1 Peter 2:3 and 1 Pet 3:14-15

What we saw in a previous article is how the New Testament writers, at various times, quoted Old Testament passages or phrases about Jehovah or referred to Old Testament happenings about Jehovah and applied them to Jesus. We saw this with Hebrews 1:10-12 (although there are other places in Hebrews 1, as well), which is a citation of Psalm 102:25-27, a prayer to Jehovah, and with John 12:41, which even the New World Translation's own column references ascribe to Isaiah 6:1, Isaiah's vision of Jehovah sitting on His throne in glory. 

What we also see is that, quite frequently (though not exclusively), the New Testament writers quote Old Testament passages from the Septuagint (or LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament which was available to them at that time. This is understandable, for if we today write something in English and wish to include Scripture, we typically cite from an English translation we are most comfortable with and which is widely accepted by our audience.  It's important to recognize this because for his audience, Peter was doing something that would be blasphemous for a 1st century Jew... unless it is true that they saw Jesus as God, equal with the Father though distinct in Person.

What we are going look at in this short article are two examples from Peter's first epistle. 

  1 Peter 2:3 in Greek, comparing to Psalm 34:8 in the Greek Septuagint (LXX)

The Greek language Peter employed is clearly a reference to the wording of Psalm 34:8 in the LXX. The same verb for "taste" is used (though in a different form), and the phrasing and ordering of the words translated "that the Lord is good" is identical.  For a 1st century Jew who knows his bible (in Greek, the LXX), the allusion would be familiar.

Now, who is being discussed in Psalm 34:8? The English Standard Version says,

"Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!"

LORD, following the modern convention (whether you approve of it or not), refers to "YHWH" or "Yahweh" or "Jehovah." The New World Translation of the Old Testament also indicates that this is referring to "Jehovah."  Peter quotes this Psalm which speaks of Yahweh's goodness and lovingkindness and mercy as a sure refuge and applies it to Jesus. If you have not "tasted" Jesus as the refuge for the sinner, the Savior, the sin-bearer for sinners, your only refuge, then you aren't a believer, and the rest of the context has no application to you.   

1 Peter 3:14-15

Within these two verses, we find an almost direct quotation of words found in Isaiah 8:12-13 in the LXX. Let's look at the NWT's translation of 1 Pet 3:14-15 and Isaiah 8:12-13.

14 But even if YOU should suffer for the sake of righteousness, YOU are happy. However, the object of their fear do not YOU fear, neither become agitated. 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in YOUR hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of YOU a reason for the hope in YOU, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect. (1 Pet 3:14-15, NWT)

12 “YOU men must not say, ‘A conspiracy!’ respecting all that of which this people keep saying, ‘A conspiracy!’ and the object of their fear YOU men must not fear, nor must YOU tremble at it. 13 Jehovah of armies—he is the One whom YOU should treat as holy, and he should be the object of YOUR fear, and he should be the One causing YOU to tremble.” (Isa 8:12-13, NWT)

You can kinda see the similarity, beginning with "the object of their fear...", but still, with the NWT you cannot see the true resemblance. However, when one looks at the Greek matchup between Peter's words found in the pertinent portion of verses 14-15 and the pertinent portion of the LXX's wording of Isaiah 8:12-13, we see:

Words that are different are found in red, with the exception of the key phrase here, which is found in blue. Even at first glance, you can clearly see that Peter is quoting the LXX version of the Isaiah text. As for the differing words in red, you can see that Peter adapted the language slightly. With those few exceptions, he uses the same vocabulary, verb forms, noun cases, etc.

The key phrase, highlighted in blue, is quite interesting. In the LXX it says "Lord himself." In the the corresponding original Old Testament in Hebrew, it says "Yahweh of hosts" or "Jehovah of hosts" or "Jehovah or armies," as the NWT says. Peter, obviously being familiar with this passage and to whom it referred, unabashedly altered that one phrase to apply it to Jesus: "but sanctify Christ the Lord." The very One, Jehovah, we are to sanctify in Isaiah 8, is identified with "Christ the Lord" by Peter! If Peter did not mean to make this connection, then it would seem strange considering how obviously familiar he was with the Old Testament and the LXX version of it -why would he miss the obvious connection? If Peter did mean to make that connection, would it not be absolutely blasphemous to replace Jehovah's very name, as referred to in that blue phrase, and put that of a mere creation?

A Jehovah's Witness may have a million things to say about why Peter "can't be" making that kind of identification, but forget about this verse for a moment. My question for the Witness is this: If I or someone else quoted an Old Testament passage with Jehovah as the subject and even naming the name "Jehovah," took out the name "Jehovah" and put "Christ the Lord," would you ever find that acceptable? Or even more pointedly, would you, a Jehovah's Witness, ever do that, yourself? You may say, "Yes, under a certain understanding," but let's say we never saw this verse. Wouldn't you consider it absolutely blasphemous to replace the Divine Name, Jehovah, with the title of Jesus, who is allegedly an exalted creature? Well, that is what Peter just did.

Considering the wealth of Watchtower material out there on the sanctity of the Divine Name, how it is to be set apart from everything else, and how zealously intent the New World Translation committee was in "restoring" the Divine Name to the New Testament, I find it extremely hard to believe that a Witness would, if answering honestly, find this practice anything but blasphemous, given their belief system. If the Witness would now turn around and equivocate, saying that it is acceptable if we only mean to say that Jesus is "like" Jehovah or some other kind of weak argument, then I would like to know how we can ever meaningfully identify idolatry -the giving of honor or worship to a creature which is due to God alone. If passages from the Holy Word of God, where Jehovah of hosts is Himself the subject, can be altered, the name "Jehovah" swapped out for the title of a creature so that the same Holy Scripture meant for Jehovah is now meant for this creature, and that is somehow not blasphemous or idolatrous, then how can we meaningfully identify blasphemy or idolatry at all? Again, my Witness friend, would you be comfortable doing what Peter just blatantly did? In your belief system, are"Christ the Lord" and "Jehovah of hosts" transferrable?

Conclusion

Now, stepping back, consider what this would mean to the first-century Jew. Would the first-century Jew find it at all appropriate to apply passages from the Holy Word of Yahweh God that speak of Yahweh God and His great attributes to anyone that is a created thing and not Yahweh Himself? No. This is one of the things that caused the Jews to become so irate with Jesus in passages such as John 10, even if you understand Jesus as rebuking them as misunderstanding Him. The fact that we see these two strong examples in the same epistle, along with the allusion to the "stone", and within the same frame of thought, is significant. These aren't isolated incidents.

I am aware of how the Witness comes up with so many things to say in response. "Jesus is the representative of Jehovah, that is how these passages can be applied to him." "Jesus is just very much like Jehovah." "The writers only mean to identify similarities." All assertions, for sure. Do these assertions make sense of the context? Why would we have any reason to think such things unless we already have a bias against what is being said? Are these truly answers or just cheap excuses? It is sad that people can have the exact same data, ostensibly, and come to two completely different conclucions. The determining factor? Presuppositions. Are Unitarianism and the idea that Jesus is a created thing fair, Biblical presuppositions, or are they just things you have taken for granted, assumed were scholarly, but never really considered could be wrong? I am asking you to think outside the box for a minute. What was Peter trying to convey? Why make these clear parallels if you are, like Peter and the rest, zealous for guarding God's sanctity and distinguishing the Jehovah from created things? Why are these parallels only made concerning Jesus?

A Side Note

One must also ask himself, given these passages and the fact that the New World Translation committee has been so adamant in "restoring" the Divine Name of "Jehovah" to the New Testament at total of 237 times (despite the fact that there is zero hard evidence supporting the idea that it ever was found in the New Testament in the first place), why the New World Translation committee was not consistent in "restoring" the name "Jehovah" here? It is very clearly referring to Jehovah in the original Hebrew passage. The NWT committe clearly identifies, in the appendix to the NWT Reference edition, that the basic criteria for restoring "Jehovah" is Old Testament quotation containing "Jehovah" in Old Testament original or allusion to Old Testament passages referring to Jehovah. They have placed "Jehovah" in places with much less Old Testament support than these, sometimes with no clear Old Testament support at all, so why not here? The bias found in the NWT is obvious. The NWT committee cannot follow their own standards consistently, in these cases, because it would contradict their theological position about Christ. To them, Jesus cannot be Jehovah because only the Father is Jehovah -the Unitarian bias cannot help but bleed through.

A Quickie on Phil 2

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
(Phi 2:6-8)

In looking at this passage, there are basically two views put foward:

1. Jesus, being a creature (and thus inferior to the Father), didn't strive to be the Father's equal but instead obeyed the Father to the point of death.

2. Jesus, being by nature Divine, put aside His equality with the Father and voluntarily humbled Himself before Him by taking on the form of a bondservant and becoming obedient to the point of death.

Questions to consider:
1. Jesus became obedient to whom? From this, it seems it is talking about Jesus submitting Himself to the Father and becoming obedient... even to the point of death.

2. How did Jesus "empty" Himself? He took on the form of a bondservant. His act of "emptying" was not by subtraction but by the addition of something else -a human nature.

3. Given all of this and the surrounding context, which option above fits? 1 or 2?

This is the question, for the Jehovah's Witnesses will insist upon #1 but will be unable to demonstrate it from context. Why? Here are the preceding verses.

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
(Phi 2:1-5)

Paul exhorts them to unity through humility -through putting aside self and humbly serving others. Now, which of the options fits what Paul is saying? Is Paul really saying that we, being by nature inferior to others (less human), should not try to be as human as they are, but should act in step with our inferior nature and obey them? No. That isn't humility, and that isn't what Paul is saying. Paul is saying that we, being by nature equal with one another, should put aside all notions of this inherent equality, put aside any competition, and should humbly serve one another. Option #2 is clearly consistent with the context, and option #1 makes no sense in it.

Hence, we are to have the mind Christ had when, though in eternity past (presently existing in eternity past the form of God, having all the attributes of Deity) has equality with the Father, voluntarily (yes, it is something the Son did voluntarily) humbled Himself before the Father, took on a human nature, and served as the Redeemer to the point of death.

One might try to argue that the humiliation in the example with Christ is a humiliation before us, humans (and He did, in a sense), but even that doesn't make sense with Paul's point. Is Paul trying to tell the believers to not try to be greater than they are but to instead server people beneath them? That isn't in Paul's exhortation, sorry to say. Paul is just telling us to put aside competitiveness, put aside self, to renounce self-interest and self-rights, and think of others as more important. This is what Jesus did when he voluntarily made Himself a subject to the Father, a suffering servant, and for our salvation.

Paul's use of Christ as an illustration in this way makes no sense unless Paul sees Jesus as the eternal Divine Son, of the same essence as the Father.

Falling down in Revelation

The image of "falling down" is used a handful of times in Revelation. John "fell down" a few times in Revelation. Twice he did before an angel, and both times he was rebuked.

Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
(Rev 19:10)

I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
(Rev 22:8-9)

John sees the angel, is tinged with emotions of fear, deep reverence, and awe, and responds by falling down before him. In both cases, the angel sternly rebukes John. The responses are almost identical. They clearly view this act of "falling down" as a sign of deep reverence and worship. The angel, in both cases, clearly viewed this as something to be directed only toward God. In each case, the angel says in his rebuke, "Worship God."

The whole notion of "falling down" with various descriptors is used repeatedly in Revelation. In every instance, it is clearly referring to deep reverence and worship.

The various phrases used in Revelation:

"fell at his feed as though dead." (Rev 1:17)
"fell down before the Lamb" (Rev 5:8)
"fell down and worshiped." (Rev 5:14)
"fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God" (Rev 7:11)
"fell on their faces and worshipped God" (Rev 11:16)
"fell down and worshiped God" (Rev 19:4)
"fell down at his feet to worship him" (Rev 19:10)
"fell down to worship at the feet" (Rev 22:8)

The first three are referring to Jesus as the object. The one in Rev 1:17 is the other time John fell down, and it was before Jesus. Did Jesus rebuke Him? No. He comforted Him and referred to Himself as the "first and the last," a title Jehovah used of Himself in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12.

In chapter 5, the elders "fell down before the Lamb" and praised Him. They, again, "fell down and worshiped" a few verses later. No qualification, no rebuke given. Jesus is worshiped, and it is appropriate. A Jehovah's Witness might point out "ahh, but it doesn't say 'worshipped Jesus.'" Or a Witness might say, "In those other places, it doesn't say 'and worshipped.'" Does it have to? Not if you look at the context of Rev 5 and the obvious connotation of this act and imagery in Revelation. When the elders fell down, what they did in the next verses IS worship.

There is not an absence of data showing that Jesus is equal with the Father, in nature, or that Jesus is worshipped. However, for the Witness, there is a presupposition that will not let them hear the text speak. It goes like this: "It is impossible for Jesus to be Deity because Jesus is not the Father. The one God, Jehovah, is unitarian and there is no other possibility."

I will post something more on Revelation 5 at some point, hopefully soon. Take a look at verses 6-14. Now, why doesn't it say "and worshipped" when the elders fell down before the Lamb? John doesn't have to say it. They did it in the verses that followed. They sang worship to Him with those beautiful words.

John 5:18

Ok, I haven't written here in a long, long time. Part of it is because I have been focusing on other duties, part of it is because we have a new baby and things are quite busy, and part of it is because I have this nagging need to post full-blown, final draft articles on this blog, which can be cumbersome and take time. The number of draft-form documents on this blog is large, and hopefully someday I will publish them. In the meantime, I felt it might be useful to just post some small blurbs.

Here are two from John 5.


This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (Joh 5:18)

Question: Why were the Jews seeking to kill Jesus?

The same reason they were trying to kill him a few chapters later when he said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM?" It wasn't because he claimed to be around a long time, or that he claimed some supernatural origin. It was precisely because they perceived Him as "making Himself equal with God [the Father]." Jesus never corrects them. John never comments to clarify. It is understood. The Jews understood what He was saying, and that is why they wanted to stone Him.


The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. (Joh 5:22-23)

Question: Is the Father promoting idolatry, here? How is it, then, that the Father would give all judgment to the Son for the purpose that all may honor the Son just as, according to, inasmuch as they honor the Father?

If you hold to a creaturely status for Jesus, you really are left with very little ground for distinguishing true honor and worship from idolatry.

The more I read the Scriptures, especially the New Testament, the more I see the Deity of Christ everywhere. The only reason you would systematically and continually reject it is because you have an overriding pre-conviction, such as the Unitarianism of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Read through the appendices in the back of the NWT. That is the basic reasoning behind all of these "scholarly-appearing" appendices relating to the Deity of Christ. In the end it is, "Jesus can't be Jehovah because the Father is Jehovah, and Jesus is clearly distinct from the Father."

The Trinity is the only doctrine which makes sense of all the Biblical data. It affirms monotheism, it affirms the constant references to the Deity of Christ, the casual and unqualified, manner in which New Testament writers refer to Jesus with Old Testament passages that are about Jehovah, the humanity of Jesus Christ, the unique union the Father and Son have, and the role-based subordination the Son has to the Father.

Who is Jehovah?

One of the biggest mental stumbling blocks, I'm seeing, in dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses or those who have been taught by them for some time, is the issue of to whom the name "Jehovah" belongs. The way the Witness sees it is set in pretty deep, what we would call a "presupposition." To presuppose means to "believe or suppose in advance," and thus a presupposition is a belief or supposition held prior to having knowledge. It is a "view" that, when dug up and put under the spotlight, hasn't ever really been challenged or, in this case, derived Scripturally, but it functions in more of a behind-the-scenes manner: filtering evidence and determining all conclusions in its sphere of influence.

To the Witness, God is the Father, and His name is "Jehovah" just like my name is Tim and the Son's name is Jesus. Hence, when a Trinitarian Christian starts pointing out the places where New Testament writers identify Jesus as Jehovah (such as by quoting Old Testament passages about Jehovah and applying them to Jesus), the Witness almost immediately filters the information and categorizes it as something like, "This must be saying that Jesus is *like* Jehovah in these ways, or there must be some mistake. Jesus cannot be Jehovah." The most obvious reason why Jesus cannot be Jehovah, to them, is that Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is obviously not the Father, there are personal distinctions between them, and Jehovah is the Father's name. To them, for us to say that "Jehovah" applies to Jesus is like saying that Dave, being a distinct person from Sam, can simultaneously be Sam. It makes no sense.

This is echoed in many of the appendices in the back of the New World Translation Reference Edition that deal with passages connecting Jesus to Deity. Many of them note the distinction between "the God" (the Father) and "the Lord" (Jesus), found commonly in Paul's and Peter's writings, for example, as being proof that Jesus is not God (who, to them, can only mean the Father). This is further echoed in common ending shared by these appendices which is something like, "Jesus is not Jehovah."

The problem is that this reflects a misunderstanding of what we believe. This is where the Trinitarian must be careful to clearly express what it is we believe, bring this presupposition of theirs to the forefront so that it can be examined, and demonstrate that their conclusions about what we are saying, which are based upon this presupposition, are inaccurate. If the presupposition is identified and brought up front, then we can explain how this underlying belief needs to be challenged in light of God's Word. Then maybe, just maybe, we can begin to bridge not only the language gap but also the thought gap. If we do not go about this initial work, then we will no doubt become exceedingly frustrated because the Witness will not get what we are saying. We will be using the same terms in our discussion, but with different meanings attached to them.

We do believe that Jesus is not the Father, so we agree on that with the Witness. However, we believe that the name "Jehovah" refers to the One Divine Being that is by nature God. Therefore, it does refer to the Father, but it also refers to the Son and the Spirit, as well. It is broader than they assume, namely because the Being of God is also broader, in Person, than they assume. The name "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" encompasses God, the One God who is revealed in three distinct, co-eternal, co-equal (in nature) Persons; Person who are revealed to us in Scripture as having very different roles in the redemption of man. The Son, for example, came into creation by donning human flesh, thereby humbling Himself in a role of submission to the Father and giving Himself up as a ransom for His people. Therefore, to say that "Jesus is Jehovah" is not at all the same as saying that Jesus is not God the Father, yet at the same time Jesus is God (the Father).

With this in view, and the Witness' Unitarian presupposition set on the table, suddenly passages like Philippians 2 may start to have meaning. We can start to fill information into that hole we just created, which at least sets up the possibility that the Being of God or "Jehovah" can be broader than just the Father. We see how the Son "did not consider equality with God (the Father) a thing to be grasped" and added a human nature in submission to the Father. We see how Paul uses this fact, the fact of the inherent and ontological equality between the Father and the Son and that the Son voluntarily concealed this in humility, to support his exhortation for us, though being equally human with our brothers and sisters, to humble ourselves in submission to them as well. We see how Paul's use of Christ's example would not make sense at all in supporting his exhortation to "count others more significant than yourselves" (v.3) if Jesus was by nature lesser than the Father.

I'm not saying that all Witnesses misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity. From what I have read of Watchtower material, sometimes it seems like they understand, and then other times it becomes quite clear that they don't at all. It will depend on the person you are talking to. Whether it is a seasoned Witness or someone who has only been studying with them for a little while, understand that they are very much opposed to the doctrinen of the Trinity. It may even be used as a pry-bar to separate themselves from Christianity in order to demonstrate their "allegiance to God's Word" where others have departed.

And, even with a crystal clear explanation and critique of their strongly Unitarian bias, I'm not saying the Witness will agree -only the Spirit of God can persuade and break through man's resistance. I'm saying that perhaps the Witness will understand where we are coming from, and even better, that Yahweh God would bless our efforts by unblinding the eyes of our Witness friend through it.

Romans 10:13 - Calling Upon Whom?

In Romans 10 there is another great verse which demonstrates that Jesus is Jehovah. It is also interesting because the passage contains one of the 237 places where the New World Translation (NWT) translators put the name "Jehovah", even though not a single manuscript or fragment of the Greek New Testament contains the name (they all say kurios or "Lord"). I should note in passing that I do not have a problem in putting the Divine Name in the New Testament when the New Testament writers quote from Old Testament passages that contain the Divine Name, YHWH or "Jehovah," although it is obviously preferable to just go by the manuscripts and translate them as faithfully as you can as they are.

Romans 10:13 is a verse that actually comes back to bite the NWT translators if the context is thoroughly examined. See, the apostle Paul quoted from Joel 2:32: "...everyone who calls on the name of [YHWH] shall be saved..." The NWT translators, acknowledging that this is an Old Testament quotation in the column references of their translation, are actually consistent here with their own belief about "restoring" the Divine Name, in that, at least in this place, they put "Jehovah" in Paul's quotation of the Joel verse in Rom 10:13. Compare the English Standard Version (ESV) and the NWT to see what I am saying:

ESV: For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
NWT: For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved."

To avoid any translational problems, we will refer to the NWT for the remainder of our study here. What are the most basic things you need to look at when seeking to understand a verse of the Bible? You need to take into account the language and vocabulary features, including grammar and syntax, and you need to take into account the context of what is being said. That is how you read and understand any written document, and that is what we will do here.

So, in order to get the overall scope of the context, let's start in the beginning of chapter 10. In verse 1 and 2, Paul laments over his unbelieving kinsmen, the Jews. The reason for this lament? They were serious about their religion, but they were not believers in Christ! They did not submit themselves to the Gospel of Christ, which tells us of a perfect righteousness which God gives as a gift, but instead sought to establish a righteousness of their own before God. The NWT continues, "For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness." (v.4) Paul has contrasted between the "righteousness of the Law" and the "righteousness resulting from faith." While this deals with the doctrine of justification, an essential doctrine, I will move past any differences on this point for now for the sake of pressing on to the final point.

Following that, Paul speaks of the "righteousness resulting from faith" in terms of what Christ did in descending from heaven and rising from the dead. Indeed, in verses 9 and 10, being "saved" is predicated upon declaring "Jesus is Lord" and believing that God raised Him from the dead. Now, follow me through verses 11-12.

"For the Scripture says: 'None that rests his faith on him will be disappointed.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him" (Rom 10:11-12, NWT)

In verse 11, Paul quotes from Isaiah 28:16, identifying Jesus as the "stone" Lord YHWH promised to place in Zion and identifying Jesus, again, as the object of faith. Continuing the same thought with the word "For...", Paul says that the "Lord" is rich to all those who call upon him. This business of "calling upon" is a picture of faith's activity, as we will see shortly. Who is "Lord"? Contextually, it is still Jesus -there has been no change in subject. Also, verse 9 tells us that "Jesus is Lord" and the confession of this fact is part of having faith in Him. Jesus is the object of faith. It is His desending from heaven, His dying, and His resurrection that are spoken of from the "righteousness resulting from faith" (v.6). He is the "end of the Law so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness." He is the "Lord over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him."

This leads right into the verse in question. Paul then applies Joel 2:32 to this One who is called upon (v.12), the One who is rich for those who do so, the One object of faith that will never disappoint. "For 'everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.'" (emphasis mine) Let us not miss this point. The One called upon, the Lord, in verse 12, the One who is the sure and firm object of faith, is here identified as YHWH ("Jehovah") who is called on, using the passage from Joel. We have a continuous flow of thought, the same use of language ("call on"), and no reason to think there is a new subject in view. The verses that follow only cement what we have seen so far.

Follow the thought through to verse 16. Notice that Paul sets up a chain between calling upon, believing, hearing, and preaching. It begins with verse 14, which says, "However, how will they call on him in whom they have not put faith? How, in turn will they put faith in him of whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent forth?..." (Rom 10:14-15a, NWT) Who is "him?" The object of calling upon is the same one in whom faith is placed, is the same one people must hear of, and is therefore the same one who must be preached. Who is it? "So faith follows the thing heard. In turn the thing heard is through the word about Christ." (v 17)

This agrees with what we have seen in the verses prior to verse 13. The object of faith, the one to be called upon, believed upon, heard, preached, is Christ Jesus. If we follow the chain of Paul's logic, again, there is no way to insert another subject. It is Jesus. He is the Lord called upon, He is the One who must be preached so that people can hear and thus believe and call upon Him unto salvation.

What is amazing is how the NWT translators can put "Jehovah" there in verse 13, and despite the clear context, not see that it is still talking about Jesus rather than a new subject introduced for a single verse in the midst of this discussion. Contextually, as we have seen, the point is crystal clear. This is another Old Testament passage, this time explicitly naming YHWH God, that is applied to Jesus in the New Testament. Why did the New Testament writers keep doing this? Perhaps it because they knew something about the nature of God and the nature of the Person of the Son that many groups have historically rejected over the centuries, including the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Now, I am no mind-reader, but from what I understand, the Witness would see the NWT and immediately assume that verse 13 is talking about God the Father. The context before and after would not have any bearing in the face of the identification of "Jehovah." This is because in Watchtower thinking "Jehovah" always and only refers to God the Father. Hence, to see the Lord Jesus and "Jehovah" mentioned in the same context, no matter how strongly they are connected by that context, cannot possibly mean a connection. To the Witness, it is like reading a story about a man named "David" when "Jim" is suddenly mentioned. Obviously David can't be Jim, they reason. However, this is the engrained assumption of Watchtower doctrine operating. We aren't talking about "David" and "Jim" -employing such an example, itself, demonstrates a host of assumptions being brought to the table (such as that being and person are equivalent categories and can only map one-to-one, even for God). We are talking about the Divine Name being applied to Jesus -the same Divine Name which is also applied to the Father.

The biggest stumbling block for the Witness is the engrained presupposition of Unitarianism -the belief that God is One in Being and can only be One in Person. To the Witness, there is no way that Jesus can be Jehovah because the Father is the Jehovah, and it is clear that Jesus is not the Father. Hence, anything that identifies Jesus as Jehovah is dismissed. It is very true that Jesus is not the Father -no Trinitarian believes He is. However, if we brush aside our bias and let the New Testament speak, the New Testament writers themselves display very clearly that it is perfectly acceptable to apply passages about Jehovah to Jesus, and in this case, apply a passage naming the very name of Jehovah to Jesus. Is this blasphemy, or is it something that must shape our thinking rather than our thinking shaping it? Think about it.

This is one of the reasons why I think the absolutely baseless "restoration" of "Jehovah" (for the Hebrew YHWH) to the New Testament only reinforces the blinding theological bias of the Witnesses. If one already has it set in mind that only God the Father is Jehovah, then any reference to the name of "Jehovah" connected to Jesus is immediately dismissed. However, if we follow the actual Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in our translation, we read "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved" and see the clearly intended reference, contextually, to Jesus, the Lord (the same Greek word is used - kurios). Then, we can note that Paul is quoting from Joel, flip back to the passage, and see that the verse is about YHWH! On a side note, I don't think it is coincidental at all that Paul referred to Jesus as the "kurios (lord) over all" in the same context in which he quoted from the Greek translation of Joel 2:32 which uses "kurios" for YHWH. If he didn't mean to imply a connection, then wouldn't that be just a bit confusing to the one reading the Greek? Would the Greek-speaking readers of the letter really understand a clear distinction between the kurios mentioned in verses 9 and 12 and the kurios mentioned in verse 13, if one was truly intended? Coupling that fact with the powerful testimony of the overall context, it is clear that Paul means to refer to the same Person in both instances: the Lord Jesus.

Folks, the most significant obstacle for any of us to understanding the Scriptures, I believe, is our presuppositions. They truly do form the boundaries of what we will accept and what we will not accept as evidence for any given view. They are the lens through which we see the world around us, and sadly, the Scriptures, as well. I'm not saying that I have no presuppositions -we all do. However, let all of us be challenged to recognize them, lay them down, and let the Scriptures form our opinion rather than having our opinion formed before we even open the Scriptures.

Does the Bible, especially the New Testament, give us warrant to believe that the One God in the pages of Scripture can only be singular in Person, or is that only an unchallenged assumption we have? Do we instead find that there are three distinct Persons, with differing roles, to whom are ascribed the Name, worship, and attributes of the One God? How can it be that Jesus is Jehovah and the Father is Jehovah, yet Jesus and the Father are not the same Person? Again, we can dismiss this as nonsense because of our theological bias, or we can listen to this and other testimonies from the Scriptures. For a brief definition of the Trinity, click here.

READ ME

Hello,

Thank you for visiting. Before I get too ahead of myself in posting articles and information about the Deity of Christ and the false teachings of the Watchtower organization, the Jehovah's Witnesses, it is important to set the standard of what I am trying to do and how I need to be going about it. I have somewhat done this in my "first post", but I want to take a moment to emphasize something.

My goal is to convey truth. I am trying to examine the false teachings of an organization, one that many, many people belong to, in light of God's Word. And with this, my goal is to convey truth with love and respect. This is sometimes a challenge. When we talk about issues such as these, emotions can flare up. People can get defensive, and others can become angry with the false teachings that are enslaving people -and rightfully so, I believe. However, it is essential that this information be presented with love, which means without a mean and hateful spirit, with charity, with concern for others, and with respect, which means without being condescending and without making personal attacks upon individuals. Both of these are also reflected in a desire for accuracy, honesty, fairness, and consistency. Thus, I hope to put forth this information in such a manner.

Love should not be confused with the common sentiment which is described by minimizing critical issues or pretending they are not there. If I have knowledge about a friend's danger and do not do my best to warn him, how can that be called love? Yet, love in the sense of care, concern, and respect for God and neighbor is essential. Christ is honored in such ways and is not honored apart from them. If I am found to be outside the bounds of love and respect in my comments, I welcome your correction in the form of blog comments.

"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. "(2Ti 2:24-26)

Please click here to return to the main page to see the latest articles.