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.