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.

Can You Understand the Bible?

Note: the following quotations from Watchtower Bible and Tract Society materials were taken from the following brief article found here. I have not personally checked them, seeing as how I don't have a stockpile of hundreds of Watchtower magazines, but I have no doubt about their credibility and accuracy. Please refer to the original article at CARM for further comments. The comments I have below are meant to look at what the Watchtower teaches regarding the sufficiency of Scripture and the place of individuals learning how to study the Bible and understand it for themselves.

"Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book." The Watchtower; July 1, 1973, pp. 402.

"Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible." The Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1967. p. 587.

"We should eat and digest and assimilate what is set before us, without shying away from parts of the food because it may not suit the fancy of our mental taste...We should meekly go along with the Lord's theocratic organization and wait for further clarification, rather than balk at the first mention of a thought unpalatable to us and proceed to quibble and mouth our criticisms and opinions as though they were worth more than the slave's provision of spiritual food. Theocratic ones will appreciate the Lord's visible organization and not be so foolish as to put against Jehovah's channel their own human reasoning and sentiment and personal feelings." The Watchtower, February 1, 1952, pp. 79-80.

"We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the ‘faithful and discreet slave' organization." (The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981.)

"We cannot claim to love God, yet deny his word and channel of communication." The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, p. 591.

All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the "greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave. The Watchtower; 10/1/1994; p. 8.

(Note: There is some ambiguity about what is meant by the "faithful and discreet slave." Historically, the meaning has changed since the inception of the Jehovah's Witnesses in the late 19th century. Today, and since the 1950's especially, it seems that the phrase "faithful and discreet" slave often refers to the "remnant" class, the 144,000 who are alone born-again and have the ability to understand the Bible and teach it. However, as one can see from the quotations above, the phrase is also used in reference to the organization as a whole, with an emphasis on the Biblical understanding and teaching aspects. For the purposes of this brief article, the term "Watchtower" will henceforth be used to refer to the whole in the same fashion. Click here to view an image of the structure of the "Theocratic Organization of Jehovah's Christian Witnesses" from the December 15, 1971 issue of Watchtower.)

It seems that the Watchtower asserts quite clearly that they, "Jehovah's channel of communication, the "discreet slave", are the required hand to guide people in a true understanding of the Bible. It is "only through" them that people can and should understand the Bible, and we should listen to them without challenge.

But from where would you get such an idea? Can it be proven, from Scripture alone, that the Watchtower is God's "discreet slave"? Can it be proven, from Scripture alone, that they alone have been given the ability to understand the Scriptures? Can it be proven, from Scripture alone, that they are charged by YHWH God to be the sole "organization" which can faithfully represent and teach the Bible? No. See, once you buy into this thinking, you have already departed from Scripture.

Let the true student of God's Word recognize this folly. To say that you seek to understand and believe the Scriptures as God's Word and then embrace an institution that places themselves on par with Scripture, claiming a role and an authority that is not Scripturally given and renders the Scripture insufficient on its own, is thoroughly inconsistent. This is much like the problem we find with Roman Catholicism. They affirm the authority of the Bible, but in practice they subjugate it to their own authority since they alone are the ones who hold the proper authority and ability to interpret it and teach it correctly. We find the same kind of thing with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Not only do they create their own translation of the Bible that suits their theological persuasion, but they also hold that to those outside the "theocratic organization" the Bible is a "sealed book", meaning that only they can rightly understand it and therefore teach it.

Notice what has happened. First, the Bible is no longer sufficient for doctrine and instruction in godliness (against the witness of such passages as 2 Tim 3:16). Something additional, the "theocratic organization", the self-proclaimed "channel" of God, is needed with Scripture.

Second, they presuppose an authority, themselves, that is self-recognized. They refer to themselves as being spoken of in the Scriptures as the "faithful and discreet slave" (Matthew 24:45), yet from where does this understanding come from? Does it actually identify the Watchtower? No. This is no better than saying, "I am God's faithful and discreet slave spoken of in Matthew 24 because I have the authority and ability to understand the Bible, because, after all, I am God's faithful and discreet slave." Their authority, no matter how you slice it, is presupposed, not derived from Scripture.

Third, this presupposed authority places them above correction by the Scriptures. For it matters not how many people should come against them, armed with the truth of God's Word, because if only the Watchtower can understand the Scriptures rightly, then these people must be wrong and all of their claims can be dismissed without a glance. If the Watchtower alone can understand the Scriptures correctly then it doesn't matter how many passages of Scripture we bring against them. We are, by default, wrong in our understanding of the very passages we are trying to use! Whether or not they claim to be infallible is a separate issue. The point is that no one else can even presume to understand Scripture and thereby invalidate or disprove their claims.

Friends, this is how a cult works. You can't interpret the Bible, only we can, so let us tell you what the Bible says, let us tell you what to believe, and remember... if you truly love God you won't question us or disagree with us -all the while you keep on believing that you are getting your information straight from the Bible. They ever so carefully exalt themselves, pretending humility, and insert themselves between God's Holy Word and the individual.

This last statement is quite telling:

"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding
attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago..." The Watchtower, August 15, 1981.

"Sufficient to read the Bible exclusively?" Heaven forbid! :) This statement pretty much underscores what we have seen unfolding throughout this brief post. It seems that this quotation is somewhat sarcastic. It seems to be accusing those who claim it is "sufficient to read the Bible exclusively" of getting their understanding from "commentaries by Christendom's clergy" rather than the Bible exclusively. In other words, it accuses these people of being hypocrites. It seems to say that this isn't really "Bible reading," or at least they question the sincerity of it. Sounds more like sour grapes, to me. Notice how these people are described... like Satan, independent and fault-finding, etc. There is a great irony in this, of course, since the Watchtower believes that one can only understand the Bible through them and their materials.

Nobody denies that aids can be helpful. One can still maintain that the Scriptures are sufficient alone, and yet seek help from teachers and others whom God has blessed his people with through the ages. The difference is that I can pick up a commentary by John Calvin, for example, evaluate his thoughts, and dismiss what, in my studying, doesn't comport with what the Scriptures say. The Scripture is always, always the final authority. But see, for the Watchtower, I shouldn't do that with that they teach. I should be patient and just swallow it wholesale because, after all, they are Jehovah's channel of commnication, right? Says who, again?

What I find interesting is how this quotation above remarks that those who "say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively" have "reverted" back to those "apostate doctrines" of Christendom. Perhaps this is because when you read the Bible on its own terms, with it as the ultimate authority to weigh what others say, including the Watchtower teachings, you actually come to see that those "apostate doctrines" are true!

As twisted as this is way of thinking is, I can see the logic behind it. How can you maintain your own self-proclaimed authority and unity within your ranks if people within start recognizing and pointing out all of the differences between what you teach and what the Bible teaches? :) However, I have a better idea. Believe God's Living Word to be sufficient, like it says (2 Tim 3:16), and study it -subjecting everything, I mean everything and everyone, to its authoritative words.

If you are a Jehovah's Witness, I really encourage you to not be afraid to truly and, as objectively as you can, allow God's Word to speak. Study it, consider opposing viewpoints, pray about it, seek God's face, and see what the Word says. And then, have the courage to follow God's Word rather than a self-proclaimed human authority, such as this organization.

Effective Verses: Heb 1:10-12 and John 12:41

It was a few months ago on a Saturday morning. I was in the basement running on the treadmil -trying to get in some exercise on a Saturday morning before the day really got going. I am about half-way through my workout when I hear the doorbell ring. Morbidly curious, I decide to grab my water, take a quick sip, and jog up the stairs toward the front door. I open the door only to see two plainly dressed individuals, a man and a woman, standing there with Bibles in their hands and a small stack of magazines somewhat concealed underneath. On a quick glance, I noticed two magazines. One had something about health and disease on the cover, and the one underneath had the all-too-familiar Watchtower logo on it. Still, the woman holding them seemed to be concealing it for some reason. Perhaps she felt that if I saw the "Watchtower" logo I would have just slammed the door, and she would not have had a chance to speak.

They asked if I had a moment and started to begin their speech, but I interrupted as gentle as I could and said, "I study the Bible, I am familiar with what you believe, and I thoroughly reject what you teach." Without being able to continue any further, they thanked me for my time, lauded me for being student of the Word, and left. I was a little perturbed. First, I jumped off in the middle of exercising for that! :) Second, this was the first time since we moved to this neighborhood that I had been visited by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Knowing some of the heretical things they believe and seeing just how their deception can come in and steal people away, I was upset. I am upset when I see God dishonored by having His truth dishonored, and I am upset when I see people deceiving others and leading them to destruction.

I know many of as, as Christians, really don't even want to talk with them. Most of the time we just want to shut the door and get them away. Sometimes we will hand them a tract at the door and then close it, thinking that they will actually read it -not knowing that Witnesses will not take materials from us, from "opposers". But let's say you want to reach a Witness and give them something to think about next time they come to your door, or let's say you want to be ready in case an opportunity arises. What is a good approach?

Many of us will turn to John 1:1, a tremendous passage, yet quickly become frustrated to get nowhere with the Witness. They will say, "Oh, but we do believe that Jesus is 'a god', as it says right here in our New World Translation, but we do not believe that Jesus is God." Perhaps we will get into an argument over the Trinity -many times where not only the Witness does not understand the doctrine of the Trinity, but the Christian doesn't either! They will say, "Where does it say 'Trinity' in the Bible?," and sadly the Christian is left irritated and frustrated. However, while there are ways to addess passages like John 1:1 to demonstrate the Deity of Christ, there are a number of other Scriptures that may be much more effective.

In an article by Dr. James White (found here), Dr. White argues that a more effective approach for interacting with Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) is in avoiding all of the "God" or "a god" talk. He advocates going right for places where the New Testament writers identify Jesus as Jehovah by quoting from or referring to an Old Testament passage about Jehovah and applying it to Jesus. There are many examples, but there are a few that are clear enough to make good starting places. We must remember to be gentle, prayerful, and clear. Our goal is to glorify God by the presentation of His truth, and our goal is to present the truth gently in the hopes that God would use our meager efforts to pierce a hole, a tear, in the veil that covers the eyes of the Witness.

We must also try to remain focused. These discussions can tend to jump all over the place. Don't get side-tracked by following down rabbit trails. Push through so that you can reach your final point. In these instances, the point is that the New Testament writer applied something about Jehovah from the Old Testament to Jesus. If that can be rightly done for a mere creature, no matter how exalted, then I'm not sure how we can identify idolatry at all.

By the title above, I do not mean to suggest that there is a formula or that interacting along these lines is as simple as dropping out a proof-text. It takes some work. Don't be fooled by the common delight in "proof-text theology". From what I gather, most Witnesses will come right back with another proof-text, and you will end up volleying back and forth -not really listening to one another and not going anywhere. Instead, learn a few of these examples and learn them well. Study the context. This is critical. Make sure you can follow the context and follow the general thought of the writer. What is the writer's point? What is the overall message?

As Dr. White advocates in the article linked above, you may want to briefly provide an accurate definition of the Trinity (here is a brief definition). Judging from the Witnesses own materials, they usually have a very misrepresented view of the Trinity. This helps cut a few of the initial objections the Witness might have without even getting to them. For example, the Witness might say, "But this passage shows a distinction between God (the Father) and Jesus. How can Jesus be Jehovah if the Father is? Jesus isn't the Father." However, if we pre-empt this and carefully explain that the Trinity fully embraces and even depends upon there being a discernible distinction between the Father and the Son, this avoids the issue. Make sure you can distinguish between a Being and a Person. All things that exist have being, but not everything is personal. The fallacy is the common assumption that "being" and "person" refer to the same cateogy. They don't. Thus, the Trinity is not making an illogical statement at all. We are not saying, "God is One Being and Three Beings" nor "God is One Person and Three Persons." Refer to Dr. White's article for more on that.

Anyway, here are two quick passages that identify Jesus as Jehovah.

1. Hebrews 1:10-12

In these verses, the writer of Hebrews quotes from Psalm 102:25-27, a Psalm directed to Jehovah, and applies it to the Son, Jesus Christ. I will avoid quoting sections from the NWT here as to avoid breaking any copywright laws (I don't know if there are any restrictions, but I can't imagine they would be gracious to me if there are and I broke them). I recommend that you either get yourself a used copy of the NWT (I got one for $2 at a used bookstore), preferably a more recent one (such as 1984), or refer to an online edition here.

A few points to note:

• Use the NWT only. Your point is not to argue about the translation. You are demonstrating that the New Testament writers applied verses about Jehovah directly to Jesus.
• Make sure you are familiar with the context. The subject throughout Hebrews 1 is the Son, Jesus. What is the writer talking about? He is demonstrating the superiority of Christ to the angels and prophets to underscoring the significance of the message of the Gospel.
• Avoid arguing over the translational torturing of verse 8 or their use of "obeisance" instead of "worship" in verse 6. Get right to the point.
• Be familiar with the context of the Old Testament verses the writer of Hebrews was quoting from. It is directly from Ps 102:25-27. It is a prayer to Jehovah. The Psalm is contextually about, even addressed to, Jehovah.
• Note the presence of the column-reference which clearly identifies the Hebrews verses as being a quotation from Psalm 102.
• Ask them why the writer of Hebrews would apply a verse directed to Jehovah to Jesus.
• Ask them how it would not be blasphemous to do if Jesus is only an exalted creature.
• Ask them if Jesus could ever be eternal and unchancing, in contrast to creation, like Jehovah is and as He is described in Psalm 102:25-27.
• In verse 5, it says, "For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say:" The one in view is the Father, that is the "he". We have a contrast being made repeatedly between the Son and angels throughout chapter 1. The writer rhetorically asks, "to which one of the angels did he [the Father] ever say...?", implying that those things said belong only to the Son, and then follows up with a positive statement about the Son. This "positive statement" is what happens in verse 8 where it says, "But with reference to the Son: " and in verse 10, "And: ..." The writer of Hebrews is saying that the Father addresses the Son in these ways, in contrast to angels. Why does the Father essentially address Jesus as Jehovah, by quoting a passage addressed to Jehovah in the Old Testament? If Psalm 102 is only rightly meant toward the Father, then how could the same God who forbids idolatry and blasphemy then apply words uniquely addressed to Himself to a creature?
• Is the writer of Hebrews demonstrating that Jesus is somehow a super-exalted angelic being, or is he demonstrating that Jesus is not an angelic being at all? During the entire passage, the writer is distinguishing between Jesus and the angels. Verse 10, quoting from Psalm 102, uses words that describe eternality and creatorship -things that cannot be ascribed to angels and would not make sense if the writer's argument is merely to establish Jesus as a special (yet created) being. His point in using the passage from Psalm 102 is obviously for the force of the contrast the Psalmist makes between Jehovah and creation. The point being made: Jesus wasn't created.

2. John 12:41

This verse is great, as well. The column-reference in their own Bible shows that John's mention of Isaiah seeing "his glory" (in context, Jesus Christ) is referring to Isaiah 6:1. The only problem is that Isaiah 6:1 depicts Isaiah seeing "Jehovah, sitting on a throne lofty and lifted up, and his skirts were filling the temple." (from Isaiah 6:1, NWT)

A few points to note:

• The one who is spoken of in the context of John 12 is Jesus. He is the "him" or "he" who Isaiah saw. He is the "him" in whom the crowd was not believing. See verses 37 and 42. John's point in quoting the passages from Isaiah in the previous verses is that Isaiah said them specifically in reference to the people rejecting Jesus. Hence, "Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him" (v. 41) is still in reference to Jesus, the one Isaiah prophesied of. This is also evidenced by the fact that one of the Isaiah passages quoted (v. 38) is from Isaiah 53, which is clearly about the suffering Christ, and this corresponds to John's statement in verse 41 that "he spoke about him." This is the same him whose glory Isaiah saw 6 words earlier in the same verse (v. 41 still).
• The column-reference is for Isaiah 6:1. The only Being Isaiah saw in verse 1 is Jehovah. There is no talk of anybody else seen, such as seraphim, until the verses that follow.
• It might be interesting to note that the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Septuagint, uses the same Greek phrase "his glory" that John uses here. The New Testament writers frequently quoted Old Testament passages directly from the Septuagint. The use of similar language support the connection.

One Name, Three Persons

One of the most interesting passages, in my opinion, is found in Matthew 28:19. I will keep the commentary to a necessary minimum so as not to read into the text any foreign concepts.

The NWT translates it:

"Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,"

The part I want to look at is the phrase "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit." We will take our Greek for this phrase from the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (Westcott Hort text) and transliterate it as follows:

Gr: eis  to  onoma 
En: into the name 

Gr:     tou patros  kai     tou huiou  kai     tou hagiou pneumatos 
En: (of)the Father  and (of)the Son    and (of)the holy   spirit

Now, let's take a look at what we have grammatically. First, the ones baptized are baptized "into the name." The word "name" is singular. There is one "name." Second, there are three separate things or persons spoken of here. Each one is separated by kai or "and", and each one is preceded by the definite article, tou or "the". This indiciates a distinction made between "the Father" and "the Son" and "the holy spirit".

The next important thing about this phrase is that each of the phrases

tou patros ("the Father")
tou huiou ("the Son")
tou hagiou pneumatos ("the holy spirit")

is in the Genitive case. In Greek, and other languages (including Latin), we have cases for nouns that determine their usage in the sentence. In English, we depend more upon word-order to determine things like the subject of a sentence or the direct object of a verb, etc. In languages like Greek, we depend on nouns and the definite article ("the" in English) being found with different case-endings or case-forms.

So, here we have the Genitive. Why is this significant? There are a few uses of the Genitive case in Greek. The most common one is called "Genitive of possession." That is what is in view here. It talks about a noun possessing something. That is why I put "(of)" next to each in the transliteration above, and that is why the NWT (and other translations) translated it "of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit." There is no word "of" there in the Greek. It is an English reflection of what is being said in the Greek by means of the Genitive case.

In English we might say, "The boy's ball." But in Greek, they didn't use apostrophes and the like. They used the Genitive. It would be reflected in the case-ending on the noun and the form of the definite article, something like this:

"The ball   the(Genitive form)   boy+[Genitive ending]"

and the translation would be

"The ball of the boy" or "The ball [possessed by] the boy"

The Genitive of possession has a referrent, something it possesses. In this case, "the boy" is Genitive of possession, and thus it refers back to something "the boy" possesses. Here, the boy possesses "the ball." It is "the ball of the boy." Follow me?

Now, let's go back and see what this little bit of information tells us about the verse in question. (Note: The English reflects this fine. The English rendering in the NWT, for this particular phrase, is just like what you would find in any major translation. I just want to emphasize what the meaning is by illustrating it from the Greek)

For each of the segments, "of the Father" and "of the Son" and "of the holy spirit", which are Genitive of possession, there is but a single referrent. It is "the name", which itself is singular. It is not "the names", implying that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit possess perhaps separate names. No, "the name" is singular. So what is the significance of this? It says that each of the three, being distinct, possess the one name, the same name (singular) possessed by the other two!

A few comments:
What does it mean for each of these -the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit- to share the same Name? What does "name" here refer to? "Name" is often used figuratively to refer to power or authority or reputation or character. The "name", when used in reference to God, represents the character, the glory, the power, the very being and majesty of God. Consider how the Lord Jesus uses it in His example of prayer to the disciples: "Father, let your name be sanctified" (Luke 11:2, NWT). The note in the NWT Reference Edition says, "Or, 'let... be held sacred; let... be treated as holy.'..." To that I agree very much. The only thing is that this name, which belongs to the Father, belongs to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, also. Matthew 21:9 has the crowds shouting, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of Jehovah" (NWT) and the NWT indicates that it is a reference to Ps 118:26. I may do a post in the future on the significance of the "name", especially related to YHWH God. The "name of Jehovah" is not a trivial matter, nor is it the same in force as the name of anybody else. It is THE name that is set apart, to be hallowed and held sacred above every other name. This name, however, is the possession of the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. (on a quick note, see also Phil 2 where is says Jesus was given the Name above every name, not "every [other] name", as the NWT inserts. He was given the Name that is above every name; He owns the Name -the same Name belonging to the Father and the Holy Spirit.)

The Trinity Briefly Defined

It is important that I define what the Trinity, the position I believe to be Biblical, is in light of the fact that so many people reject misrepresentations of it. I was reminded of this by a commentor on the first post. Some of his arguments, though well-intentioned, displayed a lack of understanding about what the Trinity is. I'm not meaning to single him out, either. Most people who reject the Trinity don't truly know what the doctrine is or think they do and argue against their misrepresentation. Sadly, even many long-time Christians don't know what the Trinity is or how to articulate it. The Trinity, from what I gather, is seldom taught anymore within evangelical circles -much like some of the other great doctrines of the faith such as justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone.

I believe Dr. James R. White, in his book entitled The Forgotten Trinity, was correct in saying:

"The single greatest reason people struggle with the doctrine of the Trinity is miscommunication. It is very rare that anyone actually argues or debates about the real doctrine of the Trinity. Most arguments that take place at the door, or over coffee, or at the workplace involve two or more people fighting vigorously over two or more misrepresentations of the doctrine itself. It is no wonder so many encounters create far more heat than they do light." (p. 23)

So, it seems prudent to lay forth a very basic definition with a few comments. Dr. White's simple definition, as found on p. 26 of the book, will suffice:

"Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Notice what is being said and what is not being said. We aren't saying that there is one God who is three Gods. We aren't saying that there is one Person who is three Persons. We are saying there is one Being within which exists three distinct Persons sharing the same essence of nature of Deity. We distinguish between Being and Person. A rock has being, but a rock is not personal. Being and person are not synonyms, though in our experience they usually are treated as such because we, as humans, are both beings and persons. Within each human subsists only one person. However, being and person are categorically different. With God, the infinitne God, the God who created, the eternal YHWH, there exists three Persons who equally share this same nature. Sound hard to comprehend? Sure, but a) it is not illogical, as some presume (they assume that being and person are the same category), and b) it is what we believe is revealed in the pages of Scripture, and if that is true, then we can fuss and complain about it all we want, but we are insulting God Himself.

The doctrine of the Trinity also fully acknowledges that the Son took on a role of submission to the Father for the sake of God's purpose in redemption. This does not mean that the Son is inferior to the Father any more than it would mean that I am less human than the President of the United States. I have an inferior role, but I am not less human. Likewise, Christ voluntarily assumed a role of submission, concealing His equality with the Father by donning a human nature, but that does not mean that He is any less, by nature, God. Hence, for one to argue that Christ's display of submission to the Father is proof for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity would be moot. We acknowledge that, but we reject that it means an ontological inferiority (an inferiority in nature).

The doctrine of the Trinity also fully acknowledges and embraces the personal distinctions between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is part and parcel of Trinitarian thelogy. That is why we say that there are three distinct Persons within the one Being that is YHWH -distinct in person, not in being or nature or essence. If one is going to think that they have destroyed the doctrine of the Trinity in one swoop by demonstrating a passage of Scripture which shows Jesus as being distinct from the Father, for example, then this shows an ignorance of what we are saying.

I have heard some argue, and I believe correctly, that the New Testament itself is the revelation of the Trinity. That which was concealed in many ways in the Old Testament has now come to light in the New Testament -namely, the revelation of the Son and the sending forth of the Spirit. Thus, the New Testament does not only reveal to us the Suffering Servant, Christ Jesus, and the redemption He wrought through His life, death, and resurrection, but it also reveals to us something about the nature of YHWH God.

I hope this brief explanation serves to clarify matters.

If you reject the Trinity and are reading this blog, then I pray God would grant you an open mind, and I pray that you would acknowledge and question your presupposition of Unitarianism -that God is one (which we agree with) but can only be one in Person as well -in light of God's self-revelation.

First Post

This is the first post on this blog. The purpose of this blog, as the name might suggest, is to demonstrate that Jesus is YHWH or "Jehovah" from the pages of the New Testament. Many of the things written will be geared also toward some of the various cultic groups, most notably the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the Jehovah's Witnesses (hence the reason why I say "Jehovah" instead of the now generally accepted "Yahweh"). In such cases, you may find that some articles use the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures exclusively in order to demonstrate not only the deceptive flaws and inconsistencies in the translation, which are the result of extreme theological bias, but also to demonstrate that, try as they might, they still can't hide the truth.

This blog is generally geared toward the lay-person, though you might find some of the articles a little heavy. I pray that this information will enrich the Body of Christ not only to see more clearly the fact that Jesus is Yahweh (or "Jehovah") God, but also to help make them ready to make a defense. (1 Pet 3:15)

Though I have been a Christian for 8 years and a student of the Word, this is in many ways only the beginning of my journey in digging in below the surface and providing information to the Body of Christ. Thus far, it has enriched me tremendously, though it does take work. May my work, God willing, bear fruit for His Name's sake and for the glory of Jesus, the Name above every name.