Truth Magazine

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

By Donald P. Ames

Despite the presence of Harding College (Searcy), Southern Christian Home (Morrilton) and the Paragould Children’s Home (Paragrould) in Arkansas, the cause of the Lord is not standing still in this state; faithful churches exist in each of the above mentioned cities. There are a number of good sound congregations standing for the truth throughout the state, many of them being served by faithful elders and a goodly number of faithful gospel preachers as well. Obviously, we cold not “touch the hem of the garment” of them within the confines of one special issue.

One could hardly think of Arkansas without thinking of Eugene Britnell, preacher for the Arch St. Church in Little Rock, who recently was selected as editor of the Gospel Guardian in an effort to return that journal to the “old paths.” He has had much influence throughout the state, and Arch St. has been responsible for the establishment of several new congregations, as well as strengthening others. Other widely known names in Arkansas history include W. Curtis Porter and Joe Blue. In northeast Arkansas, the cause is gaining many sound and aggressive preachers who hold forth the banner brightly as the liberals have retreated from repeated challenges. Several new congregations have been begun and others are moving ahead in growth, in selection of elders, and in standing for the whole counsel of God. Western Arkansas will miss Guthrie Dean (formerly from Ft. Smith) who has moved to Tennessee, but is also blessed with many aggressive preachers who are standing for the truth of God’s word. Stanley Lovett, editor of the Preceptor, also lives in Ft. Smith (two editors is not a bad claim). Jady Copeland just recently moved to Arkansas, and joins others in boldly proclaiming God’s truth. Yes, indeed , the “fields are white unto harvest,” and many congregations-even without the benefit of full-time preachers, are pressing forward to carry the word of God to those lost in sin-within and without the church. We are glad to be able to offer this special from the state of Arkansas.

Truth Magazine XIX: 26, p. 402
May 8, 1975

By Donald P. Ames

One cardinal point of Jehovah Witness’ doctrine is that the earth will remain forever and will become the eternal dwelling place of those righteous persons who do not compose the 144,000 who, they say, are the only ones who will get to go to heaven (True Peace And Security, pp. 38-39, etc.). That such teaching is not so ought to be evident to anyone who has taken the ‘time to read 2 Peter 3. Here the writer affirms, “the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up” (v. 10). Jehovah Witnesses often try to escape the force of this passage by arguing that even though the Scriptures said that the world was destroyed by water in the days of Noah, they did not mean the destruction of the planet. However, a careful reading of the passage shows two different terms are under consideration: world and earth. The “heavens and earth” (v. 5) were originally created, and the “heavens and earth” are what will be destroyed (v. 10). Whatever constituted the original creation is what is going to be destroyed when the Lord returns (and, by the way, in such a fashion that no one will assume man has done it himself): Thayer defines the Greek term gae (earth) here as “The earth as a whole, the world; the earth as opposed to the heavens” (Lexicon, p. 114). If this planet then is what is under consideration, and it is, then there will be no place for any righteous person to dwell on this earth, because it will cease to be. It will not be “purged” by fire, but will be destroyed with fire. The second term, world, comes from the Greek term kosmos, and refers to those living on the earth (Thayer, p. 357). Those who were destroyed in the days of Noah by water were the “world” (v. 6)-the same dnes loved by God in John 3:16. When this distinction in the words is pointed out to Jehovah Witnesses, their entire case crumbles.

But sometimes they counter with the argument that 2 Peter 3 must be interpreted figuratively, not literally, and that we err in so doing, especially in light of a similar statement in Isa. 65:17 and 66:22. However it must be kept in mind that Isaiah was writing in figurative language, but there is nothing to indicate that Peter had any such view in mind. In fact, his literal application of the creation and the flood are strong evidence he was not speaking figuratively at all.

Secondly, the context of the passages in Isaiah shows the term means a “new relationship” with the Lord and is to be understood figuratively by its specific New Testament application. Thirdly, neither passage in Isaiah speaks of the destruction of this present earth and heavens as does 2 Pet. 3. Thus, they are in no way parallel.

But, if the earth is to be destroyed (and it is), there is no place for a Premillennial kingdom nor the kingdom of the Watchtower Society to continue to exist after the return of the Lord. Their case is lost in the smoke and ashes of a destroyed universe-along with the rest of their false teachings. My friends, do not be deceived into thinking God will not destroy this planet, the heavens, etc. The Bible too clearly teaches otherwise! “Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God” (2 Pet. 3:11-12).

Truth Magazine XIX: 26, p. 402
May 8, 1975