stevep@cadence.com (Steve Peterson) (11/10/90)
I would like to here from folks who think that Jesus Christ is the Almighty God, Jehovah (YHVH) Psa 83:18. Either through private email or on this net (if our moderater will allow it), I would like their comments on how to understand these scriptures: 1) While on earth, before he died *Jesus had a God* (Mark 15:34 "*My* God") 2) While on earth, after he was resurrected, *Jesus had a God* (John 20:17 "*My* God") 3) After he had returned to his heavenly glory, *Jesus had a God* (Rev 3:12 "*My* God) 4) After he had returned to his heavenly glory, Jesus was under the Headship of *God* 1Cor11:3 You will notice that in all of these scriptures, it doesn`t only say that Jesus was in subjection to, or worshipped the *Father*, but it says *his God*. With scriptures like these that show that *Jesus has always had a God* that he worshipped, prayed to, and subjected himself(while here on earth, as well as now, in his heavenly glory), can you see where it is at least reasonable to consider that Jesus isn't the Almighty God Jehovah but actually second in command in the Universe? Best Regards...... Steve Peterson ---- stevep@cadence.com or ...!uunet!cadence!stevep [A simple identification of Christ with the Father is heretical. So I think you will find few people who will take you up on your challenge. I'm afraid that JW's (and related groups with similar ideas) simply have an incorrect idea of what classical theology is saying. The doctrine of the Incarnation says that the man Jesus was united to the Logos in such a way that his separate existence as a human being is not compromised. Jesus had a fully human existence. It is unfortunate that the term "person" was used to describe his union with the Father, because it suggests to 20th Cent. readers that the eternal Logos and the man Jesus are being claimed to be the same person, i.e. to have the same personality, knowledge, etc. Everything that is connected with the term "person" in the 20th Cent. was associated by the classical writers with the two natures (human and divine), which are kept separate. For example, the claim that Jesus and God have the same will is considered a heresy (the monothelite heresy), because it challenges the integrity of Jesus' human nature. The union of Jesus with the Father was never fully explained in classical theology. The doctrine of the Incarnation simply sets down certain rules that define the kinds of things we can say. My own feeling is that the union is best thought of as a functional one. That is, Jesus is God for us because God made Jesus' actions his own. God saw to it that Jesus' character and life were what is needed to reveal himself to us, and asks us to consider Jesus as his own presence with us. In some sense I do not object to the concept of Jesus as second in command. This is clearly consonant with the picture given in I Cor 15, where God places everything in subjection under Christ, and Christ is in subjection to God (15:28). However taken alone the concept of second in command is not quite enough, because Christ is also God for us. I believe the key is to see that Christ is "transparent" to God. It is possible to look at Christ in two ways. If you look directly at him, we see a human being like any other human being. But if we look "through" him, we see God. This is what classical theology is trying to capture by talking about two natures united in one person, but without confusing the two natures. At any rate, the classical doctrine does not say simply Jesus == God. Rather it says, that the eternal Logos took to itself a human life, in such a way that that life is -- when regarded one way -- fully God, but its separate human nature is maintained. The concern with Arian theology (and as you probably know, JW theology is normally viewed as being Arian) is that rather than maintaining the two aspects of Christ uncompromised, it confuses them. In orthodox theology, Christ is when regarded one way simply human, when regarded another way (i.e. when we look through him rather than at him) God himself. The Arians prefered a model of Christ that did not have this two-fold character, but made him simply an entity between God and man. Thus he neither fully revealed God nor was fully human. It's not clear that the JW idea is really quite the Arian one. I think the questions to ask are - do you agree that Jesus is a normal human being? - do you agree that when we see Jesus, we are seeing God, and that Jesus' acts are God's? I believe many JW's do believe this, in which case they may actually believe the classical doctrines, but have simply never understand correctly what those doctrines are trying to say. --clh]
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (11/14/90)
Steve Peterson listed several passages of Scripture to show his doctrine concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ. I have chosen to deal with two of those passages. One in some depth. >4) After he had returned to his heavenly glory, Jesus was under the Headship of >*God* 1Cor11:3 Let's start with the last verse mentioned. 1 Cor. 11:3 says: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV) This verse implies nothing concerning the deity of Jesus Christ. Rather it shows the principle of "headship" that applies in Jehovah's order of things. If we took this passage as the Witnesses are taught to, we'd have to conclude that women are a lower form of life then men. So I must ask the question, are women somehow inferior to men? To which, I answer -- NOT at all!! It is simply Jehovah's arrangement that someone act as head, and He assigned that role to the man. Likewise, within the Godhead -- the Father acts as head without diminishing the full deity of the Son. Let's explore this a bit further. Paul writes to the Colossians saying: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." (Col. 2:9, NIV) In _The Bible in Living English_, translated by Steven T. Byington, and published by the Watchtower Society, 1972, this is rendered: "in him all the fullness of deity is resident in bodily form." The Watchtower's New World Translation (NWT) attempts to water down the message of this verse by rendering it: "because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily." But the reference edition (footnote) and the interlinear version of their Bible both admoit that the Greek word they translate as "divine quality" literally means "godship." What does it mean that the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form? Is this not further evidence that Jesus Christ is more than just another human? Does it not also mean that Jesus is more than a mere archangel named Michael? The apostles thought so. Consider what Thomas says: "In answer Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28, NWT) Thomas literally said, "The Lord of me and the God of me!" Now, supposing for a moment that the Society's teaching that Jesus is Michael the archangel is true, what Thomas says is blasphemy in the extreme. Thomas has equated Jesus Christ, an archangel, with Jehovah God. Thomas was raised a Jew, and for him to call any human or angel "My Lord and my God!" would have been blasphemous to what he had been taught. Further, such a blasphemy would not have escaped Jesus. Did Jesus then turn around a rebuke Thomas for such blasphemy!? Not at all, here are the words of Jesus: "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29, NIV) Now that does not appear to be a rebuke to me. Now, in conversations with various Witnesses over the years, I have gotten one line of argument over this passage that seems worthy of further consideration. From their book, _Reasoning from the Scriptures_, published in 1985, on page 213, they will point out that the 20th chapter of John ends by saying that "these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God..." (v. 31) To Witnesses, the fact that the Father is God, and Jesus is the Son of the Father, automatically rules out the Son's deity. But this is not what Scripture teaches. The Witnesses also quote, as Steve does, John 20:17, where Jesus refers to the Father as "my God," as so-called proof that Jesus is not God. Yet, at Hebrews 1:10, the Father calls the Son "Lord" -- obviously without casting doubt on the fact that the Father, too, is "Lord." Since the Society's postion requires that Witnesses refer to Jesus as "a god" in contrast with the Father, whom they call "the God," you may wish to have a look at John 20:28 in the Society's own _Kingdom Interlinear_ (1985) Bible. The word-for-word English under the Greek text shows that Thomas literally called Jesus, "The Lord of me and the God of me!" I think that the evidence is clearly there to point to the Diety of Jesus Christ. This topic will usually lead to an all out discussion on the Trinity. So let me broach that topic briefly here. The Society points out, and correctly so, that the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. For them, this automatically impugns the validity of the concept expressed. This is odd since one of the favorite words of the Society, "theocracy," is not anywhere found in the text either. Are we to assume that the word and its concept are to be impugned because it is not found in the text? Certainly not! The Trinity is used to express the idea that there is only one God. Yet, there are three Persons within that one God. Christians who accept the Trinity realize that we are not to confound the Persons, nor divide the substance (the essence). We do not believe that there is one person revealing himself as three persons. The three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are the one God, Jehovah. We believe there are three distinct personalities; therefore, we do not teach Jesus is the Father, or the Holy Spirit is Jesus. The Society has misrepresented this doctrine. In fact, in the book, _You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth_, 1982, page 39, the Society describes the Trinity rather plainly. But then they proceed to prove that the Almighty God (the Father only, to Witnesses) and Jesus are not the same person, as though this was inconsistent with trinitarian thought. I can hear some Witnesses out there now asking, "Well, isn't it?" No. As I said previously, Jesus is not the Father; they are two separate persons. While Jesus walked as a man, the Father was greater than Jesus. But that is nowhere shown in the Scriptures to be true before Jesus humbled Himself and took on the nature of a man! There are a number of places in the Society's literature where the Trinity is misrepresented. However, what caused my to re-evaluate my association with the Society was checking out something that I found in the 1953 edition of _Make Sure of All Things_. On page 386 of this book, the Society refers to Alexander Hislop's book, _The Two Babylons_, as a source of refutation of the Trinity. So I found a copy of this book and began to read. Lo, and behold, Hislop turns out to be a Trinitarian. On page 17, which is one of the pages the Society references in the _Make Sure of All Things_, Hislop points out that the images of the "Triune God, with three heads on one body" found in some of the papacy's churches, "utterly debase the conceptions of those, among whom such images prevail, in regard to that sublime mystery of our faith." Notice that he says "our faith." Clearly, Hislop believes the Trinity. [I make no claims as to the accuracy of Hislop's overall treatise on the RCC. However, since the Society uses this book, I quote from it here only to refute their notion that Hislop was refuting the Trinity. What he seems to have refuted was what he saw as the RCC corruption of this concept. Again, I am not making any stand for Hislop and his arguments concerning the RCC.] Also, the _Make Sure of All Things_ refers to McClintock and Strong's _Cyclopaedia_ article on the Trinity. If a Witness were to read this article, he's be in for a real shocker since this article completely refutes the Society's position on the Trinity. Possibly, the Society meant to refer Witnesses to the article that follows, "Trinity, Heathen Notions of." If so, then by all means read it, but notice what is said in the beginning of the article: "In examining the various heathen philosophies and mythologies, we find clear evidence of a belief in a certain sort of trinity, and yet something very different from the Trinity of the Bible." Let me go back to the term "theocracy" for a moment. Again, this word is not found in the Bible. The Roman Empire had a theocracy of sorts wherein the emperor was considered a god himself, a deified king. This is true again in Egypt, where the pharaoh was a god ruling the nation. The Society claims to be a theocracy, governed from the "Divine Ruler" down, across the whole of God's people (all the Jehovah's Witnesses). (See 'The Watchtower,' December 15, 1971, p. 749.) The fact that a "theocracy" is found in pagan structures, and that the word is not found in the Bible, doesn't rule out the fact that the concept might be Biblical, does it? Standing on the Solid Rock, Gene Gross
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (11/16/90)
I find our moderator's comments almost as distressing as the false doctrine of the Watchtower Society. He says: > It is unfortunate that the term "person" was used to describe his union with >the Father, because it suggests to 20th Cent. readers that the eternal >Logos and the man Jesus are being claimed to be the same person, i.e. >to have the same personality, knowledge, etc. This is really confusing the language that is used regarding the trinity in the ecumenical creeds. Nowhere do the creeds say that Christ and the Father are one person. They say, in fact that we worship one God in three persons, and three persons in one God (Athanasian Creed). But we say that Christ is 'of one substance with the Father', and the Athanasian Creed says we worship one God in three persons ... without confusing the persons or dividing the divine substance. I think our moderator was trying to discuss the union of the two natures in Christ, divine and human. However the creeds do not speak of this as a union of the Father with human nature, but simply that Christ is true God and true man. This union truly is difficult to understand. Fortunately it is not necessary for us to understand it, but we should believe it. In a way our salvation depends on this article of faith, because as a man Christ died as our substitute. This is why God can accept his righteousness as our righteousness. As God, Christ's sacrifice has value sufficient to cover the sins of all humanity; this is necessary for our salvation, for in Psalm 49 we read: No man can redeem the life of another or to give to God a ransom for him -- the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough-- that he should live on forever and not see decay. Our moderator further writes: >My own feeling is that the union is best thought of as a functional one. >That is, Jesus is God for us because God made Jesus' actions his own. >God saw to it that Jesus' character and life were what is needed to >reveal himself to us, and asks us to consider Jesus as his own >presence with us. This appears to deny that Jesus was 1. Conceived by the Holy Spirit 2. Of one substance with the Father 3. uncreated, unlimited, eternal (Athanasian Creed) o It makes it appear as though Jesus earned his divinity. But in Philippians 2 we read that Jesus let go of his divine glory (but not his divinity) and humbled himself to become a man, 'making himself nothing'. Christ's humiliation began with his incarnation! The Apostle's and Nicene Creeds both describe his humiliation, beginning with conception, and ending with his burial. Then they describe his exaltation: resurrection, ascenscion, sitting at the right hand of the Father, judging the living and the dead. Incidentally, Lutherans believe that a proper understanding of the personal union of God and man in Christ is important for understanding the real presence of Christ's body in the Lord's supper. This is treated in some length in the Formula of Concord, Article 8, the Person of Christ. A good summary statement is found in Affirmative Thesis #12: "Christ is, and remains to all eternity, God and man in one indivisible person. Next to the holy Trinity this is the highest mystery, as the apostle testifies (1 Tim 3:16), and the sole foundation of our comfort, life, and salvation." David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "He who craves a precious treasure Neither cost nor pain will measure; But the priceless gifts of heaven God to us hath freely given. Tho' the wealth of earth were proferred, Naught would buy the gifts here offered: Christ's true body, for thee riven, And His blood, for thee once given." --Schmuecke dich, o liebe Seele, v. 3 --Johann Franck, 1649. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [I'm sorry if my comment about Jesus' union with the Father appeared to be heretical. I was trying to reply to a message that explicitly raised the issue of the relationship between Jesus and the Father. In order to keep the message within reasonable bounds, I wanted to avoid trying to explain both the Incarnation and the Trinity in one message. I am aware that JW's do not believe in the Trinity either, but I thought the issues raised in that posting were most relevant to the Incarnation. So I simply ignored the distinction between the Father and the eternal Logos. While properly speaking it is the Logos that is incarnated, Jesus himself says "I and the Father are one". Thus it seems that our concept of the Incarnation must allow for the Father to be involved. Since the actions of any of the Persons of the Trinity involve all of them, I believe this is proper. While the creeds may not talk about a union between Jesus and the Father, I believe Jesus' language in John is sufficient justification for my carelessness. I'm not sure how to respond to your other comments. When I talked about a functional union between the two natures, it was my intention to be describing an orthodox approach. You have quoted a couple of phrases that properly speaking characterize one of the natures involved in the union. I certainly believe that when regarded as God, Christ was "of one substance with the Father" and "uncreated, unlimited, eternal". (I'm not going to talk about "conceived by the Holy Spirit", because I don't think we have an issue there.) Of course when regarded as man, he was created (or at least born), limited, and mortal. I presume you heed the warning of Chalcedon not to confuse the two natures... The question is how one person can be properly regarded as both man and God. In effect you say that we need not understand it but should accept it as an article of faith. This position, like your attack on me for not explaining every technical point of theology at once, is going to make intelligent responses to people outside the orthodox tradition nearly impossible. Furthermore, it opens us into directly to the attack that these doctrines are completely abstract and un-Biblical, and supports the suspicion of many Christians that if we can't give some at least halfway satisfactory explanation of what we mean by two natures united in one person, the doctrine probably has no meaning at all. I believe we have to be willing to say something beyond a simple repetition of the words of the creeds, and that my obligation to talk to people like Steve is worth the risk that almost anything I say is going to look like heresy to somebody. My suggestion was that the union should be regarded as a functional one. By this I mean that Jesus functions as God on earth. I intend this to have several implications, including - that Jesus reveals God. When we look at Jesus we see God. - that Jesus' actions are God's. Christians have generally regarded the cross as God's self-sacrifice. This makes sense only if Jesus' suffering is God's. - that God was personally present among us in Jesus I think I see why you saw adoptionism in this, but I didn't intend it that way. I didn't mean to say that God decided that Jesus was a particularly good guy, and so he would make him the Messiah. Rather, I believe Jesus was intended from the beginning to be God's vehicle for being present on earth. In computer terms, the eternal Logos is the Son's "native implementation", and Jesus is his implementation in flesh. That it is possible for there to be an implementation of God in flesh tells us something about God. Certainly many concepts of God would not allow for this. If God were utterly transcendent, then it would be nonsense to think of it. But God is both Father and Son, and the Son was capable of being made flesh. We have to be very careful about talking about personal union. Let me try to say again what may not have gotten through because of my mention of union between Jesus and the Father. The term "person" as used in the ancient creeds does not have quite the modern meaning. The items that we think of as being part of a person are regarded in the creeds as part of the natures. If we think of the eternal Logos and a human being as being a single person in the modern sense of person, we are going to think that they share a single will, a single memory, etc. This is not what was meant. In the case of the will, it is explicitly heretical (at least if you accept the Third Council of Constantinople). It will lead to docetic concepts, in which Christ does not have a finite human mind. I am willing to say that in some sense the union is "personal": God was personally present among us through Christ. But I'm not sure this is what was actually meant by talking about one "person". That was a translation of the Greek hypostastis, which had a technical meaning in neo-Platonic philosophy. --clh]
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (11/17/90)
Our moderator writes: > >The question is how one person can be properly regarded as both man >and God. In effect you say that we need not understand it but should >accept it as an article of faith. This position, like your attack on >me for not explaining every technical point of theology at once, is >going to make intelligent responses to people outside the orthodox >tradition nearly impossible. Furthermore, it opens us into directly >to the attack that these doctrines are completely abstract and >un-Biblical, and supports the suspicion of many Christians that if we >can't give some at least halfway satisfactory explanation of what we >mean by two natures united in one person, the doctrine probably has no >meaning at all. I believe we have to be willing to say something >beyond a simple repetition of the words of the creeds, and that my >obligation to talk to people like Steve is worth the risk that almost >anything I say is going to look like heresy to somebody. Frankly, I would prefer to concentrate on what the scriptures say, particularly with regard to the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am glad, however, that you explained yourself with more precision. I also believe it is important to give Christian witness to the Witnesses, and have expended considerable effort in doing so in my other articles, and in my e-mail correspondence with Steve. Unfortunately we are all constrained in our time, and the need for brevity on this network. In my article, I referred to 1 Tim 3:16: "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory." Note that some manuscripts have 'God' instead of 'He'. This is particularly good for the Jehovah's Witnesses, because they hate the word 'mystery'; they insist on rationalizing everything in scripture. Hence they end up reasoning that Jesus is not God. The simplest answer to Steve's question regarding the Scriptures in which Jesus refers to 'my God', is that as a true man, here on earth and after his resurrection and after his ascenscion, Christ was subject to God. Particularly as a man here on earth, Christ obeyed the Law on our behalf. The Jehovah's Witnesses have such a strange and bizarre understanding of Christ's incarnation and resurrection, however, that for the ascended Jesus to speak of 'my God' means that he cannot be God, for them. For they believe that his resurrection was actually a re-creation. For them his incarnation means that the archangel Michael went out of existence and was born on earth as a man. The incarnated Christ and the ascended Christ are two different beings, and the ascended one is certainly not a man. But if that is the case, what hope have we of a resurrection? What do I care, if I go out of existence and God creates a new 'me' that has no connection with my earthly existence? But Job said: "I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes -- I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!" --Job 19:25-29 We have no quarrel with the Witnesses that Christ is a man. They seem to have a problem believing that he is still a man. This despite the fact that the Scriptures say that there *is*, not *was* one mediator between God and men, the *man* Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). He had a body when he rose from the dead, and that body was seen ascending into heaven. He even made a point of eating something after his resurrection, to show he had a body. But the main thing we need to do is to show the Witnesses that Christ is also God, and that their salvation depends on this. We need to show this from the Scriptures. First, because the Scriptures are the Word of God and the means by which the Spirit works faith. Secondly, because the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. (Rom 1:16) Thirdly, because the Witnesses take false pride in standing on their false interpretation of Scripture. By the way, I really appreciated Gene Gross's article. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "Ach Herr, lass dein lieb Engelein Am letzen End die Seele mein In Abrahams Schoss tragen, Den Leib in sein'm Schlafkaemmerlein Gar sanft, ohn ein'ge Qual und Pein, Ruhn bis am Juengsten Tage! Alsdenn vom Tod erwecke mich, Dass meine Augen sehen dich In aller Freud, O Gottes Sohn, Mein Heiland und Genadenthron! Herr Jesu Christ, erhoere mich! Erhoere mich! Ich will dich preisen ewiglich!" --v. 3 of Herzlich lieb hab' ich dich, o Herr) by Martin Schalling, 1567 --used by J. S. Bach as the last chorus of his St. John Passion auf Englisch: Lord, let at last Thine angels come, To Abram's bosom bear me home, That I may die unfearing; And in its narrow chamber keep My body safe in peaceful sleep Until Thy reappearing. And then from death awaken me That these mine eyes with joy may see, O Son of God, Thy glorious face, My Savior and my Fount of grace. Lord Jesus Christ, My prayer attend, my prayer attend, And I will praise Thee without end. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.