Truth Magazine

By James S. Smelser

The Jehovah’s Witnesses, and all other Premillennialists, appeal to such prophecies as Isa. 65:17-25, and proclaim they have not yet been fulfilled. These passages are to be fulfilled after Christ returns to establish His kingdom on the earth, according to the Witnesses. Consider with me some rules to follow while interpreting prophecy.

Not all prophecy was revealed in the same manner (Heb. 1:1). God spoke by the prophets in divers portions (sundry times) which means “in many parts.” God’s scheme of redemption was revealed gradually and in fragments through the prophets. God also spoke in divers manners which means “in many ways or methods.” Some prophecy was literally revealed (Isa. 13:17-22). Some prophecy was set forth figuratively (Isa. 40:3-5). Some prophecy was presented by types and antitypes (Mal. 4:5, 6). Some prophecies were revealed by dreams and visions (Dan. 8:1). Sometimes the past tense was used as though the event had already occurred (Isa. 53). Sometimes the prophecy appeared in the present tense (Isa. 9:6). And sometimes the future tense of the verb was used (Dan. 2:44). Therefore, all prophecy cannot be interpreted alike.

The truths revealed through prophecy were said to be a mystery (Eph. 3:7-9). The angels of God in heaven could not interpret these prophecies (1 Pet. 1:12). The prophets themselves did not appreciate their full import (1 Pet. 1:10). The Jews and their leaders failed to understand the voice of the prophets (Acts 13:27). The disciples of Jesus were slow to understand the words of the prophets (Lk. 24:25-27). And even the apostles themselves failed to be able to interpret prophecy accurately (Lk. 24:44, 45). If all these could not understand and interpret prophecies, how is it that our modern day prognosticators of- the kingdom can understand these “unfulfilled” prophecies with crystal clarity? What advantage do these have today that enables them to understand “unfulfilled” Old Testament prophecies so easily? What makes matters worse, these premillennialists cannot agree among themselves as to the correct explanation of these prophecies, but each will offer his own explanation and assure you that he has the proper explanation.

Notice, Jesus said he would fulfill all prophecies concerning Himself (Lk. 18:31). Did not the prophecies of the kingdom concern Jesus, since He was to be its king? Later, Jesus said He had fulfilled all Old Testament prophecies concerning Himself (Lk. 24:24, 25). Peter said Jesus fulfilled all that was spoken by the mouth of the prophets, and all the prophets spoke of these days (Acts 3:17-24). He said the prophets spoke of these days, not some future kingdom. Paul said he preached what Moses and the prophets said should come to pass (Acts 26:22, 23). Paul never taught some future kingdom on earth. Finally, James said the prophets spoke of the things which occurred in his life time, not some future millennium (Acts 15:14-18). If the testimony of all these witnesses be true, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong in looking for some future fulfillment of the prophecies. All Old Testament prophecies have already realized their fulfillment.

In giving consideration to the proper manner in which to interpret Old Testament prophecies, one must accept the New Testament interpretation of those prophecies. Some read the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32 and apply it to the 20th century. But when we read where Peter said “this is that” in Acts 2:17-21, we should accept his explanation of Joel 2:28-32. We need to accept the New Testament interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. We may think that a prophecy should be interpreted literally, but if the New Testament places a figurative explanation to the prophecy, so should we. Malachi said Elijah was to come (Mal. 3:1; 4:5, 6), and the Jews were expecting Elijah to literally come. But Jesus said John the baptist was Elijah (Matt. 11:9-15). The reverse is also true. If we believe a prophecy is to be interpreted figuratively, but the New Testament interprets it literally, we must accept the New Testament interpretation of any Old Testament prophecy as being the true explanation of that prophecy.

But what of the Old Testament prophecies that are not interpreted in the New Testament, such as Isa. 65:17-25? How are we to interpret these? Interpret such prophecies so as to allow them to harmonize with New Testament teaching, and not to contradict the New Testament. To say this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, contradicts all the New Testament scriptures which state that all Old Testament scriptures have been fulfilled. One may object and say that the wolf and the lamb do not feed together nor does the lion eat straw. And the peace which this text pictures is not being enjoyed today. Since all prophecy has already been fulfilled, and these things have not literally transpired, then this prophecy must be interpreted figuratively with a spiritual application rather than with a literal application as the Jehovah’s Witnesses are wont to do.

Therefore, (1) interpret all Old Testament prophecies as having been fulfilled. (2) Do not interpret all Old Testament prophecies in the same manner, since they came in divers portions and in divers manners. (3) Always accept the New Testament interpretation of any Old Testament prophecy as being the correct explanation thereof. (4) If the prophecy is not quoted or referred to in the New Testament, then interpret the prophecy in a manner which will allow it to harmonize with other Bible truths, rather than to come into conflict with them.

Truth Magazine XIX: 26, pp. 408-409
May 8, 1975

By Jady W Copeland

Sometime after Judge Rutherford’s death, the Jehovah’s Witnesses decided it was sinful to have blood transfusions, even if one could save a life. They are so confident that this is sin that they will die or allow their children to die rather than to submit to a blood transfusion. Some of them carry identification cards in their pocket or purse saying that they want blood transfusions under no circumstances. So we do not question their sincerity, only whether their belief in the matter is substantiated by the Scriptures.

But where do they get the idea that it is sinful to have blood transfusions, since the Bible nowhere mentions such a thing (pro or con) and since it was not discovered that blood circulated in the human veins until Dr. William Harvey, an English physician, discovered it about 1615 and the first transfusions on record do not appear until several years later? The way they reach this conclusion is to say that transfusions and eating blood are the same. “Jehovah’s Witnesses see no difference between being fed blood through the mouth or nose or intravenously” (Religions In America, Leo Rosten, Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York, 1963, p. 101). It is defined as “intravenous feeding, it is a feeding upon blood, An unscriptural practice” (“Make Sure of All Things,” Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, p. 47). After erroneously concluding that transfusions and eating blood are the same, they twist the scriptures to “prove” it is always sinful to eat the blood of animals under any or all circumstances.

In arguing their case it is interesting to note the “reasons” given. They tell us the practice is dangerous but they do not refuse other medical treatment that is equally dangerous. The dangers involved in transfusions are relatively minor. But the argument that is most humorous (if it were not so serious) is the one which says that the recipient of blood may take on the character of the donor. Bro. Maurice Barnett quotes from Awake; a Jehovah’s Witness publication (July 8, 1969), which tells of Mr. Robert Khoury who became a thief because the donor of a pint of blood was a thief (the statement is quoted in Jehovah’s Witnesses, Vol. 1). I suppose a transfusion from a genius would improve a man’s thinking if that is the case.

One of the favorite passages used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses to prove their case is Gen. 9:4. Here the eating of blood is forbidden. This, of course, is before the law of Moses. However it was in connection with the sacrifice for sin. Then, and later under the law of Moses, the blood of animals sacrificed for sin was made sacred to the ones offering the sacrifice. Hence they were to refrain from eating it. Blood represented the life and thus, because of God’s command, became very sacred to them. Animal blood was shed because the life of the animal was given in place of the sinner. While the “type” lasted, they were forbidden to eat the blood of animals. But now that Jesus has shed His blood for sin, animal blood is no longer a symbol of the life of the one making the sacrifice. Thus, the sacredness of animal blood was removed and there is no reason to refrain from eating it.

Keep the above thought in mind as we now consider another favorite passage of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Lev. 17:11-12. Again the eating of blood is prohibited, but notice in verse 11 that it is stated, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the alter to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” The New American Standard translation says, “for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.” In this verse, God told the Israelites why they were not to eat blood. But the law of sacrificing animal blood for sins is no longer binding, as we are saved by the blood of Christ. Thus the reason for considering the blood such a sacred thing has been removed. The blood of animals will not take away sins (Heb. 9:12-14).

Coming to the New Testament, we again come to a favorite passage of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Acts 15:2029. This is of course after the new covenant was effective; a brief look at the background of the statement is helpful here. The problem prompting this statement was one which involved the relationship between Jew and Gentile, a problem that had arisen after Cornelius was baptized (Acts 10:48). False teachers had come from Judea teaching that it was necessary to be circumcised in order to be saved (Acts 15: i ). Paul and Barnabas were dispatched to discuss the matter with the elders and apostles in Jerusalem. There Peter told them how God had shown him that the Gentiles should also have the gospel. The multitude then kept silent as Barnabas and Paul told of the great wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles. Then James spoke. He reminded them that what Peter had said was in harmony with the prophets of old. Now the time had come for the decision regarding what to tell the brethren at Antioch. These were Gentile Christians (vs. 23). As already noted, there had been misunderstandings from the beginning in the Jew-Gentile relationship. Notice that the four things here prohibited (pollutions of idols, fornication, things strangled and blood) were items of heathen worship with which the Gentiles were familiar. It did not bother them to eat in the temples of the idol worshiper. Paul told the Corinthians that whatever is sold in the shambles, eat, asking no questions (1 Cor. 10:25). Thus it was obviously not wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols under some conditions. But sometimes it was wrong (1 Cor. 10:28). It was wrong if it caused a weak brother to eat meats in violation of his conscience (see also 1 Cor. 8:13).

Then why did James now tell them to abstain from pollutions of idols, . blood, etc.? The answer comes in verse 21. “For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” Here is another reference to the Jew-Gentile relationship. Love and restraint must be practiced (1 Cor. 8:9; 10:32; Rom. 14:13-15). These four things were linked together on the basis of the Jew Gentile relationship, not because they were equal morally. These were especially objectionable to the Jews. Thus in the letter they were forbidden. So out of deference to the Jewish brethren and in an attempt to maintain the unity of brethren, they were to abstain from these things. See Acts 15:21.

But is it not wrong, to practice these things now under all conditions? What about fornication? Is it not wrong under all circumstances? Yes, many other passages tell us it is (1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19, etc.). But in the passage before us it is connected with the heathen worship with which the Gentiles were familiar and no doubt refers to the practice of the heathen religious worship. Even fornication was an act of worship among the pagans. Lenski says, “It was a part of their idol worship” (Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, Lenski, p. 615). He then continued, “The wisdom of some of the Corinthian Christians argued that fornication was merely an external matter. The old pagan ideas about sexual impurities not being impurities kept clinging to the converts from paganism in some form or other. Hence this warning appears as the second on the list of Peter” (Ibid., p. 615).

Thus, it is the belief of this writer that the things prohibited here were not meant as restrictions under all circumstances and to all generations, but were stated in view of the strained Jew-Gentile relationship at that time. As already stated, we know eating meat sacrificed to idols was not sinful. So this would explain why sometimes it was wrong and sometimes it was not. Since these things were pagan religious practices, the Gentile Christians were to refrain out of love for their Jewish brethren who objected to them.

In conclusion we believe that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong in their position on several counts. (1) They cannot show that eating blood (even if sinful now) and blood transfusions are the same. Blood transfusions save lives; they do not destroy life. (2) The scriptures they use show (even under Moses’ law) that the prohibition concerned animal blood, not human blood. (3) In misusing the Old Testament they fail to see that the blood was sacred; for this reason, they were to refrain from eating it. (4) And, finally, they misapply Acts 15, which does not make a blanket prohibition.

Truth Magazine XIX: 26, pp. 407-408
May 8, 1975

By Ray Smellridge

God, after five days of the creation process, reviewed His work and “saw that it was good” (Gen. 1:25). The following day after He had completed His creative labor by creating man, God “saw that it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). What was the difference? We are sure that both man and the animals were created from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7; 1:24, etc.) and that both shall return to the dust (Eccl. 12:7; 3:19-20). There is no doubt that God breathed life into man and he became a living soul (Gen. 2:’7) and that, in this respect, a certain kinship with the animals was brought into being. Hence, agreement can be readily admitted among those who accept deity that God created both man and animals and that the animation or life force is referred to as the soul (nephesh in the Hebrew and psuche in the Greek). Disagreement comes when there is an affirmation that man is nothing more than an animal, or at best, just a more advanced member of the animal kingdom.

The answer to the question “Does man have an immortal soul?” is found when one finds the answer to the implication of difference in Gen. 1:25 and 31 concerning that which was “good” and that which was “very good.” Therefore to establish the validity of the answer, these definitions are in order:

1. Man (Greek: Anthropos): “A human being, whether male or female . . . so that a man is distinguished from animals, plants, etc.”(Thayer, p. 46).

2. Immortal (Greek: Aphthartos): “Uncorrupted, not liable to corruption or decay, imperishable” (Thayer, p. 88). This characteristic is attributed to God in 1 Tim. 1:17.

3. Soul (Greek: Psuche): (1 ) Breath-a. “The breath of life; the vital life force which animates the body.”(2 ) a. “The seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions, etc., b. The (human ) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a mortal being designed for everlasting life. c. The soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death” (Thayer, p. 677).

From the considerations given above, the question may be restated as follows: “Does man (a human being distinguished from the animals) possess that which is likened unto God, a soul that is imperishable, not liable to corruption or decay, immortal, different from the body and not dissolved by death”?

The Annihilation Theory

One of the ancient doctrines concerning man is that at death he ceases to exist. The Sadducees of our Lord’s day were materialists who denied the resurrection of the dead and who were the proponents of at least a part of the annihilationist theology of our day. Their doctrine according to Josephus was “that the souls die with the bodies” (Antiquities, book 18, chap. 1) and, “They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul and the punishment and rewards in Hades” (Wars of the Jews, Book 2, chap. 8). In more modern times the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” are very strong advocates of annihilationism. In their book, The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life (pp. 34-40), an .attempt is made to destroy the Bible teaching concerning the nature of man by misapplication, assertion, and omission of passages relevant to the question. Their doctrine is set forth in the answers they give to the following questions: First what happens to a person when he dies? Their answer: “Simply stated, death is the opposite of life. In sentencing the first man, Adam, for his willful disobedience, God said: `You (will) return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return’ ” (Gen. 3:19, New World Translation). From this they reason as follows: “Where was Adam before God made him and gave him life? Why, he simply did not exist. At death Adam returned to the same lifeless, unconscious state. He went neither to a fiery Hell nor to Heavenly bliss, but died-as God said he would.” To further prove their contention they refer to Eccl. 9:5, 10; however, they conveniently bypass v. 6 which explains the part of man referred to in the preceding verses (cf. Lk. 16:19-31; Matt. 10:28).

Concerning the soul, they ask, “But what about the soul? Is it not a part of man that separates from his body at death and goes on living?” From here on, in order to sustain their argument that man is wholly mortal the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny all of the definitions of the Hebrew nephesh and Greek psuche except “the breath of life.” They insist that “the human soul is man himself” and deny that it can exist apart from the person and conclude “that the human soul is the person himself, and when the person dies it is the human soul that dies” (Emp. mine, RS). In order to further substantiate their doctrine they state the following concerning the spirit: “Whereas the human soul is the living person himself, the spirit is simply the life force that enables the person to be alive.” The spirit, according to Jehovah’s Witnesses, “has no personality, nor can it do the things that a person can do. It cannot think, speak, hear, see or feel” (p. 39). A paper by Brother Clinton Hamilton, entitled “Soul and Spirit,” shows plainly the fallacy of their theology. Since I cannot improve upon it, note the following quotations:

“An honest person cannot deny that soul means animal life. But the honest person also must admit that it can and does mean something else in some passages. The word soul in our language means what the word spirit meant in the Bible when used with reference to man’s innerself. The way we use soul is sometimes its use in the Bible . . . A summary of the uses of the word soul and spirit will help us to keep clearly in our minds their meaning. Nephesh (Heb.), Psuche (Grk.), and soul (Eng.), are used to represent, (1) animal life, (2) a living person, and (3 ) sometimes the human spirit. On the other hand, the word spirit (Eng. ), Ruach (Heb. ), and Pneuma (Grk.) represents in relation to men; only the rational or moral nature. This part of man does not cease to be . . . “

Hence, a proper respect for the usage and definition of words used in relation to the subject will annihilate the false doctrine of annihilationism.

Between Good and Very Good

The verses between Gen. 1:25 and 31 give us the reason for the difference. “And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in His own image, male and female created He them. And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:26-27, 31). Hence, we see that what God created was good in His sight, and became very good only after something was created in His image; that something was man-the crowning act of Divine handiwork.

What Is God?

Since man was created in the image and likeness of God, this question must be considered. Jesus’ answer is that, “God is a spirit” (Jn. 4:24); the apostle Paul says that God is “immortal” (1 Tim. 1:17) and “only hath immortality” (1 Tim. 6:16). The Lord further affirms that spirits do not have flesh and blood (Lk. 24:39). Therefore, we must conclude that the likeness is not physical and mortal; rather it is a spiritual likeness that does not dissolve at death. God is immortal and man is His offspring (Acts 17:28; Heb. 12:9). This is God’s answer, Jehovah’s Witnesses notwithstanding! One does not need volumes of intellectual sophistry to understand that the part of man created in the image of God must have a likeness to His person, and since man is not deity and deity is. not flesh and blood, the only possible likeness is in the immortality of the spirit. “Let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

Truth Magazine XIX: 26, pp. 405-406
May 8, 1975

By David A. Webb

At the heart of the doctrine of the 400,000 member sect calling itself Jehovah’s Witnesses are their false teachings regarding the deity of Christ. The Witnesses claim that Christ was the first created being of Jehovah, and that during this pre-human state Christ was the Word (Greek: Logos) of the Father, but was never considered as equal to Jehovah.(1) During this time the Witnesses claim that Christ was some kind of a “a spirit person,”(2) indicating that He only possessed “a godly quality.”(3) This particular doctrine of the Witnesses traces its beginning back to Arius (c. 280-336 A.D.), Bishop of Alexandria, and to his followers called Arians. “The Arians taught that there was a time when God was alone and was not yet a Father. Arius went on to ascribe to Christ only a subordinate, secondary, created divinity.”(4)This is essentially the same position held by the Witnesses today. They recognize only Jehovah (God the Father) as the supreme deity, Christ as a lesser deity, and claim that the Holy Spirit is only “the invisible active force of Almighty God”(5) and not a third person. It would be impossible to answer in detail all the arguments raised by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in this article. Therefore I will only attempt to make a few remarks about some of the “key” scriptures dealing with the deity of Christ.

John 1:1-3

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” The New World Translation of The Holy Scriptures of the Jehovah’s Witnesses translates the latter part of verse one, “. . . and the Word was a god.” This is done to uphold their theory that Jesus was a created, subordinate deity, inferior to Jehovah God. In reality the Witnesses’ position is polytheistic, affirming that there exists, besides Jehovah God, someone who is a lesser god. The Witnesses’ own translation defeats the concept of a minor deity existing with God. In Deuteronomy 4:35, the New World Translation reads, ” . . . Jehovah is the (true) God; there is no other besides him.” In Isaiah 43:10, it reads, ” . . . Before me there was no God formed, and after -me there continued to be none.” Finally, in Deuteronomy 32:39 the same translation reads, “See now that I-1 am he and there, are no gods together with me.”

The Witnesses argue that the Greek demands the indefinite article “a” to appear before “god” (Greek: theos) in John 1:1. This is simply not true. If it were true the Witnesses would be grossly inconsistent in observing their own rule. “In John 1:6, 12-13, 18 Theos is found, and in each place it is without the article . . . It is just ‘God.’ Why not render it ‘A God?'”(6) In quoting from Greek authorities the Witnesses will either make reference to scriptures which have nothing to do with the subject, or quote only part of what various grammarians may say, leaving the false impression that these authorities endorse Jehovah’s Witness doctrine. The apostle John clearly shows that Christ is just as much entitled to be called “God” as is the “God” whom Christ was “with” “in the beginning.” This means both God and the Word (Greek: Logos) are co-equal and coexistent. Furthermore, John identifies Christ as being active in the creation, which would make Him part of the God (Hebrew: Elohim, literally “God” in the plural sense) of Genesis chapter one. (See Genesis 1:1, 26-27.)

John 5:18

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.” The wording of John shows that Jesus considered God to be His (Greek: idios) Father. By the usage of idios, John said Jesus was claiming to be “equal in quality or in quantity . . . to claim for one’s self the nature, rank, authority which belong to God.”(7) The Witnesses argue that the Jews misunderstood the claim of Jesus, and that they mistakenly concluded that Jesus was claiming equality with God. “The Jews well understood what Jesus said, but John 5:18 is the statement of the Apostle John, not the Jews! . . . John said that Jesus claimed equality.”(8) Jesus also claimed equality with God on a number of other occasions: John 5:23 and John 10:30- . 38. In reference to the latter, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). The Witnesses claim that Jehovah and Christ are only “one in agreement, purpose and organization.”(9) What they fail to mention is that, according to verse 31, the Jews took up stones to stone Jesus, giving as their reason, “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (verse 33, ASV). The Jews would not have cried “blasphemy” against one who merely claimed to be “one in agreement; purpose and organization” with God.

Philippians 2:6

“Who, (Christ Jesus) being in the form of God, thought it not. robbery to be equal with God.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation of Philippians 2:6 is rendered, “Who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” The impression intended by the Witnesses in this translation is that Christ was not equal to God and never considered the idea worthwhile. However, the passage does teach that Christ was equal to the Father, and shows that He did not consider His equality to be stealing any of God’s glory or deity. Christ never had to grasp or seize any of the quality or quantity of the deity of the Father; He already had it! No one has any need to seize something he already possesses. Another translation renders this verse, “Who, though from the beginning he had the nature of God, did not reckon equality with God something to be forcibly retained.”(10)

Colossians 1:15-18

These verses are also used by the Witnesses to attempt to prove that Jesus was only a created being inferior to Jehovah. They draw attention to Christ being “the firstborn of every creature” (verse 15), and proceed to show that Jesus is referred to as the “begotten of God,” and the “Son of God” in a number of other passages. The Witnesses consider the expression “Son of God” to mean someone inferior to God, but the first century Jew knew the expression meant full equality with God, and it was on this account that they sought to kill Him (see Lev. 24:16; John 5:18; 10:30-38; Matt. 26:63-65). The Witnesses also quote Revelation 3:14 where Christ is identified as “the beginning of the creation of God” (KJV), proving, they say, that Jesus was the first creature God created. The statements of Christ being “begotten of God” or “the only begotten” are referring to His position, not His origin. “In Hebrews 11:17, referring to Abraham, ‘yea he that had gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten son.’ Isaac was not his only son, nor was he the eldest. Ishmael was born before Isaac (see Galatians 4:22). Isaac, however, occupied the position of firstborn, and claimed title to the Only Begotten because he was the one of promise and purpose. The same is true in regard to Jesus. He came uniquely by promise with the purpose of human redemption. In this sense he is both Firstborn and Only Begotten.”(11)

As for the word “firstborn,” it can either refer to “firstborn in time” (i.e. oldest, or first to be born), or “firstborn in position,” indicating “supremacy,” or “pre-eminence.” The entire section of Colossians 1:15-18 is emphasizing the supremacy of Jesus. His supremacy, or pre-eminence, is seen in that He created all things, He existed before all things, by His power all things are held together, and He has power over all other powers, even death itself. “He was not the first person to be raised from the dead, but he was the first never to die again. His resurrection from the dead proved his preeminence. ‘Who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence.’ This is emphasis of His position, not origin. He was ‘declared to be the Son of God . . . by the resurrection from the dead.’ Romans 1:4 . . . being the firstborn is a statement of position-not origin!”(12)

In reference to Revelation 3:14, the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses perverts the scripture by making it say that Christ is ” . . . the beginning of creation by God,” instead of leaving it to say that Christ is ” . . . the beginning of creation of God” (KJV). The word “beginning” (Greek: arche) is literally translated “origin,” or “source.” Left alone, the passage would read that Christ is “the Origin (Source) of God’s creation.”(13) This would then harmonize with John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-18, and Hebrews 1:1-3. Therefore the passage does not teach that Christ was the first to be created by God, but that Christ is the origin, or source of all that was created.

Conclusion

Without question, Christ is equal to the Father in every respect! He claimed to be equal in “quality and quantity” with the Father, and claimed for Himself “the nature, rank, (and) authority which belong to God.” To accept the Jehovah’s Witness’ position, one would have to deny Christ His position of supremacy and preeminence which the scriptures so plainly establish. In short, to accept the Witnesses’ position is to deny the scriptures, and make Christ a liar!

Endnotes

1. Let God Be True, 1946 Edition, pp. 34-35.

2. Ibid.. p. 34.

3. The Word According to John-Who Is He? (booklet published in 1962), p. 56.

4. Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), p. 327.

5. Ibid., p. 89.

6. Maurice Barnett, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Section 2, p. 9.

7. Joseph Henry Thayer. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1966), p. 307.

8. Maurice Barnett, op. cit., Section 2, p. 10.

9. Let God Be True, p. 86.

10. The New Testament in Modern English, translated by Helen Barrett Montgomery and published by The Judson Press, American Baptist Board of Education and Publication, 1952.

11. Maurice Barnett, op. cit., Section 2, p. 16.

12. Ibid., p. 15.

13. The New Testament in the Language of Today, William F. Beck, Concordia Publishing House, 1963.

Truth Magazine XIX: 26, pp. 403-405
May 8, 1975