mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (09/23/89)
I'll try to address some of the claims of the Jehovah's Witnesses
here from the standpoint of orthodox Christology. I think there are
some things that need to be said, that have largely gone unsaid.
First, note that my standpoint is from an apostolic church, not
a biblical church. The meaning here is that I take my theology
first from the apostles and second from the Bible. Of course, our
sole record of the apostles IS the Bible, but that does not claim
that the Bible is inerrant, merely that it is the collected writings
(or rather, the NT is the collected writings) of the apostles.
Hence, I will appeal to my beliefs of what the apostles believed,
as evidenced by scripture and early church traditions.
Second, I hold, with Calvin, that we cannot understand theology
by reading individual verses, chapters, or books. Rather, we need
to look at things in the light of the Bible as a whole. Toward that
end, I'll discuss things by referring to widely disparate parts of
the Bible, in an attempt to address the fact that we need the whole
Bible to understand pieces of it.
Now, on to the subject at hand. From various parts of the OT, we
see that God is likened as a savior, a judge, a parent, and a spiritual
force. For example, he is a savior in the Exodus, to Jonah, and
in many Psalms. He is a judge in many of the prophets, particularly
Elijah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, as well as in the Exodus and again many
Psalms. He is a parent in the Psalms, to David in 2 Samuel, and in
many images in Daniel and Micah. He is a spiritual force in the Exodus,
in Jonah, the Psalms (again!), and most of the prophets.
The Christian conception of God comes first and foremost from the OT.
Now, how does the picture of Jesus rendered in the NT look? We see
*all* the characteristics of God in the descriptions of Jesus. For
example, he is referred to as a savior in most of the epistles,
particularly 1 Corinthians.he is a spiritual force in the Resurrection
and the Epistles, as well as in Revelation.
I claim that the difference is in the emphasis, and this is easily seen
when you consider that the Trinity neatly explains all the differences
between the God of the OT and Christ Jesus in the NT. The Nicene idea
is that the God of the OT is *not* just the First Person of the Trinity,
but all three united. The Jews did not have the vision of the Trinity,
instead they saw all the parts of the Trinity as a whole. In the NT,
all the parts of the Trinity are seen more distinctly. The reason for
the perceptual shift was, surprise, surprise, the Incarnation. We see
the difference between Jesus the Redeemer and Judge and the First Person,
the Creator and Author, and the Third Person, the personal and corporate
presence in each of us. Without the fact of the Resurrection, the Jews
could not see the three persons of the Trinity, for in fact, God had
revealed himself only partially.
The ideas in the last paragraph are an attempt to explain the "problems"
posed by the WTBTS. The Trinity is not something to be rejected because
we can't understand it completely. After all, if Niceans are right,
the Trinity is the most important theological truth we can even approach
understanding. No wonder that we can't understand it completely. But it
does solve the problems posed by the WTBTS. Jesus is seen as having
all the attributes of the God of the OT, with one interesting exception:
he never says "I am the God of Abraham and Isaac", that oft repeated
phrase in the OT. But he neatly makes up for it by acknowledgeing
Peter's "My Lord and my God!" in the book of John. He does seem to
accept other people's claims on his divinity despite his reluctance to
substantiate them directly. Perhaps the reason he doesn't make the same
formula is because to do so would be to succumb to the second temptation
of Satan during Jesus' wandering in the desert. We should not put Jesus
to the test and make him prove he's God, we should examine his actions
and statements and see if they are those of God or of man. And, what we
see is the Nicene viewpoint that his actions are both those of God and
man. The impression of the WTBTS I get is that they reject that possibility
out of hand, without examining it for logical validity, and then decide
that Jesus must be man, just a man.
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
Telephone: +1 505 292 0001 / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!