19. Greek: auveatipcev.
20. When the NWT first came out, the word "other" wasn't in brackets. However, such
a hue and cry was raised, later editions included the brackets. However, the Society
gladly drops the brackets when paraphrasing the passage (as in the 1991 publication, The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived, prologue, and the 1995 publication, Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life, 39).
21. The current editions of the NWT refer the reader to Luke 11:41-42, where the word
"other" is inserted for clarity.
22. A construction known as a "partitive genitive." Stafford, 100, "Thus the genitive
pases ktiseos is properly seen as partitive, including Christ in the collective group
of created things, but dignified above it as `firstborn: "
23. Nicoll, The Expositor's Greek Testament, 503. Specifically, "Grammatically is it possible to make 1t0611; xti eo s a partitive genitive? But this is excluded by the context, which sharply distinguishes between the Son and Ta ltocvta, and for this idea
Paul would probably have used npwToKTtatos. The genitive is therefore commonly explained as a genitive of comparison." Likewise, A. T. Robertson, in his
Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1932), IV:478:
The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded
Christ as a creature like "all creation (pases ktiseos...) It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of protos that is used ... Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing Him before "all creation"
(angels and men) ... Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus
Christ in his relation to the Father as eikon (Image) and to the universe as prototokos (First-born).
24. Stafford attempts to get around this and, by so doing, defend the insertion of the
term "other" in the text, by saying that while indeed Jesus is not part of "all things,"
He is part of "all creation." Hence, he insists that Jesus created "all things" but not
"all creation," since He himself is a creation. Of course, the text does not make the
differentiation that Stafford alleges between "all creation" and "all things." The two
are synonymous.
CHAPTER EIGHT
1. We should note in fairness that the NEB provides a marginal translation, "yet he
did not prize his equality with God." Such a translation would allow for the understanding that the preexistent Christ was, in fact, equal with the Father.
2. Greek: ultapXwv, a verb of being or existence, in the present active participial
form.
3. Greek: toprn .
4. Fritz Reinecker, A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, ed. Cleon Rogers, Jr.
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 550.
5. Greek: aprtayµov.
6. See also the examples in 1 Corinthians 1:7; 9:15; 2 Corinthians 9:3.
7. The NASB provides a marginal note, "laid aside His privileges."
8. Surely, then, if taking the form of a bond-servant in verse 7 means Jesus was truly
human, truly a man, then having eternally existed in the form of God in verse 6
must, logically, mean that He had eternally been deity.
CHAPTER NINE
1. For Mormons who reject this identification (Mormonism identifying the Father as
"Elohim" and the Son as "Jehovah"), see such passages as Isaiah 53:6 and Matthew
22:41-45, where the Father is identified as Yahweh. See also James White, Letters
to a Mormon Elder (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 1993), 67-75.
2. Here is a partial listing of other passages that can be developed along these lines:
Matthew 1:21; Psalm 130:8; Isaiah 35:4 [God will save His people] Matthew 3:12; Revelation 6:16; Psalm 2:12; Psalm 76:7 [Fear God]
Matthew 5:18; Mark 13:31 [God's Word is eternal; Jesus' Word is eternal]
Matthew 25:31-46; Psalm 50:6; 59:11; 96:13 [God is Judge, Jesus is judge]
John 1:3; Isaiah 44:24 [Yahweh alone created all things]
John 1:7-9; Isaiah 60:9 [God is light]
John 7:37-38; Jeremiah 2:13 [Yahweh the fountain of living water]
John 10:11; Psalm 23:1; 100:3 [The Good Shepherd]
John 12:41; Isaiah 6:1 [The vision of Isaiah-Yahweh's glory]
John 14:6; Psalm 31:5 [God is truth]
John 14:14; 1 Corinthians 1:2 [Prayer to Jesus]
John 14:26; 16:27; Romans 8:9; 1 Peter 1:11; Nehemiah 9:20; 2 Samuel 23:
2-3 [Spirit of YHWH/God/Christ]
John 17:5; Isaiah 48:11 [Will not give His glory to another]
Acts 1:8; Isaiah 43:10 [Witnesses of Whom?]
Acts 4:24; 2 Peter 2:1; Jude 4 [Who is our Master?]
Romans 10:13; Joel 2:32 [Call on the name of...]
Ephesians 4:8-9/Psalm 68:18 [God leads the captives ...
Philippians 2:10-11; Isaiah 45:23 [Every knee will bow...]
Colossians 1:16, Ephesians 5:25, 27; Romans 11:36 [All things are to God ...]
Colossians 1:17; Acts 17:28 [We exist in God]
Colossians 2:3; 1 Timothy 1:17 [Only wise God ... treasure of wisdom]
2 Timothy 1:12; Jeremiah 17:5 [Trust in Yahweh-believe in Jesus]
Hebrews 1:3; 1 Timothy 6:15 [Jesus' power-God is only sovereign]
Hebrews 1:10; Psalm 102:25 [Jesus is Yahweh]
Hebrews 13:8; Malachi 3:6 [God changes not]
James 2:1; Zechariah 2:5 [Lord of glory]
1 Peter 2:3; Psalm 34:8 [Taste that Yahweh is good]
1 Peter 3:15; Isaiah 8:13 [Sanctify Yahweh]
Revelation 1:5-6; Exodus 34:14 [Glorify Jesus]
Revelation 1:13-16; Ezekiel 43:2 [God's voice is the voice of Jesus]
Revelation 2:23; 1 Kings 8:39 [Jesus searches the hearts]
Revelation 3:7; Revelation 15:4 [God alone is holy]
3. See the discussion of this fact in chapter 3.
4. The New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses inserts the name "Jehovah" 237
times in the text of the New Testament. When the NT cites an OT passage that
uses the name Yahweh, the NWT will use "Jehovah," replacing the Greek term
"Lord" or "God" that appears in the text. At other times, the NWT will simply
remove the term "Lord" and replace it with "Jehovah." The translation is inconsistent, however, in when it will insert the divine name. In a number of places,
replacing "Lord" with "Jehovah" would teach the deity of Christ. For example, Paul
says that no man can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians
12:3). Even though some of the Hebrew documents the Watchtower Society cites
in support of their insertion of Jehovah have "Jesus is Yahweh," the Society would
not, of course, translate it that way. In the same way, if the NWT was consistent,
they would have the word "Yahweh" here at Hebrews 1:10, replacing the word
"Lord." But this would teach the deity of Christ, hence, the replacement is not
made.
5. The wording is almost identical to that found in the Greek Septuagint translation
of Psalm 102:25-27.
6. This argument is put forward by Greg Stafford in Jehovah's Witnesses Defended
(Huntington Beach, Calif.: Elihu Books, 1998), 49-50. The circularity of Stafford's
arguments is illustrated by the comments that precede this discussion. In trying to
avoid the plain teaching of Hebrews 1:10-12 that Jesus is the Creator of all things,
Stafford notes that God created all things through the Son (Hebrews 1:2), and
writes, "Clearly, then, in context Hebrews 1:10-12 could not be teaching that Jesus
is the Creator, for here, in the opening words to the Hebrews, it is clearly stated
that God made all things "through" His Son" (p. 48). This is circular argumentation, for it assumes the conclusion Stafford wishes to reach. It assumes unitarianism. The fact that the Son is differentiated from the Father is admitted by all.
But unless one assumes that the term "God" must always and only refer solely to
the Father (unitarianism), the entire argument collapses. The Son is the one
through whom the Father made all things (Hebrews 1:2) and He is Yahweh, the
eternal Creator, for the Father, Son, and Spirit are all identified as Yahweh. There
is no contradiction between allowing both truths to coexist. Only the authority of
the Watchtower forces Stafford to downplay the plain meaning of the one passage
to uphold his unitarian interpretation of the other.
7. The connection is actually closer than first glance might indicate, for the Greek
Septuagint (the LXX) contains both the verb form John uses in verse 1, Bihov, and
departing from the Hebrew text, it contains at the end of the verse the reading TTIS
Soi;rls auTOij meaning "the house was full of His glory." This is the same phraseology used in John 12:41, Tily Soi;av avtof, (the accusative for the genitive)
meaning "he saw His glory." The use of the same phraseology makes the connection to the John 6 passage unbreakable.
8. Or, more likely, the term "glory" used in the LXX in verse 1.
9. Stafford insists that we look only at Isaiah 53 for the reference to John 12:41, but
he does not deal with the verbal parallels to the Greek LXX. In fact, one will search
in vain in Isaiah 53 for ci&ev/eiSov being used with "glory"; and one will not find
the phrase TfIv Sofav ainob or anything similar to it. The term "glory" only appears once in Isaiah 53, and that in a completely separate context.
CHAPTER TEN
1. That is what theologians call the Eternal Covenant of Redemption, that agreement
between the Father, Son, and Spirit, regarding the roles each person would take in
bringing about the redemption of God's people.
2. The phrase appears in a number of forms, the simplest being nvevµa aytov.
3. I note in passing as well the use of the masculine form of the demonstrative pronoun exetvOS of the Holy Spirit at John 16:13-14 as another reference to the personality of the Holy Spirit. While the normal pronouns used for the Spirit are neuter (matching the neuter gender of the word "Spirit"), exeivos is masculine,
translated "He."
4. Specifically, I refer to the term it ayoenrl.
5. For a discussion of the alternate understanding of this last phrase, see Douglas
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans in The New International Commentary on the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 526-527.
6. Another relevant example, also identifying the Spirit as Yahweh, is found at Hebrews 10:15-17, where Jeremiah 31:31-34 is cited as the words of the Spirit.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
1. The words of Jesus at Matthew 27:46 have come in for many kinds of interpretation. Unfortunately, many of the theories have compromised the Bible's teachings
on the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Father was
never separated from or abandoned the Son. This truth is clear from many sources.
Jesus uses the second person when speaking to the Father-"why have You forsaken
Me?" rather than "why did He forsake Me?" as if the Father is no longer present.
Immediately on the heels of this statement Jesus speaks to the Father ("Father, into
your hands. . "), showing no sense of separation. Whatever else Jesus was saying,
He was not saying that, at the very time of His ultimate obedience to the Father,
the Father abandoned Him. Rather, it seems much more logical to see this as a
quotation of Psalm 22 that is meant to call to mind all of that Psalm, which would
include the victory of v. 19ff, as well as verse 24, which states, "For He has not
despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither has He hidden His face
from him; but when he cried to Him for help, He heard."
2. The Greek here is simply beautiful, as noted in chapter 4 on the prologue of John,
footnote 25.
CHAPTER TWELVE
1. B. B. Warfield, "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity," The Works of Benjamin B.
Warfield, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 11:143.
2. Ibid., 141-142.
3. Ibid., 144.
4. Ibid., 145.
5. Ibid., 146.
6. The systematic treatments by Grudem, Hodge, Berkhof, and others, cited in this
chapter, would provide fertile soil for those who wish to enter into the philosophical considerations of the doctrine of the Trinity.
7. The issues of the use of nonbiblical terminology to communicate biblical truths is
beyond the scope of our study. A brief word from Warfield (p. 133) will have to
suffice:
A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the
principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical
doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that
it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The
doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from
its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view.
Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture,
not in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assembled the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture,
but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the
doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine.
8. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 87-89. One
could just as well use the definition provided by Charles Hodge in his Systematic
Theology (New York: Scribner's, 1872; reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986),
I:442ff., or any number of others.
9. John 4:24.
10. Jeremiah 23:24.
11. 2 Chronicles 6:18.
12. John Calvin put it well in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, XIII, 6,
and we would do well to ponder his words (repeatedly, if necessary):
By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence, a subsistence
which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence we wish something else to be understood
than essence. For if the Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been
with God. When he adds immediately after, that the Word was God, he calls us
back to the one essence. But because he could not be with God without dwelling
in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, though connected with the
essence by an indissoluble tie, being incapable of separation, yet has a special
mark by which it is distinguished from it. Now, I say that each of the three
subsistences while related to the others is distinguished by its own properties.