
But the objection disappears if we simply give due weight to the

figurative nature of the expression, which rests upon that visible
contemplation of the resurrection, according to which the Subject
that arises, whose resurrection is described as the re-erecting of
the destroyed temple, must also be the Subject that erects the
temple,without affecting the further doctrine, which,
moreover, does not come under consideration, that the causa
efficiens, i.e. the actual revivifying power, is the Father. Christ
receiving His life again from the Father ([John] x. 17) and rising
4
The Treatise of Cyprian, ANF 5, p. 511, testimony 15 (emphasis added).
5
See Ac 2:24; 3:15; Ro 4:24; 6:4; 8:11; 1Co 6:14; 2Co 4:14; Ga 1:1; Eph 1:17, 19-
20; Col 2:12; 1Th 1:10; 1Pe 1:21.
again, Himself raises up by His very resurrection the destroyed

temple.6
Meyer refers to John 10:17 which reads along with verse 18:
"This is why the Father loves me, because I surrender my soul, in
order that I may receive it again. No man has taken it away from me,
but I surrender it of my own initiative. I have authority to surrender
it, and I have authority to receive it again. The commandment on
this I received from my Father" (emphasis added). Here Jesus
acknowledged that he would "receive" his life "again"7 from the
Father.
Thus, it really depends on how one chooses to approach the
matter: either we interpret John 2:19 in light of John 10:17, 18, or
vice versa. Since John 2:19 uses figurative language in reference to
other matters (such as using "temple" for "body"), it seems
appropriate enough to understand Jesus words in John 2:19
(concerning the direct cause for his resurrection) to be understood in
light of John 10:17, 18 and other NT passages. Indeed, everywhere
else the NT praises God the Father for bringing His Son back to life,
so that he might give life to others (Joh 5:26; 6:57).
More on John 10:17-18. The Greek word twice translated
"receive" and once as "received" in the above quote from John 10 is
lambavnw (lambano). Some Bible translations prefer to render it
"take," which would then make Jesus words read: "The reason my
Father loves me is that I lay down my lifeonly to take it up again.
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have
authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This
command I received from my Father" (NIV, emphasis added).
In all the translations that render lambano in the first two
instances of John 10:17-18 as "take," not one of them were
consistent in also rendering the last occurrence of lambano in the
same sense of "take."8 Jesus did not "take" the "command" from His
6
H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospel of John, trans.
William Urwick (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 114 (emphasis added in the first
instance only).
7
Which, incidentally, shows he must have received it at least once beforeat his
creation. See Chapter 4.
8
For example, the NIV, NASB, NAB, KJV, and Goodspeeds translation all render
lambano as "take" in the first two occurrences of John 10:17-18; however, the third
Father! Thus, regardless of what meaning we give lambano in the

first two instances, the conclusion is still the same: The Father is the
decisive authority concerning the resurrection of Jesus.
The teaching of the New Testament on this matter is decidedly
clear: The command to take or to receive his (= Jesus) life again
was something contingent upon the Fathers will. The Father is the
cause of the Sons resurrection. Hence, we can see that "there is no
real difficulty in the words, I will raise it up; [John] x. 17, 18,
furnishes a complete explanation . . . the Fathers will is still the
ultimate source of the action of the Son."9 Jesus Christ was raised
from the dead by God the Father (Ga 1:1).
By his words recorded in John 2:19 Jesus "did not mean that he
would raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the
active agent (Rom 8:11)."10 Jesus told a woman who was healed
from her affliction by touching the fringe of his garments, "Your
faith has made you well." (Lu 8:46) She did not, of course, heal
herself; however, because of her faith in Jesus ability to heal her,
she is spoken of as though she did in fact perform the miracle. Jesus,
by putting faith in Jehovah and offering his life for the benefit of the
entire human family, could similarly be spoken of (because of his
faith and reliance on the Father) as the cause of his own
resurrection.11 (Heb 5:7) Still, some might ask, "Did not Jesus say in
Luke 24:39 that he had flesh and bone, and did he not specifically
deny being a spirit as Jehovahs Witnesses teach?"
Physical Post-Resurrection Appearances of Jesus

"A spirit does not have flesh and bones." In Luke 24
several of Jesus post-resurrection appearances to his disciples are
recorded. During the last of these, Jesus appeared suddenly to the
occurrence in the last sentence of John 10:18 is translated "received." Yet, the NEB, NWT,
Rotherham, Weymouth, and others consistently render lambano in the sense of receive in
all three instances.
9
WM. Milligan and WM. F. Moulton, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898), 26, 126.
10
Broadman Press, 1932), 183.
11
See Reasoning From the Scriptures (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1989), 423-424.
disciples as they were discussing one of his earlier appearances.

Now Jesus appears before them, and the account tells us that the
disciples "were terrified, and had imagined they beheld a spirit." (Lu
24:37) But what would make the disciples think they were seeing a
spirit? Why were they so frightened? What kind of "spirit" did they
imagine they were seeing? To help answer these questions, let us
first examine the word "spirit" (pneu'ma, pneuma) as used elsewhere
in the Gospel of Luke. Note the following (emphasis added to each
verse):
Luke 4:33: Now in the synagogue there was a man with a spirit
[pneuma], an unclean demon [daimonion].
Luke 8:29: (For he had been ordering the unclean spirit

[pneuma] to come out of the man. For over a long time it had
held him fast, and he was repeatedly bound with chains and
fetters under guard, but he would burst the bonds and be driven
by the demon [daimonion] into the lonely places.)
Luke 9:39: And, look! a spirit [pneuma] takes him, and suddenly
he cries out, and it throws him into convulsions with foam, and it
scarcely withdraws from him after bruising him.
Luke 9:42: But even as he was approaching, the demon

[daimonion] dashed him to the ground and violently convulsed
him. However, Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit [pneuma] and
healed the boy and delivered him to his father.12
From the above quotations we can see that a reference to "a

spirit" frequently denoted a demonic spirit. The fact that the
disciples were frightened and had become terrified of Jesus
appearance also shows that they may have thought a demon stood
before them. What other "spirit" would have made them so
"terrified"? Interestingly, Ignatius (who died sometime during
Trajans reign [98117 CE]) writes to the Smyrnaeans (3:2): "For I
know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection;
and when he came to Peter and those with him, he said to them:
12
See also Mt 12:43; Mr 1:12, 26; 5:2, 8; 7:25; 9:17, 20, 25; Ac 16:16; 19:15, 16.
Take hold of me; handle me and see that I am not a disembodied

demon [oujk eijmiV daimovnion ajswvmaton]."13
This shows that there was an early understanding in some
circles that Jesus words about not being a "spirit" were in fact
understood, in harmony with Lukes usage, to mean that he was not
a demon. Of course, Ignatius himself believed in the physical
resurrection of Christ, and our citation of him on this point is merely
to demonstrate that "spirit" in Luke 24:39 was understood by others
to mean a demonic spirit.14 Jesus reassured his disciples that he was
no transparent, demonic spirit whom they should fear. To prove this
he manifested a physical body, just as angels had done in the past.15
Jesus appearance to Mary. Jesus materialized different
physical forms on a number of occasions. For example, after Mary
told the two angels in Jesus tomb that she did not know where the
body of the Lord has been taken, the account in John 20:14-17
states:
After saying these things, she turned back and viewed Jesus
standing, but she did not discern it was Jesus. Jesus said to her:
"Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?"
She, imagining it was the gardener, said to him: "Sir, if you have
carried him off, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take
him away." Jesus said to her: "Mary!" Upon turning around, she
said to him, in Hebrew: "Rabboni!" (which means "Teacher!")
Jesus said to her: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet
ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and
say to them, I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and
to my God and YOUR God" (emphasis added).
Even though Mary "viewed Jesus standing" she "did not

discern it was Jesus." Why? Because Jesus had materialized in a
form different from the one Mary was accustomed to seeing. She
13
J. R. Harmer and J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, 2d ed., Revised by
Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). The footnote to this passage tells us
that "the (now lost) Gospel According to the Hebrews and the Teaching [or possibly
Preaching] of Peter are reported to have contained the same (or a very similar) saying."
14
Interesting in this connection is that Ignatius nowhere comments on or refers to
Paul's discussion of the resurrection body in 1Co 15:35-50 or 2Co 5:1-8.
15
Compare Ge 19:1-3, where in verse three we are told that the angels "went to
eating," with Lu 24:42-43.
also did not recognize his voice at first, but only when he spoke her
name with authority did she respond with a joy that we can only
imagine!
"Their eyes were kept from recognizing him." Another
occasion where Jesus was not recognized by his disciples is recorded
in Luke 24:13-35. Consider verses 13-16: "But, look! on that very
day two of them were journeying to a village about seven miles
distant from Jerusalem and named Emmaus, and they were
conversing with each other over all these things that had come about.
Now as they were conversing and discussing, Jesus himself
approached and began walking with them; but their eyes were kept
from recognizing him" (emphasis added).
Once again we can see that although Jesus "approached and
began walking with them," they where unable to recognize him.
Why? The account says that "their eyes were kept from recognizing
him." Some suggest that at this time Jesus still had the same form in
which he died, but that God somehow supernaturally confused the
disciples so they could not recognize Jesus.
This explanation is entirely unnecessary, for in other accounts
(such as John 20:14-17) it was the appearance of Jesus that caused
confusion as to his identity. Albert Barnes points out that having
their eyes kept or "holden" (KJV) simply refers to the fact that the
disciples "did not know who he was."16 He then remarks:
It does not appear that there was anything supernatural or

miraculous in it; or that God used any power to blind them. It
may easily be accounted for without any such supposition, for (1)
Jesus appeared in another form, (Mark xvi. 12;) i.e. in an
appearance different from his usual appearance. (2) They were
not expecting to see himindeed they did not suppose that he
was alive, and it required the strongest evidence to convince
them that he was really risen from the dead.17
16
Albert Barnes, Barnes Notes on the New Testament, one volume ed. (Grand
Rapids: Kregel, 1962), 257.
17
Ibid. It should be pointed out that Mark 16:12 is part of the longer ending, and,
though it has support from a variety of ancient witnesses (including A and D), it is
lacking in some important witnesses, including a and B. Still, even if it is not original,
the manuscripts supporting the reading of Mark 16:12 reveal that the belief that Jesus
appeared in "another form" was held, to some extent, early on in the Gospel tradition.
The empty tomb. Jesus materialized in different forms that the

disciples were unable to recognize. But what happened to Jesus
original physical body? Charles Venn Pilcher offers the following
explanation: "What was the connection between the earthly Body of
the Lord and His Risen Body? We most certainly believe in the
Empty Grave. The earthly Body must have been dissolved or
changed."18 Regardless of what actually happened to Jesus earthly
body, we know that it was offered in sacrifice to his God for the
sanctification of all who exercise faith in the ransom he paid (Heb
10:10).
Although in one of his appearances Jesus did have wound
marks resembling those he received when impaled at Golgotha, these
were presented as evidence necessary for Thomas lack of faith.
Jesus manifested his wounds to prove he had been resurrected from
the dead (Joh 20:19-2719), and because it was the specific proof
Thomas had asked for. This was not meant to indicate what kind of
body Jesus was raised to life in, or what body he has now.
When two of the disciples stopped to have a meal with Jesus
(who was unknown to them at the time) on their way to Emmaus,
the account mentions that the two disciples saw Jesus break the
bread and hand it to them. When he did this they recognized him,
perhaps because of the familiar manner in which he broke and
distributed the bread (compare Mt 14:19; 15:36; Lu 22:19). But
nothing in Luke 24:30 mentions anything about wound marks in
his hands, which surely would have been visible if he had the
same body in which he died. As we will now see, the Scriptures are
rather straightforward when speaking of the composition of Jesus
resurrection body.
18
Charles Venn Pilcher, The Hereafter in Jewish and Christian Thought With
Special Reference to the Doctrine of Resurrection (New York: Macmillan Company,
1940), 160.
19
Note in verse 19 that, although the doors were locked, Jesus appeared suddenly in
the room. He did this by materializing a physical body when in the room with the disciples.
"A Life-Giving Spirit"

Does soma always denote materiality? In his book, Soma
in Biblical Theology, Robert H. Gundry argues that the Greek word
soma, often translated "body," has a purely physical meaning. Thus,
in his view, the use of soma in passages like 1 Corinthians 15:44 "in
and of itself implies materiality."20 But what are we to make of the
modifying adjective pneumatikov" (pneumatikos, "spiritual")?
Gundry takes it to mean "a physical body renovated by the Spirit
of Christ and therefore suited to heavenly immortality."21 Can this
view be sustained?
Gundrys view is based in large part on the premise that soma
always denotes materiality. But is this the case? J. A. Ziesler took
issue with Gundrys view and has shown that while soma often
does have a purely physical reference, it also has a more-than-
physical meaning in the LXX (including several apocryphal
books) in more than a few instances. Ziesler maintains that
Gundrys thesis "cannot be accepted as it stands."22 In view of
this, Ziesler believes we "cannot rule out the possibility of [a
more-than-physical meaning] in Paul also."23
Zieslers view may not be precisely the same as that held by
Jehovahs Witnesses, but the Witnesses believe that the use of
soma in 1 Corinthians 15 must be considered in light of its
context. When this is done the meaning of any kind of physical
(fleshly) body for soma pneumatikon ("spiritual body") becomes
untenable.
"What sort of body?" In the first place we should note that
one of the two questions Paul is answering in 1 Corinthians
15:35-58 is "with what sort of body are they [the dead] coming?"
(verse 35, emphasis added) So we are dealing with kinds (poivw/,
poio) of bodies. Paul points out that there are different kinds of
20
Robert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
repr. 1987), 166.
21
Ibid., 165-166.
22
J. A Ziesler, "SWMA in the Septuagint," NovT 27 (1983), 133-145.
23
Ibid., 145. In ibid., note 31, Ziesler suggests that Gundrys view cannot be
sustained in Ro 6:6; 7:24; 8:10, 13, 23; 1Co 6:16; 2Co 10:10, and that in Php 3:21; Ro
12:1 and 1Co 15:44 his view is "highly improbable."
fleshly bodies (verse 39), and even the planetary bodies of the
heavens differ in terms of their radiance or glory. (verses 40-41)
So, also, the bodies we were born with and the bodies that the
Corinthians would be raised in are also different. But the language
Paul uses to differentiate these two kinds of bodies is such that the
second one cannot have any remnants of physicality.
For Paul goes on to argue in terms of each bodys
composition: "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the
second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those
who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who
are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust,
we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven" (1Co 15:47-
49, RSV).
Gundry believes "the term choikos, earthy, dusty, here
stresses mortality due to earthy origin (ek ges, [from the earth])
rather than substance as such, for its counterpart epouranios
(heavenly) has nothing to do with substance and is defined by
the phrase ex ouranou (from heaven; vv. 47-49). Moreover,
these predicates do not modify soma, but anthropos."24 The fact is
the expressions "out of the earth" and "earthy" (dusty) do speak of
the composition of the body, as do the expressions "out of
heaven" and "heavenly."
The fact that they modify anthropos ("man") is simply
because Paul is using examples of two men to define what
constitutes a "physical body" and a "spiritual body." (verses 44-
45) Then in verse 47 he defines the differences between a physical
and a spiritual body. The substance (composition) of the first is
"dust"; it is from the earth (compare Ge 3:19). The second is
"heavenly," being "out of heaven." While we understand what is
meant by "from the earth," and being made of dust (having
physical constituents), what is meant by "heavenly"? Paul uses
similar language to describe the anointed Christians resurrection
body in 2 Corinthians 5:1-5. In fact, in 2 Corinthians 5:2 he uses
the same characterization he did in 1 Corinthians 15:47, ex
ouranou ("out of heaven").
24
Gundry, Soma, 166.
But Paul also describes the resurrection body as "not made

with hands," which he elsewhere defines as "not of this creation."
(Heb 9:11)25 As noted earlier, Paul also speaks of the physical
body as being "dissolved," while the "building from God" is
spoken of as "everlasting in the heavens," further differentiating
the two in terms of their point of origin. So, how could the
resurrection body Paul discusses be one "not made with hands" if
in fact it is one that has any remnants of, or a dependence upon, a
prior human (physicalistic) existence?
When the tent is dissolved it "returns to the dust" (Ge 3:19;
Job 34:15; Ps 90:3; Ec 3:20), not to heaven. This was the case
with the first man Adam, but the "last Adam," Jesus Christ,
"became a life-giving spirit [pneuma]." (1Co 15:45) Thus,
according to Paul, being a "spirit" is an example of having a
"spiritual body," as verse 45 provides examples of the distinction
made in verse 44 between a physical and a spiritual body.
"Flesh and blood cannot inherit Gods kingdom." A
further evidence that the spiritual body does not have any
remnants of physicality is found in 1 Corinthians 15:50, where
Paul makes the resurrection body definable at least in terms of an
absence of composition by flesh and blood. He writes, "Flesh and
blood cannot inherit Gods kingdom, neither does corruption
inherit incorruption." Gundry believes this description "does not
imply immateriality of the resurrected body," but that "the phrase
flesh and blood connotes the present bodys weakness and
perishability."26 Gundrys biblical basis for this conclusion is non-
existent.
The fact is, the other four times the phrase "flesh and blood"
is used (Mt 16:17; Ga 1:16; Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14) it simply refers
to human beings. Three of the five times it is used in contrast to
spirit beings. (Mt 16:17; 1Co 15:50; Eph 6:12) Of course, a
reference to our physical being naturally implies our weakness
and perishability, but the phrase itself is simply used as a
reference to human beings, and, hence, the implications associated
with being human naturally follow. Thus, the physical body,
25
See pages 413-414 above.
26
Ibid.
being "flesh and blood" (human) and "from the earth," is in direct
contrast with the spiritual body, which is "out of heaven," and
"not made with hands."
"Made alive in the spirit." There is still more evidence from
the Scriptures to prove Jesus was raised "a life-giving spirit." In 1
Timothy 3:16 we are told, according to the NEB: "He [Jesus] was
manifested in the body [sarx, flesh], vindicated in the spirit, seen
by angels; who was proclaimed among the nations, believed in
throughout the world, glorified in high heaven" (emphasis added).
The apostle Peter also made a contrast between Christs physical life
on earth and his resurrection in the spirit: "Why, even Christ died
once for all time concerning sins, a righteous person for unrighteous
ones, that he might lead YOU to God, he being put to death in the
flesh, but being made alive in the spirit" (1Pe 3:18, emphasis
added).
Some Bible translations render the emphasized portion of
Peters words as "made alive by the Spirit." (NIV) It should be
noted, however, that the two clauses "in the flesh," and "in the spirit"
are antithetical to one another, and the words "flesh" and "spirit" are
most likely datives indicating the sphere (realm) in which Christ
died (flesh) and was made alive (spirit). They "cannot be
instrumental because the instrumental idea does not fit sarkiV
[flesh]; Christ was put to death in the flesh, but hardly by the
flesh."27
Daniel Wallace disagrees, stating that "if 1 Pet 3:18 is a hymnic
or liturgical fragment, this can be no objection because of poetic
license: Poetry is replete with examples of grammatical and lexical
license, not the least of which is the use of the same morpho-
syntactic [grammatical] categories, in parallel lines, with different
27
J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter (WBC 49; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1988),
204. We do not believe Michaels shares Jehovahs Witnesses view of this passage, but
he argues cogently for what we believe is the proper translation. His statement in
reference to 1Co 15:45, to the effect that "a life-giving spirit . . . no more implies
immateriality than does the preceding description of the first Adam as a living soul,"
is not well-reasoned. In 1Co 15:43-44 Paul sets up the contrast between the physical
body and the spiritual body: the first one is "sown in weakness" (that is, being flesh)
and the second one is "raised up in power." Then in verse 45 we are given an example:
Adam was given a physical body, and Jesus was given a spiritual body, making the
latter, according to Paul, a "life-giving spirit."
senses."28 This is certainly a possibility, but it seems much more

natural, whether this is a hymnic fragment or not,29 "in such a
closely welded phrase" to look for the same use of the dative in both
cases.30 Peter makes a contrast "between [Jesus] earthly existence
and his risen state."31
1 Peter 3:18 is similar in grammar to 1 Peter 4:6, which reads,
"For the Gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those
who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they
may live in the spirit according to the will of God." (NASB,
emphasis added) Christs state while on earth was "flesh." At his
resurrection he was "made alive in the spirit." In this state he
heralded a message of condemnation to the spirits "who forsook
their proper dwelling place" in the days of Noah, and abused their
flesh-taking privileges. (Ge 6:1-7; 1Pe 3:19; Jude 6) Jesus
resurrection in the spirit solidified their future judgment, and secured
our hope.
Conclusion
The evidence from the Bible leads us to believe that Jesus was
raised to life by God the Father in a spiritual body. This body is not
composed of "flesh and blood," but of that which is "not of this
creation." Jesus present body is one "not made with hands." (Mr
14:58; 1Co 15:50; 2Co 5:1; Heb 9:11) There is no scriptural
evidence to suggest that Jesus has two natures: one human and the
other divine. He is now, simply put, a "life-giving spirit" (1Co
15:45).
Those who will share heavenly life with the Lord Jesus, ruling
as kings and priests "over [that is, in control of 32] the earth," will
have their present physical bodies conformed to Jesus glorious
28
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 343, note 76.
29
See William Joseph Dalton, Christs Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1
Peter 3:18-4:6, 2d. ed. (Analecta Biblica 23; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto
Biblico, 1989), 109-120, for a discussion of the literary structure of 1Pe 3:18-4:6.
30
Ibid., 141.
31
Michaels, 1 Peter, 204.
32
body as they are made alive "in the spirit," and seated together in
the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus. (Php 3:21; Eph 2:6)
These anointed Christians will, together with the "the Lamb"
(Jesus), bring an end to all the suffering that has plagued mankind
since Adam and Eves rebellion (Rev 21:1-5).
8
Blood and the Bible
Any serious reader of the Old and New Testaments will

come face to face with the clear and repeated prohibitions against
the eating of blood. (Ge 9:4; Lev 3:17; 7:26, 27; 17:14; De 12:16;
12:23-25; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) Some of these passages, in
particular those in the book of Acts, do not specifically mention
"eating" blood; rather, they simply warn against "blood." But
what exactly does this involve? Do these texts have anything to
do with blood transfusions, as understood by Jehovahs
Witnesses?
First, it should be remembered that although Jehovahs
Witnesses believe that taking blood transfusions violates Gods
command to "abstain from blood," this is a decision that each
Witness must decide for himself. By this I do not mean to suggest
that if one were to decide to take a transfusion that he or she
would be viewed as a member in good standing. Jehovahs
Witnesses spend many months, sometimes years, helping people
throughout the world obtain knowledge of what the Bible teaches
on a variety of subjects. The issues of blood and blood
transfusions are often discussed at both their public and private
study sessions. Simply put, no one who decides to be baptized as
one of Jehovahs Witnesses is left in the dark regarding the
organizations view of blood and the Bible.
It is not my intention to get into a lengthy discussion about
the history of Jehovahs Witnesses view concerning blood and
blood transfusions.1 Nor do I intend to try and answer questions
1
One of the more recent discussions which documents the history of Jehovahs
Witnesses view of blood and their evolving relationship with medical professionals is
a thesis by Robert Conlon, "No Blood! The History of Jehovahs Witnesses and the
relating to which blood components are acceptable and which are

not. I do intend to examine some of the issues surrounding the
theological basis for the Witnesses position on blood/blood
transfusions, and I will also consider some of the arguments put
forth against their view.
What I write in this chapter is the result of my own critical
analysis of the issues. It is not simply because I am one of
Jehovahs Witnesses, and I certainly am not approaching this
subject with an air of indifference. I have had close friends and
relatives, including my own mother, who, on several occasions,
have come face to face with life-threatening situations that
reportedly (according to the doctors treating them) hinged on
whether or not they would accept a blood transfusion.
It is my belief that the Bibles command to "abstain from
blood" can rightly be understood as covering all forms of taking
blood into ones system. I will, of course, further explain and
articulate this view below. A person who is considering
becoming one of Jehovahs Witnesses must make a similar
decision, based on the Scriptures. Once this decision is made, it is
the individuals responsibility to live by that decision. After all,
no one is forced to become one of Jehovahs Witnesses.
Jehovahs Witnesses do not baptize infants, but they wait until a
person is capable of making a decision, provide the necessary
encouragement and instruction, and ultimately their children and
those with whom they study must decide what action to take.
Nevertheless, some who oppose the Witnesses view of
blood transfusions, as far as being a violation Gods command is
concerned, have put forth several arguments against the
Witnesses view of blood and the Bible. Below we will examine
some of these arguments to see if they have any merit. First,
Issue of Blood Transfusions" (M.A. thesis, University of Manchester, 1998). Conlon

(pages 33, 35, 37-40) believes that several factors may have contributed to the negative
treatment the Witnesses received due to their stance regarding blood transfusions.
These include the Witnesses own lack of preparation in dealing with the reaction from
society as a whole and the medical profession in particular, as well as public perception
and negative religious propaganda originating from various mainstream denominations.
But due to various organizational changes and initiatives, as well as a willingness on
the part of a number of competent medical professionals, the Witnesses are no longer
seen as a fanatical religious group that opposes medicine. Indeed, "they might even be
helping it" (ibid., 65).
Blood and the Bible 429
though, it is good for us to consider some historical information

relating to the form and content of the primary basis for the
Witnesses rejection of blood/blood transfusions. That basis is
found in Acts 15 and 21, and is commonly referred to as "the
Apostolic Decree." Of course, while this Decree is said to contain
the decisions of the Jerusalem council, "the apostles and older
men" (Acts 15:23) made it clear that this decision involved God's
"holy spirit," also. (Acts 15:28) What, then, does this Decree
have to do with a Christians view of blood?
The Textual Tradition

of "the Apostolic Decree"
The present form of the Decree. When I refer to the
"present form" of the Decree in Acts 15 and 21, I really mean its
most widely accepted form. This is the form we find, for
example, in the NWT, NIV, NASB, RSV and other popular Bible
translations. Here are the three places where the Decree occurs,
as translated by the NWT.
Acts 15:20: "abstain from things polluted by idols and from
fornication and from what is strangled and from blood."
Acts 15:29: "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from
blood and from things strangled and from fornication."
Acts 21:25: "they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to

idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from
fornication."
According to these versions of the Decree, there are four

things that Gentile (and, of course, Jewish) Christians should
"abstain from": 1) sacrifices to idols, 2) from blood, 3) from
"things strangled" (that is, improperly bled animal meat) and 4)
from fornication. Below we will discuss the meaning of "abstain
from . . . blood." But first let us examine some differences
between the Decree as given in the above texts, with what we
find in some ancient manuscript traditions.
The Decree in the New Testament textual tradition.

There are, in fact, several forms of the Decree, each containing
significant additions and omissions. Rather than categorize the
different readings as "Alexandrian," "Western," or "Caesarean,"
which are descriptions often used in works devoted to textual
criticism, I will instead use the categories given by noted textual
critics Kurt and Barbara Aland. 2 They present a total of five
categories, with Category I containing manuscripts of "a very
special quality which should always be consulted in establishing
the original text," and Category V, which contains "a
predominantly Byzantine text" that is often viewed as "quite
irrelevant for textual criticism." 3 Here "Byzantine" refers to those
manuscripts that exhibit little variation. There are Byzantine
manuscripts that contain older readings which are quite relevant
for textual criticism. Categories II through IV contain
manuscripts that become less important (in theory) the closer
they get to Category V.
The reading of the aforementioned versions (NWT, NIV,
NASB and the RSV) is well supported by Category I and II
manuscripts.4 The additional readings we will now consider are
really not a threat to the reading in these and other Bible
translations, though some have argued that the following readings
are in fact original. In any event, a consideration of the
differences will help us better understand just how the Decree
was understood by some in the ancient world.
One Category IV manuscript (D) omits "things strangled"
(tou pniktou) and adds a negative form of the Golden Rule
("whatever you do not wish to be done to you, do not do to
others") in both Acts 15:20 and 29 (D also omits "things
strangled" from Acts 21:25). There are some Category III
minuscules (cursive Greek manuscripts that began to appear from
the ninth century [some a bit earlier] CE onward) that keep
2
Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, trans. Erroll F.
Rhodes, 2d ed. Revised and Enlarged (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1989),
106, 159-163.
3
Ibid., 104.
4
These include B a* P74 A* C 81 and others. For a more complete listing of the
manuscripts supporting the different readings, see New Testament Greek Manuscripts,
Acts, Reuben Swanson, ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press; Pasadena: William
Carey International University Press, 1998), 263, 268, 379.
"things strangled" but add a form of the Golden Rule. P 45

(Category I) omits the reference to "fornication" in Acts 15:20
and an eleventh century CE minuscule (1175) does the same in
Acts 21:25.
The significance of the differences in the textual
tradition of the Apostolic Decree. While it is not necessary for
one to memorize what is said above regarding the variations in
the three passages from Acts (those which contain the Apostolic
Decree), there are at least two reasons why we should be mindful
of the textual variations in the Decree: 1) it is only by evaluating
the textual differences that we can hope to discern what we
believe is the original text intended by those who authored the
Decree, and 2) differences in the text can reveal how the Decree
was understood in certain circles, at different times. J. J. Scott
provides a helpful explanation of the issues involved in the
textual variations:
But what is the significance of the inclusion or omission of one

or more of the other elements of the decree? The Alexandrian-
Byzantine four-element version of the decree [which is what
we find in the NWT, NIV, NASB and other modern
translations] could be interpreted in at least one of three ways:
(1) If the prohibition against fornication has reference to sacral
prostitution and/or marriage restrictions and the mention of
"blood" is intended to enforce the Levitical regulations against
drinking blood, then the primary concern of the decree is with
ceremonial and dietary matters. (2) If "fornication" is meant to
enjoin all forms of sexual irregularity and the prohibition
against blood a restatement of the sixth commandment, then
the wide difference between Jewish and Gentile moral codes
and practices may be the major concern behind this form of the
decree. (3) It is also possible that the fourfold form of the
decree intends sanctions or equal emphasis against each of the
categories of Gentile sins from which the Jews recoiled.5
5
J. Julius Scott, Jr., "Textual Variants of the Apostolic Decree and Their
Setting in the Early Church," in The Living and Active Word of God: Studies in Honor
of Samuel J. Schultz, M. Inch and R. Youngblood, eds. (Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 1983), 176.
There really is little doubt that the reading of the NWT, NIV,
NASB and other modern translations is in fact the true reading.
But Scott notes that the P45 text type, by omitting "fornication,"
places an emphasis on Gentile food practices, particularly if
"blood" is taken as a dietary restriction (see below). He also notes
that the omission of "things strangled" from other texts (such as
D and various early writers like Tertullian) places a "decided
moral and ethical emphasis" on the Decree, particularly in light
of the addition of the negative form of the Golden Rule. 6
In a brochure concerning the use of blood in biblical and
modern times, Jehovahs Witnesses make the following
observation regarding the Apostolic Decree: "The apostles were
not presenting a mere ritual or dietary ordinance. The decree set
out fundamental ethical norms, which early Christians complied
with."7 Others have claimed that the prohibitions in the Apostolic
Decree were merely "to avoid giving unnecessary offense to
Jewish Christians," asking "Gentile converts to make certain
concessions for prudential reasons."8
What Metzger and other commentators who argue similarly
fail to note is that there is nothing in the text about making
certain concessions for prudential reasons. Rather, the issues
discussed at the Jerusalem council were clearly in reference to the
particular Mosaic customs that are necessary for one to be
"saved." (Acts 15:1; compare verse 6) While the performance of
those customs decided upon by the council would not grant one
salvation, they did constitute certain commands that had to be
obeyed for salvation to result through faith in Christ. (Acts 15:9,
11, 20; Heb 5:9) On the other hand, practices such as
circumcision and observance of the entire Mosaic Law were
viewed as an unnecessary "yoke" (Acts 15:5, 10).9
When viewed in this light, that is, in relation to the issue of
salvation, it is difficult to accept the view that we are dealing
primarily with "certain concessions for prudential reasons."
6
Ibid.
7
How Can Blood Save Your Life? (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1990), 5.
8
corrected ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975), 430.
9
See Chapter 10 for a discussion of faith, works and salvation.
Rather, since the Decree was given in the context of a discussion

regarding salvation, then it is clear that we are dealing with
commands "necessary" for a righteous standing before God.
However, what exactly is meant by the command to "abstain . . .
from blood"?
The Missing Verb(s)

First-century culture and the context of the Decree. In
reading the command to "abstain . . . from blood" it is clear that
something is missing: a verb. The Decree does not come right out
and say, "abstain from drinking or eating blood." Yet, a verb of
some kind is needed to complete the thought. For example, if I
were to say "abstain from paint" it might be understood from the
context of my statement that I am referring to "inhaling" paint
due to its noxious and possibly lethal affect. Or, I might be
referring to "touching" paint as it could ruin your new suit! Of
course, I would probably phrase my statement a bit differently,
perhaps not using "abstain" at all. But I am using it here to
illustrate how a verb is needed to complete the thought, and how
this verb could and would be understood from the context of the
discussion.
In the context of the Apostolic Decree, which no doubt
builds on the prohibition against eating and drinking blood in the
Hebrew Scriptures, it is clear that either or both of these two
verbs (eating and drinking) should be understood, especially
since these were the only two known methods of taking blood
into ones body in the ancient world (see note 14). Does this,
then, mean that the command to "abstain . . . from blood" should
only be viewed in reference to "eating" or "drinking" blood
today? Unless a person is going to suggest that the Decree is
relevant only for first-century CE culture and practices then it is
significant that, while the context points to eating/drinking as the
understood verb(s), neither of these are actually stated in the text.
Jehovahs Witnesses believe that the Decree applies to the uses of
blood prevalent in the ancient world, but also that God intended
for it to serve as a means by which Christians could make
decisions regarding the use of blood in all future cultures and

situations. The Witnesses believe the Bible transcends culture,
and makes application for all time.
A qualified and unqualified prohibition. It is clear
"eating" and "drinking" are to be understood in the context of the
Decree, for they are the only verbs that could have been
understood. But the fact is, there is no verb specifically stated, so
it appears that the holy spirit left the matter open in terms of what
verb a Christian should supply; it is not likely God was unaware
of the different uses of blood that would appear in the world.
The use of an unqualified prohibition regarding the use of
blood would cover the present means of taking blood into ones
system (eating/drinking) and it would also allow for a Christian
to evaluate future uses of blood, such as transfusions. In light of
the special reverence for blood as "the soul of the flesh" which
makes atonement for your souls (Lev 17:11) it is even more
important we give careful thought to how we view and use blood.
Again, Jehovahs Witnesses do not believe the commands
given in the Bible only have relevance for first century culture
and life, but that Jehovah had written in His Word those things
that would serve as a protection for His people, for all time.
Since blood transfusions did not exist back in the first century,
we have to recognize that the only methods of taking blood into
ones system (eating/drinking) were prohibited, and then consider
the different uses of blood common today and attempt to get
Jehovahs mind on matters. Such a position, while it can be
disagreed with, cannot be faulted.
The first-century Christians were told to abstain from taking
blood into their system by the only two means known at that
time: eating and drinking. Today there is another means by which
a person can take blood into his or her system, and we cannot
simply throw our hands in the air and ignore what the Bible says,
especially if we view the Bible as a book written for people of all
generations and cultures. If others wish to do so, that is up to
them. I recognize that this issue is complicated and answers to
certain questions are not always easy to give, or to accept. But
there are certain arguments that have been advanced against the
Witnesses position that are really not well-founded. Let us now
consider some of these arguments.
"Abstain . . . from Blood"

How Strong is the Prohibition?
Is the NWT trying to hide something? Some critics of
Jehovahs Witnesses seem to think that the "necessary things"
referred to in Acts 15:28-29, which were given by "apostles and
older men" in Jerusalem (Acts 15:4, 23), were not meant to be
taken as "inflexible laws." The reasoning some have presented to
this author goes something like this: Acts 15:29 and 1
Corinthians 8:4 use the Greek word eijdwloquvtwn (eidolothuton).
In 1 Corinthians 8:7 it is argued that those with weak consciences
are allowed to eat that which is "sacrificed to idols"
(eidolothuton) because of their weakness. Thus, since the same
Greek word (eidolothuton) is used in Acts 15:29, it should not be
taken in a universal sense. Some have even criticized NWT for
translating this same Greek word as "things sacrificed to idols" in
Acts 15:29 and "foods offered to idols" in 1 Corinthians 8:4. The
objections are closely related, because if there is a difference in
terms of what is under consideration in Acts 15:29 and 1
Corinthians 8:4, then there is no relationship between the two that
might have an impact on the universality of what is stated in Acts
15:29.
Of course, it is by emphasizing that the "same Greek word"
is used in both texts that those who oppose the Witnesses view
make their case. But that only serves to underscore the weakness
of their objection. To object on the basis of an alleged difference
between "things sacrificed to idols" in Acts 15:29 and "foods
offered to idols" in 1 Corinthians 8:4 reveals a defective
knowledge of the context, which reveals how words are used, and
with what meaning. In Acts 15:29 there is no reason to limit the
reference to "foods" that are "sacrificed to idols." So the more
general "things" (which includes food) is quite appropriate.
However, the context of Pauls words in 1 Corinthians 8:4
specifically refers to those "things" that are "eaten." 10 It is
therefore only natural to view these "things" that were eaten as
10
Paul uses two different words to convey the thought of "eating." In verse 4
brw'si" (brosis) refers to the act of eating, and in verses 7, 8, 10 and 13 a form of
ejsqivw (esthio, "to eat") is used.
"food." In fact, in verse 13 Paul makes it clear that the "food"

(brwm' a, broma) is "flesh" (kreva, krea, "meat"). So the NWT is
hardly "deceptive" on this matter, as some have claimed.
A weak command for those with "weak consciences"?
It is also a mistake to think that just because Paul refers to those
with "weak" consciences as persons who are "accustomed" to
eating food sacrificed to idols (1Co 8:7), that this somehow
softens the clear and unqualified prohibitions in Acts 15 and 21.
In fact, Paul is admonishing those who have "knowledge" of such
things to set a good example and not "sin against [their] brothers"
by eating such foods. (1Co 8:10-12) There is nothing "soft" about
what he says on this matter.
Of course, one might assume that the reference to blood in
Acts 15 and 21 has to do with the OT law against the eating of
blood, and that is correct. But the Decree does not limit the
reference to this particular misuse of blood,11 and so we do well
to reflect on why Jehovah inspired His written Word to contain
such an unqualified reference. Obviously we should not expect a
direct reference to a medical practice (blood transfusions, as they
are administered today) that did not even exist at that time (see
below). But it is not unreasonable to think that Jehovah knew
about future misuses of blood that would occur, and that an
unqualified statement such as that which is given in the Decree
would communicate His mind to His people regarding the use of
blood.
"Abstain . . . from Blood"

Is there a "limited" sense?
"Abstain" in the New Testament. When Acts 15:29 tells
us to "abstain from blood," should this be taken in an absolute
sense? Or could it be, as some Witness critics think, that the
Greek word for "abstain" (ajpevcomai, apekhomai) has a "limited"
11
In fact, in both Acts 15:29 and 21:25 "blood" is separated from "idol
sacrifices," "strangled [animals]" and from "fornication" by the Greek word kaiv, here
translated "and." What we have is a list of different things that are to be avoided.
sense? The examples that are usually provided to allegedly

illustrate this "limited" sense are surprising, to say the least.
The first example is 1 Timothy 4:3. Paul warns Timothy
about deceitful men who would command others "to abstain
[apekhesthai] from foods which God created to be partaken of
with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know
the truth." Some reason that the command to "abstain from foods
which God created" could not have been a universal command to
abstain from all foods, but a command to abstain from specific
foods. Thus, these wicked teachers of whom Paul speaks would
command others to abstain completely from these specific foods.
Now we must determine what kind of foods these false teachers
wanted others to "abstain" from.
The Greek word for "food" in 1 Timothy 4:3 is brw'ma
(broma). In 1 Timothy 4:4-5 Paul points out that all the things
"God created to be partaken of" (verse 3) have been "sanctified."
In Romans 14:20 Paul makes a similar point, stating that
Christians should stop tearing one another down "just for the sake
of food [form of bromatos]," since "all things are clean." But in
verse 21 he substitutes kreva (krea, "meat") for broma ("food").
This same specialized sense of "meat" for "food" was also
seen in our discussion of 1 Corinthians 8:13 (see above, pages
435-436). It is interesting to note in this regard that Paul refers to
those who eat "vegetables" (lavcanon, lakhanon) as "weak." (Ro
14:2) It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that the eating of
"meat" was a cause for division and stumbling among the
brothers, and that it is this issue that Paul was trying to settle
(compare verses 3, 14, 15, 17, 23). George Knight correctly
observes:
It is likely that brw'ma [broma] is used in that specialized sense

[that is, in reference to "meat"] here [as it is in Romans 14 and 1
Corinthians 8]. If so, the false teachers are urging abstention
from meat as something intrinsically wrong. It is this evaluation
of meat as intrinsically evil that distinguishes the false teachers
from the "weak" in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and that
elicits condemnation and refutation.12
12
George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text
(NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 190.
Whatever sense we give to broma in 1 Timothy 4:3, the false

teachers evidently wanted others to abstain completely from
whatever specific food(s) they had in mind. Thus, far from
proving a "limited" sense for apekhomai ("abstain"), this text
only serves to further illustrate an absolute sense! There is
nothing to suggest that these false teachers would permit any
indulgence in the foods which they condemned.
The next example that is usually cited as evidence that
apekhomai can have a "limited" sense is 1 Peter 2:11. According
to NWT, it reads: "Beloved, I exhort you as aliens and temporary
residents to keep abstaining from [apekhesthai] fleshly desires,
which are the very ones that carry on a conflict against the soul."
Remarkably, Witness critics suggest that this verse means that
apekhomai can be used in a limited sense, for, they argue, Peter is
clearly not suggesting that we abstain from all fleshly desires,
such as eating and drinking. This line of reasoning
misunderstands the meaning of "fleshly desires," which are
described as those which "carry on a conflict against the soul."
In Galatians 5:16, 2 Peter 2:18 and 1 John 2:16 we find the
word "fleshly" used with "desires," just as we do in 1 Peter 2:11.
Obviously, in Galatians 5:16 when Paul said, "Keep walking by
spirit and you will carry out no fleshly desire at all," he did not
mean to include normal, spiritually harmless desires such as
eating! Rather, by "fleshly desires" he meant those things that are
"against the spirit in its desire" (verse 17), some of which he lists
in verses 19-21. In 2 Peter 2:18 we are told, "For they utter
swelling expressions of no profit, and by the desires of the flesh
and by loose habits they entice those who are just escaping from
people who conduct themselves in error."
Is Peter condemning the normal fleshly desire of eating or is
he, like Paul, referring to those fleshly desires that make those
who practice them "slaves of corruption" (verse 19)? Finally, 1
John 2:16 reminds us that "everything in the worldthe desire of
the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of
ones means of lifedoes not originate with the Father, but
originates with the world." Is John really saying that the desire to
eat is not from God? That would be difficult to harmonize with
the Genesis account of creation, specifically Gods words in
Genesis 1:29.
Clearly, then, in 1 Peter 2:11, as in Galatians 5:16, 2 Peter 2:18

and 1 John 2:16, the "fleshly desires" that we are told to "abstain
from" are the sinful tendencies that result in sin, and which "carry
on a conflict against the soul" (compare James 1:13-15). Peters
counsel to us is to "abstain" from these "fleshly desires," and
there nothing "limited" about it.
Blood and the Law of Moses

The crisis leading up to the Jerusalem council. The
events leading up to the prohibition against blood in Acts 15:29
are as follows: Men from Judea come down to Antioch and begin
teaching others that circumcision is necessary for salvation. (Acts
15:1) This creates a division that results in Paul and Barnabas,
among others, bringing the issue concerning circumcision before
"the apostles and older men in Jerusalem" (Acts 15:2).
After arriving in Jerusalem this envoy is welcomed by "the
congregation and the apostles and the older men." But upon
sharing some of their missionary experiences, a group of
Pharisees that had come to believe in Jesus makes the same claim
that the men from Judea had made back in Antioch: "It is
necessary to circumcise them and charge them to observe the law
of Moses." This leads to a discussion among "the apostles and
older men" concerning this issue (verses 5-6).
After some dispute Peter points out that he was sent by God
to preach the good news to "people of the nations," and that God
had in fact given non-Jews His spirit, just as He had given it to
Jewish believers such as Peter. Indeed, God "made no distinction
at all between us [fleshly Jews] and them [people of the nations]"
(verses 7-9). Of critical importance is Peters point about being
saved "through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus" and
not by observing commandments that neither they nor their
forefathers were able to fulfill (verses 10-11).
After Paul and Barnabas relate the many miracles God
performed through them while preaching the good news to
people of the nations, James explains how God has taken "a
people for his name" from the nations, and how this is actually in
harmony with the prophesy recorded in Amos 9:11-12 (verses

12-18). In view of this, James concludes that people of the
nations who turn to God should be welcomed without being
required to strictly observe the Law, particularly on the matter of
circumcision. However, James also states that a letter should be
written, telling these non-Jewish converts to Christianity to
"abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and
from what is strangled and from blood." Why? Because "from
ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach
him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every
sabbath" (verses 19-21).
The Mosaic Law concerning blood and its relationship
to the Apostolic Decree. Because of James words in verse 21,
some have concluded that the reason James included in his letter
the command to "abstain from blood" is because he wanted to
maintain the teachings of Moses in Leviticus 17 and 18, which
contain commands that apply to both Israelites and "alien
residents" (non-Israelites). Regarding blood, the law of Moses
makes it clear that "for any man of the house of Israel or some
alien resident who is residing as an in alien in your midst who
eats any sort of blood [Heb: kol dam; LXX: pan haima], I shall
certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and
I shall indeed cut him off from among his people" (Lev 17:10;
compare verse 12; 3:17; 7:26-27; 19:26).
In verse 11 Jehovah explains why they must abstain from
eating blood, saying, "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood,
and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement
for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by
the soul in it" (compare verses 13-16). It is clear, then, that
Jehovah God commanded His people to abstain from eating
blood, since it had been set aside for the atonement of their sins. 13
But does this mean that we should abstain from blood by not
accepting medical transfusions?
As we discussed earlier in this chapter, we are not going to
find a specific reference to blood transfusions in the Bible, since
the first recorded transfusion was not performed until the late
13
Gods prohibition against blood was also given to Noah and his family in Ge
9:3-4.
fifteenth century CE.14 But the Hebrew word for "eat" (lka,
akhal) may have been used by Moses to condemn all forms of
taking blood into ones system, which would have been done by
"eating" it. It is of interest to note that although James does draw
from the Law of Moses which specifically mentions the "eating"
of blood, he himself does not say to abstain from eating blood,
but, simply, to "abstain from blood." He makes no qualification,
and does not limit it to "eating" or "drinking," as if for food.
Of course, the fact that James, under the guiding power of
Gods spirit, drew from the ancient prohibition against eating
blood, but chose not to qualify it, underscores the importance of
our carefully considering the different uses of blood that might
violate Gods command to abstain from it. This is not an easy
thing to do, particularly when it comes to the medical uses of
blood and blood components in our modern times. Responsible
Christians must seriously consider to what extent biblical
commands and principles apply to modern practices. The position
taken by Jehovahs Witnesses certainly cannot be dismissed as
having no biblical foundation. But what about the individual
Witness? Do they have any say in the matter, or does the
"Watchtower Society" force its members into submitting to their
interpretation of the Bible, as some persons seem to think?
Freedom of Choice
The right to choose. When it comes to the Witnesses view
of blood transfusions or the use of certain blood components, it is
not uncommon for some non-Witnesses to reduce their demands to
14
This transfusion involved Pope Innocent VIII and the blood of three healthy
young boys. But according to Corinne S. Wood, "A Short History of Blood
Transfusion," Transfusion 7.4 (July-August), 299, even here there is a question about
whether or not the blood was given intravenously or as a drink. According to Wood, the
"Egyptians anointed heads with oil containing blood to treat greying and baldness.
They also used blood baths for resuscitation and recuperation while the Romans were
said to have rushed into the gladiatorial arena to drink the blood of the dying as a
method of imbuing their courage." She believes that although James Blundells
transfusions in the nineteenth century "were the first transfusions with some claim to be
considered beneficial to the patient," it is not until the early part of the twentieth
century, through the work of Ehrlich, Morgenroth and Landsteiner, that "blood
transfusion could be approached scientifically" (pages 299, 301).
but one, which we will put in the form of a question: Why is it that
Jehovahs Witnesses do not have the freedom to choose for
themselves whether they will accept or reject a blood transfusion?
The obvious answer to this question is they do have such freedom.
The inevitable follow-up question is, "Yes, but if you choose to
accept the transfusion would you not be disfellowshipped? "
The follow-up question misunderstands and oversimplifies the
scriptural practice of disfellowshipping.15 But, more than that, it
misses the heart of the issue, which relates to the kind of freedom
Jehovahs Witnesses have on the matter of blood transfusions. The
fact is, Jehovahs Witnesses spend a great deal of time with a
person prior to their baptism, teaching them about Jehovah, His
purpose, His organization (visible and invisible), and what He
requires of us. The most important requirement that they stress is
faith in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ and obedience to him.
Again, every person who studies the Bible with Jehovahs
Witnesses, and who takes the study seriously, will become
thoroughly familiar with the Bible and how the Witnesses interpret
it on a variety of matters, including blood/blood transfusions. Often
a person will spend many months studying with the Witnesses,
but the amount of time differs for each individual. Still, the
Witnesses goal is to thoroughly educate the person so that
when/if they choose to get baptized, then they hopefully
understand what is expected of them, and they will be able to
stand firm in their dedication to God.
The Witnesses do not practice infant baptism nor do they
encourage people to get baptized before they are ready, that is,
before they truly understand what is involved. Also, if an elder or
some other spiritually mature person in the organization senses
that a person may be rushing into dedication and baptism, it is not
all uncommon for them to approach the person and discuss the
significance of baptism. In fact, prior to ones baptism elders in
15
Disfellowshipping is a Bible-based practice employed by Jehovahs Witnesses
to protect the Christian Congregation from unclean and destructive influences, such as
immorality, apostasy and other unclean practices (compare Ro 16:17; 1Co 5:11; 2Th
3:14; 1Ti 1:3; Tit 3:10-11; 2Jo 8-11). It is also a corrective measure designed to restore
a person to spiritual health. For a person to be disfellowshipped he or she would have to
manifest an unrepentant attitude, which would then pose a threat to the spirituality of
others in the Congregation. For more information, see "DisfellowshippingA Loving
Provision?" The Watchtower, 15 July 1995, 25-27.
the congregation will sit down with a person who desires to be

baptized and go over basic scriptural teachings, making sure that
he or she understands what the Bible says and how the
organization applies it.
With this in mind, it is clear that prior to baptism each
person who becomes one of Jehovahs Witnesses has already
made his or her decision about such things as blood transfusions,
drug abuse, immorality, and other matters. Granted, younger
persons may no have the maturity necessary to fully understand
the significance of certain principles and practices, but that is
precisely why most young persons are encouraged to wait until
they fully understand the significance of their dedication, prior to
getting baptized. (Of course, there is no age limit set by the
Witnesses, but the elders in the congregation [and the parents of
the youth] are responsible for making sure the person is indeed
ready to make such a commitment].) If at a later time they look
back with regret over the decision they made, then, in most
situations, especially with regard to mature adults, they have no
one to blame but themselves. It is certainly not right to blame the
organization, which openly and regularly expresses its
interpretation of the command to "abstain from blood."
A person who is concerned with following what the Bible
says should take responsibility for the decisions he or she makes,
not because someone else pressures them into thinking or
believing a certain way; rather, they should accept what others
say only when it has scriptural support. This does not mean we
should always look for statements that spell out verbatim what
we should and should not do, especially if the particular practice
did not exist during the time when the Bible was being written.
The Bible often gives us principles and guidelines that discerning
Christians can use to make wise decisions that will make them
and their Creator happy.
Do Witnesses "let people die"? For those who continue
to blame the Watchtower Society or who claim that they should
be held responsible in some way for "letting people die," it would
be wise to seriously re-think this accusation. Jehovahs Witnesses
do not "let" anyone die. The Watchtower Society has a Hospital
Liaison Committee that works very hard trying to uphold the
rights of those individuals who choose to "abstain from blood."
Witnesses decide for themselves whether or not they will take

blood, and the organization supports dedicated members who
have chosen not to accept blood transfusions.
If a person is not convinced of the scriptural basis for
Jehovahs Witnesses position on blood and blood transfusions,
then he or she should wait until they are convinced before getting
baptized. Again, the Governing Body does not make decisions
for any one of Jehovahs Witnesses; rather, they explain Gods
Word as best they can, as a "faithful and discreet slave" should
(Mt 24:45).
The logic of those who argue that the Society should be held
responsible for those who die because they refused to accept a
transfusion is easily turned against them when they are asked,
Are you going to be responsible for those who die as a result of
taking a transfusion? Of course, proving that someone dies from
taking or not taking a blood transfusion is not easily done to
begin with. But offering support to those who decide that they do
not want to take blood transfusions no more makes the Witnesses
responsible for the consequences than the supporters of those
who decide to take blood are responsible for any negative
consequences (such as AIDS, Hepatitis B, or even death) from
the transfusion.
Hypocrisy. There is also a disturbing bit of irony in the
beliefs and practices of many who condemn the Witnesses
position on blood transfusions. Though many in the field of
medicine have for several years shown increasing acceptance and
respect for the Witnesses position on blood, there are still some
who refuse to treat Witnesses for philosophical and other reasons.
Yet, as Robert Conlon rightly observes:
When compared to the treatment of other religions there seems

to be a disparity in the treatment of Jehovahs Witnesses. For
example we have never heard of forced abortion on a Catholic,
even if that womans life is in danger. Doctors have accepted
in these instances that the Catholics beliefs are more
important than their interest in keeping the woman alive. 16
16
Conlon, "No Blood! The History of Jehovahs Witnesses and the Issue of
Blood Transfusions," 32.
It is often said by those who oppose the Witnesses that they

do not share Gods view of life, for they, again, allegedly "let
people die" by not encouraging some to take transfusions. While
this view is not at all accurate, it pales in comparison to
participating in politically and religiously driven warfare that puts
one in a position where not only is their own life endangered, but
it also involves a serious risk to the lives of others.
Christendom, and other religions of the world, have on many
occasions refused to follow the example of Jesus and avoid
taking sides in national wars. While putting faith in ones
interpretation of Gods unqualified prohibition against blood may
result in giving ones life, it does not put one in a position where
he or she would have to take the life of another. Yet where are
the criticisms against those who advocate participation in such
national conflicts? Instead we find many who claim allegiance to
Christ participating in and supporting the war efforts of their
respective countries, even if members of the same religion are on
different sides of the battlefield. The Bible tells those who would
be true Christians to remain "no part of the world" and to "love
their brothers," even those in foreign lands (Joh 17:16; 1Jo 2:9-
11).
The Witnesses believe that Christians must remain neutral if
they are to preach the good news "in all the inhabited earth." (Mt
24:14) Indeed, such preaching would be difficult to do with a gun
in your hand. It might be wise for those who seem obsessed with
condemning the Witnesses view of blood transfusions to take a
good, long look at themselves, before they pass judgement on
others (Mt 7:1-5).
Conclusion
Though the Bible certainly does condemn the eating of
blood, there is reason to be cautious about taking blood into our
system in any form. Back in ancient times blood transfusions did
not exist. But the Bible, in addition to its condemnation of those
who eat blood, also provides an unqualified warning against
blood. It says, simply, to "abstain" from it, just as we should
"abstain" from fornication, idolatry, and other practices. This
prohibition is strong, and it does not have a "limited sense," as

alleged by some Witness critics.
In the end, people must decide for themselves what choices
they will make, and they should weigh their decisions in light of
the consequences. When it comes to blood, no one can rightly
criticize the position Jehovahs Witnesses have taken, at least not
when it comes to what the Bible says. Those who have carefully
examined the facts and made the decision to become one of
Jehovahs Witnesses should live up to their dedication, and serve
Jehovah with their whole soul, heart, mind and strength (Mt
12:30).
9
The Watchtower and False Prophecy
An Undeserved Reputation
Jehovahs Witnesses are often accused of being "false

prophets." Indeed, Ron Rhodes says that "the Watchtower Society
refuses to concede that it is a false prophet."1 Part of the problem
with individuals like Rhodes, who make such assertions, is they do
not understand what the "Watchtower Society" means when it refers
to itself as a "prophet." The April 1, 1972 issue of The Watchtower
refers to Jehovahs Witnesses as a group that "acts like a prophet
of God" (page 197, emphasis added). How, though, should we
understand the qualification "acts like" in relation to Jehovahs
Witnesses as "a prophet of God"?
In addition to answering this question, this chapter will focus on
what some have considered explicit references in the Witnesses
literature, to the effect that they claim to be inspired prophets. Also,
we will discuss several "predictions" the Society has made over the
years, and see if we can determine whether or not these "predictions"
qualify as prophecies themselves, or if they are merely
interpretations of Bible prophecies, which are neither inspired nor
infallible, and which were always considered open to reevaluation
and correction.
1
Jehovahs Witnesses as "Prophets"

"A prophet was among them." In an article entitled, "They
shall know that a prophet was among them," which appeared in the
aforementioned April 1, 1972 issue of The Watchtower, various
parallels are made between Ezekiel and the anointed, modern-day
followers of Jesus Christ.2 But what are these parallels? Is there
among them a claim to the effect that these modern-day followers
are inspired prophets like Ezekiel?
On page 197 of this article, under the sub-heading, "Identifying
the Prophet," the question, "does Jehovah have a prophet to help
them [people today], to warn them of dangers and declare things to
come?" is "answered in the affirmative." Who is this "prophet"? The
article identifies them: "This prophet was not one man, but was a
body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep
followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time [that is, prior to 1931]
as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's
Christian witnesses."
Because they identify themselves as a "prophet" paralleling the
work of Ezekiel, some have accused them of claiming to be inspired
prophets, as was Ezekiel. But is this what the article meant by
identifying Jehovahs Witnesses as a "prophet"? The first thing we
should note is that the reference to the anointed Witnesses is
enclosed in quotation marks, which seems to indicate that the word
"prophet" is used in a quasi sense, meaning they resemble certain
prophets of old in some respects. But what is the context of this self-
identification? On the same page that the Witnesses are identified as
a "prophet" paralleling the work of Ezekiel, we are told: "Of course,
it is easy to say that this group acts as a prophet of God. It is
another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to
review the record. What does it show?"
Next, we will quote the paragraphs that are given as proof
that they act "as a prophet." Let us see what this involves:
2
See Chapter 10, pages 536-540, for a discussion of who Jehovahs Witnesses
consider "anointed" Christians.
An Undeserved Reputation 449
During the World War I period this group, the International

Bible Students, was very active in preaching the good news of
Gods kingdom, as their Leader Jesus Christ had set this work
before them in his prophecy at Matthew 24:14. They took
literally Jesus words to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate:
"My kingdom is no part of this world." (John 18:36) They also
took to heart Jesus words to his followers: "You are no part of
the world, but I have chosen you out of the world." They
expected to suffer for living according to that rule, just as
Jesus went on to say, "on this account the world hates you."
(John 15:19) Hatred toward them grew into violence during
World War I.
These Bible Students had long been concerned with Ezekiel
and his prophecy. In 1917 they published a book entitled "The
Finished Mystery," explaining the book of Ezekiel as well as
that of Revelation. This book criticized the clergy as false to
the Word of Jehovah. Within nine months a ban was put on its
circulation in the United States and Canada. Then eight
members of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society,
including its president and secretary-treasurer, were sentenced
to prison in the Federal penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
Though the work of these Christians was crippled for a
while, after only nine months the eight men were freed from
prison, in March 1919. They accepted this as an answer from
God to their prayers. Their work was revived, much to the
consternation of the clergy, who had been behind the banning.
Accordingly, their magazine The Watch Tower and Herald
of Christs Presence, in its issues of August 1 and 15, 1919,
encouraged vigorous resumption of the work of preaching the
good news free from the fear of men. Under the subject
"Blessed Are the Fearless," the following statements were
made:
There is a fear which is very proper, and which everyone must

have who is pleasing to God, and this is known as Godly fear.
It means a holy reverence for Jehovah and a fear lest we should
displease him and come short of the blessings he has promised
us. . . . The Scriptures abound with testimony that those whom
God approves do not fear man nor any other creature, but have a
holy, reverential fear of Jehovah. In times of old Jehovah
justified some men to friendship with him, and the record of his
dealing with them was written for the benefit of the church.
Ezekiel was one of these men so used by God, and not only
his prophecies, but also Ezekiel himself and his acts were
pictorial of things to come.3
We can see that the proof offered in support of their

contention that they acted like a "prophet" for God4 did not
involve the proclamation of inspired messages that originated with
them; rather, "preaching the good news of Gods kingdom," and
"explaining [emphasis added] the book of Ezekiel as well as that
of Revelation" is how they act like a prophet for God. Let us look
further, and see what else the article says regarding this body of
men and women who act like a "prophet":
The League of Nations came into being in 1919 and began

really to function when it was ratified by the signatory powers
at Paris on January 10, 1920. But Jehovahs servants
continued to proclaim the Messianic kingdom of God. When
the ban on The Finished Mystery was lifted, they resumed its
circulation and, with it as a textbook, they continued to study
the book of Ezekiel. As time went on and further developments
fulfilled the prophecy of Ezekiel, a three-volume set of books
titled "Vindication" provided an up-to-date understanding,
showing more fully the application of the prophecy.
Thus this group of anointed followers of Jesus Christ, doing
a work in Christendom paralleling Ezekiels work among the
Jews, were manifestly the modern-day Ezekiel, the "prophet"
commissioned by Jehovah to declare the good news of Gods
Messianic kingdom and to give warning to Christendom. It is
significant that, in 1931, after twelve years of faithful service
despite the opposition of Christendoms clergy, these followers
of Christ embraced the name Jehovahs witnesses at the same
convention at which the book Vindication was released.Isa.
43:10-12, American Standard Version.5
3
"They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them," The Watchtower, 1
April 1972, 197-198 (emphasis added).
4
Elsewhere in Watchtower literature we find the reference to Jehovahs
"prophetlike organization," which proclaims "the prophecies written in Gods Word"
("Pay Attention to Prophecy," The Watchtower, 1 October 1964, 601).
5
From the above we can see that rather than utter inspired
prophecies of their own, this "prophet" "continued to study the
book of Ezekiel," and as "time went on and further developments
fulfilled the prophecy of Ezekiel, a three-volume set of books
titled Vindication provided an up-to-date understanding,
showing more fully the application of the prophecy." This is
hardly equivalent to the reception of inspired messages directly
from God, as was the case with those messages received by
Ezekiel. Rather, the belief expressed is that this modern-day
"prophet" did "a work in Christendom paralleling Ezekiels work
among the Jews."
This "prophet" has not been given inspired messages like
Ezekiel, apart from those written in the Bible. But they have been
"commissioned by Jehovah to declare the good news of Gods
Messianic kingdom and to give warning to Christendom."6 This
commission is given to all who will accept and fulfill it. It has
nothing to do with receiving inspired messages directly from
Jehovah. Consider:
This pouring out of Gods spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful
anointed witnesses does not mean those now serving as
Jehovahs Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the
writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and
infallible and without mistakes. It does not mean that the
president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired
and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing
so. . . . But we confess with the Scriptures that the day of such
inspiration passed long before 1870, as the apostle Paul showed
it would. . . . Inspired speaking and writing passed away with
the last of the twelve apostles, by whom the gifts of the spirit
were imparted to others. Yet God is still able to teach and lead us.
While confessing no inspiration for today for anyone on earth,
we do have the privilege of praying God for more of his holy
6
In the article, "When Jesus Comes in Kingdom Glory," The Watchtower 15 May
1997, p. 13, par. 17, a parallel is drawn between the encounter Elijah had with Jehovah
on Mount Sinai and the years following World War I, when the "faithful anointed
servants of Jehovah heard his voice from the pages of the Bible" (emphasis added).
spirit and for his guidance of us by the bestowal of his spirit

through Jesus Christ.7
The March 15, 1972 issue of The Watchtower made similar

observations regarding various parallels between Ezekiel and
Jehovahs Witnesses. In the article, "Wanted: A Messenger," the
ground work was laid for the April 1 article discussed above. In the
March 15 article, on page 189, the question is asked, "Was there
any group on whom Jehovah would be willing to bestow the
commission to speak as a prophet in his name, as was done
toward Ezekiel back there in 613 B.C.E.?"
Understanding the Witnesses self-application of the
term "prophet." Of course, the first thing that should be
apparent to all readers of the above quote is that the word
"prophet" is again given in quotations, showing that the term is
likely being used in a quasi sense when applied to the Witnesses.
Now, let us examine the context of the above to see if this is in
fact the case. Does this description, which is subsequently applied
to the Witnesses in the April 1 issue of The Watchtower, mean
that the "prophet" paralleling Ezekiel would be inspired as he
was?
The March 15 article, on page 187, states that the "fact that
Jehovah appeared to him [Ezekiel] in a remarkable vision (and
later in the vision revealed things to him that could not otherwise
have been known by Ezekiel), also that Jehovah commissioned
him directlyall these things prove that what Ezekiel said and
wrote in prophecy was inspired by Jehovah." Yet, when speaking
of those who are needed today to speak as a "true representative of
God," the article states: "Is there someone who can bring the truth
of Gods Word to the people, letting them know what is ahead and
what they can do for safety and survival?" (page 186, emphasis
added) This shows that the "commission to speak as a prophet"
involves bringing "the truth of Gods Word to the people," not
giving forth inspired speech and writing as Ezekiel did. Nowhere
in either the March 15 or the April 15 Watchtower articles
7
"Manner of Inspiring the Bible," The Watchtower, 15 May 1947, 157-158, under
the sub-heading, "No Such Inspiration Today" (emphasis added).
referred to above do we have a description of this modern-day

"Ezekiel" as an inspired prophet, or paralleling Ezekiel in
producing inspired writings.
How, then, do they parallel Ezekiel? In addition to what we
have already discussed, the April 1, 1972 Watchtower, pages 197-
199, tells us that such parallels involve "proclaiming a warning"
to the "rebellious nations," Christendom (understood as the
modern-day counterpart to the unfaithful Jewish Kingdoms of
Israel and Judah). Another issue of The Watchtower informs us
that this Ezekiel class, and their companions (understood as the
"great crowd" of Revelation 7:9), would parallel the ancient
prophet, not by producing inspired writings or giving forth
prophecies, but by speaking "the Word of God Fearlessly," for
"the Bible, Gods inspired written Word, has not been blotted out,
despite all human efforts to destroy it by religious bans and
bonfires. Correspondingly, the preaching of that written Word of
God needed someone to make it vocal and hearable."8
Further proof that the Watchtower Society does not view
themselves as an inspired prophet, but, rather, as a "prophet" who
proclaims what the Bible says, as well as the interpretation they
believe is most probable (keeping in mind that they have never
claimed infallibility), comes from the March, 1962 issue of
Kingdom Ministry (now known as Our Kingdom Ministry), which
features the article, "Prophesy with Gods Loyal Organization."
There is also a highlighted message at the bottom of page 1 which
reads, "Prepare new ones to prophesy with Gods organization."
Clearly, then, the call here is for all of those in the organization to
prophesy. "Prophesying," as understood by the Witnesses, is not
something reserved for the Governing Body or those who write
the literature published by the Watchtower Society, but all
Jehovahs Witnesses are called upon to "prophesy"! And, again,
just what does this involve? The opening paragraph of the main
8
"Speaking the Word of God Fearlessly in the Nuclear Age," The Watchtower,
15 December 1983, 20-21. See also, 1981 Yearbook of Jehovahs Witnesses (Brooklyn:
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1980), 10. For similar reasons, this anointed group
of Christians is at times referred to as a "Jeremiah class" ("They Will Be Certain To
Fight Against You," The Watchtower, 15 December 1977, 758-759).
study article on page 1 of the aforementioned Kingdom Ministry

states:
It is a grand privilege that we have in prophesying with Gods

organization. Not that we of ourselves tell what the future
holds, but, under the direction of Jehovahs loyal organization,
we do make known what God in his Word says about the
future [emphasis added]; we announce Jehovahs kingdom. It
is that message that was foretold to be preached in our day,
and it is that message that The Watchtower is dedicated to
announcing.
It is clear, then, that the Witnesses use the words "prophet"

and "prophesy," in reference to themselves, in a sense different
from how they apply them to the individuals and actions in the
Bible.9 But how can it be said that "if you keep on listening to
God's watchman [the Ezekiel class], you may be among the
survivors when Jehovah unsheathes his sword"? 10 Does this not
put the "watchman" in the place of the Bible? Not at all. On page
12 of this article we are informed that the "watchman" class
"keeps speaking Gods message," and the third study article in this
issue of The Watchtower tells us that, like Ezekiel, "the anointed
watchman class boldly declares divine warnings."11 But is this
message from God that they declare to others something they
received through inspiration, like Ezekiels declarations? Or is it
simply the proclamation of inspired writings found in Gods Holy
Word? This has been partly addressed already in our discussion,
but there is more.
In the early 1930s a series of three books entitled Vindication
was released.12 One of the purposes of these books was to help
9
In the book, RevelationIts Grand Climax At Hand! (Brooklyn: Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society, 1988), 170, par. 24, the term "prophesy" is used in reference
to the work of anointed Witnesses (called the "John class") from 1919 onward, and it is
defined as preaching publicly.
10
"ListenJehovahs Watchman Speaks!" The Watchtower, 15 September 1988,
p. 15, par. 21.
11
"They Will Have to Know That I Am JEHOVAH," The Watchtower, 15
September 1988, p. 23, par. 5.
12
Vindication, 3 vols. (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1931-
1932).
explain the prophecies of Ezekiel. In volume one, page 34, we are

informed: "As further proof that the truth is not the product of the
servant class or of any man, but that all truth proceeds from the
Lord . . . When the prophecies are understood it will be found that
they are all in exact harmony; which is another proof that they all
proceed from God." This shows that the early Witnesses simply
strove to understand the prophecies, as recorded in the Bible.
Nowhere in this series of study aids do we find any reference
to the Witnesses as inspired prophets. Rather, these books show
that the "slave class" parallels Ezekiel in that they are to "warn
those who start in the way of wickedness."13 But in providing
such a warning they are quick to point out that these are not their
judgments: "It is not the prerogative of The Watch Tower, nor of
any forming a part of the servant class, to announce its
judgment; but it is the duty of such to call attention to Gods
judgments as they are written, and this must be done as a
warning."14 A comparison is then made between this warning
work and the words of Jehovah in Ezekiel 3:21.
Thirty-nine years after the final volume of Vindication was
released, another study aid appeared which also contained a
detailed discussion of Ezekiels prophecies.15 In this book we are
told how we know Ezekiel was for a certainty an inspired prophet
of God: "The fact that Jehovah appeared to Ezekiel in vision and
spoke from his throne on his celestial chariot and directly sent
Ezekiel on a definite mission with a definite message proves that
Ezekiel was a true prophet, sent by God, and that what he spoke
under inspiration was the real word of God."16
However, on pages 58 and 61 of this book, the following
questions are asked: "Who is Ezekiels present-day counterpart,
whose message and conduct correspond with that of that ancient
prophet of Jehovah? Of whom today was he a sign or portent?
Not of some individual man, but of a group of people. . . . Whom
could the real chariot of Jehovahs organization roll up to and
13
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 41.
14
15
The Nations Shall Know That I Am JehovahHow? (Brooklyn: Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society, 1971).
16
Ibid., 56.
confront that He might bestow upon this qualified one the

commission to speak as a prophet in the name of Jehovah?" Does
this not prove that Jehovahs Witnesses see themselves as an
inspired prophet, commissioned "to speak as a prophet in the
name of Jehovah"? The answer is a resounding, No!
Such descriptions are not meant to be taken literally, but,
rather, as language designed to maintain the parallel between the
work of the ancient prophet Ezekiel and that carried on by
Jehovahs Witnesses today. The Witnesses do not claim to have
received their knowledge through a "vision," as was true in the
case of Ezekiel. On page 65 of The Nations Shall Know book, we
are told how they obtained their understanding of Bible prophecy:
In June of 1920, when the book The Finished Mystery was

released from under ban, these servants of Jehovah resumed the
circulating of the book. With the use of it as a textbook they
continued to study the Bible book of Ezekiel. Later, in the years
1931 and 1932, a more advanced, up-to-date understanding of
the prophecy of Ezekiel was published in the form of three
volumes of the book called "Vindication," published by the
Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. To this day their interest in
the prophetic book of Ezekiel is keen, and they study it
purposely in order to determine what further light it sheds on
Jehovahs will for them in these closing days of the time of the
end" [emphasis added].
Thus, we can see that they studied the book of Ezekiel with
the aim of further understanding the inspired words contained
therein. So when we read how "the facts from then on down to
this date prove that they received their ordination and appointment
and commission for their work in this time of the end from
Jehovah himself through his heavenly chariotlike organization,"
we should know that they take this to be "a real Biblical thing," in
that they understand Ezekiels actions and message to be
prophetic of a similar work to be performed in our time.17
17
Ibid., 67.
When we read that shortly "those making up Christendom

will know that really a prophet of Jehovah was among them," 18
this is to be taken in a figurative sense, referring to the fact that the
Witnesses "have spoken fearlessly the word of Jehovah in the
midst of Christendom,"19 even as Ezekiel did to the "rebellious
nations" of his day. This is not to suggest that they proclaim
inspired messages given to them directly from the person of
Jehovah, but that "the word from Jehovahs Holy Scriptures . . .
has been spoken."20 Yes, the "anointed remnant of Jehovahs
Christian witnesses have been forewarning of the destruction of
Christendom according to the prophecies of Ezekiel and other
writers of the inspired Bible."21 In this vein, note the following
comparison made between Ezekiels message and that of
Jehovahs Witnesses today:
What was Ezekiel given to eat? . . . No less so, as Jehovahs

anointed witnesses of today examined the prophetic book of
Ezekiel and other parts of Jehovahs Word they found just
such a message for Christendom. . . . Similarly in the year
1919 C.E., the "roll of a book" that the anointed remnant of
Jehovahs dedicated servants ate up did not picture the book of
Ezekiel. It pictured all those parts of Gods Holy Bible that
have to do with the spiritual plagues and the "great tribulation"
that are to come upon Christendom and her religious and
political associates during this "time of the end." The anointed
remnant of today ate up this "roll of a book" in that they
accepted the commission and responsibility to deliver all
these messages of Gods Word as He by his spirit made them
plain and understandable to His witnesses. 22
Indeed, as is the case with all who study the Bible, we need
Gods spirit to make His word clear and understandable. Proverbs
2:1-5 tells us to search for understanding and discernment, that we
might eventually find the very "knowledge of God." This involves
18
Ibid., 70.
19
Ibid., 71.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid., 275.
22
Ibid., 71-72, 76 (emphasis added).
continual study and searching through Gods Word in order to

find wisdom and meaning in what He has authored. Thus, "the
anointed remnant that had survived World War I and that were
familiar with the prophetic book of Ezekiel were reminded that
they must take Gods Word into their hearts."23
Jehovahs Witnesses know what message God wants them to
proclaim, not because they are inspired prophets like Ezekiel, but
because "what Jehovah told them to say [is] in his written
Word."24 As Ezekiel was "to trust in divine inspiration" for
knowledge of what he was called to do, "the modern-day Ezekiel
class was not left without a forewarning of this. From their
previous study of the prophecy of Ezekiel they knew what to
expect from Christendom,"25 and what their warning work would
involve. They rely, "not upon any divine inspiration resting upon
them, but upon Jehovahs holy spirit to aid them in speaking His
message."26
It was never intended for any one of Jehovahs Witnesses to
be viewed as an inspired prophet like Ezekiel. There are many
quotes from their literature, in addition to the above, that make
this ever so clear. For now, consider these two:
It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any

degree, but merely to give below what seems to us rather likely to
be the trend of eventsgiving also the reasons for our
expectations.27
Since today we have the complete inspired Scriptures, God is

not giving any more inspired visions or dreams. However,
Jehovahs people today are seeing the fulfillment of many of
the inspired visions and dreams that Gods servants had in
ancient times, and they are even having a share in their being
23
Ibid., 80.
24
Ibid. Similarly, the article, "Messengers of Godly Peace Pronounced Happy,"
The Watchtower, 1 May 1997, p. 22, par. 14, tells us: "In his day, Ezekiel spoke words
that were directly inspired by Jehovah. Today, we speak words from Jehovahs inspired
Word, the Bible."
25
The Nations Shall Know, 90.
26
Ibid., 91.
27
"Views From the Watch Tower," Zions Watch Tower and Herald of Christs
Presence, 1 March 1904, reprint, 3327 (emphasis added).
fulfilled. They are having a share in the fulfillment of the

prophecy, "your sons and your daughters will certainly
prophesy." (Joel 2:28) Not that these prophesy in the sense of
foretelling events under inspiration, but rather in that they are
making public proclamation of the inspired dreams and
visions long ago recorded.28
Guidance = Inspiration?
How are the Witnesses "guided"/directed"? It has been
suggested to this author by various critics of Jehovahs Witnesses
that the use of words such as "guidance" or "direction," in relation
to Gods involvement in the Witnesses study of the Bible, equate
to claims of divine inspiration, such as that given to Gods
prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Of course, in
one sense the words "guidance" and "direction" are consistent
with the concept of inspiration, even as God guided or directed
the writers of Scripture to record His thoughts. However, as will
be seen, this is not the way Jehovahs Witnesses use these and
other, similar words.
The importance of the context in which a word or words are
used is, needless to say, of critical importance for determining the
authors intended meaning. After all, we are not dealing with
contextless sentences whose meaning is open to any interpretation
one chooses to force upon them. In literature published by
Jehovahs Witnesses the word "guidance" (or "direction") is used
predominantly in two ways. The first can be illustrated by the
following definition of "inspiration":
That holy spirit operated toward or upon men to move them

and guide them in setting down Gods message. Thus, the
apostle Peter says of Bible prophecy: "You know this first, that
no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private
interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by mans
will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by
28
"Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 1 January 1971, 32 (emphasis
added).
holy spirit." (2Pe 1:20, 21) The evidence shows that Gods
spirit operated on the minds and hearts of all the Bible writers
to carry them along to the goal purposed by God. King David
said: "The spirit of Jehovah it was that spoke by me, and his
word was upon my tongue." (2Sa 23:2) When Jesus quoted
Psalm 110, he said that David had written it "by inspiration
[literally, in spirit]." (Mt 22:43) The parallel passage in Mark
12:36 reads "by the holy spirit." . . . The Bible writers,
therefore, came under Jehovahs "hand," or guiding and
controlling power.2Ki 3:15, 16; Eze 3:14, 22.29
It is clear that "guide" and "guiding" here convey the meaning

of inspiration, and are used in direct relation to Gods
"controlling power" over the "Bible writers." Of course, nowhere
in this entire discussion concerning the meaning of "inspiration"
do we find any reference to the writings of modern-day servants
of Jehovah being a product of Gods inspiration. In contrast, the
following quotations will reveal how the Witnesses believe they
are guided by Jehovah:
While confessing no inspiration for today for anyone on earth,

we do have the privilege of praying God for more of his holy
spirit and for his guidance of us by the bestowal of his spirit
through Jesus Christ. We know the inspired infallible Scriptures
of prophecy will be fulfilled toward us correctly, although we
may not understand them at the time or may not be aware we are
having a part in the fulfillment of them. (John 12:16) While we
do not have, expect or hope for direct visions or inspired dreams
from the Lord, we can study the visions and dreams of his
faithful men of old. We can watch how God by Christ Jesus has
fulfilled or is in the course of fulfilling them . . . While none of us
can produce inspired speech and writings, God has committed
his inspired Bible to us and we can govern [or guide] ourselves
by its inspired commandments, teachings and instructions. We
can quote and copy the Scriptures of Gods inspired men and can
apply them according to the facts. We can observe how God
29
Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 1 (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988),
1203 (emphasis added).
interprets them by Christ Jesus through the events and facts that
he causes to appear.30
And:
The Watchtower is founded on the very pinnacle of reliable

wisdom, namely, Gods Word the Bible. . . . Its vision is not
narrow or shortsighted, but takes an over-all view and is
farsighted enough to peer into the future, by use of recorded
inspired prophecy. It views modern conditions and events in
the light of Gods Word, being receptive to Jehovahs
message, and quick to declare his truths and judgments.
Jehovah commands the watchman class to "call aloud, hold not
back, lift up your voice like a trumpet; show my people their
transgression." (Isa. 58:1, An Amer. Trans.) . . . It heralds the
news of Jehovahs kingdom established by Christs
enthronement in heaven, warns that we live in the last days of
this old world, cries out that Jehovahs battle of Armageddon
comes on apace, feeds the kingdom joint-heirs with spiritual
food, cheers men of good will with glorious prospects of
eternal life in a paradise earth, and comforts us with the
resurrection promise for the dead. All this it does with a
confident ring in its voice, because its words find their
foundation in Gods Word. It is not a blind or dumb
watchman, but tries to keep in tune with God by searching his
Word and being receptive to his guidance, with eyes always
open to prophecy so that it knows what to look for in world
events, so that it understands the significance of what it sees. It
does not privately interpret prophecy, but calls attention to
physical facts, sets them alongside prophecy, and you see for
yourself how well the two match, how accurately Jehovah
interprets his own prophecy.-2 Pet. 1:20, 21. . . . However, The
Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances,
nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of
its contents in the light of the Scriptures. Its purpose is to aid
others to know Jehovah and his purposes toward mankind, and
to announce Christs established kingdom as our only hope. 31
30
"Manner of Inspiring the Bible," 157-158.
31
"Name and Purpose of the Watchtower," The Watchtower, 15 August 1950,
262-263 (emphasis added).
Clearly there is a considerable difference made in the writings

of Jehovahs Witnesses between the guidance given to those men
who wrote the Holy Scriptures, and the guidance one gains from
reading those Scriptures. Thus, it does not matter in what sense
others use the word "guidance" in relation to Watchtower
writings; the key concern is how do Jehovahs Witnesses use the
term in relation to themselves, and in relation to the direction
given by God to the Bible writers. If being directed by God means
being governed theocratically by means of his Word, then others
must be charitable and use the proper understanding as
communicated in Witness literature. To use the same terms, and
then apply different meanings to them in an attempt to criticize
Jehovahs Witnesses, is not charitable. It is with these tactics in
mind that early in this century those who would later call
themselves "Jehovahs Witnesses" remarked:
Someone may ask, Do you, then, claim infallibility and that

every sentence appearing in "The Watch Tower" publications
is stated with absolute correctness? Assuredly we make no
such claim and have never made such a claim. What motive
can our opponents have in so charging against us? Are they not
seeking to set up a falsehood to give themselves excuse for
making attacks and to endeavor to pervert the judgments of
others?32
It would appear that such is in fact the case with many

individuals. The example of Moses and the Israelites during their
trek through the wilderness to the Promised Land can help us
better appreciate the distinction between guidance in the sense of
inspiration, and guidance in the sense of being taught and
instructed by inspired words.
Two types of "guidance"/"direction" given to Moses.
By means of an angel Jehovah "guided" the Israelites through the
wilderness. But He also "guided" the thoughts of Moses to record
their journey as well as many other matters that Moses could not
32
"Nocturnal HallucinationsWake Up!" Zions Watch Tower and Herald of
Christs Presence, 15 September 1909, reprint, 4473.
have otherwise perfectly documented. The "guidance" given to

Moses was flawless. The "guidance" given by the angel to the
Israelites during their journey through the wilderness was perfect
also, but they obviously had problems along the way, which
resulted in delays in reaching the Promised Land, and other
consequences. In Moses case, to "guide" or "inspire" meant to
"motivate by divine influence," to arouse (a thought or feeling) in
(someone)."Websters New World Dictionary, 1979, under
"inspire." With regard to the Israelites journey through the
wilderness, Jehovah "guided" them in that He provided the angel
to lead them, "to point the way" (Websters, under "guide"). Of
course, to try and equate the guidance given in the above
situations would be to create a false analogy, which is exactly
what many critics of Jehovahs Witnesses do.
It cannot truthfully be said that to be inspired by God to
produce flawless information is the same as being guided or lead
by a flawless source, whether that source be the Scriptures or an
angel sent by God. Why? Because in the former case the person is
taken over by God, given a vision, revelation (sometimes in a
dream), or put into a trance. The person then receives Gods
thoughts and will which are then channeled through the
individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not
have known.33
However, in the latter case one could simply misunderstand or
ignore the directions given, which would make the accuracy of
what they do or say dependent upon whether or not they correctly
understood the inspired source. Thus, Zions Watch Tower,
January 1, 1908 (reprint) page 4110, tells us: "We are not
prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not
even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of
prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid
these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or
doubt in respect to them" (emphasis added).
"Active" guidance from God? Jehovahs Witnesses do
not use the word "guidance" with a meaning equivalent to
33
For more on the Bible and inspiration, see "How Did God Inspire the Bible?"
The Watchtower, 15 June 1997, 4-8.
"inspiration," that is when using it in reference to themselves.

They are guided by the Bible as the only source of inspired
information written for the everlasting benefit of all who accept it
as the infallible Word of God. Still, some may point to other
places in the Witnesses literature where they allege that the
Witnesses claim to be inspired, even though the word "inspired" is
not used. Let us consider, for example, a quotation from The
Watchtower that has frequently been cited in discussions with this
author, concerning the alleged "inspiration" of the Society:
Who controls the organization, who directs it? Who is at the

head? A man? A group of men? A clergy class? A pope? A
hierarchy? A council? No, none of these. How is that possible?
In any organization is it not necessary that there be a directing
head or policy-making part that controls or guides the
organization? Yes. Is the living God, Jehovah, the Director of
the theocratic Christian organization? Yes!34
"See!" someone may exclaim, "You do claim to be inspired!"

One thing in particular that has stood out to this author in
discussions with those who criticize Jehovahs Witnesses or seek
to brand them as false prophets, is their complete ignorance of the
context in which certain statements are made. In this case, we
have a perfect example. Let us look at the above paragraph once
more, this time with the preceding and following paragraphs
included:
10 The following year, 1932, the congregations of Jehovahs

witnesses throughout the world brought themselves under theocratic
procedure, with the manifest blessing of Jehovah, until today we find
the earth-wide New World society operating as did the early
Christian congregation, noncommercially, nonpolitically, voluntarily
on the part of each individual in it. There now is, therefore, the
proper theocratic control over the Christian congregation, which
control had not existed since the captivity of which Paul warned.
11 Who controls the organization, who directs it? Who is at the head?
A man? A group of men? A clergy class? A pope? A hierarchy? A
34
"Turn to the New World Society," The Watchtower, 1 November 1956, 666,
par. 11.
council? No, none of these. How is that possible? In any organization

is it not necessary that there be a directing head or policy-making part
that controls or guides the organization? Yes. Is the living God,
Jehovah, the Director of the theocratic Christian organization? Yes!
12 Because of the vital fact that the law that governs the operation
of the theocratic New World society is the Word of Jehovah God,
and because of the fact that the heaven-enthroned Christ Jesus is
Jehovahs Executive Officer carrying on his work in the earth, and
because of the further fact that the spirit of God by Christ Jesus is
operating through his Word and upon the hearts and minds of his
dedicated servants, the New World society is theocratic, meaning
"God-ruled."35
We see here that although the Society had at one time

governed their organizational procedures along democratic lines
(according to paragraph 9), paragraphs 10-12 explain how such is
no longer the case. The point is, the Society is "guided" or
"directed" by God because they are theocratic, or governed by
what God has had written in His inspired Word! They are not
"guided" or "directed" in the same manner as the inspired writers
of the Bible.
Those who refer only to paragraph 11 make the Society out to
say the exact opposite of what they intended. In paragraph 13 we
see the Societys concept of being "guided" by Jehovah further
explained: "They [that is, the Governing Body of Jehovahs
Witnesses] are theocratic because they act in accordance with the
great Theocrats written Word and with the model organization
of the early Christian church or congregation launched by Jesus
Christ" (emphasis added). Also, from the same paragraph: "In
word and in deed, in doctrine, organization and practice, the New
World society endeavors sincerely to conform to the Word of
Jehovah God and to insist on its principles, and therefore it is a
Scriptural, Christian, theocratic or God-directed organization. It
is through his Word that Jehovah expresses his mind to his
people."
Could the meaning of the above be any clearer? The
"direction" the Witnesses receive is not the result of "inspiration,"
35
but because they are governed by the biblical writings of truly

inspired men. However, a fair question at this point would be, Are
Jehovahs Witnesses assisted in any other way from the spirit
realm, that is, apart from the knowledge of the Bible and the help
from God's holy spirit?
"Controlled by angels of various ranks"? In Scotland,
1954, a trial was held to establish whether or not Jehovahs
Witnesses should be legally recognized as a religious
organization.36 Several members of the Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society were questioned, including then vice-president F.
W. Franz. Franz testimony has been greatly misused on a variety
of matters, one of which has been considered in Appendix D of
this publication. Here we will discuss yet another remarkable
misrepresentation concerning Franz testimony. The testimony in
question reads as follows (Q refers to the question of the
examiner, while A prefaces Franz answer):
Q - In the fifth place, is it an article of belief that there is an innumerable

number of angels which operate under divine direction?
A - Yes.
Q - And they have a supervisory charge in relation to those who are
Jehovahs Witnesses?
A - Yes. The Apostle Paul says so in Hebrews, the first chapter, saying in the
14th verse, "Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for
them who shall be heirs of salvation."
[NOTE: I am here skipping several lines of testimony that are not vital to the
main issue, which primarily relates to the following testimony.]
Q - This matter of the angelic creation and their function in relation to

Jehovahs Witnesses, is that to your knowledge a unique tenet or belief?
A - No, there are other religious denominations which believe in the existence
of angels.
Q - That is not unique?
A - That is not unique in itself.
Q - But is there any unique element in the association between the belief in the
existence of the various ranks of angels and their activities in relation to
Jehovahs Witnesses?
A - Well, we believe that the angels of God are used in directing the Jehovahs
36
Douglas Walsh v The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde, M. P., P. C., as
representing the Minister of Labour and National Service (Scotland, 1954).
Witnesses. As Jesus prophecy in Matthew 25, verse 31, says, "When the
son of man shall come in his glory and all the holy angels with him, then
shall he sit upon the throne of his glory and all nations shall be gathered
before him." Also in the 13th chapter of Matthew, where He speaks of the
harvest at the end of the world, it says, "The son of man in heaven will send
forth his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that
offend and they which do iniquity, and all the week [Franz obviously meant
"wheat," the court reporter heard it as "week"] class"the kingdom class
"will be gathered into the garner of the king.37
END OF QUOTATION OF COURT RECORDS
In one popular anti-Witness booklet, the above testimony is

interpreted as follows: "The Watchtower Society has even gone so
far as to say that God Himself has supervised its translation of the
Bible by angels of various ranks who controlled the translators."
This booklet further states: "The Scottish Daily Express on Nov. 24,
1954, recorded his [= Franz] testimony word for word. In Franz
testimony he stated under oath . . . that translations and
interpretations came from God, invisibly communicated to the
publicity department by angels of various ranks who control[ed]
the translators."38 Later in this booklet (page 38), reference is again
made to "the Watchtower Societys express claim (p. 21) that
angels guided its translators in translating the New World
Translation of the Bible." The reference to their page 21 shows that
they are referring directly to Franz alleged testimony.
As can be seen from the second quotation given in the above
paragraph, the Ankerberg/Weldon booklet does not refer directly to
the court records, but to the reproduction of them, which they claim
is "word for word," in an article in the Scottish Daily Express. But
the article on page 7 of the November 24, 1954 issue of the Scottish
Daily Express only quotes a couple sections of the trial, and does not
reproduce the testimony relating to "angels of various ranks," which,
as we can see from the above reproduction, was actually an
37
Douglas Walsh trial, pages 39-40.
38
John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Fast Facts on Jehovahs Witnesses,
(Eugene, Oregon: Ankerberg Theological Seminary, 1988), 21. I have added "= Franz"
in brackets, but the use of brackets for "ed" in "controled" [sic] are original to this
booklet.
expression used by the examiner, not Franz.39 The Express article

has Franz saying that translations and interpretations of the Bible
"are passed to the Holy Spirit who, invisibly, communicates with
Jehovahs Witnessesand the publicity department." The only
portion of Franz testimony that resembles this claim reads as
follows:
Q - Who is responsible for the interpretation in case of doubt, or in general, of

scriptural writings for the guidance of Jehovahs Witnesses?
A - We believe that Jehovah God who is the author and inspirer of the Bible is
the one who makes the interpretations. He is his own interpreter. He does this
by the use of his invisible active force, the Holy Spirit operating upon the
minds of his Witnesses upon the earth, and he causes events to come to pass in
the earth which are in fulfillment of his prophetic word and which, therefore,
throw light upon the true significance of his word.
[Franz further stated:]
A - Jehovah God is the interpreter, but he guides his people upon this earth, and
in this case the editorial committee of the Society, they study the Scriptures
continually, and they examine and re-examine the evidence as it appears, and
under this Divine guidance with the help of the Holy Spirit they arrive at the
understanding of the Scriptures.40
Franz reference to "this Divine guidance" clearly relates back

to the editorial committees studying of the Scriptures, and their
examination of the events Jehovah causes to occur in the world
around them, which they attempt to interpret in light of the
Scriptures. To claim "help" from the holy spirit in matters of
biblical interpretation is not unusual or unique to the Witnesses. I
have been involved in a number of discussions with evangelicals
and members of other groups in Christendom who would offer to
pray just prior to our discussion, so that "the Lord might guide us
into all truth."
Indeed, what person who professes to be a Christian does not
regularly ask God for His spirit to help he or she understand what
is written in the Bible? Who of those who regularly ask for such
guidance do not think that God has indeed heard and responded to
39
I have a complete copy of the original newspaper, from which I will be
quoting.
40
Douglas Walsh trial, 22, 23.
their prayer? It is no different with the Witnesses. They regularly

ask and they believe that God hears and listens to their prayers for
guidance. If it is determined through further study that they have
erred in their understanding of certain biblical texts, or in applying
them to various events occurring in the world around them, it is
only natural for corrections to be made.
However, for the Ankerberg/Weldon booklet to report Franz
testimony as if he had said that "God Himself has supervised its
translation of the Bible by angels of various ranks who controlled
the translators" is to misrepresent what Franz actually said, which
had nothing to do with being "controlled" by anything.41 The terms
"controlled" or "control" are not used at all in the testimony; the
Express article added them to Franz testimony, and neither
Ankerberg nor Weldon decided to check the court records for
themselves.
It appears that Ankerberg and Weldon are not even relying on
their own reading of the second-hand report in the Express article,
but on another anti-Witness source authored by Edmund Gruss,
whom the Ankerberg/Weldon booklet says "has seen the original
court transcripts himself."42 But Gruss merely quotes the
inaccurate summary found in yet another anti-Witness
publication, which he says contains a photocopy of the Express
article above the summary which he quotes.43 Gruss says nothing
about having seen "the original court transcripts." He simply
states that he checked Franz testimony as quoted in the
photocopy of the Express article! So we have here a group of
individuals who are relying on everything but the original court
records. The inaccurate and regrettable presentation of Franz
testimony by these sources should give those considering such
publications, and those like them, reason enough to verify
everything that is said before accepting it as factual.
41
Ankerberg and Weldon, The Fast Facts on Jehovahs Witnesses, 44, note 50,
actually go so far as to compare the translation work for the NWT to the "mediumistic
translator of the Bible" Johannes Greber. See Appendix C for a discussion of the
Witnesses citation of Grebers translation.
42
Ankerberg and Weldon, The Fast Facts on Jehovahs Witnesses, 44, note 50.
43
Edmund Gruss, Apostles of Denial (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), 32-33,
note 49.
"Angelic direction and support." According to one issue

of The Watchtower, "Jehovahs witnesses today make their
declaration of the good news of the Kingdom under angelic
direction and support. (Rev 14:6, 7; Mt 25:31, 32)" 44 And just
what is meant by "angelic direction and support"? Certainly not
the reception of inspired information at the hands of an angel.
Right after the word "support" in the above quote, Revelation
14:6-7 and Matthew 25:31-32 are cited. These scriptures show
that the angels are involved in the proclamation of the good news,
and in the separating work soon to take place at Christs
Judgment. Also, on the following page (201) of this Watchtower,
Hebrews 1:14 is cited: "Are they [angels] not all spirits for public
service, sent forth to minister to those who are going to inherit
salvation?" Yes, angels, through their public service to Gods
people, certainly have a direct involvement in the affairs of
Jehovahs servants, even as they did in the lives of the first-
century Christians (compare Ac 12:6-11).
In a 1933 Watchtower publication authored by J. F.
Rutherford, there are statements that seem to indicate a reliance
on angelic direction for information concerning Bible prophecy.
For example, Rutherford states: "Certain duties and kingdom
interests have been committed by the Lord to his angels, which
include the transmission of information to Gods anointed people
on the earth for their aid and comfort. Even though we cannot
understand how the angels transmit this information, we know
that they do it; and the Scriptures and the facts show that it is
done. (Matt. 25:31; Jude 14, 15; Zech. 14:5)"45 Later on in this
same book we are told: "Again Zechariah talked with the angel of
the Lord, which shows the remnant are instructed by the angels of
the Lord. The remnant do not hear audible sounds, because such
is not necessary. Jehovah has provided his own good way to
convey thoughts to the minds of his anointed ones."
Of course, in the above quotes Rutherford makes it clear that
"though we cannot understand how the angels transmit this
information, we know that they do it; and the Scriptures and the
44
"They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them," 200.
45
Preparation (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1933), 36-37.
facts show that it is done." He also admitted: "the remnant do not

hear audible sounds, because such is not necessary. Jehovah has
provided his own good way to convey thoughts to the minds of
his anointed ones."
Regarding these quotes from Preparation, it should be noted
that Rutherford is simply showing that in the Bible (note his
references to Zechariah, Revelation, and other Bible books)
angels were used to convey information to faithful men of old. He
then surmises that such must likewise be true with regard to
Gods people on earth today. However, he does not specify any
particular interpretation of prophecy where such has been the
case! There is no claim of having received inspired information
from an angel regarding any specific interpretation.46
Rutherford did not know for a fact that angels had
communicated to anyone in the organization; he was assuming
that such communication had taken place based on biblical
precedent. But the very fact that Rutherford and the other
Witnesses do not link any particular interpretation to information
received from angels shows that the Witnesses were not given any
direct, inspired information apart from the Bible, otherwise they
would not be confused over where and how the angels provided
the direction. In other words, Rutherfords words are merely an
assumption based on a parallel that may or may not exist with
regard to the role performed by angels in the past, and toward
Gods servants today.
Another common quotation that is often abused by Witness
critics is from a book discussing the role of the holy spirit in the
outworking of Gods purposes. On page 148 of this book, we
read:
46
Obviously the Witnesses believed, and still believe, that their understanding of
Bible prophecy is obtained, not only through regular study of the Bible, but also
because God answers their prayers for an accurate understanding of His will and
purpose. Thus, Rutherford would certainly have manifested confidence in what he
believed to be a truism, namely, that God provides guidance and direction to those who
ask for it. But, again, he did not claim any specific encounter with God or His angles;
he merely surmised that they did in fact provide direction as the Witnesses studied the
Scriptures, diligently searching for Gods will. Of course, God does indeed answer
prayers for an accurate understanding of prophecy, but when and how He does this is
according to His own good pleasure (compare Acts 1:7).
The holy spirit, which Jehovah prophesied that he would pour

out in the last days, has not ceased to operate, for the remnant
are still baptizing disciples of Christ in the name of that spirit.
(Matthew 28:19, 20; Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21) The
announced purpose behind Gods pouring out of his spirit
upon all sorts of flesh was that the recipients thereof might
prophesy. The facts substantiate that the remnant of Christs
anointed disciples have been doing that prophesying to all the
nations for a witness in favor of Gods kingdom. Logically,
then, they must be the ones upon whom Gods spirit has
actually been poured out. That spirit is behind their worldwide
preaching.47
Just what does the Society mean by, "Christs anointed

disciples have been doing that prophesying to all the nations for a
witness in favor of Gods kingdom"? The pages preceding the
above quotation discuss Revelation 11:7-12. After referring to
these verses, we are told, "For a short time, like three and a half
days, the organization of these proclaimers of Bible prophecies
and witnesses to Gods established kingdom were in public
disgrace."48 When the Watchtower Society says they were
"prophesying" they mean "proclaiming Bible prophecies," as
anyone in the organization who reads their literature without an ax
to grind can affirm. For example, consider what the following
issue of The Watchtower has to say regarding their "prophesying":
Since Joel 2:28, which has its complete fulfillment after 1919,
foretells that God will pour out his spirit upon people of all
kinds and "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your
old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see
visions", in what sense then do Jehovahs witnesses prophesy
today? Jehovahs people confess no powers of inspiration
today. However, they do pray continually for more of Gods
holy spirit to understand the many prophecies already uttered
and preserved for the final preaching work which Jehovahs
witnesses are now undertaking. They know that the inspired
infallible Scriptures of prophecy will be fulfilled toward them
47
Holy SpiritThe Force Behind the Coming New Order! (Brooklyn:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1976), 148 (emphasis added).
48
correctly. They diligently study the visions and dreams of

Gods faithful men of old. They can quote and copy the
Scriptures of Gods inspired men and can apply them
according to the facts. They can observe how God interprets
them by Christ Jesus through the events and facts that he
causes to appear. They are then faithful in publishing and
preaching the revealed prophecies to the utter ends of the
earth. The twentieth-century preaching prophets of Jehovah
are the ones who are running to and fro over the Bible to gain
knowledge of the divine pronouncements which is on the
increase.Dan. 12:4.49
Some simply remain content to ignore those writings which

make the Societys position clear regarding prophecy and
inspiration. Such persons are rarely charitable, often quote the
Witnesses out of context, and frequently add their own meaning to
whatever part of Watchtower literature they quote from, usually
ignoring what the Society itself meant by what they said. Such is
hardly in line with the kind of attitude those professing to be
Christians should have.
How does God put his word into the mouth of the
spiritual remnant? We will now consider another quote from
the Holy Spirit book that is commonly referred to as evidence
proving that Jehovahs Witnesses claim to be inspired prophets.
After citing Isaiah 51:15-16, where Jehovah told the nation of
Israel that He would "put [His] words in [their] mouth," we read:
No obstacle put in His way by the enemies will prove to be

insurmountable for Jehovah. Just as at Mount Sinai He put his
word in the mouth of his chosen people through the mediator
Moses and thereafter he led them under the protective shadow
of his hand into the Promised Land, so he has done for the
remnant of spiritual Israel [the remnant of anointed
Christians]. He has put his word, his message of the hour, into
the mouth of the spiritual remnant for them to confess openly
49
"Aids for Understanding Prophecy," The Watchtower, 15 April 1952, 253, par.
20 (emphasis added).
before all the world, for their own salvation and for that of
responsive hearers.50
Of course, the words of Jehovah in Isaiah 51 are here spoken

to "you people," or the Israelites as a whole. (verses 1, 4, 7, 12,
16) Thus, in this context any one of these could have had
Jehovahs words put in their mouth if they "would actually pay
attention to [His] commandments," and continue "publishing
peace . . . [and] bringing good news of something better." (Isa
48:18; 52:7) These words that were put into the Israelites mouths
came from an inspired source, Jehovah, and through an inspired
medium, Moses. So it is today. Jehovah remains the source of
inspired information, and He has chosen to mediate it through His
Holy Word, the Bible! Thus, when Witnesses proclaim those
inspired words to others, God is, so to speak, putting His words in
their mouths.
In fact, the Holy Spirit book goes on to say that the great
crowd of Revelation 7:9 (understood as a group with an earthly
future, fulfilling Gods original purpose for the earth51) "has taken
Gods word into their mouth."52 This shows that they are not
talking about some "inspired" message being given to the anointed
only, but, rather, something available to all of Gods people.
Moses was given Gods word through inspiration, but today we
receive it and have it put into our mouth by taking the words
from the Bible and then sharing them with others. Thus, we read:
"While none of us can produce inspired speech and writings, God
has committed his inspired Bible to us and we can govern ourselves
by its inspired commandments, teachings and instructions. We can
quote and copy the Scriptures of Gods inspired men and can apply
them according to the facts."53
It is true that Jehovahs Witnesses say they are "guided" by
God, but such guidance does not come in the form of inspiration. It
comes from the inspired words recorded in the Holy Bible, and in
the form of assistance and comfort from Gods spirit. This is not
50
Holy Spirit, 175-176, par. 24 (emphasis added).
51
52
Ibid., 176.
53
"Manner of Inspiring the Bible," 157-158.
done for the purpose of giving forth inspired speech or writings, but
to help us understand and to illuminate more fully the various
prophecies in Scripture.
The Bible, Chronology and Jehovahs Witnesses

It is a well-known fact that Jehovahs Witnesses have pointed to
certain dates they believed would mark the fulfillment of various
Bible prophecies, whether this be the end of the "gentile times," the
resurrection, or Armageddon itself. However, what is often
overlooked by those who seek to discredit the Witnesses attempts to
pinpoint Bible chronology is the fact that such "date-setting" is not
done under the guise of inspired, infallible prophecy.
To a certain extent we have already discussed how the Society
does not claim to be inspired like Ezekiel, or any other biblical
prophet of God. Now we will consider their view of specific dates,
and predictions they have made concerning them. Our objective is to
try and determine whether or not the Witnesses attitude towards
these predictions is one that would have us believe that Jehovah God
"inspired" them to understand these dates as fulfillment of Bible
prophecy, or if these predictions were simply confident
interpretations of Bible prophecy.
1874The Lords Return? According to Ron Rhodes, "the
Watchtower Society declared that the Second Coming of Christ
occurred in October 1874," and they "do not like to admit this, since
the Society now teaches that Christ returned invisibly in 1914."54
We will discuss the Watchtower's view of 1914 shortly, but what
about Rhodes claim regarding the Society and 1874? Do Jehovahs
Witnesses "not like to admit" that they once believed Christ returned
invisibly in 1874?
Using the Societys CD-ROM library,55 a search was made for
references to the 1874 date. In the period from 1950 to 1993 alone,
54
55
The Watchtower Library CD ROM (Brooklyn: Watchtower Tower Bible and
Tract Society, 1993). This CD provides access to all Watchtowers and most other
Watchtower publications from 1950 to 1993. In 1995 and again in 1997 updated
editions of this CD, containing additional Watchtower publications, were released.
20 references were found where the Society candidly discussed the

expectations associated with 1874. Consider, for example:
In the following year (1877) Russell joined with one Nelson H.

Barbour, of Rochester, New York, in publishing a book
entitled "Three Worlds, and the Harvest of This World." In this
book it was set forth that the end of the Gentile Times in 1914
C.E. would be preceded by a period of forty years marked by
the opening of a harvest of three and a half years, beginning in
1874 C.E. This harvest was understood to be under the
invisible direction of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose presence or
parousia began in the year 1874. Shortly afterward was
understood to be the beginning of the great antitypical Jubilee
for mankind, that had been foreshadowed by the ancient
"jubilee" observances of the Jews under the law of Moses.
(Leviticus, chapter twenty-five) According to the Bible
chronology that was thereafter adopted, the six thousand years
of mans existence on the earth ended in the year 1872 but the
Lord Jesus did not come at the end of those six millenniums of
human existence, rather, at the start of the antitypical Jubilee
in October of 1874. The year 1874 was calculated as being the
end of six millenniums of sin among mankind. From this latter
date mankind was understood to be in the seventh
millennium.Revelation 20:4.56
From that understanding of matters, the "chaste virgin" class

began going forth to meet the heavenly Bridegroom in the year
1874, as they believed him to have arrived in that year and to
be from then on invisibly present. They felt that they were
already living in the invisible presence of the Bridegroom. Due
to this fact, when Charles T. Russell began publishing his own
religious magazine in July of 1879, he published it under the
title "Zions Watch Tower and Herald of Christs Presence."57
Only with the return of the Lord Jesus Christ and his parousia
or presence would the culmination come in the fulfillment of
the parable of the "talents." In the latter half of the past
56
Gods Kingdom Has Approached (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1973), 186-187.
57
Ibid., 187-188.
nineteenth century it was thought that the Lord had returned in

the year 1874 C.E. and that with that year his invisible
presence in spirit had begun.58
Something else that was seen as a possible time indicator

involved the arrangement that God instituted in ancient Israel
for a Jubilee, a year of release, every 50th year. This came after
a series of seven 7-year periods, each of which ended with a
sabbath year. During the Jubilee year, Hebrew slaves were
freed and hereditary land possessions that had been sold were
restored. (Lev. 25:8-10) Calculations based on this cycle of
years led to the conclusion that perhaps a greater Jubilee for all
the earth had begun in the autumn of 1874, that evidently the
Lord had returned in that year and was invisibly present, and
that "the times of restitution of all things" had arrived.Acts
3:19-21, KJ.59
Thus, it could hardly be said that Jehovahs Witnesses are

afraid or embarrassed to discuss their expectations associated with
dates of the past. Further commenting on why 1874 was
considered a significant date in fulfillment of Bible prophecy, we
are told: "According to an inaccurate chronology that had been
worked out from the King James Authorized Version Bible,
Russell calculated that Christs presence had begun in the year
1874 C.E., unseen to human eyes and seen only by the eye of
faith. This was why, when he began publishing a new religious
magazine in defense of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ,
Russell entitled it Zions Watch Tower and Herald of Christs
Presence."60
Rhodes says that a "1922 issue of The Watchtower magazine
said, No one can properly understand the work of God at this
time who does not realize that since 1874, the time of the Lords
return in power, there has been a complete change in Gods
operations."61 But his note at the end of this quote refers to a
58
Ibid., 228. See also pages 190, 206-207, 208, and 209-210 of Gods Kingdom
Has Approached for further discussion of the 1874 date.
59
Jehovahs WitnessesProclaimers of Gods Kingdom (Brooklyn: Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society, 1993), 631-632.
60
Mans Salvation (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1975), 287.
61
1923 issue of The Watchtower, where, on the page he cites, such

words are not to be found. What we do find, however, will help
shed light on the way we viewed the 1874 date, a date which was
not in any way thought to have been given to the Bible Students
by inspiration, but a date they believed was founded entirely on
the Word of God. We read, "The Scriptures show that his second
presence was due in 1874."62 What scriptural proof did they use to
support their confident view of 1874? Consider: "By proof is
meant the physical facts in fulfillment of prophetic utterances by
the Lord or some of his inspired witnesses. This proof shows that
the Lord has been present since 1874."63
Clearly, then, we can see that the Witnesses of that time did
not view their understanding64 of 1874 as anything but what they
thought the Scriptures taught, as events in the world unfolded
which bore a striking resemblance to what they considered the
scriptural signs foretold to accompany the invisible presence of
the Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, since 1895 The Watchtower, in its
mission statement, made it clear that it adheres only to the Word
of God for its information:
This journal . . . is not dogmatic, but confident; for we know

whereof we affirm, treading with implicit faith upon the sure
promises of God. It is held as a trust, to be used only in his
service; hence our decisions relative to what may and what
may not appear in its columns must be according to our
judgment of his good pleasure, the teaching of his Word, for
the upbuilding of his people in grace and knowledge. And we
not only invite but urge our readers to prove all its utterances
by the infallible Word to which reference is constantly made
to facilitate such testing [emphasis added].
62
"Loyalty the Test," The Watchtower and Herald of Christs Presence, 1 March
1923, 67, par. 5 (emphasis added).
63
Ibid (emphasis added).
64
The booklet The Bible On Our Lords Return (Brooklyn: International Bible
Students Association, 1922), 23, emphasizes this point, saying, "To our understanding
there are strong proofs that our Lords parousia began in the Autumn of 1874." See
pages 25-37 of this booklet for a partial discussion of the "proofs" that informed their
view of 1874.
On page 344 of his book, Rhodes also refers to several

Watchtower publications that allegedly support his contention
Jehovahs Witnesses uttered a false prophecy about 1874. He
quotes volume four of C. T. Russells Studies in the Scriptures as
follows: "Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since
October 1874 A. D. . . . and the formal inauguration of his kingly
office dates from April 1878, A. D." But by means of ellipsis he
omits the following words which qualify Russells statement
about 1874, "according to the testimony of the prophets."65
This shows, again, that what the Bible students believed was
simply what they understood from the Scriptures. This is no more
a false prophecy than Peters taking the words of the Lord Jesus in
response to his question about the apostle John, misunderstanding
them, and then spreading this misunderstanding "among the
brothers." (Joh 21:20-23) We will explore this account in more
detail later in this chapter. But the point is, Jehovahs Witnesses
merely offer an interpretation of prophecy; they do not give
prophecies of their own.
The next quotation Rhodes makes in relation to the 1874 date
is from the book Creation. Rhodes says, "The Watchtower
publication Creation said that the second coming of the Lord
therefore began in 1874. . . ." What Rhodes does not quote is the
statement immediately preceding the above comment. Consider:
"The Scriptural proof is that the period of his presence and the
day of Gods preparation is a period from 1874 A. D. forward." 66
Once again we see that the Bible Students confidence in the 1874
date was based on their interpretation of what they considered
"scriptural proof," not from any belief that they had men among
them who were supposedly experiencing divine inspiration.
The last quotation Rhodes makes from Witness literature
regarding the 1874 date is as follows: "The Watchtower
publication Prophecy says that the Scriptural proof is that the
second presence of the Lord Jesus Christ began in 1874 A. D"
(emphasis added). Here, again, we see that their belief was
65
The Day of Vengeance, Studies in the Scriptures, vol. 4 (Brooklyn:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, [1897] 1909), 621 (emphasis added).
66
Creation (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1927), 289
(emphasis added).
predicated on "the Scriptural proof" they believed pointed to 1874

as the start of Christs invisible presence. In fact, just a few pages
prior to the above quote, at the start of the chapter, it was frankly
admitted:
Many students have made the grievous mistake of thinking

that God has inspired men to interpret prophecy. The holy
prophets of the Old Testament were inspired by Jehovah to
write as his power moved upon them. The writers of the New
Testament were clothed with certain power and authority to
write as the Lord directed them. However, since the days of the
apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy,
nor has any man been inspired to interpret prophecy.67
At this time, with these facts concerning 1874 clearly in

mind, let us consider a very important statement made by the one
time head of the Societys legal department, Hayden C.
Covington. In conversations about the history of Jehovahs
Witnesses with certain individuals, this author was presented with
the following "admission" from Covington, who, in response to a
question about whether or not the Society promulgated a false
prophecy with regard to 1874, said, "I agree to that."68 But, really,
to what was Covington agreeing?
To help us better understand Covingtons response we need
to place the context of his words before us, a context which is
often ignored by those who cite Covingtons admission as "proof"
that the Society is a false prophet. Portions of the court transcripts
will be emphasized by means of italics, and occasionally the text
of the transcript will be interrupted in order to make a few
observations. "Q" and "A" stand for "Question" (by the cross-
examiner) and "Answer" (given by Covington) respectively.
Q - Is it not vital to speak the truth on religious matters?

A - It certainly is.
Q - Is there in your view room in a religion for a change of interpretation of
67
Prophecy (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1929), 61-62
(emphasis added).
68
Douglas Walsh trial, cross-examination of Hayden Cooper Covington, 347.
Holy Writ from time to time?

A - There is every reason for a change in interpretation as we view it, of the
Bible. Our view becomes more clear as we see prophecy fulfilled by time.
Q - You have promulgated forgive the word - false prophecy?
A - We have [?this response is clearly a question, in view of the following] -
I do not think we have promulgated false prophecy [the reader should
remember this denial as we proceed], there have been statements that were
erronious [sic], that is the way I put it, and mistaken.
Q - Is it a most vital consideration in the present situation of the world to know
if the prophesy can be interpreted in terms of fact, when Christs Second
Coming was?
A - That is true, and we have always striven to see that we have the truth
before we utter it. We go on the best information we have but we cannot
wait until we get perfect, because if we wait until we get perfect we would
never be able to speak.
Q - Let us follow that up just a little. It was promulgated as a matter which
must be believed by all members of Jehovahs Witnesses that the Lords
Second Coming took place in 1874?
[The following answer is very important.]
A - I am not familiar with that. You are speaking of a matter that I know
nothing of.
Q - You heard Mr. Franzs evidence?
A - I heard Mr. Franz testify, but I am not familiar with what he said on that, I
mean the subject matter of what he was talking about, so I cannot answer
any more than you can, having heard what he said.
Q - Leave me out of it?
A - That is the source of my information, what I have heard in court.
Q - You have studied the literature of your movement?
[Note carefully the following reply.]
A - Yes, but not all of it. I have not studied the seven volumes of the "Studies
in the Scriptures," and I have not studied this matter that you are
mentioning now of 1874. I am not at all familiar with that.
[Now comes the big hypothetical question, which is given to one who just
admitted having no understanding of the facts surrounding the Witnesses
view of 1874.]
Q - Assume from me that it was promulgated as authoritative by the Society

that Christs Second Coming was in 1874?
A - Taking that assumption as a fact, it is a hypothetical statement.
Q - That was the publication of a false prophecy?
A - That was the publication of a false prophecy, it was a false statement or an

erroneous statement in fulfillment of a prophecy that was false or
erroneous.
[At this point we skip a few comments about unity and the armed forces.]
Q - Back to the point now. A false prophecy was promulgated?

A - I agree [to69] that.70
END OF QUOTATIONS FROM THE COURT RECORDS
Thus, when viewed in its context, we can see that the answer
given by Covington is in response not only to what was presented
to him as a hypothetical situation, but also to a matter of which he
had no understanding! He stated that he had never studied the
literature the Witnesses published regarding 1874. Had he done
so, he would have found, in addition to the quotes made earlier,
the following:
We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or

discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other
scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,in fact,
it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and
mere traditions, as to learn truth. . . . It is our duty to "prove all
things,"by the unerring Word,"and hold fast to that which
is good." 71
Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as

infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures. The most we
69
I have supplied the word "to" in brackets, since it does not appear in the
original court transcripts. In view of this, it may be that Covington never intended to
agree with the question about false prophecy; he may have simply been interrupted at a
point in his answer where it sounds like he is answering the question in the affirmative.
In fact, the court records show that Covington was also interrupted as he began his
answer to another question only a few moments later. See his answer on page 348 (C).
Of course, it may be that the court reporter simply failed to accurately record
Covingtons testimony. I am grateful to Raul Riesgo for bringing this point to my
attention, which I had missed when I first read through the transcripts.
70
71
"The Ten Virgins," Zions Watch Tower and Herald of Christs Presence,
October 1879, reprint, 38. Except for the word "application," the emphasis was not
added.
claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what
we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word,
in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in
the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the
light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures,
accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all
else. It is to this end, to enable the student to trace the subject in
the divinely inspired Record, that we so freely intersperse both
quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon which to build.72
Nevertheless, we are far from claiming any direct plenary

inspiration. . . . A careful examination of the subject leads us
to the conclusion that the Lord providentially shapes our
course so as to give us such personal experiences in life as will
bring us to his word for comfort and instruction in
righteousness; and thus he permits us to sympathize with the
experiences and questionings of his people, and then present to
them at appropriate times the lessons drawn from our own
experiences, backed by the instructions and comfort of the
Scriptures.73
It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any

degree, but merely to give below what seems to us rather likely to
be the trend of eventsgiving also the reasons for our
expectations.74
We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises,

the Scriptural basis for which is already in the hands of our
readers in the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES. We do
not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of
prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely
laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own
faith or doubt in respect to them.75
72
"Worship the Lord in the Beauty of Holiness," No. 2, Zions Watch Tower and
Herald of Christs Presence, 15 December 1896, reprint, 2080 (emphasis added).
73
"Interesting Letters," Zions Watch Tower and Herald of Christs Presence, 15
July 1899, reprint, 2506 (emphasis added).
74
"Views From the Watch Tower," 3327.
75
"Views From the Watch Tower," Zions Watch Tower and Herald of Christs
Presence, 1 January 1908, reprint, 4110 (emphasis added).
Thus, to use Covingtons response to a hypothetical question

in an attempt to build a case against Jehovahs Witnesses only
reveals how dry their critics well truly is. A false prophecy was
not promulgated by the Society, for the Society does not
prophesy. They merely endeavor to provide as accurate an
interpretation as possible, based on their knowledge of the Bible.
Finally, we note Russells own reasons for buying into the
1874 date. In the summer of 1876 Russell met N. H. Barbour, the
editor of a magazine called Herald of the Morning. In January of
1876 Russells interest in Bible chronology began to grow. After
reading one of Barbours articles which held that Christ was
already present in the world, though unseen and invisible to
human eyes, Russell wrote to Barbour and informed him of his
desire to know "upon what Scriptural evidences, he [that is,
Barbour] held that Christs presence and the harvesting of the
Gospel age dated from the Autumn of 1874."76 Russell further
explains:
I paid Mr. Barbours expenses to come to see me at

Philadelphia (where I had business engagements during the
summer of 1876), to show me fully and Scripturally, if he
could, that the prophecies indicated 1874 as the date at which
the Lords presence and "the harvest" began. 77
Russell was apparently convinced by Barbours presentation

of the Scriptures; he did not utter a prophecy himself. He did not
even begin to believe Barbour until 1876! Russell merely came to
accept a certain interpretation of the prophecies recorded in the
Bible. He never once claimed to have been inspired to receive or
interpret anything that pointed to 1874 as a significant date in
Bible chronology. We now turn to another date in mankinds
history that has been the occasion of much speculation among
Jehovahs Witnesses and others.
1914The end of the world? We have already shown that
at one time Jehovahs Witnesses believed Christ had invisibly
76
"Harvest Gatherings and Siftings," Zions Watch Tower and Herald of Christs
Presence, 15 July 1906, reprint, 3822 (emphasis added).
77
Ibid. (emphasis added). See also Proclaimers, 46-47, 133-134.
returned in the year 1874, and that he was formally inaugurated as

King by His Father in 1878. So, you may wonder, why is there so
much talk about 1914 as opposed to these two earlier dates?
The fact is Russell and other Bible students early in this
century believed 1914 would mark the overthrow of worldly or
"Gentile" kingdoms, and the permanent establishment of Gods
Messianic Kingdom: "In view of this strong Bible evidence
concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an
established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world,
and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be
accomplished at the end of A. D. 1914."78 Rhodes refers to the
latter part of this quote, leaving out the reference to the "strong
Bible evidence" that Russell and his associates believed pointed to
1914 as a significant date in Bible chronology.79 Rhodes also
refers, in part, to the following quotation from the book Light:
All of the Lords people looked forward to 1914 with joyful

expectation. When that time came and passed there was much
disappointment, chagrin and mourning, and the Lords people
were greatly in reproach. They were ridiculed by the clergy and
their allies in particular, and pointed to with scorn, because
they had said so much about 1914, and what would come to
pass, and their prophecies had not been fulfilled."80
Apparently it is assumed by some that the use of the term

"prophecies," in relation to the things the Bible Students had said
about 1914, amounts to a claim of inspiration. But this is hardly
the case. The above quote comes from a section subheaded
"Sackcloth," where a parallel is drawn between Isaiahs
prophesying in sackcloth (Isa 20:2) and the condition of the
anointed followers of Jesus who had interpreted the Bible
prophecies as pointing to 1914 for the "full establishment of
Gods kingdom."81 The parallel is not in relation to the uttering of
78
The Time is at Hand, Studies in the Scriptures, vol. 2 (Allegheny, PA:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1889), 99 (emphasis added).
79
80
Light, vol. 1 (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1930), 194
(emphasis added).
81
Ibid.
actual "prophecies," but in relation to the mourning condition of

both Isaiah and the Bible Students. The word "prophecies" is
being used once again in a quasi sense, in relation to the Bible
Students proclamation of their interpretations of those prophecies
contained in the Bible. The real question is, Did the Bible
Students consider their interpretations inspired like the rest of
Gods Word?
That the answer to this question must be an emphatic, "No!" is
clear from the rest of the Light book and its discussion of this
point. Right after drawing the parallel between themselves and
Isaiah, the book makes several quotations from an article in the
November 1, 1914 Watch Tower. Light refers to the article it
quotes from as one containing "the Scriptural proof, and the
understanding thereof, reviewing the history of the world from
606 B.C. down to October 1914." Then the following quotes are
made from the aforementioned Watch Tower article:
Studying Gods Word, we have measured the 2520 years, the

seven symbolic times, from that year 606 B.C. and have found
that it reached down to October, 1914, as nearly as we were
able to reckon. . . . Many of us concluded that as far as we
could see, October of this year [1914] would show the end of
the Gentile lease of power; for when October comes we are
getting down to the end of the Jewish year. . . . Some one may
ask, . . . may it not be that the kingdom will not be ushered in
for five, ten or even twenty-five years? Our reply is, we are not
a prophet; we merely believe that we have come to the place
where the Gentile times have ended. If the Lord has five years
more for us here, we shall be very glad to be on this side of the
veil; and we feel sure that all the Lords truly consecrated
children also will be glad to be on this side if it is the Lords
will."82
Jehovahs Witnesses still believe, and teach, that the birth of

Gods Messianic Kingdom, with Christ as King, came in 1914
CE. However, the purpose of this chapter is to determine whether
or not Jehovahs Witnesses can rightly be called false prophets, or
82
Ibid., 195, 196 (emphasis added).
if they are simply guilty (along with many others) of falsely

interpreting the prophetic Word.83 It is one thing to utter a
prophecy and claim to have been divinely inspired to proclaim it,
and quite another to interpret Gods Word, all the while
manifesting confidence in Gods ability to help His servants
understand it (Pr 2:1-5).
If failing to interpret rightly Gods Word is all it takes to be a
false prophet, then a great many prominent thinkers in
Christendom are false prophets. For example, should we say
Martin Luther is a false prophet because he believed the Turkish
war would be "the final wrath of God, in which the world will
come to an end and Christ will come to destroy Gog and Magog
and set free His own"?84 No, for Luther, like Russell and other
Witnesses, confidently gave interpretations of Gods Word, based
on his understanding of world events taking place at his time, in
relation to descriptions the Bible gives as to what to look for in
fulfillment of certain prophecies. To further establish that Russell
and the other Bible Students merely looked to 1914 as a possible
fulfillment of certain Bible prophecies, consider the following:
However, we should not denounce those who in a proper spirit

express their dissent in respect to the date mentioned [1914]
and what may there be expected . . . We must admit that there
are possibilities of our having made a mistake in respect to the
chronology, even though we do not see where any mistake has
been made in calculating the seven times of the Gentiles as
expiring about October 1, 1914. . . The general facts are much
more valuable and important than merely the day or the year
83
Discussions of Bible prophecies that point to 1914 as a significant date in Bible
chronology are often given in literature published by Jehovahs Witnesses. The book,
"Let Your Kingdom Come" (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1981),
particularly pages 127-140 and 186-189, contains one of the more complete
discussions of this subject by Jehovahs Witnesses.
84
John T. Baldwin, "Luthers Eschatological Appraisal of the Turkish Threat in
Eine Heerpredigt wider den Trken [Army Sermon Against the Turks]," AUSS 33.2
(Autumn 1995), 196. Luther is also quoted as saying: "Christ has given a sign by which
one can know when the Judgment Day is near. When the Turk will have an end, we can
certainly predict that the Judgment must be at the door" (ibid., 201). Baldwin concludes
that "during the latter portion of his mid-career (1529) the reformer held the
eschatological position that the final cosmic struggle was unfolding before his eyes"
(ibid., 202).
respecting these facts . . . Be specially careful on this point

when the subject of discussion is one respecting which we
have no positive knowledge. The rupture of fellowship may
sometimes be necessary, when we "contend earnestly for the
faith once delivered unto the saints" [Jude 4]faith in the
divine plan, in the Redeemer, in the efficacy of his death, etc.
These matters are positively stated in the Biblenot left to
deduction, as in the case of chronology and all matters based
upon chronology.85
Back in 1913 one issue of The Watchtower stated: "The date

1914 is not an arbitrary date; it is merely what the chronology of
the Scriptures seems to teach."86 The article goes on to say: "So if
the church is here in 1915, we shall think that we have made some
mistake. . . . We do not know positively that the month of
October, 1914, will see the church all glorified, and the time of
trouble ushered in. We merely say, Here are the evidences. Here
are the proofs. Look at them for yourself and see what you then
think. It is for each to accept or reject the facts. So far as we can
reason, this chronology is reasonably correcta good basis for
faith. We walk by faith, and not by sight. God did not tell us that
we should know the exact hour. But we have certain valuable
information, and events seem to be fulfilling our expectations
more and more as the days go by."87
Referring back to the November 15, 1913 Watchtower, it was
unequivocally stated: "We hold that nothing in these quotations
declares the infallibility of the theories we suggested respecting
1914. In these statements, and in all of our statements, we have
merely informed our readers respecting our views and the
processes of our reasoning on the Scriptures which we have
brought to their attention. Thus we have asked each reader to
think and judge for himself, and to agree or disagree with us
according to his own judgment of the facts."88
85
"What Course Should We Take?" The Watch Tower and Herald of Christs
Presence, 15 November 1913, repr. 5348 (emphasis added).
86
"Resume of the Ending of the Times of the Gentiles," The Watchtower and
Herald of Christs Presence, 15 October 1913, reprint 5328 (emphasis added).
87
88
"What Course Should We Take?" 5350.
Jehovahs Witnesses are not guilty of uttering a false

prophecy with respect to 1914. They definitely misunderstood
what the Scriptures taught with respect to 1914, as far as the "end
of the world" is concerned. They still believe that 1914 did indeed
mark the end of "the appointed times of the nations." (Lu 21:24)
This is their view and interpretation; it is not a prophecy.
1925The Return of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? At
one time Jehovahs Witnesses believed that the resurrection of
faithful men of old, including Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, would
occur in the year 1925 CE (AD). The reasons for such a belief
were documented in 1920 in a publication entitled, Millions Now
Living Will Never Die! by Joseph F. Rutherford, then President of
the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
Early on in this publication the reader is invited to "examine
each point carefully . . . compare the argument with the Scriptures
cited, and view the same in the light of present day events which
are discernible to all eyes, and upon this evidence reach a
conclusion."89 A bit later on in the study, Rutherford states: "The
Bible is the only true source of knowledge upon which man can
base a hope for the future. . . . Nothing, then, but an understanding
and appreciation of the Word of God can lead man into the right
way and unfold to him visions of the blessings that are to come." 90
Did Rutherford and other witnesses find something in the Bible
that suggested that faithful men of old would be resurrected in the
year 1925? Or were they given this knowledge in a dream from
Jehovah, or though some other means of divine inspiration?
Rutherford based his views on an incorrect understanding of
the jubilee system Jehovah inaugurated with Israel. (Lev 25:1-17)
In the early 1920s, the Witnesses believed Israel entered the land
of Canaan in the year 1575 BCE,91 and that 70 jubilees of 50
years each should be kept, for a total of 3,500 years, after which
time the restoration of all things would begin.92 But the scriptures
Rutherford refers to (Jer 25:11; 2Ch 36:17-21) do not teach that
89
Millions Now Living, 13 (emphasis added).
90
Ibid., 68.
91
Their current view is that this entrance into Canaan took place in 1473 BCE.
See Insight, vol. 1, 461.
92
Millions Now Living, 87-88.
there would be 70 jubilees prior to an antitypical restoration.

Nonetheless, the Witnesses of that time believed that 1925 would
"mark the resurrection of the faithful worthies of old and the
beginning of reconstruction." Thus, "millions of people now on
the earth will be still on the earth in 1925. Then, based on the
promises set forth in the divine Word, we must reach the positive
and indisputable conclusion that millions now living will never
die."93
On December 11, 1921, in New York Citys Hippodrome,
Rutherford gave a talk which included references to 1925 and
other dates. After referring to the "jubilee system of the Jews" and
explaining how this "foreshadowed the Millennial reign of
Christ," he confidently stated that from the year 1575 BCE 70
jubilees of 50 years "must end in 1925," claiming that "1925 is
definitely fixed in the Scriptures." We can see that Rutherfords
confidence was based on his interpretation of the Bible, not on
some inspired revelation he claimed to have been given. He
concluded his talk by saying:
Every thinking person can see that a great climax is at hand.

The Scriptures clearly indicate that that climax is the fall of
Satans empire and the full establishment of the Messianic
kingdom. This climax being reached by 1925, and that
marking the beginning of the fulfillment of the long-promised
blessings of life to the people, millions now living on earth will
be living then and those who obey the righteous laws of the
new arrangement will live forever.94
It was because Rutherford believed so strongly in what he

thought the Scriptures taught, something he believed was "based
on the promises set forth in the divine Word," that he could refer
to his conclusions concerning 1925 as "indisputable." 95 This does
not constitute a false prophecy, but a false interpretation, and all
imperfect persons have made false interpretations at one time or
93
Ibid., 97.
94
"Rutherford at the Hippodrome," The Golden Age, 4 January 1922, 217
(emphasis added).
95
See Millions Now Living, 107-123 for a complete listing of all the scriptures
Rutherford believed supported his view of 1925.
another. Rutherfords overconfidence on matters of chronology

should serve as warning to all of us: Never present interpretations
of Bible prophecy dogmatically, for they are only interpretations,
and Bible prophecy is not always easy to understand.
1975What the Society Really Said. I have spoken to
many Witnesses who were active in the organization in the year
1975, including members of my own family. Most acknowledge
that there were some who dogmatically held that 1975 would see
the outbreak of Armageddon. Others, though, were not convinced,
and continued serving Jehovah, not because of a date, but because
they loved Him. But what was so important about 1975 that led
many Witnesses to make radical changes in their lives?
In 1966 a publication was released by the Watchtower Bible
and Tract Society that put forth a chronology, based on biblical
and secular historical data, from the creation of Adam to 1975
CE.96 Consequently, it was understood from the facts they had
uncovered that 1975 would mark the end of 6,000 years of human
history. As the publication put it, "According to this trustworthy
Bible chronology six thousand years from man's creation will end
in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human
history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E."97
But what did the Society actually say would happen in 1975?
Were they dogmatic in saying that Armageddon would without
fail take place in that year? Did they claim to have been divinely
inspired by God to make this truth known? Far from it. The same
publication that put forth the aforementioned chronology tells us:
"So in not many years within our own generation we are reaching
what Jehovah God could view as the seventh day of mans
existence. . . . How appropriate it would be for Jehovah God to
make of this coming seventh period of a thousand years a sabbath
period for rest and release . . . This would be most timely for
mankind."98 Also, with regard to the chronology set forth in the
Life Everlasting book, a 1966 issue of The Watchtower said:
96
Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible
and Tract Society, 1966), 26-35.
97
Ibid., 29.
98
Brother Franz [at the Baltimore assembly in 1966] went on to

say: You have noticed the chart [on pages 31-35 in the book
Life Everlastingin Freedom of the Sons of God]. It shows
that 6,000 years of human experience will end in 1975, about
nine years from now. What does that mean? Does it mean that
Gods rest day began 4026 B.C.E.? It could have. The Life
Everlasting book does not say it did not. The book merely
presents the chronology. You can accept it or reject it. . . .
What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear
friends? asked Brother Franz. Does it mean that Armageddon
is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It
could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that
Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could.
Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be
made on Jehovahs witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog
himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not
saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not
saying. And dont any of you be specific in saying anything
that is going to happen between now and 1975. 99
The above should be enough to demonstrate sufficiently that

the Society did not present a dogmatic conviction concerning
1975. Rhodes misinforms his readers by intimating that the
Society said "Armageddon was to occur that year [1975]." 100 He
also quotes the March 1968 issue of Our Kingdom Ministry (a
Witness publication) as saying: "There are only about ninety
months [7 and 1/2 years] left before 6,000 years of mans
existence on earth is completed. . . . The majority of people living
today will probably be alive when Armageddon breaks out." 101 Of
course, the key word here is "probably," which again shows they
were not presenting a dogmatic view, but a possibility, based on
their study of the Bible. Also, it was not said that Armageddon
would come in 1975. The point was that Armageddon might not
be far off from 1975, and that we should use whatever time
remains to serve God to the fullest extent possible.
99
"Rejoicing over Gods Sons of Liberty Spiritual Feast," The Watchtower, 15
October 1966, 631 (emphasis added).
100
101
Ibid.
Another quote from Witness literature that is commonly

referred to in discussions of the 1975 date is given by Rhodes as
follows: "The end of this system is so very near! Is that not reason
to increase our activity? . . . Reports are heard of brothers selling
their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of
their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this
is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked
world's end."102
This quote comes from an article entitled, "How Are You
Using Your Life?" in the May 1974 Our Kingdom Ministry (page
3). In the first part of the article emphasis is put on spending more
time in the ministry, perhaps making room for pioneer (full-time)
service. Rhodes quotes the first two sentences from paragraph 7,
and then attaches them through ellipses to the bottom half of
paragraph 9, making it seem as if the Society is encouraging all to
sell their homes and property because 1975 is near. But the article
nowhere even mentions 1975! Again, it is simply discussing the
different ways you can have a fuller share in the preaching work.
Let us take another look at the quote from paragraph 9, in its
entirety:
Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in
pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and
special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is
5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent
increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of
brothers selling their homes and property and planning to
finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the
pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short
time remaining before the wicked worlds end.1 John 2:17
[emphasis added].
So, the "fine way to spend the short time remaining before the
wicked worlds end" is "in the pioneer service"! Whether or not
that would involve the selling of ones home or property is a
choice each individual would have to make. Certainly there would
be nothing wrong in choosing to do so (compare Lu 18:22). But,
102
Ibid., 349.
again, how much one is able to serve in the ministry is a decision

each person has to make, in accordance with individual
circumstances and limitations. There is nothing wrong or
inappropriate about what the Society said in the May 1974 Our
Kingdom Ministry.
Even though some in the organization may have put too great
an emphasis on the chronology put forth by the Society, in print
the Society itself always maintained the proper outlook: "This is
not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that concerning
that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens
nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matt 24:36)"103 Those who
ignored this advice, and who served Jehovah only because they
believed Armageddon would come in 1975, should have given
closer attention to Jesus words, and to what the Society actually
said, rather than allow a certain date to provide the impetus for their
sacred service.
"This generation will not pass away." The Gospels of
Matthew (24:34), Mark (13:30) and Luke (21:32) contain Jesus
words, "This generation will by no means pass away until all
these things occur." For many years Jehovahs Witnesses have
viewed what Jesus said as a reference to a particular "generation"
of people during whose lifetime the fulfillment of all Jesus
prophecies concerning the "last days" would take place. Thus,
since they understand the first of these prophecies (nation rising
against nation and kingdom against kingdom [Mt 24:7]) to have
been fulfilled in 1914, a generation from that time forward
probably would not live much longer than a decade or so beyond
the year 2000 CE. Did the Society ever state that such a view was
given to them through inspiration? Or is this but another example
of misunderstanding of Gods Word?
Interpreting Bible prophecy is not at all like discerning the
Bibles view on morality or grasping the meaning of Jesus
coming to earth, or even answering the question, Who is God?
Interpreting prophecy necessarily involves speculation and
refinement as times goes on, and the interpretation is proved true
103
"Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?" The Watchtower, 15 August 1968,
500-501
or false. But, again, giving forth prophecy and interpreting

prophecy are two entirely different things. With respect to Jesus
prophecy about "this generation," the matter is further
complicated by the different meanings the word "generation"
(geneav, genea) can have in a given context. In a recent study on
the meaning of "this generation" in Matthew 24:34, Neil Nelson
quotes the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament as saying,
"In the OT, the chronological use is predominant . . . though the
metaphorical . . . is the most significant theologically."104 Because
"generation" (dor in Hebrew) is often used chronologically, it is
easy to see why Jehovahs Witnesses at one time understood
Jesus words to mean the lifetime of a particular generation. But
further study of Gods Word has led them to a reconsideration of
the meaning of the word "generation."
Near the end of 1995, two articles in The Watchtower put
forth a new understanding of Jesus words. The focus in these two
articles is on the spiritual character of "this generation," rather
than its age. The first article provided a detailed discussion of
how Jesus disciples would have understood his use of
"generation" in the Olivet discourse. After pointing to the many
instances where Jesus uses genea in a negative way towards the
contemporary masses of the Jewish nation (see Mt 12:38-46;
16:1-4; 17:14-17; Mr 8:34, 38; Lu 9:37-41; 11:29), the article
states: "Surely, Jesus was not departing from his established use
of the term this generation, which he consistently applied to the
contemporary masses with their blind guides who together made
up the Jewish nation. (Matthew 15:14) . . . Those Jews who had
paid attention to Jesus prophetic words realized that their
salvation depended, not on trying to calculate the length of a
generation or of some dated times or seasons, but on keeping
separate from the evil contemporary generation and zealously
doing Gods will."105
In applying Jesus words to what is viewed as the greater, final
fulfillment of the prophecy, the second article states: "Eager to see
104
Neil D. Nelson, Jr. "This Generation in Matt 24:34: A Literary Critical
Perspective," JETS 38.3 (September 1996), 374, note 18.
105
"Saved From A Wicked Generation," The Watchtower, 1 November 1995,
14-15.
the end of this evil system, Jehovahs people have at times

speculated about the time when the great tribulation would break
out, even tying this to calculations of what is the lifetime of a
generation since 1914. However, we bring a heart of wisdom in,
not by speculating about how many years or days make up a
generation, but by thinking about how we count our days in
bringing joyful praise to Jehovah. (Ps 90:12) Rather than provide
a rule for measuring time, the term generation as used by Jesus
refers principally to contemporary people of a certain historical
period, with their identifying characteristics. . . . In Jesus day the
apostate Jewish people that were rejecting Jesus was this
generation. . . . Therefore, in the final fulfillment of Jesus
prophecy today, this generation apparently refers to the peoples
of earth who see the sign of Christs presence but fail to mend
their ways."106
Similar conclusions have been reached by others who have
studied Jesus words. Evald Lvestam investigates the use of "this
generation" against the background of relevant expressions and
concepts in ancient Israel, and concludes: "A survey of the
relevant material shows that the expression is almost always found
in contexts where peoples negative attitude to Jesus, the Son of
Man, is in focus . . . It is thus the faithless, rejecting attitude of
people to Gods act of salvation in Jesus, the Son of Man, which
causes the negative connotations of [this generation]."107
Nelson believes "this generation in Matt 24:34 refers to a
kind of people characterized by Matthew as unbelieving and
headed toward eschatological judgment."108 Ivir Larsen notes in
most contexts genea "means a class of people bound together
through a common origin or with a common bond. . . . a certain
class or type of people."109 Larsen takes "this" (houtos), not in
106
"A Time to Keep Awake," The Watchtower, 1 November 1995, 17, 19
(emphasis added in the first instance, original in the second).
107
Evald Lvestam, Jesus and this Generation: A New Testament Study (CB
25; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995), 19.
108
Nelson, "This Generation," 369.
109
Ivir Larsen, "Who Is This Generation?" Notes on Translation 108 (August
1985), 26, 27.
reference to those who reject Jesus, but "to the class of Christians
keeping the word of God throughout the ages."110
Larsens point, while not presented dogmatically, does not
seem to line up with other, similar uses of genea, used in reference
to a group of people with the identifying characteristic of
wickedness and opposition to Jesus and his message. (Mt 11:16
[Lu 7:31]; Mt 12:39 [Mr 8:12; Mt 16:4; Lu 11:29]; Mt 17:17 [Mr
9:19; Lu 9:41]; Mt 23:36 [Lu 11:50]; Lu 17:25; Acts 2:40; Php
2:15) Ross McKerras disputes Larsens view of genea in Matthew
24:34, believing that it refers "to the whole class of bad people
who will weep at the sight of Jesus return (v. 30), having been
caught carrying on as usual with their worldly ways (v. 38)."111
The main point of criticism directed against the Societys
former (chronological) view of "this generation," is in relation to
the confidence with which they presented their view in the
introductory material of the Awake! magazine. For many years the
magazine announced that part of its purpose was to "build
confidence in the Creators promise of a peaceful and secure new
world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes
away" (emphasis added). The adjusted understanding of "this
generation" made it necessary to change the italicized words
above. Since the November 8, 1995 issue of Awake! the above
words have been substituted with, "that is about to replace the
present wicked, lawless system of things."
The question, then, is: "Did you or did you not say that it was
the Creators promise that the generation that saw the events of
1914 would not pass away until a peaceful and secure new world
was established?" The answer, of course, is yes. But this was not
meant to be taken in any other way than that Jehovahs Witnesses
believed this to be true because of their study of Gods Word.
Thus, they confidently put forth their understanding of Gods
promise, especially since they believed the interpretation had a
sure scriptural foundation. For this reason, The Watchtower once
said: "[The Watchtower] heralds the news of Jehovahs kingdom
established by Christs enthronement in heaven, warns that we
110
Ibid., 30.
111
Ross McKerras, "Who is This Generation? An Alternative view," Notes on
Translation 124 (1988), 58.
live in the last days of this old world, cries out that Jehovahs
battle of Armageddon comes on apace, feeds the kingdom joint-
heirs with spiritual food, cheers men of good will with glorious
prospects of eternal life in a paradise earth, and comforts us with
the resurrection promise for the dead. All this it does with
confident ring in its voice, because its words find their foundation
in Gods Word."112
Jehovahs Witnesses are not guilty of false prophesying with
respect to 1874, 1914, 1919, 1925, 1975, or Jesus words
regarding "this generation." They have misunderstood various
aspects of Bible prophecy, but Jehovahs Witnesses have never
claimed to be inspired, infallible, or beyond correction. They rely
on Gods Word the Bible as an infallible guide, while recognizing
the appointment Scripture teaches of those who would serve as a
"faithful and discreet slave" to help others learn what the Bible
teaches. (Mt 24: 45) These ones are not perfect by any means, but
they seek to discern the will of God as found in the Bible and
spread the good news of the Kingdom throughout the earth. (Mt
24:14) As one issue of The Watchtower put it: "If the Watchtower
publishes anything that is not supported by the Scriptures, do not
give heed thereto. The Watchtower endeavors at all times to prove
all things by the Word of God."113
Conclusion
Jehovahs Witnesses realize that through prayer, study, and
meditation on God's Word we can better understand Jehovahs
purposes. There have been times when the Scriptures and world
conditions may have seemed to point to the fulfillment of certain
Bible prophecies. Yet, as time went on, and the light from Gods
word became brighter, adjustments were gladly made in order to
conform to the teachings of the Bible. (Pr 4:18) The disciples of
Jesus were faced with a similar situation, as reflected in the account
recorded in John 21:20-23:
112
"Name and Purpose of The Watchtower," 263 (emphasis added).
113
"Gathering the Multitude," Part 3, The Watchtower, 15 September 1936, 276,
par. 10.
Upon turning about Peter saw the disciple whom Jesus used to
love following, the one who at the evening meal had also leaned
back upon his breast and said: "Lord, who is the one betraying
you?" Accordingly, when he caught sight of him, Peter said to
Jesus: "Lord, what will this man do?" Jesus said to him: "If it is
my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to
you? You continue following me." In consequence, this saying
went out among the brothers, that the disciple would not die.
However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but: "If
it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is
that to you?"
Here we see how individuals can innocently misunderstand

something. Peter simply wanted to know what responsibility John
would have. Yet, Jesus told him not worry about it; rather, he should
concern himself with his own responsibility of feeding the sheep.
(Joh 21:15-17) Nevertheless, Peter interpreted Jesus words to mean
that John would never die. He even began telling this to others. But
as we can see from Johns words recorded above, Jesus did not say
that John would never die. Did this make Peter a false prophet in the
eyes of his brothers? No. In fact, he wrote two letters that contain
vital, prophetic information for all Christians. His motives were
good; he simply did not understand Jesus words at the time.
The same is true of Jehovahs Witnesses today. Their motives
have never been self-serving; they have always used the Scriptures
in an effort to substantiate their teachings. (1Th 5:21) And when
they are wrong they make the necessary changes in hopes of
bringing their views in closer conformity with that of Gods Word.
The main focus of the Witnesses is still the proclamation of the good
news of Gods Kingdom, the royal presence of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and the soon-to-be-vindicated name of the Sovereign God,
Jehovah!
10
Salvation
Jehovahs Witnesses are one of the most active, if the not the
most active religious organization on the planet when it comes to
spreading their message of hope. It is not at all uncommon to find
them, on any day of the week, at bus stops, street corners, in
laundry mats, parks and, of course, going from house to house in
search of those interested in studying the Bible. You might even
receive a phone call from one of them, or perhaps run into one on
the Internet. But what gives them such determination? Why are
they so active in their attempts to find people who have a spiritual
interest? Is it because they are trying to earn their salvation?
The Roman Catholic religion believes that in addition to
Gods grace, man can merit certain graces that are necessary for
sanctification (a perfecting of the "soul," allowing a person to live
with God as a "new creation" [2Co 5:17-18]) and salvation. As
stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Since the
initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit
the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning
of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can
then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our
sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the
attainment of eternal life." 1
There are, of course, considerable differences between the
Roman Catholic Churchs concept of grace and salvation and that
of Jehovahs Witnesses. For example, Jehovahs Witnesses do
not share Catholicisms view of the sacraments and Catholics do
not share the Witnesses view that there are two classes of
1
Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1994), section 2010,
pages 541-542. Emphasis in the above quotation is original to the source quoted.
individuals who are saved, specifically, a great crowd that will

live on earth forever, and one hundred and forty-four thousand
individuals who are part of the new covenant with Christ, and
who will rule for one thousand years over the earth. Still, they are
similar to each other in that they both recognize the need for
works to accompany faith in order for a person to be saved.
However, both Jehovahs Witnesses and Catholics disagree
with the Protestant view that salvation is by faith alone, apart
from any kind of works. Our discussion will therefore focus on
the differences between Jehovahs Witnesses view of salvation,
and that put forth by various Protestant scholars, particularly
those who argue against the Witnesses position. First, though,
we need to properly articulate just what the Witnesses believe,
and what they do not believe, about how a person is saved.
"Earning" Your Salvation?

The Witnesses view of works as they relate to
salvation. It is not uncommon for anti-Witness polemics to
confuse the Witnesses view of "works" with the alleged belief
that they can "earn their salvation."2 To make this point clear
once and for all (though I have little doubt that this same
misunderstanding will surface again, somewhere), I present the
following quotations from Watchtower literature, which make
clear their view of how one is saved:
None of us are in a position to earn Gods gifts, least of all to earn

the gift of life. But we can show ourselves worthy of the gift of
eternal life by demonstrating now, with such gifts as we do have, that
we will properly use the gift of eternal life when God gives it to us
by Christ Jesus.3
None should conclude we can save ourselves by our works. If we

could we would earn salvation as our right, but we cannot. It comes
through Gods undeserved kindness. (Rom. 11:6; Eph. 2:8, 9; 2 Tim.
1:9) However, by study we gain faith and by works in harmony with
2
(Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1993), 284.
3
"Appreciating Gods Gifts," The Watchtower, 15 August 1952, 485.
Salvation 503
our knowledge we prove our faith and obedience. (Rom. 10:14, 17;
Jas. 2:18-26) We must do these works to show obedience, for it is to
obedient ones that the ransom does or will apply. Without such
works salvation is impossible.4
Despite the preaching of Gods kingdom and other good works, the
Christian is not perfect; he cannot earn salvation. So Jehovah treats
us kindly. How Gods kindness should inspire us to be like him!5
"FAITH without works is dead." (Jas. 2:26) With these words the
disciple James encouraged fellow believers to prove their faith by
works, by activity. What are proper Christian works? These are not
works whereby a Christian can "earn" the reward of everlasting life.
Some first-century life-seekers did think that this was possible by
observing the Mosaic law. . . . An approved standing before God is
impossible on ones own merit. This can only be gained in the
manner that Jehovah God has purposed, namely, through faith in
Jesus Christ as the one whose sacrifice cleanses from sin.6
Paul wrote: "Knowing as we do that a man is declared righteous, not

due to works of law, but only through faith toward Christ Jesus, even
we have put our faith in Christ Jesus, that we may be declared
righteous due to faith toward Christ, and not due to works of law,
because due to works of law no flesh will be declared righteous."
(Gal. 2:16) Hence, no one can earn Gods favor and blessing by
formal acts of worship or charitable deeds, regardless of their nature
and the extent to which they are performed. A righteous standing
with God comes "only through faith toward Christ Jesus."7
[After quoting John 3:16 from the King James Version the article
says:] The salvation made possible by that ransom is of such
superlative value that there is absolutely no way that anyone could do
works to earn it, certainly not works formerly done under the Mosaic
Law. Thus, Paul wrote: "A man is declared righteous, not due to
works of law, but only through faith toward Christ Jesus."
Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:20-24.8
We do not earn salvation . . . for no human could ever do enough to

merit such an astounding blessing. We are not worthy of this
4
"Predestination or Individual ChoiceWhich?" The Watchtower, 15 May 1953,
314.
5
"Showing Kindness to All Men," The Watchtower, 15 June 1960, 369.
6
"Christian WorksWhat Do They Include?" The Watchtower, 1 June 1978, 26.
7
"Why Do What Is Right?" The Watchtower, 1 May 1980, 3-4.
8
"Do You Appreciate What God Has Done?" The Watchtower, 1 August 1990, 16.
magnificent gift, though, if we fail to demonstrate our love and

obedience by doing the things that the Bible says God and Christ
want us to do. Without works to demonstrate our faith, our claim to
follow Jesus would fall far short, for the Bible clearly states: "Faith,
if it does not have works, is dead in itself."James 2:17.9
Besides making us loving and merciful, faith produces other fine

works. (James 2:14-26) Of course, professed faith that lacks works is
not going to save us. True, we cannot earn a righteous standing with
God by works of the Law. (Romans 4:2-5) James is talking about
works motivated, not by a law code, but by faith and love.10
At least two things are clear from the above quotations: 1)

Jehovahs Witnesses do not believe they can earn their salvation;
2) they believe that works are essential for salvation. In other
words, while you cannot build up enough "credits" with God so
that at some point He is obligated to give you everlasting life, the
works that a Christian performs give evidence of his or her faith
and validate it. It is through such validated faith that a person is
saved.
For the Witnesses, faith alone is not enough, but it is, as one
Witness melody puts, "a faith accompanied by works . . .This
kind of faith preserves our souls alive." 11 Before we discuss the
biblical basis for this view, let us first consider the kind of works
that the Witnesses believe must accompany faith, for one to be
saved.
What kinds of works validate a persons faith? Several
anti-Witness works12 refer to an article in the February 15, 1983
Watchtower, entitled "You Can Live Forever in Paradise on
EarthBut How?" where "four requirements" are listed that are
deemed necessary for those who will live "upon [Gods] Paradise
earth." These requirements would also, naturally, be necessary
for those who have a "heavenly calling" (Heb 3:1), but this
9
"What Must We Do to Be Saved?" The Watchtower, 1 February 1996, 8.
10
"Faith Moves Us to Action!" The Watchtower, 15 November 1997, 14.
11
Sing Praises to Jehovah (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
1984), song 144.
12
Rhodes, Reasoning, 283-284, 291; Herbert Kern, How to Respond: Jehovahs
Witnesses, Revised Edition (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1995), 36-37;
and Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Jehovahs Witnesses (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995),
54-55.
Salvation 505
particular article is focusing on those who will "reside forever

upon [the earth]" (Ps 37:29; see below for a discussion of these
two groups). Since Bowman is the one who provides the most
detailed consideration of the four requirements listed in the
aforementioned Watchtower article, we will primarily focus on
what he has to say about them.
The first requirement listed on page 12 of the Watchtower
article involves "taking in knowledge." (Joh 17:3) The article
specifically refers to "knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ,"
which includes "knowledge of Gods purposes regarding the
earth and of Christs role as earths King." Bowmans response,
in part, is as follows, "the idea that one must study Watchtower
literature to be saved is patently unbiblical." Of course, that is
true. But Bowman misses the point of the article, which nowhere
says anything about having to "study Watchtower literature to be
saved." Rather, the article, in the very paragraph where it
discusses the first requirement of "taking in knowledge," asks,
"Will you take in such knowledge by studying the Bible?"
(Emphasis added.)
The second requirement is "obeying Gods laws," which
involves conforming ones life "to the moral requirements set out
in the Bible." But Bowman again misses the intent of the article,
and responds as if an entirely different issue was in view. He
says: "While true Christians are characterized by obedience to
Gods laws, such good works of obedience are not the basis of
salvation." Does the article say anything about obedience to God
being the "basis of salvation"? No, it does not. Even Bowman
agrees that true Christians would be "characterized by
obedience," so that one who does not obey is not really a true
Christian, and therefore not one to whom God would grant
everlasting life.
In the Bible this point is made very clear, as Paul speaks of
various acts of disobedience that, if practiced, would prevent one
from inheriting Gods kingdom. (1Co 6:9-10; this verse is cited
in the Watchtower article, along with 1 Peter 4:3, 4) But Bowman
must somehow distance obedience from salvation, so that he can
maintain his presupposition about faith alone, which we will
consider below. The truth is, while obedience does not earn
salvation for anyone, it shows that a person has genuine faith in
God and Christ. Indeed, obedience is so essential to salvation (see

below under "Faith Alone?") that, after referring to the obedience
that Christ himself learned as a "Son," Hebrews 5:9 speaks of
him, saying, "he became responsible for everlasting salvation to
all those obeying him." There is nothing here about "good works
being the fruit of a salvation that has already taken place," as
Bowman says. His attempt to use Ephesians 2:8-10 in support of
his belief will be discussed below.
The third requirement listed in the Watchtower article is "to
be associated with Gods channel, his organization." In support of
this third requirement, the Watchtower article refers to the fact
that "God has always used an organization," and they point to 1)
the organized group that built the ark and survived with Noah,
and 2) the first-century Christian congregation, an organization of
evangelizers calling on Christs name in unity. (Joh 17:22; Acts
4:12; 1Co 1:10-13) Bowman himself agrees that those who are in
fact true Christians "will associate with and love their fellow
Christians," but he believes that this association is not a
"prerequisite work" necessary to know God, or for salvation. And
with this, we agree.
We cannot say for sure that God will not save some who are
unable to have an active association with his people. Rather, I
believe the intent of the third requirement (and this is certainly
how the witnesses I queried took it) is a person who recognizes
the people of God, and who deliberately chooses to avoid
association with the organization, will not have Gods approval,
and will not in turn manifest the faith needed for salvation.
This is a reasonable view in light of the scriptural command
to not forsake the gathering of ourselves together. (Heb 10:25)
It is worth noting that the "faith" (verse 22), "confession" (verse
23) and the command to gather ourselves together (verse 25) is
followed by a salvation-related warning in verses 26 and 27 (see
also verses 29 and 36). So, again, this third requirement should be
taken in reference to those persons who deliberately avoid
association with Gods people, which is a command that even
Bowman agrees that true Christians "will" obey.
The fourth requirement "is connected with loyalty." The
Watchtower article states, "God requires that prospective subjects
of his Kingdom support his government by loyally advocating his
Salvation 507
Kingdom rule to others" (emphasis original to the article). The

article then quotes Matthew 24:14 in support of this requirement,
which speaks of the good news of the kingdom being preached
throughout the earth before the "end" comes. Bowman responds
by saying, "Salvation is never made conditional on the
participation in evangelism or preaching work."
He then acknowledges Jesus did send forth his followers, but
believes that the sending forth of "the twelve . . . and of the
seventy-two . . . was specific to them, and while their
commission may be used as a model it should not be imposed as
a rule for all Christians." But Bowman avoids discussing the
Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20. If he would make this
specific only to those who heard Christs words (!) then it would
seem impossible for him to explain how anyone claiming to be
Christian could faithfully accept the calling Peter speaks about,
this in order that the Christian should closely follow the model
Christ left for us, so that we might participate in the preaching
work he started (1Pe 2:21; compare 1Jo 2:6; Lu 4:43; 8:1).
This matter of preaching the good news is also tied in with
the second requirement, namely, obedience, since Jehovahs
Witnesses do not take the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-
20 to be "specific" only to those who heard Jesus speak those
words. Given the Witnesses legitimate application of Matthew
28:19-20, together with the clear teaching about salvation being
given to those who "obey" the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb 5:9), it is
understandable why they would list preaching the goods news of
Gods kingdom as a fourth requirement for gaining Gods
approval.
It is also true that in spite of their being greatly outnumbered
by Catholics and Protestants, the Witnesses manifest a far greater
desire to fulfill the Great Commission and follow the "model"
Christ left than have all the other groups combined. But this is
not something over which we should boast, for it is a "necessity"
laid upon all true Christians who share Pauls view: "Really, woe
is me if I did not declare the good news!"1Co 9:16.
The four requirements, when properly understood in the
context of the Bibles teaching on these issues, are legitimate,
assuming that there are no physical or geographical limitations to
a persons ability to adhere to them. But even here there are
remarkable stories of how God blesses those who seek to follow

the path of His Son, in spite of such limitations. 13 In any event,
no one can follow all of these and other scriptural requirements
perfectly, which is why we are overjoyed to have Christs ransom
sacrifice as a basis upon which to approach God, and receive
forgiveness for our sins. (1Jo 2:1-2) But this does not remove us
from the obligation to "continue observing his commandments,"
thereby showing that our faith is genuine, and we "have come to
know him" (1Jo 2:3-6).
Faith Alone?
Faith "apart from works"? According to Martin Luthers
translation of Romans 3:28, Christians are declared righteous by
faith "alone [German: allein]." The Greek word for "alone" is
not used in this verse by Paul, but some might argue that it is
implicit in view of the fact that Paul says the act of declaring man
righteous is by "faith apart from works of law." The fact is,
though, these works are qualified as being "of law," and therefore
faith, as used here, is not put in contrast to any and all works, but,
again, to "works of law." But what exactly did Paul mean? Are
there some works that are in fact necessary for declaring one
righteous, indeed, for salvation?
The only time we find the expression "faith alone" used in
the New Testament is in James 2:24, "You see that a man is to be
declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone" (emphasis
added). Understandably, this verse is rarely used by advocates of
salvation by "faith alone." The closest biblical expression
resembling "faith alone," which is a favorite expression of many
Protestant scholars who consider these issues, is Ephesians 2:8-
10:
By this undeserved kindness, indeed, you have been saved

through faith; and this not owing to you, it is Gods gift. No, it
is not owing to works, in order that no man should have
13
It is recommended that persons interested in reading such experiences consider
one of the yearbooks of Jehovahs Witnesses, published annually by the Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society.
Salvation 509
ground for boasting. For we are a product of his works and

were created in union with Christ Jesus for good works, which
God prepared in advance for us to walk in them.
When Paul and James refer to that which serves as a basis

for Gods declaring one righteous, it is safe to assume that
salvation accompanies the declaration, for one could hardly be
declared righteous by God and not be fit for salvation! The
question, then, relates to whether or not a person can be saved or
declared righteous by faith alone and "not owing to works," or
whether or not a person is declared righteous "by works, and not
by faith alone."
This is an important issue, for it also, potentially, brings into
question the internal harmony of at least two (Paul and James)
Bible writers. We will, therefore, carefully consider the thought
process leading up to and surrounding the aforementioned (and
other) statements by both writers, on this matter of faith, works
and salvation.
James on "faith" and "works." Rarely will one who
embraces the concept of salvation by "faith alone" attempt to
support his or her position by a consideration of the letter of
James. Usually those advocating this position will begin with
Romans or Ephesians, and then, if necessary, claim that the "faith
alone" position is in full agreement with James teaching on this
issue. We agree that James teaching on this subject is in full
agreement with Pauls, as expressed in the quotation of Ephesians
2:8-10 above, as well as in statements he makes elsewhere in his
writings, which we will consider below. But first let us see if we
can get a clear understanding of James teaching concerning faith
and works.
It is in the first two chapters of James letter that we find his
discussion concerning faith and works, and that is where our
focus will be. Early on in his letter James refers to "various trials"
that test the quality of ones faith, resulting in endurance. (Jas
1:3-4) He re-emphasizes this point about endurance in 1:12,
saying, "Happy is the man that keeps on enduring [NASB, NIV:
perseveres] trial, because on becoming approved he will receive
the crown of life."
Starting with 1:21, James explains the importance of

following Gods commands; he says to "become doers of the
word, and not hearers only." (1:22) In setting up this exhortation,
he pointed out the need to accept "the implanting of the word
which is able to save your souls." (1:21) The expression "the
implanting of the word" is a translation of toVn e[mfuton lovgon
(ton emphuton logon), where emphuton ("implanted") serves as
an adjective modifying logon ("word"), which the RSV translates
as "the implanted word." After receiving this "implanted word,"
we must then become doers of it, in order to realize its saving
power, otherwise we are simply "deceiving ourselves with false
reasoning." (1:22) James then discusses a "form of worship" that
is "futile," namely, where an individual fails to "bridle his
tongue." He also underscores the importance of caring for
"orphans and widows in their tribulation," and how we should
keep ourselves "without spot from the world."
In chapter two of his letter, James sets up an important
discussion about faith and works. Beginning in verse 14, he asks
these two questions: "Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if a
certain one says he has faith but he does not have works? That
faith cannot save him, can it?" The answers given to both of these
questions are "not at all" and "no," respectively, as can be seen
from James words in verse 17, "Faith, if it does not have works,
is dead in itself" (compare verse 20). Here, then, in clear,
unambiguous terms, we see that faith not accompanied by works
"cannot save." But, there is more.
James next uses the example of Abraham to make his point
about the importance of works. This example is significant, for
both James and Paul (see below) use Genesis 15:6 in support of
their view concerning faith and works. For now, though, we
focus on James, who, according to the NASBs translation of
James 2:21-24, writes:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he

offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was
working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was
perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And
Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as
Salvation 511
righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. You see

that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.
In the above quotation from James letter, the Greek word

e[rgon (ergon) is used four times and is translated "works" each
time by the NASB (and in the NWT). But not once does the
popular NIV use "works" to translate ergon in this section of
Scripture. Instead, we find "what he did" (verse 21), "actions"
(verse 22), "what he did" (verse 22) and "what he does" (verse
24). But when we turn to the NIVs translation of Romans 4:1-6,
where Paul uses the same proof text (Genesis 15:6) that James
uses in James 2:21-24, NIV uses "works" both times when the
noun ergon is used (verses 2 and 6). Also, instead of translating
the participle ergazomeno as "the man that does something" or
"the man that is active" in verse 4 and the negative of this same
expression in verse 5, NIV uses "when a man works" in verse 4
and "the man who does not work" in verse 5.
The intent is, of course, rather obvious: NIV seeks to
maintain a contrast between faith and works in Romans, but not
in James. I can think of no other reason for their translating
differently the same word, and its cognates, in two different
sections of Scripture when both sections of the Scriptures use the
same OT proof text in their discussion of the same subject,
namely, faith and works!
Having said that, let us now consider the import of James
2:21-24. The reference to Genesis 15:6 makes James point that
Abrahams faith was working with his works, and as a result of
the works his faith was perfected (verse 22). James conclusion
is, "You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and
not by faith alone." He then uses the example of Rahab to make
this same point ("the harlot was declared righteous by works"
[verse 25]).
James thus underscores the importance of works, and how
faith must be accompanied by works in order for it to be a living,
true faith. "Faith alone" is not enough, according to James: "Faith
without works is dead" (verse 26). We might illustrate James
view of faith and works by figure 11.1:
Figure 11.1
James View of Faith and Works
WORKS
FAITH
The intent of this simple illustration is to highlight the fact

that, for James, "faith alone" is not sufficient, for a living faith
cannot be separated from works; thus, his focus is on the works
that "perfect" ones faith. We can summarize the main points
from James first two chapters as follows:
1) Trials faced by Christians test our faith, and result in

endurance. If we continue enduring then salvation (the "crown
of life") will be given to us (Jas 1:3-4, 12).
2) The "implanted word" is able to save those who are "doers of
the word, and not hearers only" (Jas 1:21-25).
3) An outward display of "worship" is futile if one is unable to
restrain his "tongue." God views such works as looking after
orphans and widows, and keeping "oneself without spot from
the world," as a "clean and undefiled" form of worship (Jas
1:26-27).
4) "Faith alone" is not sufficient for a persons justification.
"Faith without works is dead" (Jas 2:24, 26).
5) Works alone are not sufficient, either, for faith and works
must work together (Greek: sunhvrgei, sunergei), as works
"perfect" (Greek: ejteleiwvqh, eteleiothe) faith. (Jas 2:22)
Examples such as Abraham and Rahab are used to support this
view of faith and works.
Salvation 513
James focus is clearly on the works that mark a persons

faith as genuine, while Paul, on the other hand, has a slightly
different but entirely consistent perspective on faith and works,
which we will now consider.
Paul on "faith" and "works." Early on in his letter to the
Romans, Paul makes a statement that is strikingly similar to
James words in James 1:21. Paul writes: "For I am not ashamed
of the goods news; it is, in fact, Gods power for salvation to
everyone having faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Ro
1:16) For James the "implanted word" that is capable of saving a
person is manifestly at work in a person who is a "doer"
(compare Romans 2:13) of that word, and whose faith is
perfected by works. Paul here recognizes that the "good news" is
indeed "Gods power for salvation," but what does it mean when
he adds, "to everyone having faith"? Are works just as essential
to Pauls concept of "faith" as they are for James?
The simple answer to this question is provided by Paul
himself, in clear, unambiguous language, in Romans 2:6-11.
Again we quote from the NRSV:
For he will render to every man according to his deeds [RSV:

"works"; a plural form of ergon]: to those who by patiently
doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will
give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who
obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil,
the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace
for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
For God shows no partiality.
Clearly, then, Paul recognized the importance of works, and

how they would serve as the basis for Gods judgment. But he,
like James, also clearly recognized that a person could not earn
his salvation by performing a certain number of works. No, but
ones works that are indissolubly connected with his faith in what
God has promised (on the basis of Jesus ransom sacrifice) are
necessary in order for him to be declared righteous by God, and
for him to receive the free gift of everlasting life.
However, Paul outright rejects a persons attempt to gain a

righteous standing before God by performing works of law:
"Therefore, by works of law no flesh will be declared righteous
before him, for by law is the accurate knowledge of sin." (Ro
3:20) Paul then speaks of "Gods righteousness through faith in
Jesus Christ" and the "free gift" of being "declared righteous" and
having "the release by ransom," namely, "through faith in his
[Christs] blood." (Ro 3:22, 24, 25) For Paul "a man is declared
righteous by faith apart from works of law" (Ro 3:28).
Throughout his discussion of faith and works, Paul makes
reference to "Jew[s] . . . resting upon law" (Ro 2:17), being
"orally instructed out of the Law"14 (Ro 2:18), the Laws "written
code" (Ro 2:27, 29) and "works of law." (Ro 3:28) It becomes
clear upon reading Pauls letter to the Romans that he is arguing
against those who might be involved with or tempted by those
who would seek to gain a righteous standing before God by
following the Mosaic Law. This Law is not sinful, but it makes a
persons sin manifest, and since we have been "set free from the
Law" our standing before God is no longer determined by our
adherence to the Mosaic Law, but rather by our adherence to
"Gods law," namely, faith in Christ (Ro 7:7, 12, 16; 8:2).
An example of how one can indeed be declared righteous
apart from "works of law" is Abraham. Paul uses the account in
Genesis 15:6 to show that Abraham was declared righteous while
not under law. He then states, "to the man that does not work but
puts faith in him who declares the ungodly one righteous, his
faith is counted as righteousness." (Ro 4:5) He goes to explain in
further detail that because of Abrahams faith, conviction and
trust in Gods ability to fulfill His promises toward him that "it
was counted to him as righteousness." (Ro 4:18-22) But
Abrahams "faith" was manifest by his works. The discussion in
Romans 4:18-22 simply assumes that Abraham performed works
that perfected his faith (Jas 2:22), namely, having intercourse
with his wife and procreating in accordance with the will of God.
How else could his faith in God have been manifest?
14
For an explanation of why NWT uses "law" and "Law," see the 1984
Reference Editions footnote to Romans 3:19.
Salvation 515
Thus, Paul is clearly discussing the kind of faith that is

accompanied by works, works that will serve as a basis for
"Gods righteous judgement." (Ro 2:5, 6) Paul rejects "works of
Law" as a means of gaining a righteous standing with God,
though some of such works, such as our love and worship of
God, can in fact make known our faith in Him.
Israel pursued righteousness through the Law, but "did not
attain" it. (Ro 9:32) As a nation they failed to put faith in the
"stone of stumbling [Christ]" and were rejected by God (Mt
21:43-44; 23:37-39), though God did not reject them entirely.
(Ro 11:1, 2) God will continue to show mercy to those Jews who
put faith in His Son (Ro 11:32), and it is by the grafting in of
non-Jews, or, rather, those who are Jews "on the inside," that "all
Israel will be saved" (Ro 2:28-29; 11:17-32).
Paul further explains that for one to be saved he or she must
"publicly declare" (a form of the Greek word homologeo) that
Jesus is Lord (compare Acts 2:36) and "exercise faith" (see
discussion of this expression below) in our hearts that God raised
him from the dead. (Ro 10:9-10) Some translations, such as the
NASB, NIV, RSV and others, translate homologeo as
"confession," which is also accurate. NWT is making it clear that,
in the view of the translators, this term involves a confession in
the presence of others, which is a legitimate meaning for
homologeo.15
We might illustrate Pauls view of faith and works with
figure 11.2:
15
BAGD (page 568) gives "declare (publicly)," "acknowledge" and "confess,"
among others, as acceptable definitions for homologeo, and in the Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida,
eds., vol. 1, 2d ed. [New York: United Bible Societies, 1989], 420, under entry 33.274)
they state that it is often necessary to translate homologeo so that it is seen as
"involving a public utterance and an expression of confidence or allegiance."
Figure 11.2
Pauls View of Faith and Works
WORKS
FAITH
As with James, Paul does not view faith as something devoid

of or separate from works. He does, however, make it clear that
faith is not ones possession merely because of adherence to the
Jewish Law code For Paul, works are a necessary result of
genuine repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Such works will
serve as the basis for our judgement by God (Ro 2:6-11).
Pauls reference to "faith," then, is necessarily (inherently
and inseparably) connected to works. Also, in the context of his
letter to the Romans, Ephesians and elsewhere, Paul makes a
clear and unmistakable distinction between a person who is
justified by work-producing faith, and the attempt to gain a
righteous standing before God merely on the basis of "works of
law."
We might summarize Pauls view of faith and works with
these 5 points:
1) There are several parallels between Pauls discussion of faith

and works in Romans and the discussion of this same subject
in the letter of James:
a) Both Paul and James emphasize the necessity of
endurance in good works that result from faith and
ultimately lead to an approved standing before God (Ro
2:7; Jas 1:3-12).
Salvation 517
b) Paul explains that the "good news" is Gods "power

for salvation," while James similarly refers to "the word
which is able to save your souls" (Ro 1:17; Jas 1:21).
c) Both Paul and James recognize that faith must be

accompanied by and continue to result in good works;
these works will serve as the basis for judgement by
God (Ro 2:6; Jas 2:14, 24).
2) Paul outright rejects a persons attempt to gain a righteous

standing before God by performing works of law: "Therefore,
by works of law no flesh will be declared righteous before
him, for by law is the accurate knowledge of sin" (Ro 3:20).
3) Paul uses the account in Genesis 15:6, the same account used
by James, to show that "a man is to be declared righteous by
works, and not by faith alone," to prove that Abraham was
declared righteous while not under Law (Ro 4:1-7; Jas 2:21-
24).
4) Though rejected as a nation for failing to accept Jesus Christ

(Mt 21:43-44; 23:37-39), God will continue to show mercy to
those Jews who put faith in His Son (Ro 11:32), and it is by
the grafting in of non-Jews, or, rather, those who are Jews
"on the inside," that "all Israel will be saved" (Ro 2:28-29;
11:17-32).
5) Paul does not view faith as something devoid of or separate

from works. He recognizes an inherent and inseparable
connection between works and faith. He does, however, make
it clear that faith does not result from adherence to the Jewish
Law, but produces both works that make up the Law code and
works that are the result of genuine repentance and faith in
Jesus Christ. These works will serve as the basis for our
judgement by God (Ro 2:6-11).
Secure In Your Salvation

"Exercising Faith"? The belief of "once saved always
saved" is popular among evangelical churchgoers, and many
Protestant scholars believe that once you have been declared
righteous by God it is impossible to lose your salvation. On the
other hand, Jehovahs Witnesses believe that for a person to be

saved he or she must continue to endure in "work that is good"
until the "end" of their life or until the judgement by God through
Christ at the end of the "age" or "system of things." (Ro 2:6; Jas
1:2-3; Mt 24:13) In this light, Witnesses view faith as something
they must "exercise" or regularly manifest by their works until
"becoming approved." (Jas 1:12) This is one reason why the
NWT regularly translates the Greek verb for "believe" as
"exercising faith." Naturally, some of the aforementioned
Protestant scholars are critical of this translation and its
implications.
For example, Robert Bowman refers to the translation
"exercising faith" as a "notable" "attempt to obscure" the truth
about faith in Christ. For most English-speaking people today,
Bowmans claim that "to exercise faith implies more than to
believe" may appear sound.16 But in neither his Understanding
Jehovahs Witnesses nor his Jehovahs Witnesses Zondervan
booklet does he even attempt to analyze the different
constructions in the NT where pisteuo is used.
Bowman simply objects to NWTs translation ("exercising
faith") and its perceived implication of "doing works on the basis
of ones belief."17 He mentions that "genuine faith results in good
works" and then repeats the familiar but inaccurate claim that
"faith alone" is "the condition laid down in Scripture." Since we
have already shown that "faith alone" is not a biblical concept
(works perfect ones faith, and it is this perfected faith that
saves), let us now consider some of the different ways the Greek
verb for "believe" (pisteuo) is used in the Bible, and why certain
constructions involve more than "belief" or "trust," apart from
works.
16
Both quotes in this paragraph are from Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Understanding
Jehovahs Witnesses: Why They Read the Bible the Way They Do (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1991), 69-70.
17
Bowman, Understanding Jehovahs Witnesses, 70. On page 53 of his
Jehovahs Witnesses booklet, he says, "it is faith, not exercising faith by doing good
works, that is the condition of salvation." Here again, though, he shows a lack of
appreciation for the biblical concept of faith. As we have seen, there is no true, saving
faith without works! So to speak of "faith" as something that truly exists apart from
works (which is not the same as its existence apart from works of Law) is to speak of
"dead" faith, which cannot save (Jas 2:22, 24, 26).
Salvation 519
Back in 1990 the Watchtower magazine published a question

from one of their readers regarding the translation of pisteuo. The
reader wanted to know why the NWT sometimes translates
pisteuo as "exercise [or put] faith in." In answering this question
the Watchtower referred to "the different shades of meaning that
are expressed by the Greek word pisteuo," as well as the
importance of the context in recognizing these different shades of
meaning. Specifically, the Watchtower made reference to NWTs
translation of pisteuo when used with various Greek prepositions:
If pisteuo is followed merely by a noun in the dative case, the

New World Translation usually renders it simply as
"believe"unless the context indicates something different.
(Matthew 21:25, 32; but see Romans 4:3) If pisteuo is
followed by the word epi, "on," it is generally rendered
"believe on." (Matthew 27:42; Acts 16:31) If it is followed by
eis, "to," it is usually translated "exercise faith in."John
12:36; 14:1.18
The Watchtower then quotes from a Greek grammar by Paul

Kaufman, which says, in part, "Faith is thought of as an activity,
as something men do." Earlier we discussed how this is precisely
the way Paul views faith, and thus he is in complete agreement
with James, though they each emphasize different aspects of the
same whole (compare figures 11.1 and 11.2 above).
The Watchtower made particular reference to the use of
pisteuo with the preposition eis (which is then followed by the
accusative), as a basis for the translation "exercise faith." Other
scholars have similarly attempted to highlight the particular
nuance conveyed by this construction, a construction that occurs
48 times in the NT, 35 of which are found in the Gospel of John.
Commenting on the use of pisteuo followed by an accusative,
Gerald Hawthorne observes:
18
"Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 1 December 1990, 30. Bowman
shows no awareness of this article in his Understanding Jehovahs Witnesses, even
though he does refer to Watchtower literature as late as May and July 1990 (see pages
145 and 146 of Understanding Jehovahs Witnesses, notes 10 and 16). He also refers to
a 1991 book by Hugh Ross (see Ibid., 148, note 10). But even if he did not have the
information from the December 1, 1990 Watchtower anytime prior to the release of his
Understanding book, why did he not address the issues in his 1995 Zondervan booklet?
Faith to John was not static or passive, but was dynamic and
active, reaching out to appropriate and make the object of faith
ones own. There was in it, too, an element of dependency, a
recognition of the absolute need for the object, with a
consequent willingness to come to that object. It appears, also,
to be more than mere belief about or recognition of the true
value of an object, more than mental apprehension of it. There
seems also to have been a definite concept of committal to that
objectthat one step beyond perception. This idea is further
developed in the preposition characteristic of John's favorite
constructionthe preposition eij" [eis].19
While the pisteuo+eis construction may account for the use

of "exercise faith" in Johns Gospel, it is clear that the NWT
Committee does not depend entirely on this construction for their
use of "exercise faith," but on a concept of faith that is not "dead"
and which is grounded in activity. 20 (Jas 2:22, 24, 26) The
translation "exercise faith" captures the particular dynamic that
appears to be associated with the pisteuo+eis construction, and it
also works well for various instances of pisteuo that appear, per
the context and the various uses of "faith" and "believe" in the
Bible, to convey an active sense. Those who disagree because of
their particular theology should take the time to articulate the
basis for their objection better than Witness critics have done to
date.
"No one will snatch them out of the hand of the
Father." The question of whether or not one can lose his/her
salvation is a question most Bible students have no doubt asked
at some point in their study. Fortunately, the Bible is quite clear
when giving the answer. In John 10:28 and 29, Jesus said that no
one could "snatch" his followers out of his hand, or the "hand of
the Father." Though some use this text in an attempt to prove that
one cannot lose his/her salvation, all it really says is that our
19
Gerald F. Hawthorne, "The Concept of Faith in the Fourth Gospel," Bsac 116
(April-June 1959), 122.
20
Of the 28 times "exercise faith" is used in the NWT, 17 are found in John.
Every single instance where "exercise faith" is found in NWTs translation of John it is
used to render the pisteuo+eis construction. But a check of the remaining 11 uses of
"exercise faith" in NWT shows that in these instances it does not translate the
pisteuo+eis construction.
Salvation 521
salvation is not something that an enemy can wrest away from us;
true Christians cannot be "snatched" from the safety of Jesus or
his Father.
But Jesus words in John 10:28, 29 say nothing about
whether or not we ourselves might turn away from Gods
undeserved kindness. Jesus also does not say that neither he nor
his Father is unable to take away a persons salvation if that
person were, in fact, to fall away. According to Revelation 3:5
only "he that conquers" will not have his name blotted out from
the book of life (compare Ps 69:28). Thus, while one might get
his/her name written in the book of life, only the one that
"conquers and observes [Jesus] deeds down to the end" (Rev
2:26; emphasis added) will keep it from being blotted out.
Furthermore, while I have heard some fairly creative
interpretations of Hebrews 6:4-6, the point is clear: a person may
be "enlightened" to the truth, taste the heavenly free gift (which
is salvation from God, of course), partake of the holy spirit, and
taste the fine word of God and the powers of the coming system
of things, and still fall away. The reason for this is because
while a person may accept the good news and the free gift that
God gives, and even adjust their pattern of thinking to follow in
the path of Jesus Christ (1Pe 1:21; 1Jo 2:2-6), they might still at
some point reject the truth and "impale the Son of God afresh for
themselves." (Heb 6:6) Thankfully Christians can be grateful to
God for providing His Son as a "propitiatory sacrifice for our
sins" (1Jo 2:2) which allows us to have a close relationship with
God, apart from a Law code, "provided you remain in his
kindness" (Ro 11:22).
Salvation, Gods Kingdom, and YOU!

Gods original purpose and the means by which His
"will takes place." When Jehovah placed the first man in the
Garden of Eden, He gave Adam the prospect of enjoying life
forever in a beautiful, peaceful world. This can be seen from the
words of Genesis 2:15-17: "And Jehovah God proceeded to take
the man and settle him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to
take care of it. And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the
man: From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction.
But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not
eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die."
Yet, in spite of this warning the Bible record shows that Adam
disobeyed the voice of Jehovah and was expelled from Eden, along
with his wife, Eve (Ge 3:1-24).
The result of the first human couples sin can be seen today in
the immorality, crime, violence, and disregard for Bible principles
so rampant in the world around us; a world that is said to be under
the influence of Satan the Devil. (1Jo 5:19; 2Co 4:4) Does this
mean Gods purpose for the earth has failed? The account in
Genesis shows that Jehovah took immediate action for the eventual
fulfillment of His purpose. That action was taken when Jehovah,
speaking to the serpent (Satan), gave this prophecy, as recorded at
Genesis 3:15: "And I shall put enmity between you and the woman
and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head
and you will bruise him in the heel."
The seed of the woman21 is a prophetic reference to Jesus
Christ, who became clearly recognized as the "seed" when he was
baptized in 29 CE.22 Jehovahs Witnesses believe that Jesus, as
King, will bring an end to all those who oppose God. Yet, Jehovah
is "patient" with humankind for "he does not desire any to be
destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." (2Pe 3:9) Those
who repent and exercise faith in Gods Son will live in either a
"new heavens" or in a "new earth" where "righteousness is to
dwell" (2Pe 3:13). But what, exactly, is so "new" about the "new
heavens" and the "new earth"?
"A new heavens and a new earth." There are three Bible
books that refer to a "new heavens" and a "new earth": Isaiah
(65:17, 22), 2 Peter (3:13) and Revelation (21:1). However, not one
of these references identifies the "new heavens" as a literal,
physical heavens, nor is it clear that the "new earth" refers to a new
"planet" earth. Before we consider how these references are
21
For information on the identity of this "woman," compare Revelation 12:1-6; see
also RevelationIts Grand Climax At Hand! (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1988), 177-180.
22
Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2 (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
1988), 889.
Salvation 523
presented in their respective contexts, it is worth noting what other

texts in the Bible have to say about the future of the literal
"heavens" and "earth."
According to the Bible, the literal heavens and earth declare
Jehovahs glory. (Ps 19:1) But there is another use of the term
"heavens" that is often associated with a superior ruling power (Da
4:25, 26), and "earth" is frequently used to denote a society of
people. (Ge 11:1; Ps 96:1) Also, the Bible clearly teaches that the
earth will remain forever (1Ch 16:30; Ps 104:5; Ec 1:4), for
Jehovah "keeps them standing forever." Indeed, "a regulation he
has given, and it will not pass away." (Ps 148:1-7) Clearly, then, we
are not limited to understanding the "new heavens" as a new, literal
starry/planetary, earthly (that is, our own atmosphere) or spiritual
heavens (that is, the place where God resides [2Ch 7:14; Ps 11:4]).
An examination of the three contexts that refer to a "new heavens"
and a "new earth" will reveal the intended meaning.
A new literal heavens and earth were not created in the time of
Isaiah or during the time when the prophecies he recorded were
fulfilled. Still, Jehovah told Isaiah: "For here I am creating new
heavens and a new earth; and the former things will not be called to
mind, neither will they come up into the heart." (Isa 65:17) To
what, then, does the prophecy refer?
In harmony with the meanings given above for "heavens" and
"earth," namely, a governmental arrangement and an earthly society
of people, respectively, there are historical events to which the
expression "new heavens and a new earth" could apply. When the
Jews returned to Jerusalem in the sixth century BCE, after 70 years
of exile in Babylon (this is according to the chronology accepted by
Jehovahs Witnesses), they comprised the "new earth" that God had
promised. Governor Zerubbabel and high priest Joshua were part of
the "new heavens" that directed and supervised the people. (Hag
1:1, 14) This new arrangement put in place by Jehovah brought joy
and happiness to the nation, just as Jehovah had promised: "But
exult, YOU people, and be joyful forever in what I am creating. For
here I am creating Jerusalem a cause for joyfulness and her people
a cause for exultation" (Isa 65:18).
In connection with Jehovahs future purposes, a "new heavens
and a new earth" are again referred to in 2 Peter 3:13. That the
reference here is similar to the one we discussed above, in Isaiah
65, can be seen by Peters reference to the "heavens" and "earth" of

old, which he further describes as "the world of [Noahs day that]
was deluged with water." (2Pe 3:5, 6) He then states in verse 7 that,
"by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored
up for fire and the day of judgment and of the destruction of the
ungodly men." The actual planet earth was not destroyed (though
the surface and watery deeps were likely restructured due to the
increased pressure from the heavenly waters and the breaking
open of the "springs of the vast watery deep [Ge 7:11; 8:2]), and
neither were any of the three physical heavens that existed at that
time destroyed (though one might argue that the releasing of the
waters "above the expanse" [Ge 1:7] involved some sort of change
to the atmospheric conditions of the earth [Ge 7:11]). Rather,
"ungodly men" and their leaders were destroyed, leaving only Noah
and his family to repopulate the earth and guide their offspring after
the flood waters had receded (Ge 9). Since we have yet to
experience this judgement by "fire," no doubt Peters reference to a
"new heavens" and a "new earth" has the same reference as the
third and final use this expression in the Bible.
Revelation 21:1 records Johns vision of "a new heavens and a
new earth." The context leading up to this vision, however, is quite
revealing. In Revelation 19 there is rejoicing in heaven over the
destruction of "Babylon the Great," who is spoken of as having
great influence "over many waters" which represent "peoples and
crowds and nations and tongues." (Rev 17:1, 15) Revelation 17:1
also speaks of this "harlots" relationship with "the kings of the
earth." Chapter 18 records the fate of Babylon the Great, and also
tells us that those who supported her, "the kings of the earth" and
the "traveling merchants," will regret her destruction. (Rev 18:9-19)
Then in chapter 19, in addition to the rejoicing previously
mentioned, reference is made, in graphic detail, of the destruction
of "kings," "commanders," "strong men" and others. (Rev 19:17-
21) Then, in chapter 20, Satan himself is seized and bound for "a
thousand years" (Rev 20:1-3).
However, immediately following the removal of all these
leaders/authority figures,23 we are told of those who sit down on
23
Regarding Satan, it should be kept in mind that the Bible refers to him as "the
ruler of this world" (Joh 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), "the ruler of the authority of the air"
(Eph 2:2), "the god of this system" (2Co 4:4), the one under whose power the world
Salvation 525
"thrones" and who are giving "power of judging." We are further

told that these ones "came to life and ruled with the Christ for a
thousand years." (Rev 20:4) Verse 6 speaks of the "witnesses"
coming to life (verse 4) as the "first resurrection," the participants
of which will be "priests of God and of the Christ and will rule as
kings for the thousand years." The rest of Revelation chapter 20
speaks of the Devil being released from his prison at the end of the
"thousand years," and how "the great and the small" would stand
"before the throne" in judgement. (verses 7-12) It is only after the
removal of the "heavens" and the "earth" (note how in Rev 20:11
"the earth and the heavens fled away" from before the one seated
on the throne) that John sees the new heavens and the new earth.
Just prior to this vision, recognition was given to those who
would "rule as kings" with Christ, and, again, those who comprised
the "earth" at that time were "judged out of those things written in
the scrolls according to their deeds." Is there any reason to doubt,
then, that the "new heavens" and the "new earth" of Johns vision
involves a new governmental arrangement and a new earthly
society of people, in which "righteousness is to dwell"? (2Pe 3:13)
Who, though, belong to the "new heavens" and who make up the
"new earth"? Before we consider these questions, let us take a close
look at a city that is referred to as "the Lambs wife" (Rev 21:9).
The location of "New Jerusalem." Bowman argues,
"Since the new Jerusalem will come down out of heaven (v. 2),
it obviously will be on the earth." He then quotes Revelation 21:3
and states, "Note that this is not saying that a select number will
go to heaven to live with God, but that God will come to live
with humanity."24 However, there are several problems with his
observations. First, verse 2 does not say that New Jerusalem will
"come down," but both in verse 2 and verse 10 John says that he
sees the holy city "coming down out of heaven from God."25 The
exists (1Jo 5:19) and the one to whom the authority of "all the kingdoms of the
inhabited earth" has been given (Lu 4:5-6).
24
25
Even if John had used a form of the Greek word katabaino (to come down)
that would show he viewed it as more specific in reference to a completed even that is
not ongoing, this still would not necessarily indicate that the heavenly city actually
descended from heaven and took up territory here on the earth. In Genesis 11:5 the
LXX uses katebe in reference to Gods inspection of the city and the tower that
mankind had built. But there is nothing else in the text or context to indicate that He
precise sense of this "coming down" must be viewed in the light

of what kind of city it is, and the fact that it descends from God,
though God is said to dwell with "mankind."
If God is literally coming to "live with humanity," as
Bowman claims, then how is it that God is in the heavens at the
time when New Jerusalem descends? It seems clear enough that
God is not literally going to live on the earth with humanity, for
not only is He an invisible spirit being (Joh 4:24), but He is in the
heavens, from which New Jerusalem descends. The "coming
down" of New Jerusalem is what signifies Gods presence with
"mankind."26 But since it, too, is a "heavenly" city (Heb 12:22), it
also should be considered a spiritual city, not an earthly one.
Indeed, in verses 18-21 the city is described by a variety of
precious stones and metals, similar to Jehovahs spiritual chariot
(Eze 1:16, 26; 10:9; note the reference to "chrysolite" and
"sapphire") and the Edenic cherub in Ezekiel 28:13 (compare
Daniel 10:6). Revelation 4:3 uses "jasper" and "sardius" to
describe Gods appearance (compare 21:11), and mention is also
made of a "glassy sea like crystal" that is before the throne. This
is similar to the "river of water of life, clear as crystal" flowing
from "the throne of God and of the lamb" in Revelation 22:1,
which is in the New Jerusalem according to Revelation 22:3.
Of course, the fact that "the heavens are Gods throne and
the earth is his footstool" (Isa 66:1) also supports the view that
the location of His throne is not on the earth itself. 27 In view of
the spiritual description of the "heavenly" city, it is easy to see
how its "coming down" from God involves the start of its
relationship with "mankind," but it need not involve its actual
location on the earth itself. In fact, Satan is said to have been
hurled down to the earth, but he, being a spirit, is not a physical
creature located on the earth. In the same way, Revelation 20:1
actually descended in a physical form to see what was happening. The expression
came down appears to be in reference to Gods turning His attention to what was
happening in this particular area of the post-flood world.
26
On the matter of God being "with" mankind, see Appendix A, pages 554-560.
27
Revelation 20:4-6 refers to those who come to life and are seated on thrones to
rule as kings with Christ, which also indicates that they rule from heaven for Christ had
earlier promised that those who conquer would sit with him on his Fathers throne (Rev
3:21), which, again, is in the heavens (Isa 66:1). See below under the subheading,
"Kings, priests and the future of the earth."
Salvation 527
uses the same Greek terminology as 21:2 and 10, regarding the
"coming down out of heaven" in reference to an angel who turns
his attention to Satan and who binds him "for a thousand years."
But, again, both the angel and Satan are spirit beings, and the
angels "coming down out of heaven" does not imply that either
of them are physical creatures who are located somewhere on the
earth. But what about the reference to "mankind" in relation to
New Jerusalems "descent" from heaven?
The "great crowd"Who and where? After John
recorded his vision of the "new heavens" and the "new earth" he
also saw what he called "New Jerusalem" coming down out of
heaven, from God. (Rev 21:2) Then in verse 3 he is told that this
event signifies that the "tent of God is with mankind" ( tw'n
ajnqrwvpwn, ton anthropon). But, to whom does "mankind" refer?
Earlier in the Revelation given to John, specifically in
chapter 7 verses 9-17, reference was made to a "great crowd"
from all nations, tribes, peoples and tongues. (Rev 7:9-10) There
are reasons for believing that this same group is referred to again
in Revelation 21:3-4. Note, for example, Revelation 7:15, where
God spreads His tent over the great crowd, which is very
similar to the protective blessing of Gods tent in Revelation
21:3. Again, here the "great crowd" is referred to as mankind, not
spirits in heaven before Gods throne.
According to both Revelation 7:17 and 21:4 God will "wipe
out every tear from their eyes" by means of New Jerusalem, the
Messianic Kingdom. Since Revelation 7:14 speaks of this "great
crowd" as coming "out of the tribulation," and since the reference
to the "first resurrection" in Revelation 20:5 implies a "second"
resurrection,28 then there will be others (those from the second
resurrection) who live with the "great crowd" under the rule of
New Jerusalem. In Revelation 7:15 Gods tent is taken in
reference to the "great crowd," but in Revelation 21:3-4 the scene
is not merely the blessing of those who come out of the "great
tribulation"; rather, it involves all those who have survived the
"thousand years" of life apart from Satanic influence, as well as
28
This second resurrection is understood by the Witnesses as a reference to the
many faithful, non-anointed servants of God who looked forward to living "forever"
upon the earth (Ps 37:29; compare Acts 24:15).
the final attempt by Satan to mislead humanity. Thus, the

Witnesses wisely view the "mankind" of Revelation 21:3 as
including both the "great crowd" and "all those who are
resurrected" during the Millennial Reign. 29
Some, though, believe that the "great crowd" of Revelation 7 is
actually in heaven, since they are said to be "before the throne of
God" (ejnwvpion tou' qrovnou tou' qeou', enopion tou thronou tou
theou). But enopion does not always mean one has to be in the
literal presence of another, particularly when used in reference to
God. Thus, Paul told Timothy, "In the presence [enopion] of God
and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep
these rules without favor, doing nothing from partiality" (1Ti
5:21, RSV).
Was Paul literally in the presence of God, Christ, and the
angels when he wrote these words to Timothy? No, but he was
observable by them, even though he was on earth. Thus, Psalm
11:4 tells us: "Jehovah is in his holy temple. Jehovahin the
heavens is his throne. His own eyes, his own beaming eyes
examine the sons of men" (compare 2Ch 7:14; Ps 14:2; 113:5-6;
Mt 23:22). In 1 Timothy 6:13, Galatians 1:20, and 2 Corinthians
4:2 enopion is again used to describe what is done on the earth,
but in the sight of God.30
Bowman believes that the "great crowd" in Revelation 7:9 is
the same as the "great crowd" in Revelation 19:1. He gives the
following four reasons for his view: 1) "these are the only places
in Revelation where the expression the great crowd is used"; 2)
"both crowds shout in a loud voice"; 3) "both begin their cry in
the same way"; and 4) "the elders and the four living creatures"
react the same way, using the same opening word, "Amen." 31 But
these observations are really overplayed:
1) "The only places in Revelation where the expression the

great crowd is used." Bowman begins the first point under
his "b" section, from which the above four points are taken,
with a reference to Revelation 7:9-17 and 19:1. But in his
29
RevelationIts Grand Climax At Hand, 303.
30
This use of enopion can also be found in the LXX of Ex 22:8, 9; 23:15, 17, and
others.
31
Bowman, Jehovahs Witnesses, 56-57.
Salvation 529
argument that both describe a great crowd he throws in

Revelation 19:6, and then we are told that "these are the only
places in Revelation where the expression the great crowd
is used." Apparently, then, Bowman means to say that these
are the only two chapters that use the expression. But why
did he not say this to begin with? It seems clear to me that
this was the easiest way to slip his point by without having
to address Revelation 19:6, which does not appear to be the
"great crowd" of 19:1, and this means that we have at least
one other "great crowd" even if the one in 7:9 and 19:1 is the
same. This would, of course, undermine Bowmans very
argument. Indeed, it does. There is no parallel between the
great crowd in 19:6 and the great crowd of 7:9 and 19:1 in
terms of the "loud voice" (Bowmans point #2; see below);
the great crowd in 19:6 does not "begin their cry in the same
way" as the other two (Bowmans point #3; see below), nor
do the elders and the four living creatures react the same way
(Bowmans point #4; see below); in fact, they do not react at
all after the great crowd of 19:6 finishes speaking. John
appears to be presenting a series of different groups praising
"Jah" for His judgement on "Babylon the Great," which
seems to indicate that the great crowd of 19:1 is not the same
"great crowd" of 19:6.
2) "Both crowds shout in a loud voice." Is this a legitimate

indication that the "great crowd" in Revelation 7 is the same
as the one in Revelation 19:1? We think not, for the
following reasons: In Revelation 7:10 a form of the Greek
verb kravzw (krazo, "cry aloud") characterizes the manner in
which the "great crowd" speaks. This verb is not used in
Revelation 19:1. Additionally, the adjective "loud" (a form
of megas ["great"], in Greek) modifies "voice" (fwnhv, phone)
20 times in the book of Revelation. After examining these
uses it is clear that no one individual or group is seen as
unique in having his/their voice so described. If we set aside
the two uses in Revelation 7:10 and 19:1, we can see that
megas modifies phone for Jesus (1:10), a single angel (5:2;
7:2; 10:3; 14:7, 9, 15, 18; 19:17), angels, the four living
creatures and the twenty-four elders (5:12), the slaughtered
souls under the altar (6:10), an "eagle" (8:13), an
unidentified being in heaven (11:12; 12:10; 16:1, 17; 21:3)
and a group of unidentified beings in heaven (11:15). If
Revelation 7:10 and 19:1 were the only two places where
this expression is used, then Bowmans argument might be
somewhat useful for purposes of identifying the crowds
spoken of in each verse. But they are not, so his point is
irrelevant and his observation does not take into
consideration the different uses of this expression.
3) "Both begin their cry in the same way." The fact is, while
there are similarities between what is said there are also
substantial differences that Bowman does not mention.
(Note: only in 7:10 is there a "cry," though Bowman uses
"cry" for both texts, which implies that the same verbs are
used, when only one text uses a form of krazo [see above
under point 2]. While both texts may contain a "cry" of sorts,
that is, both were no doubt spoken with zeal, only one of the
texts actually uses a form of krazo, and Bowman does not
share this fact with his readers.) Consider the following
comparison of the Greek text, followed by the English
translation (NASB):
7:10
JH swthriva tw'/ qew'/ hJmw'n tw'/ kaqhmevnw/ ejpiV tw'/ qrovnw/ kaiV tw'/ ajrnivw/
"Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."
19:1
JAllhloui>av hJ swthriva kaiV hJ dovxa kaiV hJ duvnami" tou' qeou' hJmw'n
"Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God."
The only real similarity between what is said is the reference

to "salvation." The differences include the fact that in 7:10
the words are spoken to "God who sits on the throne, and to
the Lamb," but in 19:10 God alone is addressed. Also, the
words do not begin the same way, for the crowd in 19:1
begins with the words "Praise Jah!" (Greek: hallelouia) and
the crowd in 7:10 does not. Still another difference lies in
the fact that "glory" and "power" are part of the expression in
19:1, but not in 7:10. Finally, there is a difference in the
grammatical case used for "God" that may also indicate a
different nuance, which the NASB attempts to communicate
by using "belong to" in 19:1 (where the genitive is used), but
not in 7:10 (where the dative case is used). The genitive for
"God" is also used in 5:10, which is more similar to 19:1 in
terms of the things attributed to God (5:10 uses "salvation,"
Salvation 531
"power" and "kingdom"). But 5:10 is more similar to 7:10 in

that what is said is said to both God and the Lamb/Christ.
Obviously, the similarities between these verses do not of
themselves tell us whether or not the person(s) speaking are
the same.
4) "The elders and the four living creatures" react the same
way, using the same opening word, "Amen." Regarding the
reaction of the twenty-four elders and the four living
creatures, it should be noted that in Revelation 7:9 the "great
crowd" is spoken of as being taken from all the nations,
tribes, peoples and tongues of the earth, and are before
(Greek: enopion; see discussion above on page 528) the
throne. After this great crowd cries out to God in verse 10,
verse 11 refers to the "angels standing around [Greek: kyklo,
used as an adverb meaning that they stood in a circle or
round about the throne] the throne and the elders and the
four living creatures." So, clearly, the great crowd of
Revelation 7 does not consist of the angels, the twenty-four
elders or the four living creatures. But after the great crowd
of 19:1-3 finishes speaking, it is only the twenty-four elders
and the four living creatures that fall down and worship God;
the angels are not mentioned! What this means is the angels,
who in Revelation 5:12 (along with the four living creatures
and the twenty-four elders) are referred to as "myriads of
myraids and thousands of thousands" (compare Heb 12:22),
could very well be the ones praising Jah for His judgements
against Babylon the Great in Revelation 19:1-3 (see Rev
16:5-6; compare 16:7)and who could doubt that these
constitute a "great crowd"?32 Also, the action of falling down
and worshiping God after praise and thanksgiving are
offered to Him is not something that is only done right after
the great crowds of Revelation 7:10 and 19:1-3 finish
speaking, but is something the twenty-four elders do
"whenever the living creatures offer glory and honor and
thanksgiving to the one seated on the throne." (Rev 4:9-11;
compare 11:15-17) As for the use of "Amen" in the opening
32
In the Witnesses publication RevelationIts Grand Climax! the "great crowd"
of 19:1 is referred to as a "heavenly chorus" (page 272) and in Reasoning from the
Scriptures (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989), 168, both the "great
crowd" of 19:1 and 19:6 are referred to as "angels." But the Witnesses do not present a
dogmatic view of the "great crowd" in Revelation 19:6.
words of 7:12 and 19:1, Bowman is only telling half the

story. What he does not mention is that only in 7:12 does
"Amen" begin and end the worshipful address to God. If the
use of "Amen" at the beginning of each statement to God is
seen as significant by Bowman, then why not the difference
in the use of the same word at the end of each expression of
thanksgiving? "Amen" is also used as the opening (and the
only!) word of the four living creatures in 5:14, in the
context of which praise is given to God and the Lamb, which
is similar to 7:10.
When one can identify parallels that are really capable of

being applied to but one group or individual, then such parallels
become significant for serious study and reflection. For example,
when reference is made to Gods "tent" being with those taken
out from the earthly nations, tribes, peoples and tongues of
Revelation 7, and then reference is again made to this "tent"
being with "mankind" in Revelation 21:3, which is accompanied
by the wiping away of "every tear from their eyes" (7:17; 21:4),
then the significance of the parallels becomes clear. (Unless one
is going to suggest that there are two groups over whom God
spreads his tent!) Even Bowman recognizes the legitimacy of this
connection.33
After reviewing Bowmans basis for identifying the great
crowd of Revelation 7 with the great crowd of Revelation 19:1-3,
6, it is clear that such a connection is highly unlikely, and that
Bowmans "parallels" really only serve to underscore the
weakness (desperation?) of his position. His failure to adequately
treat the parallels and differences does not recommend his work
for serious study and reflection on the key issues.
Hebrews 11 and the "promises" to "men of old."
Jehovahs Witnesses believe, as will be discussed below, that
there are indeed many, specifically 144,000, who have been
anointed by Gods holy spirit to rule with His Son in the heavens
over an earth filled with righteous people. Through this
government (compare Isa 9:6, 7) Gods original purpose for the
will be realized (see Genesis 1-3). Additionally, the Witnesses
believe the Bible teaches that those who will live and rule in the
33
Bowman, Jehovahs Witnesses, 52, C.1.a.(3).
Salvation 533
heavens with Jesus Christ have been chosen from among

humankind since the festival of Pentecost, 33 CE, at which time
holy spirit was poured out on the Christian Congregation (Acts
2:1-4).
What this means, then, is that all those who died faithful to
God prior to this outpouring of holy spirit in 33 CE will be
resurrected to the "new earth," not as co-rulers with Christ in the
"new heavens." (2Pe 3:13)34 But some point to Hebrews 11 as
proof that faithful men and women of old, such as Abraham,
Sarah, Moses, Noah, Enoch and others, were indeed looking
forward to a heavenly reward, not an earthly one. Specifically,
some have pointed to Hebrews 11:13-16 in support of this view.
However, the explanation we find in official Witness literature is
quite convincing.
In several issues of The Watchtower magazine Jehovahs
Witnesses have explained Hebrews 11:13-16 as having
application solely to those faithful men and women spoken of in
Hebrews 11. But how do they explain the reference to their
"reaching out for a better place, that is, one belonging to
heaven"? Quite reasonably, they acknowledge that the "city
having real foundations" (verse 10) would exist not only in
relation to the "city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb
12:22), but also in relation to the domain over which this city is
said to rule, namely, a "new earth" (Rev 21:1-4).35
Since it can be shown by a consideration of the Hebrew and
Christian Greek Scriptures that the earth is very much a part of
Gods purposes for mankind (see below), it would not be out of
place by any means to use the faith that the "great cloud of
witnesses" had (in Gods purpose for the earth) in an attempt to
34
See above, pages 522-525, for a discussion of the "new heavens" and the "new
earth." For additional information on the time from which prospective members of the
one hundred and forty-four thousand have been selected, see "Pentecost," Insight on the
Scriptures, vol. 2 (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988), 599; and
"Covenant," vol. 1, 524-525.
35
See "Respond to Gods Promises by Exercising Faith," The Watchtower, 15
July 1993, 16; "So Great a Cloud of Witnesses!" The Watchtower, 1 January 1987, 13;
"To Preserve Your Souls Alive, Have Faith," The Watchtower, 15 December 1962,
754. Notice how the understanding of Matthew 8:11 is tied in with the Witnesses view
of Hebrews 11 in "Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 15 March 1962, 191-
192. In particular, note the last sentence of paragraph three and the first sentence in
paragraph four on page 191.
help the Christian Congregation appreciate the need to "put off

every weight and . . . run with endurance the race that is set
before us." (Heb 12:1) Whether these faithful men and women
would be rulers with Paul and the other anointed Christians is not
stated (compare Rom 5:17; 2Ti 2:12). But even if we accepted
the view that God chose to set the faithful men and women of
pre-Christian times alongside Christ in his heavenly kingdom
(compare Rev 3:21), this would not do away with the scriptural
teaching that righteous persons will live forever upon the earth.
(Ps 37:29) It would simply mean that God chose certain men and
woman of outstanding faith in ancient times to rule with His Son
in the heavens.
However, the Witnesses do not teach that the faithful men
and women listed in Hebrews 11 will rule with Christ in his
heavenly kingdom; rather, they draw a distinction between the
hope of those so listed, and those who "from the days of John the
Baptist" are "pressing forward" toward the "kingdom of the
heavens." (Mt 11:12) Indeed, Jesus words here do seem to imply
a definite distinction between those spoken of in Matthew 11:12,
and those who preceded them, including those listed in Hebrews
11.
Gods spirit and Gods sons . In Romans 8 the apostle Paul
refers to the fact that Christians have been set free "from the law
of sin and death" by Christ Jesus, whom God sent to condemn
sin in the flesh so that "the Law might be fulfilled in us who
walk, not in accord with the flesh, but in accord with the spirit."
(Rom 8:1-4) Regarding those who walk in accord with the
spirit, Paul says in verses 14 through 17:
For all who are led by Gods spirit, these are Gods sons. For
you did not receive a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but
you received a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we
cry out: "Abba, Father!" The spirit itself bears witness with our
spirit that we are Gods children. If, then, we are children, we
are also heirs: heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ,
provided we suffer together that we may also be glorified
together.
Salvation 535
In the very first line of the above quote, verse 14, it is said
that all who are led by the spirit of God are Gods sons. Then in
verses 15-17 it is said that the type of sonship under discussion is
that which results from "adoption as sons," with the spirit bearing
witness that they are indeed Gods sons and joint heirs with
Christ. Jehovahs Witnesses take these statements in reference to
the one hundred and forty-four thousand mentioned in the book
of Revelation, which we will further discuss below. The "great
crowd" that we have already partially discussed is said to be
among those having an earthly hope, a hope that will be realized
by means of the heavenly kingdom. But how, then, is it that Paul
says all who are led by Gods spirit are Gods sons in the sense
of being adopted children, "joint heirs with Christ"?
Again, the Witnesses offer a reasonable reply that takes into
account the whole of Scripture, and the context in which the
above verses were written: "At the time this was written it was
true that all who were led by Gods spirit were Gods sons whose
hope was that they would be glorified with Christ." 36 This makes
sense if we understand that the "great crowd" of Revelation 7
refers to a future (that is, from the time of Paul) group of persons
who are led by Gods spirit to proclaim His name and kingdom,
and who are to live on earth under the rule of "New Jerusalem"
(Rev 21:1-4), not as joint heirs with Christ in the "heavenly city."
Additionally, the context of Romans 8 refers to the "eager
expectation of the creation," its waiting for the "revealing of the
sons of God." This implies a distinction between the creation and
the sons of God. If the "creation" that is said to be "groaning
together" and waiting to be "set free from enslavement to
corruption" involves humans other than the sons of God, then we
have another instance where the term "all" is context-dependent,
having exceptions that are referred to in the context and
elsewhere in the Bible (Rom 8:19-22).
Jehovahs Witnesses are the only organization that has a
group of persons who have consistently claimed to have the spirit
that cries out "Abba, Father!" as well as a group of Christians
that eagerly awaits the revealing of the sons of God. It is
interesting to note that the Witnesses point to the year 1935 as a
36
Reasoning from the Scriptures, 165.
time when the distinction between these two groups became

increasingly manifest. In view of this date, it is also commonly
believed among the Witnesses that only those of a somewhat
advanced age are likely to confess that they are of the anointed,
one of the "sons of God." But there is nothing in the Bible to
suggest that age has anything to do with how God selects
members of the "heavenly calling." (Heb 3:1; compare Job 32:7-
10; Ps 119:99-100) Rather, it depends entirely on "the One who
calls" (Rom 9:11).
Kings, priests and the future of the earth. In the Bible
book of Daniel, an interpretation of a dream by Babylonian king
Nebuchadnezzar tells of the transfer of power from one kingdom
to another, until finally God Himself sets up "a kingdom that will
never be brought to ruin." (Da 2:36-44) Daniel later speaks about
"someone like a son of man" receiving a kingdom from "the
Ancient of Days." He says:
I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there!

with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man
happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained
access, and they brought him up close even before that One. And
to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that
the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even
him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not
pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to
ruin.Da 7:13-14.
Daniel goes on to record how this "son of man" would not be

the only one ruling in this kingdom, but that he would have
associate kings who will rule with him: "And the kingdom and the
rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens
were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One.
Their kingdom is an indefinitely lasting kingdom, and all the
rulerships will serve and obey even them."37 (Da 7:27, emphasis
37
Some translations read, "His kingdom [will be] an everlasting kingdom, and all
the dominions will serve and obey Him." (NASB) The NIV reads similarly. The RSV
and the NEB, among others, agree with NWT. The use of the third-person singular
pronoun ("His," "Him") versus the plural ("their," "them") is due to the ambiguity of
the antecedent for malkhuteh ("his/its kingdom"). It can refer to the "people" or the
"Supreme One." NWT and other translations take &am ("people") as the antecedent,
Salvation 537
added) When Jesus was on earth he told some of these "holy ones":
"In the house of my Father there are many abodes. Otherwise, I
would have told YOU, because I am going my way to prepare a
place for YOU. Also, if I go my way and prepare a place for YOU, I
am coming again and will receive YOU home to myself, that where
I am YOU also may be." To those who are "partakers of the
heavenly calling" Jesus made the promise that they would "sit on
thrones" alongside him in his kingdom. (Lu 22:28-30; Heb 3:1) The
apostle Paul had this hope in mind when he told Timothy, "If we go
on enduring, we shall also rule together as kings" (2Ti 2:12,
emphasis added; compare 1Co 4:8).
In Revelation 2:26-29 the glorified Jesus says to his followers
in Thyatira: "And to him that conquers and observes my deeds
down to the end I will give authority over the nations, and he shall
shepherd the people with an iron rod so that they will be broken to
pieces like clay vessels, the same as I have received from my
Father, and I will give him the morning star. Let the one who has an
ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations." For those who
are faithful to Jesus "down to the end," Jesus holds out the glorious
hope of being co-shepherds with him in heaven, restoring peace
and happiness to mankind on earth. This is possible only because of
Jesus shed blood (Rev 1:5-6).
In recognition of this, the inhabitants of heaven sing a song of
praise and thanksgiving to the Lamb (Jesus Christ): "You are
worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, because you were
slaughtered and with your blood you bought persons for God out of
every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and you have made
them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as
which is singular and masculine and which is the central constituent of the construct
chain "the people of holy (ones) of the most high." Because a people consists of
individuals, a reference in English may either use "they" or "it" (compare the NWT
Reference Bible [1984] footnote to Da 7:27). There seems to be a parallel between
Daniel 7:14 and 7:27. In 7:14 the one to whom the kingdom is given is also the one
whom the people serve. In the first part of 7:27 the "people" (= "holy ones") are given
the kingdom and the "rulerships" serve them. See, T. J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel
and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison (JSOTSup 198; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1995), 212-213 for more on the parallel between 7:14 and 7:27, and
pages 232-233 for more on the ambiguity of the antecedent in verse 27. Meadowcroft
believes it is "more likely that the third person singular in vs. 27 refers to the people of
the saints."
kings over the earth." (Rev 5:9-10) Bowman, though, objects to the
translation "over the earth." He claims:
The NWT rendering "over the earth" has almost no scholarly

support and is certainly wrong. The word epi on occasion can
mean "over" (e.g., Rev. 9:11; 11:6), but it never means "over"
when used with a place-noun such as "the earth." The phrase epi
ths ghs, "on the earth," appears 63 times in the New Testament,
yet Revelation 5:10 is the only place anyone has ever suggested
that it be translated "over the earth." In the immediate context,
the phrase epi ths ghs appears two other times (vv. 3, 13), where
it must be translated "on the earth."38
Bowman makes several mistakes in the above paragraph, and

his analysis leaves out significant information that overturns his
assertion regarding the NWT translation. First, Bowman claims that
the expression epi tes ges "appears 63 times in the New
Testament." However, it actually occurs 57 times in the NT, not 63
times. Second, Bowman claims that epi "never means over when
used with a place-noun such as the earth." But this is an instance
where Bowman uses his own view as if it were factual. Indeed,
there is nothing against taking epi tes ges in Acts 10:11 as meaning
"over the earth," which we find in at least one modern translation of
the NT (The Unvarnished New Testament, Andy Gaus).
Also, Bowman does not seem to realize that the particular verb
associated with epi tes ges in Revelation 5:10 is what makes the
translation "over" most appropriate. In fact, Revelation 5:10 is the
only place in the NT where epi tes ges is used with the verb
basileuo ("to rule"). But the four other times where basileuo is used
with epi (Lu 1:33; 19:14, 27; Ro 5:14) the translation "over" is most
appropriate, while "on" would not fit the sense of the passages at
all. Again, the verb that is used with epi is significant, and Bowman
does not consider this in his analysis.39
38
Bowman, Jehovahs Witnesses, 56, D.1.a.(2).
39
Even from a strictly lexical perspective, that is, without regard for the verb
with which it is associated, several lexicons recognize "over" as a proper semantic for
epi. BAGD, 286, "over of power, authority, control of or over someone or someth[ing] .
. . Rv 5:10"; Grimm-Thayer, 231, "used of things, affairs, persons, which one is set
over which he exercises power . . . Rev. v. 10."
Salvation 539
While epi can be used of that which rests on top of

something, it is used with the genitive tes ges ("the earth") in
Revelation 5:10 in a metaphorical sense, as in those instances
listed above which use basileuo with epi. It is used in a similar
sense elsewhere, with different, but somewhat similar verbs. For
example, ejpiV th'" qerapeiva" aujtou' (epi tes therapeias autou,
"over his body of attendants" [Luke 12:42]). Will the "faithful
slave" really be appointed to stand upon the masters servants?
Or is it not rather that the slave will be given authority over
them?
Also, consider Revelation 9:11, to which Bowman himself
refers, e[cousin ejp aujtw'n basileva (ekhousin epi auton basilea,
"they have over them a king"). Is this "king" literally standing
upon the locusts? Or is it not clear that as their king he has
authority over them? (See also Acts 8:27.) It is similar with
Revelation 5:10: Jesus and the anointed will rule over the earth in
that they, as kings, will have authority over it and its inhabitants.
Thus, C. B. Williams translates, "and they will rule over the
earth."40 Revelation 14:1-5 shows Jesus together with these king-
priests:
And I saw, and, look! the Lamb standing upon the Mount Zion,
and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name
and the name of his Father written on their foreheads. And I
heard a sound out of heaven as the sound of many waters and as
the sound of loud thunder; and the sound that I heard was as of
singers who accompany themselves on the harp playing on their
harps. And they are singing as if a new song before the throne
and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one
was able to master that song but the hundred and forty-four
thousand, who have been bought from the earth. These are the
ones that did not defile themselves with women; in fact, they are
virgins. These are the ones that keep following the Lamb no
matter where he goes. These were bought from among mankind
as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb, and no falsehood was
found in their mouths; they are without blemish.
40
See "Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 15 June 1960, 383-384;
"Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 1 December 1974, 735-736.
Those standing with Jesus on heavenly mount Zion (compare

Heb 12:22) are of a limited number, one hundred and forty-four
thousand. This is in harmony with Revelation 6:11 which speaks of
Gods anointed slaves as a group whose number will be "filled." In
Revelation 7:4 we are again told that this "number" is "a hundred
and forty-four thousand." These people are "sealed" with Gods
holy spirit "as a token of what is to come" (2Co 1:22; Eph 1:13;
4:30; Rev 7:3-4).
Revelation 14:4 tells us that this chosen group has been
"bought from among mankind as firstfruits to God and to the
Lamb." Similarly, the disciple James, speaking to the "twelve
tribes that are scattered about," says that God willed for them to
be brought forth as "certain firstfruits of his creatures." (Jas 1:1,
18) These people are "without blemish." They are "virgins" in a
spiritual sense because they do not compromise their stand of
being "no part of the world," and thus they remain friends of
God. (Joh 17:14; Jas 4:4) By remaining free from the
contaminating doctrines of the false religious "harlot" referred to
in Revelation 17, the one hundred and forty-four thousand can be
presented as "a chaste virgin to Christ." (2Co 11:2) Obviously,
Paul was not referring to literal virginity, for many of those to
whom he wrote were husbands and wives. (1Co 7:10) These
"firstfruits" center their lives on the theme of Jesus preaching:
the Kingdom of God. (Lu 4:43; 8:1; Ac 28:31) But what purpose
does this Kingdom serve? How will it benefit all mankind?
When wickedness is gone forever. When Jesus was on
earth he taught his followers how to pray. In fact, he left them a
model prayer that indicated to them, and to all of his future
disciples, some of the more important things that should be
mentioned in prayer to his Father. This model prayer is well known
and is recorded in Matthew 6:9-13. There Jesus said: "YOU must
pray, then, this way: Our Father in the heavens, let your name be
sanctified. Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in
heaven, also upon earth. Give us today our bread for this day; and
forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do
not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the wicked one."
The first thing Jesus mentions is the sanctification of his Fathers
name, Jehovah. Second, that Gods Kingdom would come so that
Jehovahs will takes place, as in heaven, "also upon the earth."
Salvation 541
What exactly did Jesus mean when he spoke of Gods will for the
earth? What was Gods original purpose for the earth?
In the book of Genesis we are told that God originally intended
for humans to be satisfied and happy. (Ge 2:9, 15-16) Jehovah
wanted Adam, his wife, and their children, to live forever and be
"fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it." (Ge
1:28) The only possibility of death was if Adam disobeyed Jehovah
(Ge 2:17), and there is no indication in the Bible that Jehovah
created humans expecting or desiring them to disobey Him! That is
why God was so displeased with Adam, and his wife Eve, when
they chose for themselves what was good and bad. (Ge 3:16-24)
Instead of listening to the voice of Jehovah, they became
independent of Him; this course of independence brought sin and
death upon themselves and all their offspring (Ro 5:12).
But Gods purpose has not changed! (Mal 3:6) Because of the
ransom sacrifice of the "last Adam," Jesus Christ, the Kingdom that
millions have been praying for will soon bring about Gods will for
the earth. (1Co 15:45; Mt 6:10) The seed of the woman will
"bruise [Satan] in the head," thus putting an end to the Devils
wicked and corrupt influence over the earth. Before his destruction,
at the end of the "thousand years" (Rev 20:7-10), Satan will be
abyssed and unable to disrupt the Millennial Reign of the "Prince of
peace." (Isa 9:6) Revelation 20:1-3 describes his incarceration this
way:
And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of
the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he seized the
dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and
bound him for a thousand years. And he hurled him into the
abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, that he might not
mislead the nations anymore until the thousand years were
ended. After these things he must be let loose for a little while.
With false religion destroyed and Satans influence removed,

faithful humans will be blessed with life in a righteous new world.
In this "new earth" "the wicked will be no more," and the righteous
themselves will possess the earth, and reside forever upon it. (Ps
37:9-11, 29) Revelation 21:1-4, which we discussed earlier in this
chapter, records this vision of things to come:
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven
and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. I
saw also the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of
heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her
husband. With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say:
Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with
them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with
them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death
will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be
anymore. The former things have passed away.
Jehovahs Witnesses believe that some day Christs bride, New

Jerusalem, will, together with her Groom, exercise authority over
the earth in a way that human governments cannot, namely, by
providing true, lasting peace and security to all humankind. (Ps
46:9; 145:16) This kingdom will not be marred by racial prejudice,
religious division, greed, poverty, or corruption. Why? Because the
Lord Jesus Christ will be its King.
Jehovahs Witnesses continue to urge all lovers of truth to
come to an accurate knowledge of Jehovah and to follow the path
of His Son. (Joh 17:3; Mt 16:24; 1Pe 2:21) Doing so will give you
the grand privilege of being a witness for the true God, and the
prospect of enjoying these blessings, which will result from Jesus
rule, as foretold in Isaiah 11:3-9:
And he [the Messiah] will not judge by any mere appearance to

his eyes, nor reprove simply according to the thing heard by his
ears. And with righteousness he must judge the lowly ones, and
with uprightness he must give reproof in behalf of the meek ones
of the earth. And he must strike the earth with the rod of his
mouth; and with the spirit of his lips he will put the wicked one
to death. And righteousness must prove to be the belt of his hips,
and faithfulness the belt of his loins. And the wolf will actually
reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the
leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young
lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy
will be leader over them. And the cow and the bear themselves
will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the
lion will eat straw just like the bull. And the sucking child will
certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light
aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put
Salvation 543
his own hand. They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all
my holy mountain; because the earth will certainly be filled with
the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very
sea.
Conclusion
The Bible does not teach that a person can earn his/her
salvation, and neither do Jehovahs Witnesses. The Witnesses do
stress the importance of works and how they must accompany a
persons faith, but Witnesses are not taught that they can ever reach
a point where God owes them anything. Salvation is a free gift, and
it is given to those who "obey" God and Christ (Ro 2:8; Heb 5:9).
The Protestant view of "faith alone" is not a biblical concept,
unless one is using the term "faith" to mean active faith that is
accompanied by works, which is how Paul frequently uses the
term. (Ro 1:16; 2:6-11; 10:9-10) James makes it clear that faith
without works "cannot save" a person, and also that a person is
indeed declared righteous "by works, and not by faith alone" (Jas
2:14, 24).
While those who put faith in God and Christ by trusting and
obeying them are saved, they can lose their salvation by rejecting
Gods free gift. (Heb 6:4-6) Only those who "conquer" will keep
from having their name blotted out from the book of life (Rev
3:5).
Gods original purpose for the earth was for mankind to live
forever, to fill the earth and subdue it. (Ge 1:22) That purpose has
not changed. (Ps 37:29) There are a "new heavens" and a "new
earth" that will bring glory and honor to God, and joy and rich
blessings to His worshipers. (Rev 21:1-4) The "new heavens" refers
to a governmental arrangement, the "kingdom of God," which will
govern those who comprise the "new earth." (Rev 5:9, 10; 20:1-4)
The Lord Jesus Christ will be the preeminent King of this kingdom,
and he will rule and judge with righteousness, bringing peace to the
earth and glory to his God and Father (Isa 11:3-9; 1Co 15:24-28).
Appendix A
"Truly I tell to you today, . . . "?
The Punctuation of Luke 23:43
Objections by a Greek scholar. In a letter dated July 11,

1974, Dr. Julius R. Mantey, co-author of the well-known Manual
Grammar of the Greek New Testament, wrote a letter to the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTB&TS) wherein he
expressed several disagreements with the Societys views and the
New World Translation (NWT). In his letter Mantey criticizes
NWTs rendering of John 1:1, but he misuses both Colwells and
Harners JBL articles (see Chapter 6) in the process. He refers to
other issues involving the NWT, such as its translation of John
8:58, which contains an idiom (see Chapter 5, pages 266-273)
that Mantey did not discern even though his Greek professor,
Charles B. Williams, in his translation of the New Testament, had
no trouble with it.
Mantey also took issue with NWTs placement of the comma
after the word "today" in Luke 23:43. He wrote: "Why the
attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by
placing a comma after today in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek,
Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in
the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say)?" The
implications of where we place the comma in this verse relate to
whether the criminal who put faith in Jesus, while dying
alongside of him, went to "paradise" that day or whether Jesus
meant to emphasize the promise made to him, regarding a future
paradise. Of course, Manteys letter has been (ab)used by those
who disagree with Jehovahs Witnesses, even though there are
considerable errors throughout Manteys letter, particularly as it
relates to statements concerning Luke 23:43.
Response by a Jehovahs Witness. In a letter dated
December 28, 1978 Nelson Herle, Jr., one of Jehovahs
Witnesses, sent Dr. Mantey a letter in response to Manteys
assertions regarding the NWT and Luke 23:43. Herle rightly
reminded Mantey of the fact that the Kingdom Interlinear
Translation (KIT) published by Jehovahs Witnesses is, on the

left-hand side of the KIT, a reproduction of the Greek text of
Westcott and Hort. The Witnesses are therefore obligated to
reproduce the comma as it is used in the Westcott and Hort Greek
text, in the interlinear portion of the KIT. Herle also pointed out
that there are several English translations that use a comma after
"today" in Luke 23:43, including the translation by J. B.
Rotherham,1 at least one German translation (Reinhardt). Herle
also pointed out that the Latin vulgate does not use a comma at
all in this verse.
In a hand-written response to Herle, dated January 24, 1979,
Mantey claimed, "When I stated the comma in KIT (Luke 23:43)
was not after today in any translation of the NT that I had read."
(The grammar of this sentence is that used by Mantey, in his
letter to Nelson Herle.) Since Manteys letter to the WTB&TS
does not in any way limit his statement to "translations that
[Mantey] had read," but refers to "all English translations," then
either Mantey did not carefully check his facts or someone else
typed his July 11, 1974 letter for him, and altered what he
actually said. Unfortunately, as noted earlier, Manteys letter is
still used by many "counter-cult ministries" who apparently do
not care to verify the statements in Manteys letter, even to this
day.2
Punctuation in early Greek manuscripts. Mantey was
also wrong about Greek manuscripts. While punctuation in NT
manuscripts of the first few centuries CE is not common, 3 one of
1
Actually, Rotherhams edition of 1895 uses a comma after "I say" and after
"today": "Verily, to thee I say, this day, with me shalt thou be in the paradise." He has a
lengthy footnote to this verse where he says that it is up to the reader to decide where to
place the comma, and he then proceeds to give reasons for both views. However, in the
reprint edition of 1974, published by Kregel, there is no such footnote, and the
translation admits of only one understanding, "Verily I say unto thee this day: With me
shalt thou be in Paradise."
2
The booklet that has probably succeeded in presenting a copy of this letter to the
most people is called The Fast Facts on Jehovahs Witnesses, by John Ankerberg and
John Weldon (Eugene, Oregon: Ankerberg Theological Seminary, 1988), 47-48. In
spite of its title, this booklet contains frequent distortions of theological and
grammatical issues. See Chapter 5, pages 260-263 and Chapter 9, pages 467-469 for
examples.
3
Robert Bowman, Understanding Jehovahs Witnesses: Why They Read the
Bible the Way They Do (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 98, is in error when he says: "In
ancient Greek there were no punctuation marks; indeed, all words were run together
Appendix A: "Truly I tell you today, . . . "? 547
the best, if not the best witness to the text of the NT, Codex B or
Vaticanus (Vatican 1209) of the fourth century CE, does have a
mark of punctuation in Luke 23:43; the punctuation is not after "I
say" but after the Greek word semeron, "today."
Codex Vaticanus was originally written in brown ink and
worked on by another scribe shortly after its original composition
in the fourth century CE, with a corrector of the tenth or eleventh
century retracing most of the manuscript in black ink. 4 The
question, then, is whether or not the punctuation 5 is from the
original hand or at least from the first corrector of roughly the
same time period, or was it traced over or inserted by the
corrector of the tenth/eleventh century?
In the book Life Does Have a Purpose, published by the
WTB&TS in 1977, there is a photocopy of Luke 23:43 in the
Vatican Codex on page 27, showing the lower point between the
final letter of the Greek word for "today," semeron, and the first
letter of the Greek word for "with," meta (abbreviated as met).
(In the Life book the lower point is on the sixth line down from
the top, between the fifth and sixth words from the left of the
reproduction.) I have verified the existence of this lower point by
viewing the microfilm copy of Vaticanus at the Ancient Biblical
Manuscript Center, in Claremont, California. But in order to
determine the color of the point, we must look elsewhere.
In a letter to the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, in Rome,
Italy, dated February 24, 1995, Rudy Carmona asked for a reply
to several questions regarding the punctuation of Luke 23:43 in
the Vatican Codex. A reply was given by a member of the
Academic Staff of the Vatican Library who is a Patristics Greek
specialist. The Vatican responded to Mr. Carmonas question
regarding the color of the lower point in Luke 23:43 by stating
that while many of the letters had been traced over in black ink,
the lower point separating "today" from "with" is a faded brown
with no spaces between them and using all capital letters." Since we are about to
consider this very issue in relation to Luke 23:43, I will simply refer to BDF, 10, sec.
16, par. 2: "The earliest MSS of the NT, P45, P46 (not P47), P66, S and B, have already
received some punctuation by the first hand."
4
Jack Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974), 127-128, sec. 141.
5
The mark is called a "lower point," known as a hypostigme. It is the equivalent
to a pause, as opposed to a full stop. See BDF, 10, sec. 16, par. 2.
color, dating it to the fourth century CE. Of course, while this

does not prove anything regarding Lukes original text, it
certainly disproves Manteys claim that Greek manuscripts do not
support the NWTs punctuation of Luke 23:43.
The Syriac versions of Luke 23:43. The Curetonian
version of the Syriac translation of Luke (dated to the fifth
century CE), according to the translation by F. C. Burkitt, reads:
"Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the
Garden of Eden." Bowman makes a truly remarkable observation
regarding this text: "Ironically, this is evidence not in favor of the
NWT punctuation but against it. As Bruce Metzger, the famed
Princeton Greek scholar, has explained, the Syriac version
actually changes the order of the words and thereby changes the
meaning."6 Of course, while Metzger is a fine scholar in many
respects and we consider some of his observations in this
publication, they are not always correct. Indeed, this "famed
Princeton Greek scholar" has, through his article in Theology
Today (which was later reproduced as a tract designed to counter
the beliefs of Jehovahs Witnesses [see Chapter 6, pages 329-
330]) misled people for over 50 years concerning the use of an
alleged rule of Greek grammar.
But here Metzger7 merely points out the different word order
in the Curetonian Syriac; he says nothing about changing its
meaning! Bowman simply assumes a certain meaning for the
text based on highly questionable arguments (we will analyze
Bowmans arguments below) and since the Curetonian does not
fit that assumed meaning he automatically concludes that it
"changes the meaning." Apparently it never occurred to Bowman
that certain Syriac manuscripts place "that" before "with" and
others place "that" before "today" because different Syriac scribes
evidently understood the text differently. Those who place "that"
before "with" can be cited in support of those who believe the
comma should follow semeron ("today") and those who place
"that" before "today" can be cited in support of those who believe
the comma should come after lego ("I say").
6
Bowman, Understanding Jehovahs Witnesses, 101-102.
7
corrected ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975), 181-182.
The position of "today" in Luke 23:43. Grammatically,

there is nothing wrong with the NWTs translation of Luke
23:43, nor is there anything wrong with placing the comma after
"I say." (See below, though, on the use of "that" in Greek.) But
Bowman presents the following argument, which may at first
appear to be rather convincing evidence against the NWT
translation of Luke 23:43. In reference to NWTs translation of
"Truly I say to you" in the NT, Bowman states:
Seventy-three of the seventy-four times the expression occurs

in the Bible, the NWT places a break immediately after it;
Luke 23:43 is the only exception. . . . In ten instances the NWT
has the word that immediately after the expression . . . In sixty-
three instances, the NWT inserts a comma immediately after
the expression and capitalizes the following word . . . Unless
there is overwhelming evidence from the context that Luke
23:43 is an exception to the above pattern, it should be
translated according to Jesus normal usage of the expression. 8
Again, the above seems like a convincing argument.

Bowman compares all the different instances of the expression
"Truly I say to you" and finds that in only one instance does the
NWT decide not to place a break after the expression, namely,
Luke 23:43. Before we highlight some significant oversights in
Bowmans analysis, however, it is necessary to correct some
minor points by which those who adhere to Bowmans findings
might be confused.
First, Bowman refers to the Greek expression Amen soi lego
("Truly/Amen, I say to you [singular]") as occurring seventy-four
times, when in fact the singular soi ("to you") is only used eight
times (Mt 5:26; 26:34; Mk 14:30; Lk 23:43; Joh 3:3, 5; 13:38;
21:18), while humin (the plural of "to you") is used in the
remaining sixty-seven instances. Also, there are actually seventy-
five variations of the formula "Truly I say to you" in the NT, not
seventy-four. Bowmans list does not include Matthew 18:19.
But Bowman fails to mention the most obvious and the most
significant difference between Luke 23:43 and the examples he
cites for comparison. Indeed, of the seventy-five examples only
8
Bowman, Understanding Jehovahs Witnesses, 99-100.
in Luke 23:43 does "today" follow "truly I say to you." 9 This is

significant in terms of understanding why the NWT does not
place the comma after the "I say to you" part of the expression in
Luke 23:43. As E. W. Bullinger observes:
The word "verily" points us to the solemnity of the

occasion, and to the importance of what is about to be said.
The solemn circumstance under which the words were uttered
marked the wonderful faith of the dying malefactor; and the
Lord referred to this by connecting the word "to-day" with "I
say." "Verily, I say unto to thee this day." This day, when all
seems lost, and there is no hope; this day, when instead of
reigning I am about to die. This day, I say to thee, "Thou shalt
be with me in paradise.
"I say unto thee this day" was the common Hebrew idiom
for emphasizing the occasion of making a solemn statement
(see Deut. iv. 26, 39, 40; v. 1; vi. 6; vii. 11; viii. 1, 11, 19; ix.
3; x. 13; xi. 2, 8, 13, 26, 27, 28, 32; xiii. 18; xv. 5; xix. 9; xxvi.
3, 16, 18; xxvii. 1, 4, 10; xxviii. 1, 13, 14, 15; xxix. 12; xxx. 2,
8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19; xxxii. 46).10
An "unlikely" expression? When you analyze the above

examples of a "common Hebrew idiom" that emphasize "the
occasion for making a solemn statement," it becomes clear
Bowmans characterization of NWTs placement of the comma
after "today" as "unlikely" is not based on a careful consideration
of the facts. Indeed, of the forty examples listed by Bullinger at
least 33 parallel Luke 23:43 in using a verb of speech or
command with "today."
Another example (one not listed by Bullinger) where
semeron is taken with the verb that precedes it and where it is
used for emphasis, is Genesis 25:33 ("Swear to me today"). Other
9
Mark 14:30 uses "today" in reference to what would be done on that day,
namely, Peters disowning of Jesus before a "cock crows twice," not in reference to
what is being said. The use of hoti in this verse (see discussion below) disconnects
"today" from "truly I say to you."
10
E. W. Bullinger, How To Enjoy the Bible, 5th ed. (London: Eyre &
Spottiswoode, 1921), 48. Bullinger makes similar observations in his A Critical
Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1981), 811, and The Companion Bible (London: Oxford University Press,
[1932?]), Appendix 173.
examples include Genesis 22:14 ("that they might say today"

[hina eiposi semeron]), 41:9 ("I today remember [anamimnesko
semeron] my error"), Deuteronomy 9:6 ("Today you will know"
[gnose semeron]), 29:10 ("Today you all stand [hestekate . . .
semeron] before the Lord11 your God") and 30:6 ("I announce to
you today" [anangello soi semeron]). Still other examples where
semeron is associated with the preceding verb and where "today"
is not really essential to the meaning of the text (that is, apart
from emphasizing the truth and importance of what is said) could
be cited.12
In fact, in each of the examples listed by Bullinger, whether
they involve the use of a speech verb or not, "today" is always
used with the verb preceding it. So when Bowman suggests that
Luke could have recorded Jesus words with "today" preceding
the verb ("today I say to you") if he had "wanted it to be
understood as part of Jesus opening expression," 13 he ignores
the use of this idiom in well-known sections of the Bible where
the LXX regularly places semeron after the verb. In fact, in a
similar use of semeron by Paul, who frequently uses Greek
translations of the OT, we find that semeron again follows the
speech-related verb, "I testify to you this day" (Ac 20:26).
Bowman also suggests that Luke could have used the Greek
term o@ti (hoti, used as a conjunction ["that"] and as a causal
particle ["because"]) after today (for example, "I say to you today
that"), if he had "wanted it to be understood as part of Jesus
opening expression." But the fact is, as we have illustrated,
"today" can quite rightly be taken with "I say to you" without the
use of hoti. However, what Bowman apparently does not realize
is that if Luke had wanted to separate "today" from "I say to
you," so that "today" is associated with being "with him," then all
Luke had to do was to place semeron ("today") after hoti, which
he does not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but
11
See Chapter 1, pages 42-45 for a discussion on the use of the divine name in
the LXX.
12
In the book of Genesis alone, apart from the three verses already cited, there
are at least eight examples where semeron is used for emphasis and follows the verb
with which it is associated (Ge 4:14; 24:12; 25:31; 30:16, 32; 31:43, 46; 41:41).
13
Bowman, Understanding Jehovahs Witnesses, 101.
five times!14 In each case a verb of speech precedes hoti and is

thereby separated from the clause containing semeron. (Lu 2:11;
4:21; 5:26; 19:9; 22:61) In fact, Luke 23:43 is the only instance
apart from Luke 22:3415 where a verb of speech is used with
semeron and where hoti does not separate it from that verb.
Clearly Bowman has not handled the grammatical and
idiomatic aspects of this verse in a scholarly fashion. He writes
concerning the Witnesses attempts to translate and interpret
biblical texts, specifically Luke 23:43: "Jehovahs Witnesses
usually interpret a biblical text deductively based on their
doctrinal system rather than inductively based on the particulars
of the text. . . . Jehovahs Witnesses typically do not consider
whether their interpretation best fits the precise wording of the
text."16
The first of Bowmans observations quoted above (the
second of ten erroneous observations made by Bowman
concerning the Witnesses methods of interpretation in his
chapter on Luke 23:43) is made after referencing the allegedly
parallel expressions using "I say to you," when not one of them
parallels Luke 23:43 in its use of the most significant term,
"today"! His second observation is made after Bowman offers the
two arguments we just considered regarding how Luke might
have worded the clause, had he intended a meaning similar to the
one advocated by the Witnesses.
But here, as we just discussed, Bowman mishandles the data
relating to the use of "today" before and after the verb with which
it is associated. He also does not recognize the significance of the
use of hoti in Lukes Gospel, a usage that actually argues against
his preferred view. Now we will consider several other
observations Bowman makes regarding the Witnesses methods
of interpretation, observations that are misguided and,
unfortunately, rightly apply to him in many respects.
14
This usage is also found in Mark 14:30, where hoti separates semeron from
amen lego soi ("truly I say to you"). See note 9 above.
15
In Luke 22:34 the proper name "Peter" serves a function similar to hoti, in that
it ends the clause with the speech verb (lego soi, "I tell you"), making it impossible to
sensibly take semeron with the same clause.
16
Bowman, Understanding Jehovahs Witnesses, 100, 101.
"With me in paradise." There are twenty-eight

occurrences of the Greek term paravdeiso" (paradeisos,
"paradise") in the canonical portion of the LXX, twenty-one of
which correspond to the Hebrew term /g (gan, "garden"), once
for hng (ganah, "garden"), three times for sdrp (pardes, "park"),
once it is used without a corresponding term in the Hebrew text
(2Ch 33:20) and in one instance it is used for /du (eden, "Eden"),
which is here (in Isa 53:1) used as a parallel to "the garden of
Jehovah." It is likely we have another instance where paradeisos
translates eden in Ezekiel 31:9, in view of the fact that the term
for "trees" is used in relation to Eden in the Hebrew text, not gan,
though in this instance gan is parallel to eden, which is probably
why the LXX only uses paradeisos once.17
The references in these thirty-two texts range from the literal
garden in Eden (Ge 2:8, 9, 10, 15, 16; 3:1, 2, 3, 8 [twice], 10, 23,
24; 13:10; Isa 51:3 [second occurrence]; Eze 28:13; 31:8 [twice],
9), to a literal garden other than Eden (Nu 24:6; 2Ch 33:20; Ne
2:8; Ecc 2:5; Isa 51:3 [first occurrence]; Jer 36:5 [Hebrew:
29:5]), to a figurative garden (Song of Solomon 4:13; Isa 1:30),
to a promised Edenic paradise. (Joel 2:3) The question is, did
Jesus use of "paradise" in Luke 23:43 connect with the evil-
doers concept of "paradise" as found in the OT use of this
expression, or to some other concept?
In the NT paradeisos is used three times: once in our subject
text (Lu 23:43), once in reference to the "third heaven" (2Co
12:4), and once in Revelation 2:7, where "the tree of life" is
mentioned. Regarding 2 Corinthians 12:4, Bowman states: "The
parallel between paradise and the third heaven indicates that
paradise here is a heavenly realm, as nearly all biblical scholars
commenting on the passage have recognized. Indeed, paradise
was said to be in the third heaven in Jewish literature circulating
in the first century."18 What is fascinating about Bowmans view
of "paradise" in 2 Corinthians 12:4 is the way he tries to link it
with the fact that Jesus went to Hades after he died (Acts 2:27,
17
There are seven references to paradeisos in the Apocryphal portion of the
LXX. Three of the references are in the book of Sirach (24:30; 40:17, 27), where it is
used figuratively of a garden (not Eden), and four times the term is used in the book of
Susanna (4, 7, 36, 54), in reference to a literal garden (not Eden).
18
31), not to a "heavenly realm." Also, the fact that Paul may have
been "caught away" to a heavenly realm does not in any way
support Bowmans view of Luke 23:43. "Paradise" certainly
would be a fitting description of the location where God resides,
but as we have seen "paradise" can have a number of meanings,
and there is nothing to link Pauls use of "paradise" in 2
Corinthians 12:4 to Jesus use of "paradise" in Luke 23:43. Paul
may have been "caught away" to heaven in a vision similar to the
way Isaiah was given a vision of the heavenly activities of
Jehovah and His heavenly hosts (Isa 6:1-7).
There is absolutely nothing in the context of 2 Corinthians
12 to indicate that Paul (or the man about whom he speaks) went
to Hades, nor that the "paradise" of which he speaks was at one
time located in Hades.19 Bowman agrees that Jesus went to Hades
but contends that Hades is (or was) a two-compartment abode
where the unrighteous are separated from the righteous, similar to
what we read about in the parable of Luke 16:19-31 (see below).
In view of his understanding of 2 Corinthians 12:4, he is forced
into believing, without any scriptural support, that "Christ in
effect took paradise to heaven with him when he ascended to
heaven"!20
According to Bowman, then, Hades is no longer a two-
compartment abode, but the compartment housing the righteous
is now located in heaven. This concept is so far removed from
anything mentioned in the Bible that the onus falls on Bowman to
support his contention. An appeal to the use of "paradise" in 2
Corinthians 12:4 does nothing to prove that Christ took the
"happy compartment" (see below) of Hades to heaven; it is
simply a reference to "paradise" which is here "the third heaven."
Nothing in this text proves that this "third heaven" was formerly
the abode of the righteous in Hades. Indeed, even the Jewish
19
In the Hebrew Bible, sheol is never equated with or spoken of as containing
"paradise."
20
Ibid., 106, 108. Not only does this view lack biblical support, but it even
contradicts the Jewish ideas expressed in 2 Baruch 4:3-7, which speaks of the paradise
in Eden, after being shown to Adam, Abraham and Moses, now being "preserved with
[God]." In view of other references that will be discussed in this Appendix, it is clear
that the majority of the references to "paradise" in Jewish literature circulating during
and around the first century CE viewed paradise as a heavenly abode, not as a second
compartment in Hades.
literature to which Bowman refers does not support his view. 21

The "third heaven" seems to be equated with "paradise" in the
shorter version of 2 Enoch 8:1, but it is definitely distinct from it
in the longer version.22 The longer version of 2 Enoch 42:3 refers
to "paradise" as a place where "rest is prepared for the righteous,"
but it does not say that this place exists in the third heaven, only
that "it is open as far as the 3rd heaven." Still, it should be
remembered that 2 Enoch 1-20 refers to seven different heavens,
which does not seem to fit with any biblical concept.
Bowman believes that the "apparent discrepancy" about
where Christ went after he died can be cleared up by noting that
in "first-century Judaism, the intermediate paradise was
sometimes thought of as in heaven per se, but at other times
thought of as a happy compartment in Hades." 23 How the
conflicting views of various Jewish works is supposed to clear
matters up on this point is hard to imagine. In 4 Ezra 7:36 "the pit
of torment" and "the furnace of Hell" are contrasted with "the
place of rest" and "the Paradise of delight," respectively, but
nowhere does it say that both abodes exist in Hades. Neither does
4 Ezra 4:7-9 refer to "paradise" as an abode in Hades. Indeed, the
21
He refers to the discussion by Joachim Jeremias, "paravdeiso"," TDNT 5, 765-
773. Bowman cites pages 766-769 of Jeremias article, but nowhere in this discussion
is there evidence for the belief that "paradise" was taken by Christ from Hades to the
heavenly realm, and is identified as the "third heaven" of 2Co 12:4. Also, Jeremias
makes a number of assumptions that simply are not tenable. On page 771 he refers to
Stephens words, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Ac 7:59) as an example of how "the
NT consistently represents fellowship with Christ after death as the distinctly Christian
view of the intermediate state." This same view is given by H. Bietenhard and C.
Brown, "paravdeiso"," NIDNTT 2, 762. However, receiving a persons "spirit" does
not necessarily imply fellowship between the one yielding up his spirit and the one
receiving it. In Luke 23:46 Jesus said, "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit." But
the Father was not in Hades so that Jesus could fellowship with Him upon his death!
The Bible is clear on what is involved in delivering up ones spirit, and it does not
involve conscious existence after death: "If you take away their spirit they expire, and
back to the dust they go" (Ps 104:29); "then the dust returns to the earth just as it
happened to be and the spirit returns to the true God who gave it." Prior to Gods giving
the spirit it did not have a conscious existence. Why, then, should we assume that when
it "returns to the true God who gave it" it has conscious existence?
22
In the longer version (J), after Enoch is taken to the third heaven he says, "I
looked downward and I saw Paradise." Note "b." to this text in OTP1 (pages 114-115)
acknowledges the "mixed" views of paradise in 1 Enoch. Nowhere does "paradise," as
used in 1 or 2 Enoch, appear to have any reference to one of two compartments in
Hades.
23
"exits of hell" in verse 7 seem to parallel the descent into the

"deep" and "hell" in verse 8, while "the entrances of Paradise" in
verse 7 appear to parallel the ascent to "heaven" in verse 8,
showing that "paradise" is here a heavenly region, not a part of
Hades or "hell." However, a future paradise is spoken of in other
works. In the Testament of Levi 18:5 reference is made to a time
when "the earth shall be glad" and 18:10 speaks of "the gates of
paradise" being opened. This is a time when "the sword that has
threatened since Adam" will be removed, which is clearly a
reference to the restoration of the paradise in Eden (compare 2
Baruch 73:1-74:3).
Bowman does not mention any specific texts from Jewish
literature that he believes are in harmony with his view of Hades.
Perhaps he accepts the "invisible desert" in the chest of
Behemoth (1 Enoch 60:8) "wherein the elect and the righteous
ones dwell," as an accurate parallel to Jesus use of "paradise" in
Luke 23:43 or to the "bosom" of Abraham in Luke 16:23? In any
event, Hades is not mentioned at all in 1 Enoch 60:8. Nor is there
any mention of Hades in the following texts: 1 Enoch 32:3;
61:12; 70:3-4; 87:3-4; 89:52; 2 Enoch 8:8 (shorter version); 9:1
(longer version); 4 Ezra 7:123; Apocalypse of Abraham 21:3-7;
Testament of Abraham 20(A):12, 14; Jubilees 4:22-26; 2 Baruch
4:3-7; the Life of Adam and Eve 25:3 (which is clearly a
reference to "paradise" in heaven). Even the parable in Luke
16:19-31 does not specifically say that Lazarus was in "Hades,"
as is the rich man, nor does it use "paradise" to describe his
resting place in Abrahams bosom. 24 Bowman does not even
24
In 1 Enoch 22, which is occasionally cited as a parallel to Luke 16:19-31, there
is no mention of "paradise" as an abode in Hades reserved for the righteous. In fact, it
does not directly mention Hades at all. According to Josephus the Pharisees "believe
that souls have an immortal vigor in them, and that under the earth there will be
rewards and punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this
life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but the former shall have
power to revive and live again" (Antiquities of the Jews, 18.14 [Whiston page 477]).
Thus, it would make sense for Jesus to use a parable that related to the Pharisees
understanding of the afterlife, so that Jesus could make his point about their
hardheadedness in relation to their refusal to accept the word of God. The parable
(prefaced with "and he spoke another parable" in several Greek manuscripts [D (fifth
century CE) D Q (both ninth century CE)] highlights the fact that even if, according to
Pharisees understanding of the afterlife, someone were to rise from the dead and
preach to them, they would not listen.
attempt to work through the references given in the sources he

cites, nor does he consider the different views which they
support, and how these might impact his understanding of
paradise and Hades.
The only document where an ancient Jewish view of Hades
is spoken of in terms paralleling what we read in Luke 16:19-31
is a work entitled "An Extract out of Josephus Discourse to the
Greeks Concerning Hades," found in recent editions of Whistons
English translation of Josephus works. 25 In Whistons Sixth
Dissertation in the Appendix to his English translation,26 he sets
out to defend this "Extract" as an authentic work of the Jewish
historian, claiming that it was written by him while he was
"Bishop of Jerusalem, about the end of Trajan." According to
Whiston, then, Josephus converted to Christianity and wrote this
Extract while serving as a bishop in Jerusalem.
In reading through the Extract it is practically impossible to
miss the many references to the NT. Whiston himself highlights a
number of these, including parallels to Matthew 23:13 and 25:30,
Luke 16:22-23, 1 Corinthians 15:37-38, 2 Corinthians 5:2 and
others. In fact, the author of the Extract even refers to "God the
word; for to him hath the Father committed all judgment; and he
in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as judge,
whom we call Christ" (compare Joh 1:1; 5:22, 27). 27 It is
uncertain whether the author of the Extract is in fact the historian
Josephus.28 But there is no question that the Extract is the result
of a "Christianized" view of Hades, as understood nearly a
century (if not longer) after Jesus gave his famous parable of the
Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Thus, this Extract does
not tell us the view of Jewish groups prior to and during the
ministry of Jesus Christ; rather, it communicates the views of
later Christian interpreters of NT writings.
25
William Whiston, The Works of Josephus, Updated Edition (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1987), 813-814.
26
Ibid., 872.
27
Ibid., 814, the first part of section six.
28
It is attributed to Hippolytus (170-236 CE) in ANF 5, 221-223, under the
name, "Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe." The fragment is also available on
the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae D CD ROM (Los Altos, CA: Packard Humanities
Institute, 1993), under Hippolytus.
The Witness publication Reasoning from the Scriptures

quotes Bietenhard and Brown, who admit: "With the infiltration
of the [Greek] doctrine of the immortality of the soul paradise
becomes the dwelling-place of the righteous during the
intermediate state."29 However, Bowman claims that "in context
this reference work is saying that the idea of an intermediate
paradise for the dead developed in Judaism after the Old
Testament period and was the Jewish view in Jesus day." 30 That
is precisely what the Reasoning Book intended to communicate
by their quotation of NIDNTT! This "development" was due to
"the infiltration of the [Greek] doctrine of the immortality of the
soul." There is nothing out of context in the Reasoning Books
quotation of Bietenhard and Brown. Bowman appears to be
trying to mask the rather embarrassing admission about how the
infiltration of Greek philosophy influenced the concept that he
supports, rather than giving a fair appraisal of the quotation itself.
The fact is, there are a number of concepts related to
"paradise" in non-biblical Jewish literature, but the Bible does not
support most of these. There is no clear articulation of Hades as
having only two compartments, one of which is called "paradise"
(where the righteous are separated from the unrighteous), in
Jewish literature circulating prior to or during Jesus ministry.
The Hebrew Scriptures say nothing about such a concept, and the
only possible account in the NT that might be used to support
such a view is the parable in Luke 16:19-31, which itself does not
use the term "paradise" at all, nor does it say that "Abrahams
bosom" is in Hades. So when Jesus said to the evil-doer on the
stake, "you will be with me in paradise," there is absolutely
nothing wrong with understanding "paradise" in reference to how
the term is used in the OT, and in relation to promises of a future
time when the earth would indeed become a paradise like Eden,
as described in Isaiah 11:1-9.
As for being "with" Jesus, it is possible that Jesus meant that
the evil-doer would be "with" him in the future heavenly paradise
depicted in Revelation 2:7 (compare 2 Baruch 4:3-6). The "tree
29
Reasoning from the Scriptures (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1989), 286. The quote is from NIDNTT 2, 761. Bietenhard makes some
similar comments on pages 207 and 208 of NIDNTT 2.
30
of life" in Revelation 2:7 represents immortality to those who eat

from it. This is a fitting symbol for those who will "put on
immortality" and rule with Christ over the earth (1Co 15:53; Rev
2:26-27; 5:9-10).31 But it is just as possible that Jesus use of
paradise had an earthly concept attached to it, in relation to the
future paradise prepared for the righteous (Ps 37:29; Isa 11:1-13;
Rev 21:1-4).32
Bowman objects to the idea that in Luke 23:43 "with me"
can be taken in a sense other than literally being present with
Jesus. However, he offers no serious argument against the
Witnesses view, other than stating that "in other places" Jesus
use of "with me" is taken literally by the Witnesses. He then
concludes, "there is no good reason not to do so also in Luke
23:43."33 While Bowman strongly criticizes the Witnesses
interpretation of Luke 23:43, claiming that they are "forced to
interpret simple expressions in highly figurative fashion, with no
warrant from the context, to maintain their doctrinal position,"34
it is Bowman who fails to recognize that "with me" is not as
"simple" an expression as he claims. There is, in fact, plenty of
"warrant from the context" to support the Witnesses position.
Bowman is the one who seems "forced" into denying or ignoring
the different uses of various terms and expressions. These bad
habits appear to be doctrinally motivated.
Again, there is indeed good reason for taking "with me" in a
non-literal sense, particularly since there are two ways to interpret
"paradise" from a biblical perspective (that is, as a future
heavenly paradise [Rev 2:7] or as a future earthly paradise [see
above, page 553]). Bowman conveniently ignores (or never
bothered to check) references where "with me" does not involve
being in the literal presence of someone else, but, rather, involves
being spiritually present with a person.
31
Compare RevelationIts Grand Climax At Hand! (Brooklyn: Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society, 1988), 37, par. 14.
32
Indeed, the evil-doers question had to do with Jesus remembering him when
Jesus entered his kingdom. This could suggest that the evil-doer had heard about Jesus
teaching concerning a future kingdom that would restore the earth to a paradise, in
harmony with the OT teaching about Gods purpose for the earth.
33
34
Ibid., 106.
For example, in the OT LXX Psalm 23:4 uses met' emou

("with me") in reference to Gods care and protection. In Isaiah
43:2 meta sou eimi ("I am with you") refers to Gods guidance
and protection of the Israelites. God was "with" the Israelites
though He Himself is spirit and they are flesh. Why is it so
difficult to see the same meaning in Jesus use of met' emou
("with me") in Luke 23:43, in reference to his being "with" the
reformed evil-doer as a "life-giving spirit" (1Co 15:45) while the
man enjoys the blessings of the promised earthly paradise?
This same use of "with you" ([singular and plural] Mt 28:20;
Lu 1:28; Ac 18:10; Ro 15:33; 2Co 13:11; Php 4:9; 2Th 3:16),
"with him" (Joh 3:2; Ac 7:9; 10:38), "with me" (Joh 8:29; 16:32),
"with them" (Ac 11:21; Rev 21:3) is found throughout the NT,
where a spirit being, either God or Christ, assists, cares for, and
protects humans on earth. So it will be when Christ remembers
the reformed evil-doer during the "resurrection of the righteous
and the unrighteous" (Lu 23:43; Ac 24:15).
Appendix B
In Defense of F. W. Franz
In discussions concerning the identity and credentials of the

NWT translators, it is common for critics of the NWT to point to
what they consider reliable data on just how knowledgeable one of
the presumed translators was in Hebrew. That translator was F. W.
Franz, the fourth president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society. However, although consideration will here be given to this
"reliable data," it cannot be confirmed that Franz was indeed a
member of the New World Bible Translation Committee, as no such
official word has come from the WTB&TS or other members of the
Translation Committee.
In an attempt to discredit the scholarly nature of the NWT, Ron
Rhodes, taking for granted that Franz was one of the translators,
cites the cross-examination of Frederick W. Franz from the Douglas
Walsh trial in the country of Great Britain in the year 1954.1 This
trial was held to establish whether or not Jehovahs Witnesses
should be recognized as a legal religious organization in Scotland.
Consider the following cross-examination:
Cross: "You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?"

Franz: "I do not speak Hebrew."
Cross: "You do not?"
Franz: "No."
Cross: "Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?"
Franz: "Which?"
Cross: "That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis?"
Franz: "You mean here?"
Cross: "Yes."
Franz: "No. I wont attempt to do that."2
1
(Eugene, Oregon: Harvest, 1993), 98.
2
Douglas Walsh v The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde, M. P., P. C., as
representing the Minister of Labour and National Service, cross-examination of
Frederick William Franz (emphasis added), p. 102 (Scotland, 1954).
After referring to this portion of the trial, Rhodes concludes,

"The truth is that Franzlike others on the New World Translation
committeecannot translate Hebrew or Greek." Let us assume for
the moment that Franz could not speak or read Hebrew. How in the
world does this prove that he could not translate Greek? Franz
studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati, and
undoubtedly continued his study of the language after he decided to
become a full-time minister. Also, how does his testimony imply
that the other Committee members (assuming that Franz was a
member of the Committee) were unable to translate Hebrew or
Greek? Of course, it does not.
Getting back to the cross-examination of F. W. Franz, we
should point out that Rhodes reproduction of that cross does not
give Franz complete answer to the final question of the cross-
examiner. To the question, "Can you translate that [Genesis 2:4] into
Hebrew?" Rhodes has Franz saying simply, "No." But that is not all
he said. His complete answer was, "No. I wont attempt to do that."3
By emphasizing the last portion of his answer (which Rhodes
omitted) we would like to point out that Franz did not say that he
could not translate the English of Genesis 2:4 (NWT) into Hebrew,
but that he would not attempt to do so. Why would he refuse to do
so? Perhaps the answer to this question will be better understood
after we consider the following comments from William Sanford
LaSor:
All learning is in context. The context, however, is not artificial,

composed perchance by one who does not use the language
naturally, but rather it is the actual language of those who used it
as their mother-tongue. For this reason, I refuse to ask the
students to compose sentences in Hebrew. To do so is to impress
errors on the student's mind. And, frankly, most of us who teach
Biblical Hebrew do not have sufficient fluency in the language
to speak or write in it.4
3
Cross-examination, pp. 102-103, par. F.
4
William Sanford LaSor, Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978), 3.
In Defense of F. W. Franz 563
Now, considering Franz earlier testimony, that he had made

himself familiar with Hebrew, and that he could read and follow the
Bible in Hebrew,5 and his admission that he could not speak
Hebrew, we can certainly understand Franz refusal to translate
Genesis 2:4 from English into Hebrew (not Hebrew into English).
For, as LaSor points out, even most teachers of Biblical Hebrew "do
not have sufficient fluency in the language to speak or write in it."
Thus, Rhodes assessment of Franz testimony is superficial,
inaccurate, and misleading.
The same is true of Walter Martins handling of this trial. In
his book The Kingdom of the Cults Martin gives the same
appraisal of Franz testimony. Martin, like Rhodes, also leaves out
the pertinent data, and does not consider the facts as presented
above. Martin goes even further in his attempt to discredit Franz
knowledge of Hebrew. He says he asked a teacher of Hebrew
(whose name we are not given) at Talbot Theological Seminary if
Genesis 2:4 was a "particularly difficult verse to translate." Martin
claims that the professor stated he would "never pass a first year
Hebrew student who could not translate that verse."6
Of course, after reviewing the court records above we know
that Franz was not asked to translate the Hebrew of Genesis 2:4
into English, which is quite different from being asked to translate
English into Hebrew. Still, it should not be overlooked that this
verse is actually somewhat complicated. It has no finite verb but
one Niphal infinitive construct, with suffix, and one Qal infinitive
construct. In any event, Franz testimony on this matter cannot be
used as an accurate barometer for his understanding of Hebrew,
let alone Greek.
5
Cross-examination, p. 7, par. A.
6
Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, Revised Edition (Minneapolis,
Minnesota: Bethany, 1977), 64.
Appendix C
The Watchtower and Johannes Greber
In 1955 The Watchtower magazine published a series of

articles on the subject of life after death. In Part 3 of this series we
read: "It comes as no surprise that one Johannes Greber, a former
Catholic clergyman, has become a spiritualist and has published
the book entitled Communication with the Spirit World, Its laws
and Its Purpose. (1932, Macoy Publishing Company, New York)
In its Foreword he makes the typical misstatement: The most
significant spiritualistic book is the Bible; for its principal
contents hinge upon the messages of the beyond to those existing
in the present."1
A few months later The Watchtower referred to several
clergymen who agree with and support spiritism. The article
makes this reference to Greber: "Says Johannes Greber in the
introduction of his translation of The New Testament, copyrighted
in 1937: I myself was a Catholic priest, and until I was forty-
eight years old had never as much as believed in the possibility of
communicating with the world of Gods spirits. The day came,
however, when I involuntarily took my first step toward such
communication, and experienced things that shook me to the
depths of my soul. . . . My experiences are related in a book that
has appeared in both German and English and bears the title,
Communication with the Spirit-World: Its Laws and Its Purpose.
(Page 15, 2, 3) In keeping with his Roman Catholic extraction
Grebers translation is bound with a gold-leaf cross on its stiff
front cover. In the Foreword of his aforementioned book ex-priest
Greber says: The most significant spiritualistic book is the Bible.
Under this impression Greber endeavors to make his New
Testament translation read very spiritualistic."2
1
"What Do the Scriptures Say About Survival After Death?" Part 3. The
Watchtower, 1 October 1955, 603.
2
"Triumphing over Wicked Spirit Forces," The Watchtower, 15 February 1956,
110-111.
Thus we can see that Jehovahs Witnesses knew full well that
Johannes Greber was involved in spiritistic practices. That is why,
in response to the question, "Why, in recent years, has The
Watchtower not made use of the translation by the former
Catholic priest, Johannes Greber?" The Watchtower replied: "As
indicated in a foreword to the 1980 edition of The New Testament
by Johannes Greber, this translator relied on Gods Spirit World
to clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. It is
stated: His wife, a medium of Gods Spiritworld was often
instrumental in conveying the correct answers from Gods
Messengers to Pastor Greber. The Watchtower has deemed it
improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport
with spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)"3 But if Jehovahs
Witnesses knew back in 1955 that Greber was a spiritist, why is
Grebers translation cited with approval for its renderings of
Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1 in editions of The Watchtower
between 1955 and 1983?4
First it must be stated clearly and emphatically that such
citations of Grebers New Testament in no way lend support to
occultism or those who embrace it. From its beginning, The
Watchtower magazine has opposed spiritism and it continues to
do so.5 The simplest explanation for The Watchtowers citation of
Grebers translation is that those writers who used it in certain
articles were unaware of the articles that had previously discussed
Grebers involvement with spiritism.
It is also possible that certain Watchtower writers believed
that Grebers translation was the work not only of a spiritist, but
of a man who had a good grasp of ancient Greek grammar. (I
personally do not have much confidence in Grebers translation
skills.6) That is perhaps one reason why Bruce Metzger chose to
3
"Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 1 April 1983, 31.
4
See, for example, "The WordWho is He? According to John," The
Watchtower, 15 September 1962, 554; "Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 15
October 1975, 640; "Insight on the News," The Watchtower, 15 April 1976, 231.
5
References proving this point are so numerous that the reader is best referred to
the Watchtower Publications Index 1930-1985 and the 1986-1990 Index (Brooklyn:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1986, 1990).
6
See, for example, John 17:3, 20:28; 1Jo 5:20 and Rev 1:17, 18, to name a few.
The Watchtower and Johannes Greber 567
cite Grebers New Testament translation when discussing Codex

Bezae, which is the principle text used by Greber for his
translation.7 It is a fallacy to argue that Greber, being a spiritist, is
therefore incapable of apprehending the sense of the original
language of the New Testament, at least in some instances.
Witness critics would do well to ponder the account in Acts
16, where a demonized girl followed Paul and Silas shouting,
"These men are slaves of the Most High God, who are publishing
to you the way of salvation." (verse 17) Indeed, Paul did not get
tired of her until she kept doing this "for many days," and finally
he exorcised the demon from her. (verse 18) Even though the girl
"had a demon of divination" and "used to furnish her masters with
much gain by practicing the art of prediction" (verse 16), Paul
tolerated her for some time. No doubt he realized that even though
what she said was correct, her association with the spirit world
could no longer be tolerated.
It is similar with the Watchtowers use of Grebers
translation. In their case, however, those who cited Grebers
translation, among others, as supporting what they considered to
be an accurate translation of certain passages, likely did so
without knowing the details of Grebers involvement with
spiritism, even though other Watchtower writers knew and wrote
about it.
7
Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration, 3d ed. (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1992), 50-51, note 2. It could be that Metzger is simply making reference to a
translation of Codex Bezae, without regard to its accuracy.
Appendix E
"Me" in John 14:14
The Kingodom Interlinear Translation (KIT), published by

Jehovahs Witnesses,1 is a very useful tool for Bible students
interested in the original languages. It contains the Westcott and
Hort Greek text with a literal English translation on the left-hand
side of each page, and the New World Translation of the Holy
Scriptures on the right. With this layout, one is able to compare
the reading and literal translation of the Westcott and Hort text,
with the translation offered in NWT. But some have accused the
NWT translators of being unfaithful to the Westcott and Hort
text, and as an example they point to John 14:14.
According to the NWT, in John 14:14 Jesus says, "If you ask
anything in my name, I will do it." But the Greek text and literal
translation of the KIT has a very significant difference. It reads,
"If you ask me [me] anything in my name, I will do it" (emphasis
added). But this is not the only instance where NWT opted for a
reading different from the Westcott and Hort text. Compare the
NWT and the KIT at Acts 10:19 and 27:37. Why, though, does
NWT not follow Westcott and Hort in these instances?
It should be pointed out that while the New Testament
portion of NWT is primarily based on the Westcott and Hort text,
the Committee also made use of other ancient manuscripts,
versions, as well as other modern critical texts of the New
Testament.2 When the Committee was confronted with a variant
reading, they had to weigh each readings internal and external
support. However, when reproducing the Greek text of Westcott
and Hort, on the left-hand side of the KIT, they were under
obligation to present the text as given by Westcott and Hort. Of
course, this would naturally involve providing a literal translation
beneath the Greek of Westcott and Hort, which is why we find
1
The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (Brooklyn:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1969). A second edition was printed in 1985.
2
See page 9 of both the 1969 and 1985 edition of the KIT.
"me" in the interlinear text of the KIT in John 14:14. However,

the Committee chose a different reading for the main text of
NWT. The NWT Reference Bible (1984) provides manuscript
authority for both readings in its footnote apparatus. But, the
question remains, which reading is to be preferred?
Bruce Metzger presents three arguments for the inclusion of
me in John 14:14. They are: 1) Parallel texts in the book of
Psalms; 2) early manuscript support; 3) and the correlation with
ejgwv (ego, "I") in the same verse.3 Let us consider the strength of
these arguments.
First, the examples from Psalms are not parallel at all, for not
one of them has God using the word "me." In fact, God is not the
speaker in any of the texts to which Metzger refers. Rather, the
psalmist himself speaks about "Gods name." In John 14:14 Jesus
is the speaker and speaks with reference to what is done in his
name.
Second, me does have good support from early manuscripts,
including B, a, P66 and others. Manuscripts that do not contain
me include A (and, hence, the Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic
versions), D, K, and the majority of Byzantine manuscripts. P 75
has lacunae (missing portion of the text, in this case, part of John
14:14). One might consider giving the nod to me as far as
external evidence is concerned. However, if one wishes to
research the issues involved he will find that scholars are not at
all agreed as to which methodology should be followed for
collating the witnesses into text-type readings descending
(allegedly) from this or that prototype, that either is extant or that
exists in theory, at least.
Indeed, Frederick Wisse adopted a system that "actually
allowed Wisse to make some errors of classification, the most
striking of which was his placing Codex Bezae and Codex
Vaticanus in the same group, despite their wildly divergent
texts!"4 Then, needless to say, neither are scholars always agreed
as to the strengths and weaknesses for the contending readings
behind a contested passage in the NT.
3
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3d. ed.
(Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975), 244.
4
Bart Ehrman, "The Classification of New Testament Manuscripts," NovT 29.1
(1987), 43-44.
"Me" in John 14:14 585
The Nestle-Aland 26th edition (NA26) "reflects the impact

of the papyri overturning the testimony of B [(Codex Vaticanus)]
in several [forty-four!] places in John . . . all marked with a
dagger, which signals a change of text in NA26 from previous
editions of the Nestle text. . . . What is more surprising is that the
editors rejected another 16 significant readings supported by at
least one of the early papyri and by B . . . All of these readings,
which have the earliest documentary support, could only have
been rejected for various internal reasonswhich, as we all
know, involve a certain amount of subjectivity on the part of the
editors."5
Yet the strength of the internal evidence must not be ignored,
and when it is combined with significant witnesses for a fairly
wide distribution we may have confidence in placing into the
main text of a translation of the passage a reading that reflects
what may be considered a "weaker" reading, when considered in
light of the external evidence. The internal evidence from John
15:16 and 16:23 (compare John 5:25, also) must be seriously
considered.
Regarding the correlation between ego and me in John 14:14,
it is not a necessary correlation. If one should ask the Father
anything in the name of the Son, then there is nothing wrong with
the Son carrying out the will of the Father. (John 5:30) Compare
John 14:15-16, where the Son petitions the Father, who in turn
sends forth the holy spirit. This is, in fact, a recurrent theme
throughout the Fourth Gospel.
It is also worth mentioning that Stephens appeal to Jesus in
Acts 7:59 is just that, an appeal, not a prayer. The Greek word used
is ejpikalevw (epikaleo), and it is also used by Paul in reference to
Caesar. (Acts 25:11-12, 21) In the case of Stephen, however, just
before the Jews began casting stones at him (Acts 7:58), "the
heavens opened up and [Stephen saw] the Son of man standing at
Gods right hand." (Acts 7:56) Thus, when Jesus became visible,
Stephen made an appeal to him even as Paul appealed to Caesar.
When Jesus was on earth he left Christians a model of how to
pray. In that model Jesus revealed the proper object of prayer,
5
Philip W. Comfort, "The Greek Text of the Gospel of John According to the
Early Papyri," NTS 36 (1990), 625, 627.
saying, "You must pray [proseuvcomai, proseuchomai], then, this

way: Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified"
(Matt 6:9).

JWD220002012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JWD220002012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jehovahs Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics

Copyright 2000, 2012 by Greg Stafford

Digital Version (Revised Second Edition): 2012.

Except for brief quotations embodied in printed reviews or critical articles, no

BX8526.S69 2000 289.9'2

Page 55, first paragraph, line 7: add an apostrophe is added after

Page 55, second paragraph, line 6: are is changed to is;

Page 55, third paragraph, line 6: site is changed to cite;

Page 62, first full paragraph, line 7: of is added after uses;

Page 73, second-to-last paragraph, line 4: a closing bracket had been

Page 77, second-to-last paragraph, line 4: mean is corrected to

Page 78, note 40, line 5: pages is corrected to page;

Page 79, second-to-last paragraph, line 7: a is added after as;

Page 83, first full paragraph, line 4: translations is corrected to

Page 104, first full paragraph, line 3: we is added after this;

Page 110, second full paragraph, line 2: s is added to counterpart;

Page 120, final paragraph, second-to-last line: Trinitarians is

Page 128, only non-block-quote paragraph, line 3: nor is revised to

Page 145, last paragraph, line 8: second that is deleted;

Page 146, second-to-last paragraph, line 1: interprets is revised to

Page 146, note 49: Idbi. is corrected to Ibid.;

Page 149, note 58: page 157 is corrected to 158;

Page 153, note 73: the parenthetical reference is corrected to (Chapter

Page 155, final paragraph, line 6: of is added after form;

Page 156, second complete paragraph, line 6: Whites is corrected to

Page 156, second complete paragraph, final sentence: that before

Page 159, note 93, line 9: we of the subject is deleted;

Page 177, paragraph beginning with Indeed, line 4: Isaiah 53:13 is

Page 187, paragraph beginning with Also, line 3: Nor is corrected

Chapter 4, odd-page header: odd-page header is corrected to Jesus

Page 234, note 107, last sentence: the example of qohelet in

Page 240, first paragraph, line 8: uses is corrected to use;

Page 338, note 88: M.A. thesis is added to the parenthetical

Page 339, last par., line 3: cannot is added after we;

Page 436, par. beginning with Of course, line 6: that is corrected

Page 453, par. beginning with, Further proof, line 6: know is

Page 504, par. beginning with, At least, second-to-last line:

Page 545, first par., line 2: Manuel is corrected to Manual;

Kebra Negast means in classical Ethiopic "The Glory of

also reflects an accurate knowledge of that language. Impressive

It is an easy thing for someone who encounters a view that

this in turn has spread through other mediums. The consequence

texts. This is important in terms of understanding the issue under

who have little or no exposure to the precious truths found in the

Pronouncing the Divine Name

widespread because of Christendoms missionary-translators of the

Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah

According to Denio, then, "Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no

long ago.3 But is "Yahweh" the true, original Hebrew/Jewish

with "Yahweh" "sound rough and unrythmical."7 Buchanan

The accumulated data points heavily in the direction of a three

Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek forms of the divine name.

Page 7, note 17: note 16 is corrected to note 15;

Clement of Alexandria Iaou12 Why Iaou = "Ya-hu" or "Ye-hu"

Porphyry14 Ieuw ? Ieu = (?) "Ye-hu-o "

Jave [ *IaouV, Iaou], which is interpreted, who is and who shall be

Greek form for the tetragrammaton (four-letter form) hwhy. Still, it

dogmatic about how the divine name was pronounced by the

Most names change to some extent when transferred from one

Should we only use those names whose true, ancient

of every one of the sounds reproduced by an ancient Hebrews

The Divine Name in the Text of Scripture

The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament

replaced by the surrogate Lord, scribes were unsure whether