Sam Shamoun’s Thorough Reply to Hector Heinz’s

The Biblical view of Only True God/TON MONON ALHQINON QEON
Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901
A Partial Reply to http://pionet.net/~cultrsch/biblical_monotheism_examined.htm

 

Heinz:

The classic argument usually lies with a few scriptures, like John 17:3:

"And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ."

Since Jesus Christ is also called God (a god) at John 1:1, the argument goes that Jesus must then be a "false god."

The point that Trinitarians are hoping to further is that, since Jesus cannot be a false God, he must be the True God.

Or as Sam Shamoun states,

 

"It is our understanding that the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is not a lesser god but the true God, Jehovah. The biblical data also teaches that there are more than one person who are addressed as the one true God, namely the Father and the Holy Spirit. (Cf. Jn. 17:3; Acts 5:3, 4) Yet, they are not three Gods but only one true God. (Cf. Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20)

 

I will show how this arguments is damaging to Trinitarians, and insulting to the Biblical view of God, and the language it uses.

 

Response:

 

For a thorough exegetical understanding of John 17:3, we recommend that our readers check the following article regarding this verse found here:

 

http://www.forananswer.org/

 

After a careful examination of the article in question, one will discover that the only insulting thing is the manner in which JW apologists manhandle and twist the scriptures to their own destruction. (Cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16)

 

The point that JW apologists hope to demonstrate is that Jesus’ use of the phrase “true God” is not as restrictive as Trinitarians make it to be. The JW apologist’s aim in doing so is to justify the Jehovah Witnesses’ unbiblical category of a class of beings who are truly gods yet not in the sense that Jehovah God is. The JW apologist hopes to prove that these beings are actual gods but not in the non-derived sense as Jehovah God. JWs believe that these beings derive their deity solely from the true God, Jehovah. Hence, the JW apologist first assumes the Society’s belief in henotheism and then proceeds to read this assumption back into the text. It is primarily this assumption that forbids the JW from seeing the restriction that the biblical phrase “true God” has upon viewing anyone apart from Jehovah as god, irrespective if one claims that the source of deity is derived from the true God and is then imparted to the others. As has been documented elsewhere, this attempt of positing another category of gods is completely unbiblical.

 

Heinz:

 

When you really think about, these are diversionary, smoke and mirror tactics. It says, "Let's get you, the hoi polloi, to think about something that is never mentioned in the Bible, the Trinity, and focus on the deity of Jesus, as if this will make up for the other, rarely mentioned Father and Holy Spirit."

Response:

 

Heinz exposes his presuppositions from the outset. He already assumes that the Holy Bible never mentions the Trinity and therefore the Trinity cannot be biblical. Hence, it is not surprising that Heinz never discovers the biblical basis for the Trinity since he has already assumed his conclusion from the beginning. This essentially forces Heinz to argue in a circle.

 

We will soon discover that it is Heinz who is forced to use diversionary, smoke and mirror tactics in order to avoid the clear biblical basis for the Trinity. He is also forced to reject the clear evidence refuting his post-biblical 19^th century JW henotheistic theology, a theology that Heinz is forced to impose upon the text of scripture due to his commitment to his “Mother” organization.

 

Finally, it is simply not true that Trinitarians rarely include the Father or the Holy Spirit into their discussion of the Trinity. Volumes of works have been written defending and establishing the biblical basis for the perfect Deity of all three members of the Godhead. Therefore, Heinz commits the fallacy of hasty generalization since he obviously has not taken the time to research the mass of literature regarding this issue. If he has then Heinz is simply being dishonest with his readers for making such an unwarranted claim.

 

Heinz:

One way they do this is to use the "True God vs False God" argument. I have dealt with the fallacies of this argument briefly, but at this time I will go deeper, thanks to a push by SamSham.

 

Response:

 

It is really sad to see JW apologists engaging in such polemical tricks. Heinz refers to me as Sam Sham, an obvious attack upon me. Heinz is guilty of committing the fallacy of ad hominem of the abusive kind. Instead of focusing on the issues, Heinz deems it necessary to mock his opponents as opposed to simply dealing with the arguments presented.

 

Heinz:

When we look into the Bible, we see that there is actually very little mention of "false gods."
The King James Version never uses the expression once, the American Standard Version only uses it at Jeremiah 18:15. My RSV uses it several times in the apocryphal Letter of Jeremiah.

 

Response:

 

To say that the Holy Bible makes little mention of “false gods” is not the same as the Bible being completely devoid of any and all references to false gods, entities wrongly viewed or worshiped as god. In fact, as we shall shortly demonstrate the little that the Holy Bible does mention of these false gods is thoroughly sufficient in debunking the claims made by Heinz and other JW apologists.

 

Furthermore, Heinz erroneously assumes that the infrequent usage of the phrase “false gods” somehow trivializes my attempt of refuting JW henotheism. The Holy Bible doesn’t necessarily need to always negate the fact that all other gods are false, since the scriptures affirm this point in many different ways. One such way the Holy Bible denies the existence of other gods is its constant reminder that Yahweh alone is God. See my article for proof.

 

Paul himself in Galatians 4:8 distinguishes those who are “not God by nature” (me ousis theois) from the One who is.  Heinz may try to respond that Paul allows for others who are gods by nature, because theois is plural – however, the context precludes this interpretation – for Paul certainly wouldn’t condone being a slave to any but the true God.  Heinz may say the “gods” here are idols. Yet as I had already demonstrated in my monotheism paper both Paul and the OT indicate that there is an actual spiritual presence, more specifically a demonic presence, behind every idol: 

 

“What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrificed they sacrificed to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.” 1 Corinthians 10:19- 20 NKJV

 

“They made him jealous with their foreign gods and angered him with their detestable idols. They sacrificed to DEMONS which are not God- gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared, gods your fathers did not fear.” Deuteronomy 32:16-17 NIV

 

“They worshiped their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to DEMONS.” Psalm 106:36-37 NIV

 

And:

 

“Let all be put to shame who serve CARVED IMAGES, Who boast of IDOLS. Worship Him, all you GODS… For You, LORD, are most high above all the earth; You are exalted far above all gods.” Psalm 97:7, 9 NKJV

 

Interestingly, the translators of the LXX understood the above reference to gods as referring to angelic beings:

 

“Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his ANGELS (angeloi).” Psalm 96:7

 

So we see that according to early Jewish thought, not only were there demons standing behind every idol but angels as well. This clearly establishes that not only are the idols considered nothing, but also the spiritual presence behind these idols is categorized as nothing.

 

Finally, another reason why the Holy Bible infrequently uses the phrase “false gods” stems primarily from the fact that not all who are called “gods” are necessarily false, nor are they true gods by nature. Rather, as I argued in my paper which Heinz mentions in his article, the terms “God” or “gods” are also applied figuratively to entities functioning as God’s emissaries, speaking to humanity on behalf of Yahweh, having God’s authority to function in his place.

 

Heinz:

Sam Shamoun makes much of what he thinks Stafford ignores in the BAGD, which says, "genuine, real ... Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real." Stafford does not hide this, and if you take a closer look, it does not really say what you hope it says. The BAGD has italicized the word "real," and the reason for this is plain. The scriptures posted in lexicons, such as BAGD, Thayers, etc, to determine false gods are never directed to anything living. They almost always refer to a worthless idol, or something equally without any substance.
That is why the RSV Annotated Study Bible says of the false gods, "Idols are helpless, useless, and not to be compared with celestial phenomena." (ftn. Letter of Jeremiah) You will be hard pressed to find an example lexically of a living being described as a false god.

Response:

 

It is rather unfortunate that Heinz makes very little of Stafford’s misuse of BAGD.  Proof that Stafford misused this source (whether willfully or not is not for me to say) can be seen from his very own writings. In the first edition of his book, Stafford wrote:

 

“The Greek word translated ‘true’ (… alethinos) can have one of several meanings, depending on the context and usage of the author or speaker. According to BAGD, alehtinos can mean: ‘genuine, real… Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real… true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its copies.’ To illustrate this meaning of a ‘reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its copies,’ consider John 1:9, where John says concerning Jesus, ‘The true light [… to phos to alethinon] that gives light to every sort of man was about to come into the world’ (compare 1 Jo 2:8). Does this mean that Jesus’ disciples (Mt 5:14) are ‘false’ lights? No. It means they are not the original light, but copies of it, giving forth the light they received from Jesus.” (Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended- An Answer to Scholars and Critics, first edition, pp. 196-197 bold emphasis mine)

 

The implication of Stafford’s statement is that BAGD seemingly understood and applied alethinos in the same way that Stafford understood it, namely that John17:3 teaches that the Father is “true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its copies”. This is clearly false. Stafford was seemingly aware of his misapplication of BAGD and corrected himself in the second edition of his book:

 

“The Greek word translated ‘true’ (… alethinos) can have one of several meanings, depending upon the context and usage of the author or speaker. According to BAGD, alethinos can mean: genuine, real… Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real… true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its copies. While BAGD does not attribute the archetypal meaning to alethinos in John 17:3, WE BELIEVE this sense best fits the use of ‘true’ in this and other passages.” (Stafford, second edition, p. 121 bold and capital emphasis mine)

 

The fact that Stafford clarified his use of BAGD affirms that Stafford misapplied at least this source and thereby gave a misleading impression to his readers.

 

This also demonstrates that Stafford’s rejection of BAGD’s understanding of the use of “true” in John 17:3 stems from Stafford’s post-biblical 19^th century JW henotheistic theology that he imposes upon the text of scripture. Stafford’s commitment to the JW organization does not allow him to exegete scripture in light of its context, since the Society forbids its members from thinking independently in regards to assessing JW doctrine for biblical accuracy.

 

Furthermore, Heinz’s claim that these lexicons are not contrasting the true God with other living beings is erroneous. How does Heinz know this to be the case? Do any of these lexicons state this explicitly, or is Heinz simply imposing his own erroneous understanding into these sources? We challenge Heinz to show us where the sources alluded to above state that the term alethinos is used solely to contrast the true God with non-living entities who are not gods at all.

 

Heinz is apparently aware of his blunder and therefore ends up contradicting his own statement. We reproduce his statement here with bold and capital emphasis:

 

“…The scriptures posted in lexicons, such as BAGD, Thayers, etc, to determine false gods are NEVER directed to anything living. They ALMOST always refer to a worthless idol, or something equally without any substance…”

 

So which is it Heinz? Is it never or almost always? If it is almost always then you proceed to refute your own assertion since the use of “almost” negates the term “never”. If it is never then how can it be almost always? Perhaps Heinz can explain this obvious paradox for us.

 

Finally, BAGD is not alone in understanding alethinos in John 17:3 as implying that there is only one true God and that the rest are all false since other lexical sources are in agreement. Robert Hommel points out:

 

If BAGD is reliable in both their understanding of the various connotation of alêthinos and their specific definition in John 17:3, we would expect that other authorities would corroborate it. Similarly, if BAGD got it wrong with regard to John 17:3, we would expect other authorities to disagree.

 

Grimm/Thayer defines alêthinos as “contrasts realities with their semblances” for Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24, but “opposed to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated, pretended” for John 17:3 (p. 27). So, Grimm/Thayer, too, recognizes the correct connotation of alêthinos in John 17:3 as “true contrasted with false.”

 

In his Expository Dictionary, Vine recognizes Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24 as requiring the meaning: “the spiritual, archetypal tabernacle,” but defines alêthinos in John 17:3 as: “‘very God,’ in distinction from all other gods, false gods” (p. 645).

 

Louw and Nida similarly recognize several connotations for alêthinos, including those discussed. They define alêthinos in John 17:3 as: “pertaining to being real and not imaginary ... ‘that they may know you, the only one who is really God’” (p. 667). Moulton and Milligan list a number of contemporary extra-biblical examples of alêthinos, including several by Christians in reference to God, and all carry the meaning ‘real’; ‘genuine’; ‘true, as opposed to false’ (p. 22).

 

Finally, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) does not specifically reference John 17:3 in its discussion of alêthinos, but says “As a divine attribute it has the sense of ‘reliable,’ ‘righteous,’ or ‘real,’” and cites 1 John 5:20, a verse Stafford relates to John 17:3 (IBID, p. 120). This meaning is contrasted with the archetype connotation: “In Heb 8:2 the heavenly tabernacle is ‘true’ in contrast to the earthly, and in Heb. 9:24 the human sanctuary is a copy of the true one, which is genuine as divine” (Abridged edition, p. 39).

 

So, we see that the standard lexical works specify the connotation of alêthinos in John 17:3 as “the only true God (as distinguished from all other gods, who are false).” This definition of alêthinos presents serious problems for Watchtower theology, for by saying “the only true God,” Jesus states quite clearly that any other who is termed “a god,” must be a false god.

 

The key point here is that REGARDLESS of how Heinz wants to interpret the verses that speak of ‘false gods,’ he has to face the music – as did Stafford – that the ARCHETYPAL connotation for alethinos is NOT supported by BAGD in this verse.  Period.

 

Heinz:

This does not rule out living beings as being false gods, but according the Bible, early Jewish and Christian thought, the true/false enigma is not as restrictive as Trinitarians wish.

Response:

 

Heinz has apparently not read the article he claims to be rebutting, or at least did not read it carefully. Had he done so he would have found sufficient evidence where certain living beings are in fact classified as false gods.  Seeing that the Holy Bible does refer to actual living beings as false gods the “true/false EMIGMA” is only an enigma for henotheists!  The point is that the Bible says that the true God has a nature that is not shared by those CALLED “gods,” (legomenoi theoi [1 Corinthians 8:5]; cf., Galatians 4:8), but this nature IS shared by the Son. (Cf. John 1:1c; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:3)

 

Furthermore, Heinz again makes a hasty generalization since neither early Judaism nor Christianity was monolithic by any means. There were and continue to be sects within these two groups. Yet for the most part, the general consensus of early Jewish and Christian thought were just as restrictive in regards to the true/false enigma as most Trinitarians are today.

 

Third, we have already provided a link addressing John 17:3 where the erroneous assertion that since the only true God is distinguished from Jesus Christ, Jesus therefore cannot be that true God has been thoroughly addressed. The truth is that John 17:3 completely incapacitates the JWs at this point, since this verse along with the others alluded to in my article destroy the JW attempt of positing another category of gods that are neither false nor true in the sense that Jehovah is truly God.

 

Heinz:

 

We have already mentioned John 17:3, where the "only true God" is distinguished FROM Jesus Christ. So damaging was this scripture to "Saint" Augustine, that he tried to change it so that "only true God" was read after "Jesus Christ" to make it sound like Jesus was the only True God.

 

Response:

 

Heinz introduces irrelevant issues and red herring arguments by bringing up St. Augustine. Since the issue is monotheism not Augustine’s integrity or “infallibility”, Heinz is now introducing the very same type of diversionary tactics he accuses Trinitarians of. Heinz needs to be careful in slinging mud against his opponents since the same accusations he uses against Christians can be used more forcefully against him.

 

One only needs to read the NWT translation of the Greek Scriptures in such places as Philippians 2:9-11 and Colossians 1:16-17 to discover that the JWs have deliberately inserted the word “other” into the text. This was done primarily to avoid the implication these passages have in accurately understanding the true nature and person of Christ. The NWT translation committee seemingly knew that these passages clearly teach that Jesus is Yahweh God, the Creator of all things and could not therefore be the first creation of God. Hence, in order to avoid this they willfully manhandled God’s Word to suit their theological presuppositions.

 

Heinz:

Couple this with 1 Cor 8:6, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him."

Response:

 

Heinz needs to answer who the legomenoi theoi of this passage are…(answer: gods many AND lords many).  Since theoi and kurioi are BOTH the “so-called gods,” Paul is EQUATING the two terms.  If he intends a distinction (essential to WT theology), then both Witnesses and Trinitarians have a dilemma.  For then we are to have one [true] God and one [true] Lord – two different beings.  Yet as I will point out below, Jude 4 refutes this attempt of positing two distinct beings, with one being God and the other Lord. As I will demonstrate the JW apologist is stuck at this point, if he is to remain logically consistent. The JW must explain how Jesus is his one and only Sovereign Master and Lord (regardless of HOW Jesus became DESPOTES and KURIOS), and how he honors (values) the Son equally with the Father, when the Son is inferior in NATURE to the Father. (Cf. John 5:22-23)

Heinz:

 

This scripture alone is disastrous to a Trinitarian, as Jesus is excluded from the term, "One God."
In fact, if you take a look at QEOS as it is mentioned in the NT, the term is almost exclusively used of the Father. Trinitarian and Biblical theology both teach that Jesus cannot be the Father. So if Jesus is not the "One God" or "only True God," as he is clearly distinguished from him, then where does that leave him?

Response:

 

Heinz shows that he really has not taken the time to read the Trinitarian responses to the JW misapplication of 1 Corinthians 8:6. Had he done so he would not have made such an outlandish claim. This verse no more proves that Jesus cannot be God then Jesus being Lord proves that the Father cannot be Lord also. In fact, the Holy Bible clearly states that Jesus is our only Sovereign Master and Lord while at the same time acknowledging that the Father is also our Sovereign Master and Lord:

 

My reason is that certain men have slipped in who have long ago been appointed by the Scriptures to this judgment, ungodly men, turning the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for loose conduct and proving false to our only Owner and Lord (ton monon despoten kai kurion hemon), Jesus Christ. Jude 4 NWT

 

One body, and one spirit, even as you were called in the one hope to which were called; one Lord (heis kurios), one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all [persons], who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:4-6 NWT

 

“And look! There was a man in Jerusalem name Sim’e-on, and this man was righteous and reverent, waiting for Israel’s consolation, and holy spirit was upon him. Furthermore, it had been divinely revealed to him by the holy spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Christ of Jehovah (ton christon kuriou).  Under the power of the spirit he now came into the temple; and as the parents brought the young child Jesus in to do for it according to the law, he himself received it into his arms and blessed God and said: ‘Now Sovereign Lord (despota), you are letting your slave go free in peace according to your declaration;” Luke 2:25-29 NWT

 

In that very hour he became overjoyed in the holy spirit and said: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth (kurie tou ourano kai tes ges) because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones, and have revealed them to babes. Yes, O Father, because to do thus came to be the way approved by you.” Luke 10:21 NWT

 

After being released they went to their own people and reported what things the chief priests and the older men had said to them. Upon hearing this they with one accord raised their voices to God and said: “Sovereign Lord (Despota), you are the One who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them… Even so, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with [men of] nations and with peoples of Israel were in actuality gathered together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, in order to do what things your hand and counsel had foreordained to occur. And now, Jehovah (kurie) give attention to their threats, and grant your slaves to keep speaking your word with all boldness…” Acts 4:23-24, 27-29 NWT

 

“You are worthy, Jehovah (ho kurios), even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.” Revelation 4:11 NWT

 

And they cried out with a loud voice, saying: “Until when, Sovereign Lord (ho despotes) holy and true, are you refraining from judging and avenging our blood upon those who dwell on the earth?” Revelation 6:10 NWT

 

Whereas JW apologists must squirm their way through these passages, a Trinitarian is able to account for all these passages with no problems. The reason why Jesus can be our only Sovereign Master and Lord without this excluding the Father is because both the Father and the Son share the same eternal Being of the one true God. Hence, what is true of One is also true of the Other as far as their divine nature and attributes are concerned.

 

Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 8:6 actually affirms the essential equality that exists between the Father and the Son since Paul states that all things are from the Father and through the Son:

 

“yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through (di') whom all things came and through (di’) whom we live.” 1 Corinthians 8:6 NIV

 

Paul also states that Jesus created all things for himself:

 

“For by him ALL things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL things were created by him and FOR (eis) him. He is before all things, AND IN HIM ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.” Colossians 1:16-18 NIV

 

Yet, elsewhere the Holy Bible says that all things came from and through God and that Jehovah alone created all things for himself:

 

“This is what the LORD says- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who ALONE stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by MYSELF…” Isaiah 44:24 NIV

 

JW apologists claim that this passage does not prove that Jehovah created all things by himself, but that the context is refuting the false notion that the pagan gods of the nations were responsible for creation. It is in this light that Jehovah claims to be alone in creating the cosmos. Yet this reasoning cannot be sustained in light of the following passage:

 

“He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars. He ALONE stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.” Job 9:7-8 NIV

 

Job reiterates the point of Isaiah 44:24 and yet no mention of pagan gods can be found throughout the context. Therefore, the reasoning employed by JWs cannot be sustained since with or without the context of false gods, the OT is in agreement that Jehovah alone created all things.

 

“I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' and to the south, 'Do not hold them back.' Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth- everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” Isaiah 43:6-7 NIV

 

“The wild animals honor me, the jackals and the owls, because I provide water in the desert and streams in the wasteland, to give drink to my people, my chosen, the people I FORMED FOR MYSELF that they may proclaim my praise.” Isaiah 43:20-21 NIV

 

“For from him and through (di’) him and FOR (eis) him are all things. To him be glory forever! Amen.” Romans 11:36 NAB

 

“In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, FOR (eis) whom and through (di') whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.” Hebrews 2:10 NIV

 

We see that the Holy Bible clearly states that God is both the primary (“from”) and instrumental (“through”) cause of creation. Hence, for Paul to claim that Jesus was both the source (“in/by him all things were created”) and the instrumental cause of creation affirms that the apostle clearly believed that Jesus is Jehovah God (yet not the Father).

 

As NT scholar Richard Bauckham states in relation to Paul’s claim that all things are from God and through Christ:

 

“The description in its undivided, unmodified form is used elsewhere by Paul, specifically in Romans 11:36a: ‘from him and through him and to him [are] all things’. Here the statement simply refers to God, whereas in 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul has divided it between God and Christ, applying to God two of the prepositions that describe God’s relationship as Creator to all things (‘from’ and ‘for’ or ‘to’) and the third of these prepositions (‘through’) to Christ. Although Paul’s formula in Romans 11:36 does not appear precisely in this form elsewhere, there are enough Jewish parallels to make it certain that Paul there simply quotes a Jewish formulation. That God is not only the agent or efficient cause of creation (‘from him are all things’) and the final cause or goal of all things (‘to him are all things’), but also the instrumental cause (‘through whom are all things’) well expresses the typical Jewish monotheistic concern that God used no one else to carry out his work of creation, but accomplished it alone, solely by means of his own Word and/or his own Wisdom. Paul’s reformulation in 1 Corinthians 8:6 includes Christ in this exclusively divine work of creation by giving to him the role of instrumental cause.” (Bauckham, God Crucified-Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge, U.K., 1998], p. 39 bold emphasis ours)

 

In fact, Bauckham claims that 1 Corinthians 8:6 is actually a Christian expansion of the Shema, the Jewish creed of monotheism found in Deuteronomy 6:4. Bauckham claims that Paul’s intention was to include Jesus in the identity of the one Lord of Jewish monotheism.

 

“Paul’s concern in this context is explicitly monotheism. The issue of eating meat offered to idols and participation in temple banquets is an instance of the highly traditional Jewish monotheistic concern for the loyalty to the only true God in a context of pagan polytheistic worship. What Paul does is to maintain this Jewish monotheistic concern in a Christian interpretation for which loyalty to the only true God entails loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ. He takes up from the Corinthians’ letter (at the end of verse 4) the typical Jewish monotheistic formula ‘there is no God except one’ in order to agree with it and to give, in verse 6, his own fuller monotheistic formulation, which contrasts the many gods and many lords’ of the Corinthians’ pagan environment (verse 5) with the one God and one Lord to whom Christians owe exclusive allegiance.

Verse 6 is a carefully formulated statement:

 

a but for us [there is] one God, the Father,

b from whom [are] all things and we for him,

c and one Lord, Jesus Christ,

d through whom [are] all things and we through him.

 

“The statement has been composed from two sources, both clearly recognizable. One is the Shema’, the classic Jewish statement of the uniqueness of God, taken from the Torah itself, recited twice daily by all observant Jews, as we noticed in chapter 1. It is now commonly recognized that Paul has here adapted the Shema’ and produced, as it were, a Christian version of it. Not so widely recognized is the full significance of this. In the first and third lines of Paul’s formula (labelled a an c above), Paul has in fact reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema’ (Deut. 6:4: ‘The LORD our God, the LORD, is one’), but Paul has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the Shema’ speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing not christological monotheism but out right di-theism.  The addition of a unique Lord to the unique God of the Shema’ would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter. (Sam’s note- this is precisely what JWs have done by denying that Jesus is the one Lord of Jewish monotheism, namely Jehovah God) The only possible way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God affirmed in the Shema’. But this is in any case clear from the fact that the term ‘Lord’, applied here to Jesus as the ‘one Lord’, is taken from the Shema’ itself. Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema’ a ‘Lord’ the Shema’ does not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the ‘Lord’ whom the Shema’ affirms to be one. Thus, in Paul’s quite unprecedented reformulation of the Shema’, the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah. Contrary to what many exegetes who have not sufficiently understood the way in which the unique identity of God was understood in Second Temple Judaism seem to suppose, by including Jesus in this unique identity Paul is certainly not repudiating Jewish monotheism, whereas were he merely associating Jesus with the unique God, he certainly would be repudiating monotheism (Sam’s note- the very precise thing that JWs are guilty of due to their unbiblical insistence that Jesus is not included in the identity of the one God, Jehovah).” (Ibid., pp. 37-39 bold emphasis ours)

 

Imminent NT Scholar N.T. Wright concurs:

 

“The pagan pantheon cannot be simply dismissed as metaphysically nonexistent and therefore morally irrelevant. It signals an actual phenomenon within the surrounding culture that must be faced and dealt with, not simply sidestepped. For this reason-which Paul will deal with in more detail in ch. 10-the allegiance of local paganism to this or that ‘god’ and ‘lord’ must be met with nothing short of the Christian version of Jewish-style, Shema-style, monotheism. It is this that Paul now states. Whatever its links with the Hellenistic-Jewish world of Philo and others, v.6 resonates thoroughly with echoes of the far more ancient and widespread formula from Deuteronomy 6:4. In the Hebrew the confession of faith begins with the words: [Sam’s note- Quotes the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 6:4 here]

 

In the Septuagint this reads:

 

Akoue ‘Israel kurios ho theos hemon kurios heis estin.

 

What Paul seems to have done is as follows. He has expanded the formula, in a way quite unprecedented in any other texts known to us, so as to include a gloss on theos and another on kurios:

 

all hemin

heis theos ho pater

ek hou ta panta kai hemeis eis auton,

kai heis kurios ‘Iesous Christos,

di’ hou ta panta kai hemeis di’ autou.

 

Paul, in other words, has glossed ‘God’ with the ‘the Father’, and ‘Lord’ with ‘Jesus Christ’, adding in each case an explanatory phrase: ‘God’ is the Father ‘from whom are all things and we to him’, and the ‘Lord’ is Jesus the Messiah, ‘through whom are all things and we through him’. There can be no mistake: just as in Philippians 2 and Colossians 1, Paul has placed Jesus within an explicit statement, drawn from the Old Testament’s quarry of emphatically monotheistic texts, of the doctrine that Israel’s God is the one and only God, the creator of the world. The Shema was already, at this stage of Judaism, in widespread use as the Jewish daily prayer. Paul has redefined it christologically, producing what we can only call a sort of christological monotheism.

 

This fact is becoming more widely recognized in recent scholarship, though its omission from some of the older literature remains remarkable.” (Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, Christ and Law in Pauline Theology [Fortress Press, Minneapolis 1993 ISBN 0-8006-2827-6], pp. 128-129 bold emphasis mine)

 

Bauckham’s and Wright’s statements essentially affirm my point, namely that the use of the title “Lord” in reference to Jesus served to identify Christ as Jehovah. Therefore, in light of the preceding passages Paul used the terms “God” and “Lord” to affirm that both the Father and the Son are the one God, Jehovah.

 

Additionally, elsewhere in the NT Jesus is credited with the actual creation of the universe in much the same way that the Father is, further implying that the Son is Jehovah God (but not the Father). For instance, the inspired author of Hebrews writes:

 

“But about the Son he says… ‘In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.’” Hebrews 1:8a, 10-12

 

The author has the Father addressing the Son as the actual Creator of the cosmos. The author applies an OT passage, Psalm 102:25-27, referring to Jehovah’s work in creation and applies it to the Son. The author is affirming that the Son personally laid the foundations of the earth and that the heavens are the work of the Son’s hands. This inarguably demonstrates that at least to this writer Jesus is actually Jehovah God, the eternal Creator (yet not the Father)!

 

In his book, Stafford responds to the use of Psalm 102:25-27 in reference to the Son:

 

“… It will be shown that in 1 Corinthians 8:6 the apostle Paul makes a careful distinction between the ‘one God’ (the Father) as the one ‘out of [… ex (hereafter transliterated as ek)] whom all things are,’ and Jesus Christ as the one ‘through [di, a contraction of dia] whom’ all things came into being….

 

“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. Since Jesus’ role in creation has already been discussed (Heb. 1:3), it is not likely that in verses 10-12 the author would return to the same point he has explained earlier.  It could be that these verses from Psalm 102 are appropriately applied to the Son of God in view of his being the preexistent Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs 8. There he is described as a ‘master worker’ alongside his Creator, Jehovah. (Pr 8:22-31) B. W. Bacon acknowledges, ‘The passage could be made to prove the doctrine that the Messiah is none other than the preexistent Wisdom of Prov 8, 22-31, “through whom” according to our author [the author of Hebrews], v.2, God “made the worlds.”’    

 

“It would certainly be appropriate to refer to the heavens and the earth as ‘the work of Christ’s hands’ in a secondary sense in view of his being mediator of the creative acts of Jehovah God. Indeed, as the ‘master craftsman’ Jesus was very much involved in Jehovah’s works. (Pr 8:30, Jerusalem Bible) Still, there seems to be another reason why Paul applies verses 25-27 of the 102^nd Psalm to God’s beloved Son.” (Stafford, second edition, pp. 171-174 bold emphasis ours)

 

Stafford is operating under a certain set of assumptions that forbids him from allowing the text to say what it is in fact saying. Stafford assumes that since Jesus is the instrumental cause of creation, the heavens and the earth can only be the creative works of Christ solely in a secondary sense. We have already seen that the appeal to the preposition di’ when used of Christ actually reinforces the point that Jesus is in fact the Creator.

 

Furthermore, Stafford commits the fallacy of false dilemma, since to him Jesus cannot be the Agent of creation while at the same time being the actual cause of creation. Yet, this is a dilemma that Stafford imposes upon the text since the inspired author had no problem in viewing Jesus as both the Creator as well as the instrumental Agent of creation. In relation to the Father, Christ is the Agent through which all things came into being. Yet, in relation to creation both the Father and the Son, along with the Holy Spirit, are the one Creator with all three Persons being fully responsible for bringing all things into existence. (Cf. Genesis 1:2, 26-27; Job 33:4; Psalm 104:30)

 

Let us also not forget that according to the author of Hebrews it is the Father himself who personally addresses his Son as the actual Creator of the cosmos!

 

Stafford continues:

 

“… Is it to prove that Jesus Christ is ‘Jehovah God of the Old Testament’ that the author of Hebrews makes such an application of Psalm 102? Again, those who embrace the doctrine of the Trinity would likely answer, ‘Yes, the fact that a verse was originally applied to God, and later applied to the Son proves that he is Jehovah God of the Old Testament.’

 

“Using this type of reasoning one might feel justified in concluding that Solomon was Jesus Christ! Why? Because in the verses just previous to Hebrews 1:10-12 Paul wrote: ‘But reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your partners.”’ (Heb 1:8-9) As we have already discussed the translation ‘God is your throne’ in this chapter, we simply want to point out that these words were originally addressed to Solomon in Psalm 45:6-7, but here in Hebrews 1:8-9 they are applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. The book Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 414, adds more to the point:

 

It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is ‘greater than Solomon’ and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon-Luke 11:31.

 

“Paul no more intended to identify Jesus with Jehovah than he intended to identify Solomon with Jesus. He did, however, apply certain concepts and ideas expressed in those verses that were originally applied to Jehovah God and Solomon, to the Son of God. The application of Psalm 45:6-7 to Jesus at Hebrews 1:8-9 shows that God is the source of Jesus’ royal office and authority. Because Jesus ‘loved righteousness and hated lawlessness,’ Jehovah ‘anointed him with the oil of exultation.’ Paul’s words are, ‘God, your God [ho theos sou; lit. ‘the God of you’],’ when referring to the One who anointed Jesus.

 

“Jehovah was both the source of Solomon’s royal authority as well as his God. The same is true of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jehovah is the source of his authority and is also his God (compare Da 713,14; Mt 28:18; Php 2:9,10; Rev 3:2,12)…” (Ibid., pp. 172-173 bold emphasis mine)

 

Stafford commits several fallacies here. First, Stafford begs the question since he assumes that Jehovah is unipersonal and proceeds to read this into the text. Because of this assumption, Stafford argues that the application of Psalm 102 to Christ no more proves that Jesus is Jehovah then does the application of 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 45 to Christ prove that Jesus is Solomon. This exposes Stafford’s thinking, since to him Jehovah God is one in Being and one in Person much like Solomon is one being and one person.

 

Yet, Stafford is seemingly unaware that his argument actually reinforces the Trinitarian position. Just as Solomon was a son of David, sat on God’s throne and was God’s royal son Jesus also is David’s son, sits on the throne of God (the Father) and is himself God’s royal son. These passages show that both Solomon and Jesus shared similar functions, being divinely appointed kings and royal sons of God. The application of these passages to Christ affirms that the category of royal kingship and sonship includes both Solomon and Jesus, and not just Solomon alone. Therefore, these passages show that both of them shared similar titles and functions, not that they were the same person.

 

Likewise, that Psalm 102 is applied to Jesus affirms that the Son, much like the Father, is immutable, eternal and the one Creator of the cosmos. Hence, the application of Psalm 102 to Jesus proves that the Father is not the only Person who is the one true God but that the one Being of Jehovah includes both the Father and the Son. Hebrews 1:10-12 proves that both the Father and the Son are in fact Jehovah God, since both perform functions and works that Jehovah alone is said to perform. It does not show that the Son is the same person as the Father, but rather that the Son is the same in nature and essence.

 

Since Stafford believes that the Father alone is Jehovah, it is little wonder that he ends up with the analogy of Christ and Solomon. Yet, Stafford’s analogy only shows that his reasoning is flawed. Stafford commits the fallacy of false analogy and strawman argumentation. It does nothing to refute the Trinitarian position. In fact, it actually misrepresents what Trinitarians believe.

 

Stafford also commits a categorical fallacy since he assumes that because the Father is said to be Jesus’ God and the source of his authority, this somehow proves that Jesus is not the same kind of God that the Father is.  This fails to take into consideration that at the incarnation Christ truly became man and set aside his authority in order to take the form of a slave. (Cf. John 1:14; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:5-8)

 

By becoming man and setting aside his authority, Jesus became subject to the Father. Jesus also entered into a new relationship with the Father. Whereas prior to the incarnation Christ related to the Father specifically as a Son, now after becoming flesh the Father became Jesus’ God due to Christ willfully becoming part of creation in order to save his people from sin. Since Christ retains his humanity (contrary to what Stafford would like to believe) the Father will continue to be Jesus’ God.

 

In order for Stafford’s argument to work either he or Heinz must present one single passage where the Father is said to be Jesus’ God even before the Incarnation. If they can show a verse demonstrating that prior to Christ’s human birth the Father was Jesus’ God while the latter existed alongside the Father in heaven, then they have a case. If they cannot produce such a passage then Stafford’s claim that Jesus has a God does nothing to refute the Trinitarian position.

 

Stafford might offer Micah 5:4 as evidence that the Father was God to the Son in His preexistence.  Yet this is a messianic prophecy, and as such refers to the Messiah AFTER the incarnation. (Cf. Micah 5:2) Therefore the appeal to Micah 5:4 will not establish the JW position.

 

Stafford also erroneously assumes that the application of Psalm 102 refers to Jesus’ exaltation during which time Christ became immortal. (Ibid., pp. 173-174)

 

The problem with Stafford’s reasoning is that the application of Psalm 102 in relation to Jesus’ immutability does not refer to Christ’s post-resurrection exaltation. Rather, it refers to Jesus’ pre-incarnate state when Christ created the cosmos. Therefore, from the very time that creation came into being Christ remains the same. Christ has always been and will continue to be immutable:

 

“Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday and today and forever.” Hebrews 13:8 NIV

 

The only thing that became different is that at the incarnation Christ took on human flesh. Yet Jesus’ divine nature never changed since he never ceased from being God even while on earth. At the resurrection, Christ’s physical body became immortal and no longer experiences change.

 

Another problem with Stafford’s analogy of Christ and Solomon is that it serves to discredit the JW position. It is common for JWs to use the argument that since Michael and Jesus share similar functions they must be one and the same. An example of such reasoning can be found from Heinz himself. In a newsgroup discussion, Heinz offered the following response to prove that Jesus and Michael are one and the same:

 

Scripture Proof: Only two names are associated with authority over angels: Michael (Rev.12:7) and Jesus Christ (Mat.16:27; 25:31; 2Thes.1:7). Michael led the angels to defeat Satan and hurl him to earth (Re 12:7). Christ leads that same heavenly army of angels and conducts God's war. (Re19:13,19). This argues that Jesus and Michael are the same. Since they both command God's army, the heavenly host of angels.

 

At 1Thes.4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself The Archangel. The Greek for 'with an archangel's voice' is literally 'EN FWNHi ARXAGGELOU', in the oblique dative case. In all other occurrences of this idiom in the Greek New Testament it describes the voice of the subject in the clause. To suggest that 1Th 4:16 represents the only exception is "special pleading".

 

What about Heb 1?- It is only logical that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has. If the designation "archangel" also applied to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel's voice" would not be appropriate.

 

Only one voice can command the dead to rise in the coming resurrection. This authority has been given to the Christ by his Father (Jn.5:25,26). But the voice of the archangel raises the dead during the resurrection at the time of the end. (1Thes. 4:16; cf Dan.12:2). Since only the voice of Christ can raise the dead at the time of the end, and this voice is the voice of an archangel, Christ must be the archangel. Michael is called "the great prince" (Dan. 12:1). Christ is called a "princely ruler" and "prince of peace" (Isa.9:6).

 

In Daniel chapter 7, there is a prophecy about the march of world powers to the end of the age. At the climax of that prophecy we read that "someone like a son of man" was "given rulership and dignity and kingdom"--Jesus Christ. (Dan.7:13, 14)

 

Daniel recorded another prophecy also reaching down to "the time of the end" (Dan.10:13;11:40) and then stated: "And during that time Michael will stand up." (Da 12:1) In Daniel's prophecy, 'standing up' frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as King. (Dan.11:2-4,7,16,20,21) Michael's "standing" indicates a ruling capacity and thus supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah's/Yahweh's appointed King.

 

Hence, in the climax of one prophecy, Jesus becomes a king. In the other prophecy in Daniel, Michael acts as a king. Since both prophecies deal with the same time and the same event, it seams reasonable to conclude that they are also dealing with the same person.

 

Finally, Satan is abyssed by an "*angel*" for a thousand years. (Rev.20:1, 2, 10) However, when Christ was on earth, the demons identified him as the one who was to hurl them into the "abyss" (Mt 8:29). The nations are destroyed by Jesus and *his* angelic armies. (Rev.12:12; 17:16, 17; 19:11-16) Since Jesus is the one prophesied to crush Satan's head, and since he accomplishes all these other judgment acts (Gen.3:15, 1Jn 3:8), it is only logical to conclude that he was the one leading heaven's armies in the casting of Satan out of heaven earlier. Hence, the conquering Michael with "his angels" referred to in Revelation 12 must be Jesus, who was told by Jehovah to "go subduing in the midst of [his] enemies."--Psalm 110:1, 2; Acts 2:34, 35. with Christian Love -Heinz

 

We see that JW apologists are inconsistent in their methodology. They claim that it is wrong for Trinitarians to conclude that Jesus is Jehovah despite the fact that OT passages referring to Jehovah along with titles, attributes, functions and the worship given exclusively to Jehovah alone are applied to Christ. Yet, it is perfectly all right for JWs to assume that Jesus is the archangel Michael due to similarities shared by the two, despite the fact that not a single NT passage explicitly states that Jesus is an angel, or more specifically the archangel Michael. JW apologists are therefore guilty of assuming that similarities somehow prove sameness along with employing a methodology that they only too quickly condemn Trinitarians for using. This is known as religious hypocrisy.

 

(Note- for a rebuttal to Heinz’s arguments we recommend the following article: http://www.jude3.net/jesus_superior_to_angels.htm

 

We also recommend Ray Goldsmith’s on-line dialogues with JW Apologists regarding Hebrews 1 and its significance in refuting the notion that Jesus is an angel as well as other related issues:  http://www.serve.com/larryi/wboard/john/messages/306.html, http://www.serve.com/larryi/wboard/john/messages/201.html)

 

In light of all these factors, Paul’s use of the title Lord in 1 Corinthians 8:6 can only mean that Jesus is Jehovah God. Paul was by no means suggesting that Jesus is an inferior deity as Heinz erroneously implies.

 

Finally, Heinz repeats the same mistake over and over again. To say that the term THEOS is ALMOST exclusively used of the Father is not the same as saying that it is exclusively used for the Father alone.  There are several places where the term THEOS is in fact used for the Son, and not in the relative sense assigned by JW theology. Two such places include Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. We recommend that our readers take the time to read Rob Bowman’s excellent article addressing the grammatical, syntactical and historical context regarding the proper exegesis of the two passages in question, as well as a defense of Granville Sharp’s Rule governing article-substantive-kai-substantive constructions:

http://www.atlantaapologist.org/SharpsRule.PDF

 

Bowman also addresses and refutes Stafford’s arguments in relation to the proper meaning of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 as well as the use of Granville Sharp’s rule.

 

Heinz:

Why would Jesus call the Father the ONLY true God, if in fact that Son and the holy spirit are also the ONLY true God? Why would the Bible call the Father the "one God" if the one God were really the Father, Son and holy spirit? Nowhere does the Bible call the Son or the holy spirit the true God or the one God, but both terms are used of the Father, and restricted to Him by His Son. (John 17:3)

Response:

 

The problem with Heinz’ question is that it assumes that God is a unipersonal Being. This assumption is then imposed upon Heinz’s reading of the text. Because of this, Heinz naturally assumes that since Jesus calls the Father the only true God this must therefore exclude the Son and the Holy Spirit from also being that true God. Herein lies the problem.  Heinz is essentially arguing in a circle since he assumes his conclusion right from the outset. This is eisegesis, not exegesis.

 

We might ask Heinz why does the Holy Spirit inspire Jude to write that Jesus is our only Sovereign Master and Lord, if in fact the Father is also our Sovereign Master and Lord? Nowhere does the Holy Bible call the Father or the Holy Spirit the only Sovereign Master and Lord or the one Lord, but both terms are used of the Son, and restricted to Him by God’s Holy Spirit.

 

From a Trinitarian perspective the answer is rather simple. Since the true God exists in three distinct yet inseparable Persons what is said of One member automatically applies to the Other members as far as their divine nature and essence is concerned. Therefore, to say that the Father is the only true God is in complete harmony with Trinitarian teaching since each individual member of the Godhead is in fact the only true God, as well as the only Sovereign Master, Lord, Creator, Sustainer and Savior.

 

Yet, the JW position crumbles at this point. It will not do for Heinz to claim that the Father made Jesus our only Sovereign Master and Lord since this still would not solve the problem for the JW apologist. The reason being is that it does not matter how Jesus became our only Sovereign Master and Lord, but that he is in fact the only One referred to as such. This being the case how can Heinz reconcile the passages which state that the Father is also our Sovereign Master and Lord at the same time that Jesus is said to be the only One who is?

 

Heinz:

Does not the New Testament call Jesus a God/QEOS? Yes it does, but only with qualification.

As Thayer's Lexicon states, "Whether Jesus is called God must be determined from Jn. i. 1; xx. 28; 1Jn. v. 20; Ro. ix. 5; Tit. ii. 13; Heb. i. 8 sq.., etc.; the matter is still in dispute amongst theologians."
Why, if we take the whole Bible in context should there be a dispute at all?

 

Response:

 

Heinz commits the fallacy of appealing to authority also known as argumentum ad verecundiam.

Appealing to authority to support a point is appropriate provided that one supplies sufficient exegetical and factual data in establishing why the cited authority is correct in the assessment given. Yet, to cite an authority to support a point without sufficient grounds in doing so is inappropriate and proves nothing. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:

 

(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,

 

(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.

 

(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.

 

Since experts in the field disagree over the issue, to then cite Thayer as proof for the assertion that Jesus is called THEOS in a qualified sense proves absolutely nothing. In fact, Heinz is actually misusing the source. From what Heinz quoted, Thayer is not commenting on whether Jesus is called THEOS in a qualified sense. Rather, Thayer is arguing over whether the NT actually calls Jesus THEOS at all!

 

Heinz also commits the fallacy of ad populum, since his appeal to the dispute amongst theologians over whether the NT calls Jesus God also proves absolutely nothing. It is sound biblical exegesis not theologians that determine God’s truth.

 

Heinz asks the question why should there be a dispute over the issue of Jesus being called THEOS. The answer is rather simple. Exegetically speaking there is no dispute since Jesus is called THEOS in several places. See Murray J. Harris’ book, Jesus As God: The New Testament Use of 'Theos' in Reference to Jesus, for the exegetical proof.

 

The dispute arises from the prior assumptions of certain theologians and apologists that disallow for the NT to call Jesus God in an absolute sense. Assumptions are not bad in and of themselves, since we all have them. Yet, our assumptions should stem from an accurate exegetical examination of the Holy Bible and should not be imposed upon the text of scripture. Therefore, if after a careful examination of scripture we discover that our prior assumptions are simply wrong we should be willing to discard these in light of biblical truth.

 

Heinz:

Sam S points out that Moses is called a god at Exodus 4:16; 7:1, but notes,

"Moses is called God since he is acting on God’s behalf as his spokesman and prophet, not that he was divine in any sense."

But further down he states,

"Hence, it seems likely that angels are being referred figuratively as gods in the same sense that Moses and the Israelite judges are viewed as gods, i.e. God's servants speaking on his behalf and faithfully doing his will"

 

So...the angels are called God in the same sense as Moses, but yet, are not angels "divine?"
Take note of Genesis 6:2:
"supernatural beings" TEV1, CEV
"heavenly beings" TEV2, New Jewish P.S.,
"the sons of God" NRSV, NKJV, NWT
"angels" LXX Codex Alexandrinus, Moffatt
"sons of heaven" NAB

Response:

 

Either Heinz is being deceptive here, or has simply not read my point carefully since I already stated in what sense Moses and angels are alike. Here it is again, but this time with added emphasis:

 

Hence, it seems likely that angels are being referred figuratively as gods in the same sense that Moses and the Israelite judges are viewed as gods, i.e. GOD’S SERVANTS SPEAKING ON HIS BEHALF AND FAITHFULLY DOING HIS WILL:

 

“Now I, John, saw and heard theses things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed theses things. Then he said to me, ‘See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.’” Revelation 22:8-9 NKJV

 

The comparison with angels and Moses stemmed from the fact that both angels and prophets (of whom Moses was one) are said to be servants of God who keep his commands, executing God’s will faithfully. Because angels and men represent God and speak on his behalf they are therefore addressed as God figuratively, precisely the point I made in the article. I even supplied a passage from Revelation to show that this was my point.

 

Furthermore, Heinz often makes the mistake of reading his own view into the writings and statements of others. For instance, after citing me regarding the relationship between Moses and angels as gods, Heinz states:

 

So...the angels are called God in the same sense as Moses, but yet, are not angels "divine?"

 

Instead of understanding my point, Heinz proceeds to interpret my own statements in light of his own theological presuppositions. Heinz also does this with the Holy Bible and other sources.

 

Third, Heinz is being evasive here by using the term “divine.” What does Heinz mean by “divine”, supernatural agents, heavenly beings, beings that dwell in heaven? If so, then I agree with his definition. If Heinz means that angels are truly gods, then I completely disagree with him and do so on biblical grounds.

 

Finally, Heinz alludes to Genesis 6:2 without mentioning the fact that I already addressed this point in my article. I also cited the WatchTower Bible & Tract Society’s Aid to Bible Understanding to demonstrate that the JWs have no grounds in arguing that the title “sons of God” implies that angels are gods in the sense that JW apologists claim. See below and my article for details.

 

Heinz:

 

 

Some might take me to task with the above scripture (like Rob Bowman who insists that all angels mentioned in the Bible bear some negative connotation, so they are false gods), as it is referring to angels in a negative light (see context), but with all the other scriptures referring to angels as gods (Ps 8:5; 97:7, and one that Sam missed, Ps 138:1), we see that it will take some work to always paint these beings negatively. When angels are specifically painted in a positive light, as in Judges 13:22, then Trinitarians need to change this angel to an uncreated, mysterious  "angel of the LORD/malak YHWH".

Historically though, those familiar with the Biblical way angels were portrayed, had no problem addressing angels as gods.

Response:

 

Heinz again reads his understanding of terms into the Holy Bible and attacks strawman. There is no debate over whether the Holy Bible calls angels gods. This is something that I myself acknowledged in my own article. The debate centers on the precise meaning of the term “god” when applied to angelic beings. Does it mean they are false gods, true gods or gods in a figurative sense? Heinz assumes only one meaning and therefore proceeds to read that meaning into the text as opposed to allowing the scripture to define what the term actually means in relation to angels. Two scriptural examples illustrate my point clearly:

 

There is none like you among the gods, O Jehovah, Neither are there any works like yours. All the nations whom you have made will themselves come, And they will bow down before you, O Jehovah, And will give glory to your name. For you are great and are doing wondrous things; You are God, you ALONE. Psalm 86:8-10 NWT

 

The NWT 1984 Reference Edition has a footnote to verse 8 explaining how various translations translated the term “gods”:

 

8* “Among the gods.” Heb., va’ elohim’; Gr., theois’; Lat., di’is; T, “lofty angels.”

 

T stands for the Aramaic Targums. Hence, this is evidence that some of the early Jews understood the term “gods” as referring to angels. The NWT seemingly agrees with the Targums since it cross-references 86:8 with Psalm 89:6:

 

 

For who in the skies can be compared to Jehovah? Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God?

 

 

Seeing that the reference to gods in 86:8 is cross-referenced with the specific mention of the sons of God in 89:6 implies that angels are being referred to. In light of this, since the Psalmist clearly states that Jehovah alone is God the only sense these angelic beings can be classified as gods is in a figurative sense. As we shall see shortly see, Heinz’ interpretation of Psalm 86:8-10 makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

Finally, Heinz cites Judges 13:22 regarding the Angel of Jehovah and claims that Trinitarians must assume that this is an uncreated agent in order to avoid the positive biblical assertion that angels are in fact gods. The only problem with Heinz’s claim is that it actually backfires against him. The text does not say that this particular Angel is a god, but rather states that the Angel is in fact Jehovah God himself appearing in human form. (Cf. Judges 13:1-23)

 

Trinitarians have no problem with this since most agree that this is the pre-incarnate Christ appearing in human form. Therefore, the OT picture of the Angel of Jehovah affirms that the true God is multi-personal since this Angel is both distinct from Jehovah who sent him while at the same time is himself Jehovah God appearing visibly. The Angel addresses himself as Jehovah God, and permits others to worship and call him Jehovah God. (Cf. Genesis 16:7-14; 28:10-22, cf. 31:10-13; Genesis 32:24-30, cf. Hosea 12:2-5; Genesis 48:15-16; Exodus 3:1-20, cf. Acts 7:30-34; Exodus 19:1-25, cf. Deuteronomy 5:1-5, Acts 7:37-38; Exodus 23:20-23, cf. Isaiah 63:8-9; Judges 2:1-5, cf. Malachi 3:1)

 

Yet, Heinz must deny the clear biblical witness to the eternal nature and perfect deity of this specific Angel. Heinz must assume that since this Angel speaks on behalf of God he can therefore address himself as Jehovah God since he has Jehovah’s full authority backing him up. Yet Heinz’s post-biblical 19^th century JW theology does not allow him for a moment to believe that the Angel is actually Jehovah God himself. It is Heinz who therefore ends up denying the positive biblical witness to the Angel being Jehovah God who appears in visible form to his servants. Hence, Heinz ends up doing the very thing he accuses Trinitarians of.

 

Heinz:

 

Here is what the Dead Sea Scrolls give as to an insight of the early Jewish belief about Angels.

 

"Praise him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the firmament of the highest heavens, all...and its wall, all its structure, its shape. The spirits of the holy of holies, the living 'gods', the spirits of eternal holiness above all the holy ones...The divine spirits surround the dwelling of the King of truth and righteousness; all its walls" (Vermes 226 [4Q403 I i, 30-46]).

"The figures of the 'gods' shall praise him, the most holy spirits...of glory; the floor of the marvelous innermost chambers, the spirits of the eternal gods, all...figures of the innermost chambers of the King, the spiritual works of the marvelous firmament are purified with salt, spirits of knowledge, truth and righteousness in holy of holies, forms of the living 'gods,' forms of the illuminating spirits. All their works of art are marvelously linked, many-coloured spirits, artistic figures of the 'gods,' engraved all around their glorious bricks of splendour and majesty. All their works of art are living 'gods,' and their artistic figures are holy angels. From beneath the marvelous inner most chambers comes a sound of quiet silence: the 'gods' bless..."(Vermes 228 [4Q405 19ABCD]).

 

The author here describes the Most Holy chamber of the Temple. In this chamber was were the Ark of the Covenant was kept. This is where Jehovah dwelled symbolically. Everything in the Most Holy was made of the finest gold. The Bible tells us that the Temple was ornamented with pictures of angels (1 Kings 6:27-32). Therefore, this description of the "gods" ministering to the Almighty fits perfectly with the Bible. The curtain that separated the Holy from the Most Holy even has pictures of angels ("gods") woven into it (2 Chron. 3:14).

 

"The 'gods' praise him when they take up their station, and all the spirits of the clear firmament rejoice in his glory...when the gods of knowledge enter by the doors of glory, and when the holy angels depart the realm, the entrance doors and the gates of exit proclaim the glory of the King...the fear of the King of 'gods' is awe-inspiring to all the 'gods,' and they undertake all his commissions by virtue of his true order" (Vermes 229 [4Q405 23i]).

 

The War Rule says that "the host of warring 'gods' gird themselves for the Day of Revenge" (1QMXV, Vermes 121). We also find in the fragment titled by Vermes as The Song of Michael and the Just (4Q491 fr. II, Ma) an incomplete sentence that says that there is "a throne of strength in the congregation of 'gods' so that not a single king of old shall sit on it,
neither shall their noble men...(Vermes 126). The one called Michael is also held as saying "I am reckoned with the 'gods' and my dwelling place is in the congregation of holiness" and "for I am reckoned with the 'gods,' and my glory is with the sons of the King" (Vermes 126).

 

Response:

 

Heinz again reads his understanding of the term “gods” into the Scrolls. To say that the Scrolls contain references to “gods” who dwell in the heavenly courts still does not tell us in what sense did these Jews, believed to be the Essenes, view angels as gods. Therefore, to simply quote sources indicating that angels are called gods proves absolutely nothing. Heinz begins with the assumption that the reference to angels as gods prove that angels are divine beings much like Jehovah, albeit in a lesser sense. Heinz then proceeds to read this assumption into the Scrolls. It is therefore not surprising that Heinz finds the proof for his assertion since he defines terms in light of his own post-biblical 19^th century JW understanding, and then proceeds to read his definition back into these sources. This is a classic case of circular argumentation and eisegesis.

 

Furthermore, even if it were true that these Jews did view angels as gods in the same sense that Heinz did, this still would not prove the point Heinz seeks to make. All this would prove is that a certain Jewish sect held to a position that was clearly unbiblical. These Jews also expected at least two Messianic figures, a Messianic priest from the tribe of Aaron and a Messianic king from the house of David. These Jews were obviously wrong since it is not two Messiahs, but one Messiah who would be both priest and king.

 

Therefore, one must look to the Holy Bible as the infallible standard of determining God’s truth, not fallible human sources. It is the Holy Bible that defines in what sense angels are gods, and once we allow the Holy Bible to speak it is clear that angels are gods simply in a figurative sense. No more, no less.

 

Heinz

 

As D.S. Russell writes:

 

"There is ample evidence to show that [the OT] conception of monotheism was held in conjunction with a belief in a spiritual world peopled with supernatural and superhuman beings who, in some ways, shared the nature, though not the being, of God" ( _The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic_ P. 235).

 

Response:

 

Heinz again commits the fallacy of appealing to authority as if the appeal to D.S. Russell establishes his point. As noted earlier, scholars are divided over this issue and therefore appealing to them proves nothing. Second, Heinz must define for us what it means to say that angels share the nature of God and are supernatural beings. By nature, does Russell or Heinz mean that angels share in God’s quality of life? If so, then we wholeheartedly agree since even believers share this divine life:

 

“Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil.”2 Peter 1:4 NIV

 

Glenn Miller comments on the meaning of this passage:

 

2 Peter 1.4: Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

 

This passage is a bit different than the others, largely due to some specialized vocabulary. It uses a 'softer' word for 'divine' (i.e theios--divine) instead of the 'stronger' word (i.e. theiotes--deity, as in Col 2.9 above). It uses a special word for 'virtue' (i.e. aretas) and links 'sharers' and 'divine nature' in a formulaic way.

 

The 'softer' word for 'divine' throws us into a similar situation that we had above in the Eph 3.17 passage, of course, but the technical vocab also tips us off that we do not become GOD ourselves(!).

 

These phrases were stock-in-trade in Hellenistic Judaism (as well as non-Jewish Hellenism) and might have been the very terms used by the false teachers in chapters 2 & 3.

The main import of the technical phrase 'sharers of divine nature' was that of IMMORTALITY and INCORRUPTION (physical). So Davids (HSNT:181-182):

 

What "partaking of the divine nature" does mean for Greek and Jewish authors is to take part in the immortality and incorruption of God (or "the gods" in pagan Greek literature). One who has so participated will, like God, live in the immortal sphere and like him not be tainted with any corruption.

 

In keeping with the 'softer' word used here ("divine"=="god-like"), Bauckham delineates the limits of this terminology (WBC: in. loc.):

 

In what sense do Christians become "divine"? In view of the background sketched above, it is not very likely that participation in God's own essence is intended. Not participation in God, but in the nature of heavenly, immortal beings, is meant. Such beings, in the concepts of Hellenistic Judaism, are like God, in that, by his grace, they reflect his glorious, immortal being, but they are "divine" only in the loose sense, inherited from Hellenistic religion, of being god-like and belonging to the eternal world of "the gods." To share in the divine nature is to become immortal and incorruptible.

 

This 'loose' sense of OUR being "god-like" in immortality is a UNIVERSE AWAY from Jesus having all the fullness of the Godhead in His body! (Again, we participate in this immortality THROUGH the efforts of this God-in-flesh Jesus Christ). (http://www.webcom.com/ctt/trin03g.html- bold emphasis ours)

 

Hence, to share in God’s nature means to share in God’s immortality and incorruption. It does not mean that angels or men are lesser gods deriving their divinity from the true God. So we once again see that Heinz’s sources do not prove his position.

 

Heinz:

 

It is my position that Jesus, like the angels and Moses and King Solomon at Ps 45:6 is a "figurative God."  The Catholic NAB footnote on Ps. 45:7 says that "the Hebrew king was
called ELOHIM, "God," not in the polytheistic sense common among pagans, but as meaning "godlike," or taking the place of God."

 

Response:

 

Heinz commits the fallacy of equivocation since Jesus is not God in the same sense that angels, Moses and Solomon are. Jesus is the exact imprint of God’s nature, the eternal Word of God, the unique Son of God, the Agent of creation, the Sustainer of the universe, the Sovereign Lord of all, the Judge of all, King of kings and Lord of lords, and the Savior of the world. (Cf. Matthew 25:31-46; John 1:1-3, 10, 14; 3:16-18; 4:42; 5:22-23, 25, 27-29; 6:51; 12:47; Acts 10:36, 42; 17:30-31; Romans 10:9-13; 14:9; 1 Corinthians 4:4-5, cf. 1:7-8, 16:22; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 1:16-18; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10; 1 Timothy 1:15; Hebrews 1:2-3, 10-12; 9:27-28; Revelation 17:14, 19:16; 22:12-13, 16, 20)

 

Second, Heinz again reads his own understanding into my use of the term “figurative.” It is obvious to anyone who has read my article that by figurative I mean that angels, Moses, judges etc. are not gods in any sense. Rather, as the Catholic NAB footnote to Psalm 45:7 implies, they are referred to as gods because they stand in the place of God and speak with his authority. Yet, this is not what Heinz believes. So either Heinz is trying to be evasive here, or simply does not understand my point.

 

Heinz:

 

Sam: Stafford is simply wrong when he asserts that "The angels are not true gods, nor are they false gods; rather, they are 'copies' (derivative images) of the true God, and receive their authority and power from Him in order to carry out His word..." (Stafford, J.W.D., p. 200) They are neither true nor false, nor derivative copies but messengers created to do the will of God; no more, no less.

 

Reply: But is not Jesus also a messenger of God?

"He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." Jn 5:23 KJV

"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." Jn 5:30 KJV

"the Father hath sent me." Jn 5:36

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me" Jn 6:39 KJV

" For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." Jn 3:17 KJV

"For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God" Jn 3:34 KJV
etc etc etc.

But yet we read that angels we also sent from God (Num 20:16; 1Chron 21:15; 2Chron 32:21 etc), amongst others.

 

Response:

 

The difference between Jesus and the angels is that whereas angels are created Jesus is not. Angels by very nature are creatures created for the sole purpose of serving God and man. (Cf. Hebrews 1:7, 14)

 

Yet Jesus is the eternal Son of God who was sent to represent his Father to mankind. (Cf. Hebrews 1:1-2; 7:3)

 

It is also interesting to note that in most of the cases where ELOHIM was used of angels in the OT, the LXX translates it as AGGELOI, the sole exception being Psalm 86:8 [LXX 85:8].  While the Hebrew language may have “inherited” the term ELOHIM from its Semitic forbears in reference both to the true God and to spiritual beings created by God, it seems that by 280 bc, the translators were reluctant to use THEOI in reference to angels.  Angels are NEVER termed THEOI in the NT, and only once is the term applied to men, and that is a quote by Jesus of the OT (“ye are gods). As a JW, Heinz will have to say that the human judges FUNCTIONED as God, just as does Jesus (in his view), but then he’ll also have to concede that angels being called ELOHIM may also have the same FUNCTIONAL application. 

 

Furthermore, can Heinz show where anyone of these “so called” gods are ever described as creating, giving eternal life, being one with the Father, or sharing the same nature of the Father? Since we know Heinz cannot, we therefore see him once again committing the fallacy of false analogy as well as the fallacy of equivocation.

 

Heinz:

Everyone knows what John 1:1 says regarding Jesus, but few take into account the words PROS TON QEON (with/toward the God). Interestingly, according to my software, the only other time John uses the term PROS TON THEON is at John 13:3, "Jesus knew that the Father had given everything into His hands, that He had come from God (PROS TON THEON), and that He was going back to God." HCSB

The Catholic Kleist&Lilly NT translates this as "messenger from God." This same NT translates "sent from" as "ambassador" in regards to Jesus. I think this is very important.

Response:

 

Heinz again equivocates by assuming that PROS TON THEON has the same meaning in both passages.  The context of John 1:1 rules out the meaning that the Logos was simply an “ambassador.”  Of course the Son is a “messenger” – we don’t need a questionable scriptural link to a passage in a completely disparate context to tell us that.  We need only look at Jn 1:18, in which the Son “exegetes” the Father for us.  But surely, Heinz, the Son is portrayed as much more than a mere “messenger.”  He is the complete, final, and perfect revelation of the Father to mankind. (Cf. Hebrews 1:1 ff) 

 

Even though we’re not told specifically that Christ is the ‘perfect’ revelation of the Father, yet to argue otherwise is to argue that the Father revealed Himself imperfectly.  Now, who more perfectly reveals the Father – a creature or God Himself?

 

Heinz:

"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder
Jesus, as PROS TON THEON, "coming from God/God's messenger" acts as God agent/ambassador, and therefore he is God to those he is bringing God's message to.

 

Response:

 

Heinz throws out red herrings since the subject is not the Jewish concept of agency. As I stated, I have never denied that Jesus is the Father’s messenger sent to do the Father’s will. What I have denied is that Jesus is a creature.

Furthermore, not only is Jesus the agent/ambassador of the Father but is also God in nature, something that is not true of any other agent. That is why he alone is able to perfectly represent and act in his Father’s place, since he is one with the Father in essence and nature.

 

Finally, Jesus is not simply God to man solely because he brings the Father’s message to mankind. Rather he is the God of all flesh by virtue of the fact that he is the Creator, Savior and Sustainer of all. (Cf. Matthew 1:21; John 1:3, 10; 6:51; 12:47; Colossians 1:16-17; 2:9-10; 3:3-4; 1 Timothy 1:15; Hebrews 1:2-3; 2:10; 7:25; 9:15, 28; 10:14; 1 John 4:14)

 

That is why Thomas could call Jesus “My God.” These Jewish believers saw no problem in considering Christ as both God’s “agent” as well as their God – much like Trinitarians such as myself have no problems doing likewise. (Cf. John 5:18-29; 10:27-30, 20:28-31)

 

Heinz:

 

But what of Sam's objection coupled with his quote of Psalm 86?:

""Among the gods there is none like you, O Jehovah; no deeds can compare with yours... For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you ALONE are GOD." Psalm 86:8, 10
These passages make it difficult for anyone to believe that although Jehovah is the true God, there are gods of a lesser kind since Scripture clearly states that no gods have ever been formed at all."

 

Reply: Next to Jehovah, there really are no other gods, for as Sam himself allows, the others are simply "figurative gods." These figurative or "functional gods" magnify the almighty God Jehovah. No one else in the Bible is called almighty, and Jehovah is the God of gods, "Oh give thanks unto the God of gods; For his lovingkindness endureth for ever." Ps 136: 2

 

Response:

 

I will repeat Heinz’s statement so that the readers can see just how incoherent Heinz’s position actually is:

Next to Jehovah, THERE ARE REALLY NO OTHER GODS, for as Sam himself allows, the others are simply "figurative gods." These figurative or "functional gods" magnify the almighty God Jehovah…

 

So if these angels are not really gods but simply function as gods in a figurative sense, JUST AS MY POSITION HOLDS, then Heinz has now conceded my point. He has now admitted that angels are not truly gods. By so doing Heinz ends up refuting the position held by the WatchTower and his buddy Greg Stafford. 

 

Heinz:

Let us not forget Sam's other position:

The biblical data also teaches that there are more than one person who are addressed as the one true God, namely the Father and the Holy Spirit. (Cf. Jn. 17:3; Acts 5:3, 4) Yet, they are not three Gods but only one true God. (Cf. Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20)

 

Is the holy spirit really called God at Acts 5:3, 4 though? Let us see what it says:

"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto God." ASV

Do you notice that the last part is directed towards Peter when it says, "thou has not lied unto men?" See, they lied to Peter, who was "filled with holy spirit" Acts 4:8

And when they lied to Peter, they lied to God. Later on, in the same chapter, we have a similar situation in vss 38 and 39 where these words were directed towards Peter and the disciples, “Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God." Peter and his men were not God, but representative stand in place of God, and when something is done against them, it is done against God. "Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own eye." Zech 2:8 New Jewish Publication Society/ Tanakh That is why the Scofield Study Bible cross-references Acts 5:4 to Scriptures like Numbers 16:11, 1Samuel 8:7 and 1 Thess 4:8 which says, " Therefore he that rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you." ASV

 

Response:

 

Heinz thinks that by appealing to passages where attacking God’s people is said to be an attack on God is somehow equivalent to what is said about the Holy Spirit in Acts 5:3-4. Heinz thinks that his approach refutes the Deity and person of the Holy Spirit.

If Acts 5:3-4 were the only explicit witness to the Deity of the Holy Spirit then Heinz would have a point. Yet the Holy Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is Lord/Jehovah, Creator, shares the same divine name of God, is eternal, omnipotent omnipresent, omniscient, speaks and has emotions. (Cf. Genesis 1:2; 2 Samuel 23:2-3; Job 33:4; Psalm 104:30; 106:32-33; 139:7-12; Isaiah 63:10-14; Ezekiel 11:1-5; Nehemiah 9:20, 30; Micah 2:7; Zechariah 4:6; Matthew 28:19; Mark 3:28-30; John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 10:19; 11:12; 13:2; 15:28; 16:6-7; 21:11; 28:25-27, cf. Isaiah 6:9-10; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 2:9-11; 12:4-6, 11, 13; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; 13:14; Ephesians 4:30; Hebrews 9:14; 10:15-17, cf. Jeremiah 31:34; Revelation 22:17)

 

By highlighting Peter’s filling with the Holy Spirit Heinz seemingly is suggesting that the Spirit must be impersonal. As JWs often claim a person does not fill individuals, only a force does. If this is true then both God and Christ cannot be persons either since they are said to fill things. (Cf. Ephesians 1:22; 3:19; 4:7-10)

 

In fact, the Holy Bible says that believers are clothed with Christ and that Paul was poured out as a drink offering. (Cf. Romans 13:14; Galatians 3:27; Philippians 2:17; 2 Timothy 4:6) Using JW logic this would conclusively prove that neither Jesus nor Paul were actual persons.

 

Furthermore, Heinz overlooked his very own point that clearly establishes the personality of the Holy Spirit. That Peter could say that Ananias didn’t lie to men but to the Holy Spirit affirms that the Spirit is a Person since one cannot lie to an impersonal force!

 

Seeing that Heinz likes to appeal to the views of early Judaism to establish his position here is Messianic Jewish Scholar Dr. Michael L. Brown’s comments regarding the early Jewish view of the Holy Spirit:

 

“Interestingly, there are several references in the Rabbinic literature to the Holy Spirit speaking, announcing, crying out, rebuking, and even serving as the counsel for the defense. For example:

 

·         The Talmud (m. Sotah 9:6; b. Sotah 46a) states that when the elders performed the rite of the red heifer (Deut. 21:1-9), ‘They did not have to say, “And the blood shall be forgiven them” [Deut. 21:8], instead the Holy Spirit announces to them, “Whenever you do this, the blood shall be forgiven you.”’

·         Commenting on Exodus 1:12, ‘But the more they [i.e., the Israelites] were oppressed [by the Egyptians], the more they multiplied and spread,’ the Talmud states (b. Pesahim 117a) that the Holy Spirit announced to them, ‘So will he [Israel] increase and spread out!’ This is explained by Rashi and other major Jewish commentators to mean that the Holy Spirit said to the Egyptians, ‘Just as you seek to oppress them more, the more so will they increase and spread out!’

·         In Pirke D’Rabbi Eliezer 31, as Ishmael (Abraham’s son) and Eliezar (his steward) argue about who will be Abraham’s heir-seeing that they are going together with Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to the Lord (Genesis 22)-the Holy Spirit answers them and says, ‘Neither this one nor this one will inherit.’

·         In a late midrash cited in Yalkut Reubeni (9d) to Genesis 1:26, after Ben Sira shared the secret, mystical teachings with his son Uzziah and his grandson Joseph, the Holy Spirit called out, ‘Who is it that revealed My secrets to mankind?’ Ben Sira replied, ‘I, Buzi, the son of Buzi.’ The Holy Spirit said to him, ‘Enough!’

·         Lamentations Rabbah 3:60, 9 relates that after the Roman emperor Hadrian indiscriminately executed two Jews, the Holy Spirit kept crying out, ‘You have seen O LORD, the wrong done to ME. Uphold MY cause! You have seen the depth of their vengeance, all their plots against ME’ (Lam. 3:59-60). This provides an example of the Spirit making intercession.

·         According to Leviticus Rabbah 6:1, the Holy Spirit is a defense counsel who speaks to Israel on behalf of the Lord and then speaks to the Lord on behalf of Israel. To Israel the Spirit says, ‘Do not testify against your neighbor without cause’ (Prov. 24:28), and to the Lord the Spirit says, ‘’Do not say, “I’ll do him as he has done me”’ (Prov. 24:29).

 

“In all these citations, which can easily be multiplied (see, e.g., Genesis Rabbah 84:11; Song of Songs Rabbah 8:16; Lamentations Rabbah 1:48), there can be no question that we are dealing with a ‘who’ and not just a ‘what’, with a personal dimension of God and not just an impersonal power, with God himself and yet with a ‘separate’ entity who can mediate between God and man. And these citations closely parallel some of the New Testament descriptions of the Holy Spirit, although virtually all the Rabbinic texts cited were written many years later…” (Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus-Volume Two, Theological Objections [Baker Books; Grand Rapids MI, 2000], pp. 55-57 bold and capital emphasis mine)

 

In light of the preceding arguments, we discover that Heinz’s scriptural examples do not establish his case against the divine personality of the Holy Spirit. Heinz ends up committing the fallacy of false analogy and the fallacy of equivocation since his arguments have no bearing on the biblical witness to the perfect Deity and personality of God’s Spirit.

 

Heinz:

So we have only one true, almighty God, Jehovah, and he is the Father (Is 64:8), which, according to Trinitarian theology, the Son cannot be. And when we break it down, Stafford is correct in his assertion of almighty God being the archetype, and all others copies. Even Vine's points out in reference to the true tent as the, "the spiritual, antitypical tabernacle, Heb. 8:2; 9:24, not that the wilderness tabernacle was false, but that it was a weak and earthly copy of the heavenly."

Response:

 

Heinz fails to include Vine’s translation of alethinos in John 17:3 since to do so would undermine his very point.  No one denies that alethinos can have the archetypal connotation in Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24. Yet Vine does not attribute the archetypal meaning to John 17:3. Furthermore, Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24 don’t talk about eternal life being dependent upon a close, personal knowledge of BOTH the Father and the Son. How arrogant of the created WT Christ to place Himself on an equal plane with the Father in this context!

 

Second, we agree with Heinz that there is only one true, almighty, God, Jehovah. Yet we disagree with him that the Father alone is Jehovah. The Holy Bible clearly teaches that the Son is also the Almighty God:

 

“Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.’” Revelation 1:7-8 NIV

 

The context clearly identifies the One who is coming as the pierced one, namely Jesus Christ. The One that is coming identifies himself in verse 8 as the Almighty. This passage clearly establishes that Jesus Christ is God Almighty.

 

Greg Stafford begs to differ:

 

“In an attempt to further identify the ‘Alpha and Omega’ of this verse, Trinitarians have tried to establish a link between Jesus in verse seven, who is there spoken of as ‘coming,’ and the One ‘who is coming’ according to verse eight. There are several problems with this interpretation, however, that make such an identification practically impossible from a biblical perspective.

 

“First, in Revelation 1:4, 5, John writes: to the seven congregations that are in the district of Asia: ‘Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come [ho on kai ho en kai ho erkhomenos], and from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth’ (emphasis added). Here we can see that prior to verse 8 the description of the One ‘who is, and who was, and who is to come’ is given to One who is clearly distinguished from ‘the seven spirits’ and ‘Jesus Christ.’ It would seem obvious that the only other person from whom ‘undeserved kindness and peace could come is the Father.

 

“Thus, the ‘coming’ of the Alpha and Omega’ in verse eight is consistent with the description of the Father’s ‘coming’ in verse four. Further proof that a reference to the ‘coming’ of the Father is supported by Scripture, particularly the book of Revelation, is found in chapter 6 verses 16, 17, where those who refuse to bear witness to God and Jesus cry out: ‘Fall over us and hide us from the face of the One seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, because the great day of their wrath has come [emphasis added], and who is able to stand?’

 

“Here we can see that ‘the One seated on the throne’ is also seen as ‘coming’ with the Lamb on the ‘great day of their wrath.’ Throughout the book of Revelation, including here in 6:16, ‘the One seated on the throne’ is a common reference to Jesus’ God and Father (4:10; 5:1, 7; 7:10, 15; 21:5) There is no compelling evidence to support the belief that Revelation 1:8 is a reference to Jesus Christ. In fact, the evidence seems to point decisively in favor of the Father being the ‘Alpha and the Omega’ of this verse.” (Stafford, second edition, pp. 178-179)

 

Stafford claims that there is no compelling evidence to support the Trinitarian position. As we will now see it is Stafford’s post-biblical 19^th century JW theology that does not allow him to see the compelling evidence that supports Jesus as the referent of verse 8.

 

First, it should be pointed out that Holy Bible often applies the same titles and functions to both the Father and the Son. For instance, both the Father and the Son are said to be “King of kings and Lord of lords”:

 

“which God will bring about in his own time-God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.” 1 Timothy 6:15-16 NIV

 

“and from Jesus Christ, ‘the Faithful Witness,’ ‘the firstborn from the dead,’ and ‘the Ruler of the kings of the earth.’” Revelation 1:5 NWT

 

“These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those called and chosen and faithful with him [will do so].” Revelation 17:14 NWT

 

“And upon his outer garment, even upon his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.” Revelation 19:16 NWT

 

These passages pose additional problems for the JWs. 1 Timothy 6:15 states that God is the only (monos) Potentate/Ruler and King of kings and Lord of lords. Yet Jesus is said to be the King of kings and Lord of lords as well as the supreme Ruler of all. Therefore, either the JW must claim that Jesus is Jehovah God or assume that the authors of the NT often contradicted themselves and didn’t actually mean what they said since only doesn’t actually mean only.

 

Furthermore, Revelation not only distinguishes between the One sitting on the throne from the Lord Jesus Christ, as Stafford claims, but also shows the Father and the Son sitting on the same throne. (Cf. Revelation 3:21; 22:1, 3)

 

In fact, Revelation identifies Jesus as the One seated on the throne:

 

“Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before the throne, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:11-15

 

The One seated on the throne judges all peoples. Yet elsewhere in the NT it is Jesus Christ who sits on the throne to judge all:

 

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.” Matthew 25:31-33 NIV

 

“Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him… And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.” John 5:22-23, 27 NIV

In fact, Revelation clearly distinguishes Jesus from all creation:

 

“And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, ‘To Him who sits on the throne, AND TO THE LAMB, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.’ And the four living creatures kept saying, ‘Amen.’ And the elders fell down and worshiped.” Revelation 5:13-14 NASB

 

Revelation 5:13-14 distinguishes the Lamb from “all creatures,” and shows all creation giving glory, honor, and blessing (i.e., worship and praise) both to the Father and to the Lamb. This refutes any attempt of viewing the Lord Jesus as the first of God’s creation.

 

 

Therefore the title of “who was, who is, and who is to come,” presents no particular difficulty for the Trinitarian position since this is one of the many titles and functions applied to both members of the Trinity.

 

Second, the context of 1:4-5 ends at verse 6 with a doxology to Christ:

 

“... and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father- to him be glory and power forever and ever! Amen.”

 

This implies that Stafford’s attempt of trying to identify the speaker of 1:8 with the one referred to in 1:4 will not work. Revelation 1:7-8 is actually identifying someone other than the Father as the one “who was, who is and who is to come.” The context specifically identifies the One who is to come as the One that was pierced. Based on this fact, verse 8 can only be referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, the very One who was pierced and is coming again.

 

Third, scripture clearly states that the Father reveals his invisible qualities through the visible manifestation of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ:

 

“And Jesus cried out and said, ‘He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me.’” John 12:44-45 NASB

 

“Jesus answered: ‘Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.’” John 14:9-11 NIV

 

“He is the image of the invisible God...” Colossians 1:15 NIV

 

In light of these passages, the only way that the Father can be said as coming is in the person of His Son. The Father reveals his invisible qualities and presence through the visible appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ who is the eternal God made visible. (Cf. Matthew 1:22-23; John 1:1, 14, 18)

 

This point actually affirms the Trinitarian position since the only way for Jesus to perfectly reveal the invisible God to man is if Christ himself is fully God in nature. A finite creature cannot fully manifest the qualities of the infinite God to creation. That Jesus is fully God in visible form is something that the NT explicitly teaches:

 

“For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and IN HIM you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;” Colossians 2:9-10 NASB

 

“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word...” Hebrews 1:3 NIV

 

Fourth, Stafford overlooked the fact that Revelation 1:4-5 is actually a Trinitarian benediction. According to this passage the source of all grace and peace stems fully and equally from all three persons:

 

“John, To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,” Revelation 1:4-5 NIV

 

The seven spirits refer to the perfect work of the Holy Spirit, something which the WatchTower publication, Revelation Its Grand Climax At Hand!, agrees with:

 

“‘Undeserved kindness and peace’-how desirable these are and especially when we appreciate their source! The ‘One’ from whom they flow is the Sovereign Lord Jehovah himself, ‘the King of eternity,’ who lives ‘from time indefinite to time indefinite.’ (1 Timothy 1:17; Psalm 90:2)  Involved here too, are ‘the seven spirits,’ which term indicates a fullness of operation of God’s active force, OR HOLY SPIRIT, as it brings understanding and blessing to all who pay attention to the prophecy. Also occupying a key role is ‘Jesus Christ,’ of whom John later wrote: ‘He was full of undeserved kindness and truth.’ (John 1:14) Thus, John’s greeting has the same elements that the apostle Paul mentioned in closing his second letter to the Corinthian congregation: ‘The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the holy spirit be with all of you.’ (2 Corinthians 13:14) May those words apply to everyone of us who love truth today!-Psalm 119:97” (Ibid., p. 18 bold  and capital emphasis mine)

 

Seeing that it is God that grants grace and peace to believers affirms the essential equality of all three Persons. The only way for all three Persons to give grace and peace to all the Christians within the seven churches that were located throughout Asia is if all three are omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Seeing that God alone possesses these attributes affirms that all three are fully God in nature.

 

This passage also establishes the personality of the Holy Spirit of God since a force does not grant grace and peace, a person does. So we see that this passage backfires against Stafford and affirms the Trinitarian position!

 

Interestingly, the WatchTower at one time viewed Revelation 1:8 as a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. Duane Magnani and Arthur Barrett in their book, The Watchtower Files-Dialogue With Jehovah’s Witnesses (Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis MN, 1985), state:

 

“…Throughout Revelation, John speaks of Jesus as the one who is to come, and Jesus calls himself the one who was, who is, and who is to come. Further, we know the Bible never speaks of the Father as the one who is to come. In 1917, Watchtower readers were taught in a book called The Finished Mystery that Revelation 1:8, 21:6, and 22:12, 13 confirmed that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega…” (Ibid., p. 221 bold emphasis mine)

 

Magnani and Barrett reproduce the actual commentary from The Finished Mystery regarding Revelation 1:8:

 

1:8. I am THE Alpha and I AM ALSO THE Omega.-

Alpha is the first letter, and Omega the last letter, of the Greek alphabet.

The Beginning and the Ending.-“Our Lord’s great honor is shown in that He was not only the first of God’s creation, but the last. From this we are to understand that the great Jehovah did not directly employ His own power in creating either men or angels; but that He delegated His power to His Only-begotten Son.”-Z.’93-115

Saith the Lord GOD.-But not the clergy; they will have none of this doctrine.

Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.-“It is since HIS RESURRECTION that the message has gone forth-‘All power in heaven and in earth is given unto Me.’ (Matt. 28:18.) Consequently it is only since then THAT HE COULD BE CALLED THE ALMIGHTY.”-Z.’93-115; Rev. 1:4; :16:5-7. (Ibid., p. 224 bold and capital emphasis mine)

 

I submit that the WatchTower had it right in the beginning since Revelation 1:7-8 is clearly referring to Jesus as the Almighty God.

 

Revelation supplies additional evidence that Jesus is in fact God Almighty:

 

“I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone ‘like a son of man,’ dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.’” Revelation 1:12-18 NIV

 

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands:” Revelation 2:1 NIV

 

“To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.” Revelation 3:1 NIV

 

“Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.” Revelation 5:6 NIV

 

The symbols of the Lamb, the seven horns, the seven eyes, the walking in the midst of the seven lampstands and the holding of the seven stars signifies that Jesus is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. The number seven represents completeness and perfection while horns symbolize power with eyes symbolizing knowledge. The seven lampstands refers to the seven churches located throughout Asia Minor:

 

“On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: ‘Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea’… The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” Revelation 1:10-11, 20 NIV

 

The only way for Christ to be in the midst of all these seven churches is if he were omnipresent!

 

The WatchTower publication Revelation Its Grand Climax At Hand! states in relation to Revelation 2:1:

 

“As in the other six passages, Jesus here draws attention to a feature denoting his authoritative position. He reminds the overseers in Ephesus that all elders are under his protective oversight and that he is inspecting all the congregations. Down into our 20^th century, he has continued to exercise this loving headship, watching over the elders and kindly shepherding all associated with the congregation…” (Ibid., p. 33 bold emphasis mine)

 

Here is the publication’s comment regarding Revelation 3:1:

 

“Why does Jesus identify himself as the one ‘who has the seven spirits’? Because these seven spirits represent Jehovah’s holy spirit flowing in its fullness. John describes them also as ‘seven eyes,’ indicating the penetrating visions that God’s holy Spirit bestows on Jesus. (Revelation 5:6) Thus, he is able to uncover and handle any situation that may exist. (Matthew 10:26; 1 Corinthians 4:5)” (Ibid., p. 55 bold emphasis mine)

 

As well as their comment regarding Revelation 5:6:

 

“What else adds to our appreciation of this ‘lamb’? He has seven horns. Horns in the Bible are often a symbol of power or authority, and seven would indicate completeness. (Compare 1 Samuel 2:1, 10; Psalm 112:9; 148:14) Hence, the Lamb’s seven horns represent the FULLNESS OF POWER that Jehovah has entrusted to Jesus. He is ‘far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come.’ (Ephesians 1:20-23; 1 Peter 3:22)…

 

“Moreover, Jesus is filled to completeness with holy spirit, as pictured by the Lamb’s seven eyes, which ‘mean the seven spirits of God.’ Jesus is a channel through whom the FULLNESS of Jehovah’s active force flows to His earthly servants. (Titus 3:6) Evidently, it is by this same spirit that he sees from heaven what is happening here on earth. LIKE HIS FATHER, JESUS HAS PERFECT DISCERNMENT. Nothing escapes his notice. (Compare Psalm 11:4; Zechariah 4:10) Clearly, this Son- the integrity keeper who conquered the world; the Lion of the tribe of Judah; the root of David; the one who offered his life for mankind; the one with complete authority, fullness of holy spirit, and perfect discernment from Jehovah God-yes, this one is outstandingly worthy to take the scroll from Jehovah’s hand…” (Ibid., p. 85 bold and capital emphasis mine)

 

Aside from the erroneous assumption that Jesus was given the completeness of power and discernment, these passages clearly demonstrate that Jesus is God Almighty. There is no escaping that the NT does in fact clearly teach that Jesus is all-powerful, all-knowing and present everywhere. That is why Jesus is able to sustain and control all creation, since Jesus is the source of all creative energy and power. (Cf. John 2:23-25, cf. 1 John 3:20; John 14:23, 16:30-31, 21:17; 1 Corinthians 4:4-5, cf. 1:7-8, 16:22, Revelation 22:20; Ephesians 1:22-23; 4:7-10; Philippians 3:20-21; Colossians 1:16-17, 2:2-3, 3:11; Hebrews 1:2-3; Revelation 2:23, cf. 1 Kings 8:39, Jeremiah 17:10)

 

We therefore see that contrary to what Heinz claims Jesus is the one true, almighty God Jehovah. This affirms that the one almighty God is a multipersonal Being.

 

Heinz:

Origen knew of the correct way to understand the difference between true and false:
Origen seemed to understand the use of alethinos in John 17:3, for in his Commentary on John he wrote:

"God on the one hand is VERY God (autotheos, God of himself); and so the Savior says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; " but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in his divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), rather God (without the article).  And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord [Jehovah], hath spoken, and called the earth." [Ps. 136:2] It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for the drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty.  The true God, then, is "THE GOD," and those who are formed after him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the Prototype.""
Ante-Nicene Fathers (Eerdmans' reprint series) Book 2, p. 323)

 

Does that make us henotheistic? After discussing Deut. 32:8 and Ps. 82:1-6, Ralph Smith poses the timely question: was Israel henotheistic or monotheistic? His answer is that Israel was monotheistic. But in what sense? Quoting G.E. Wright, Smith notes that  monotheism (in this case) can be defined as: "the exclusive exaltation of the one source of all power, authority, and creativity" (_Old Testament Theology. R. Smith. P. 232). By defining monotheism in this way, we allow room for others to be called gods (in that they are superhuman and  supernatural) without compromising our monotheistic position.

Response:

 

The views of Origen are dealt with in the article on John 17:3.

 

Furthermore Heinz quotes certain authorities without giving us enough of the context whereby we can assess what these scholars actually meant. As we shall see, Heinz often misquotes his sources, wrenching statements out of their intended context and thereby giving a misleading impression as to what these authors meant.

 

Here is what Smith actually wrote in his OT Theology.  The discussion about Deuteronomy 32:8 and Psalm 82, which Heinz alludes to, indicates that the ‘gods’ of the nations are acknowledged to be real beings.  However, in Psalm 82 (in Smith’s view), Yahweh judges the gods of the nations as being evil (i.e., FALSE) and says that they will die like men.  All the other examples of “gods” as actual beings presented by Smith are what I have already termed as “false gods”– i.e., Baal, Asherah, etc.  There is NO MENTION anywhere in Smith’s discussion about a class of “good” gods.

 

Even in the early period of Judaism reflected in these passages (Smith seems to accept the idea of a progressive monotheism), Jews believed that the other gods might, in fact, exist, but that they were UTTERLY POWERLESS.  They could do nothing, and were of no account.

 

On page 230, Smith says later Judaism (by which he no doubt means deutero-Isaiah – several hundred years before Christ) came to deny even the existence of the gods of the nations.  Not only were they powerless, they were nothing at all.

 

Interestingly, in his discussion of the Shema Smith states clearly that Trinitarianism is not at odds with Jewish monotheism in any way.

 

Finally, consider the context of the quote Heinz gives us:

 

 

Should one speak of the faith of Israel in the Old Testament as henotheistic or monotheistic?  G.E. Wright said that Old Testament Scholars have generally understood henotheism to mean “the worship of one God who is confined to one people and country, but a worship that does not exclude the recognition of other deities” (Old Testament Against Its Environment, 37).   Henotheism defined in that way certainly DOES NOT FIT the universal and cosmic conception in the Old Testament.

 

Wright prefers to use the term monotheism for the Old Testament faith because “it has always been used to define Judaism and Christianity in which the angelic host has survived and has been elaborated” (IBID).  Even later, Israel placed no abstract metaphysical emphasis on the existence or nonexistence of the other gods.  The emphasis was on their lack of power to do anything.  Monotheism rather than henotheism emphasizes the most characteristic and unique feature of Israel: “the exclusive exaltation of the one source of all power, authority, and creativity” (IBID, 39).  This understanding of monotheism leaves room for angelology, demonology, and the New Testament understanding of the Godhead. (bold and capital emphasis mine)

 

So, contra Heinz, Smith’s view “allows” for angels or demons being called “gods” in the context of being the false gods of the nations.  Smith never calls the angels that serve Yahweh “gods,” but angels, seraphim, cherubim, etc.  His definition of monotheism (Wright’s actually) is conducive to the Trinity (again, he refers to this specifically a couple pages earlier). But nowhere do we see him stating anything remotely like the JW’s view of monotheism, in which Jews in the time of Christ believed in a heavenly court of gods subordinate to the one God.  Smith says the other gods “lack power to do anything,” which would militate against the view of Christ as a second god, being called “mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6, the emphatic THEOS in John 1:1, or Thomas’s God in John 20:28.

 

Heinz not only commits the fallacy of appealing to authority but also wrenches citations out of their intended context. I also need to constantly remind Heinz that scholars do not determine truth, God’s word does. That is why when we do consult God’s word Heinz’s post-biblical 19^th century JW views of God are found to be unbiblical since it is not monotheism at all. Rather, Heinz’s views are nothing more than henotheism trying to disguise itself under the guise of biblical monotheism.

 

Heinz:

 

The Dictionary of the Bible by Catholic Jesuit John L. McKenzie, S.J. God, p. 317,says

 

"The unique character of Yahweh is the answer to the question about the monotheism of early Israel. Monotheism as a speculative affirmation is simply not found in the earlier books of the Bible; the affirmation presupposes a pattern of philosophical thinking which was foreign to the Israelite mind. Nor is there a clear and unambiguous denial of the reality of other Elohim before Second Isaiah in the 6th century. This does not mean that early Israel was polytheistic or uncertain about the exclusive character of Yahweh. They perhaps would have said that there are many Elohim but only one Yahweh, and would have denied to any Elohim the unique character which they affirmed of Yahweh."

 

Response:

 

As I had already alluded to above, one common tactic of JW apologists is to misuse primary sources by wrenching citations out of their immediate and broader context. In so doing, JW apologists give a false and misleading impression as to what these authors are actually saying. Sadly, this is the case with Heinz. Heinz does not inform his readers that McKenzie, much like Smith, adopts an evolutionary view of Israel’s religious history. According to what McKenzie writes, it is only later in Israel’s history that one ends up finding monotheism, monotheism being understood as belief in the existence of only one God. Yet this cannot be definitely said of Israel’s early years, especially during the time of the Patriarchs.

 

Notice what McKenzie says in his section on monotheism:

 

“Monotheism. Monotheism means the belief in the existence OF ONE ONLY GOD and exclusive worship OF THIS ONE GOD. Monotheism IN THE BIBLE and in Israelite-Jewish-Christian religion is questioned by no one for period AFTER the 6^th century BC. The monotheism of Israel before this date has been questioned by many historians… The question is raised about the religion of the OT and of the religious leaders of Israel; admitting that their conception of the deity differed from that of popular Canaanite religion, does it deserve the name of monotheism AS DEFINED ABOVE [Sam’s note- meaning the belief in the existence of one only God]? Here again a distinction must be made. A speculative philosophical affirmation of monotheism appears nowhere in the Bible. Nor can we find in the OT the monotheism WHICH IS EVIDENT IN THE NT. Modern historians have invented the terms ‘HENOTHEISM’ and ‘monolatry’ to describe the religion of EARLY Israel as they reconstruct it. The terms, while used loosely as equivalent, are not exactly the same; they designate the exclusive cult of one deity, with the admission of the existence of other deities, or at least without any explicit denial of the existence of other deities…

 

“The religion of the patriarchs (cf ABRAHAM; ISAAC; JACOB) appears to have been the exclusive worship of a God conceived as the god of the family or clan. This worship is represented in Gn as given to Him exclusively; but we here meet the problem of the gap in time between the patriarchs and the form in which these traditions appear in Gn [Sam’s note- McKenzie ascribes to the Documentary Hypothesis which posits four different documentary strands in the formation of the first five books of Moses. These documentary strands are collectively referred to as the JEDP source. McKenzie does not believe that Moses actually wrote the first five books of the OT.] Preserved and retold for many generations, including peoples who in all probability were not members of the original group of Israel, the patriarchal stories exhibit some retrojection of later religious ideas.  This means that they are often represented as devout Israelites of a later period. This element should not be exaggerated, because in many respects the patriarchs are not represented as devout Israelites of a later period; but it does mean that caution is necessary in affirming THAT THEY WERE MONOTHEISTS. In Gn 14 Abraham is represented as present at the worship of a Canaanite deity; his active participation is not explicitly mentioned, but it is highly IMPROBABLE that he would be present and INACTIVE. It would be impossible for a devout Israelite OF A LATER PERIOD even to be present at such a sacrifice. The Israelites obviously identified the deity of Melchizedek with the deity of Abraham. Rachel stole the household gods of her father Laban, which gives a clue to his religion; yet Jacob was a member of his family for some years. Joseph was completely Egyptianized; the story of Joseph says nothing of his attitude toward Egyptian religion, but it hardly needs to be said. These elements in the patriarchal traditions suggest, although they do not demonstrate, that monotheism is scarcely the word to describe the religion of the ancestors of Israel…

 

“Monotheism becomes more explicit in the 9^th century. The combat of Elijah on behalf of Yahweh (1 K 18) is a more explicit rejection of the divinity of the Baal. In the 8^th century Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah leave no doubt of their monotheism. But the most explicit and formal profession FIRST appears in Is 40-55. Here the gods of the nations are said to be nothing, nonexistent. This is not a departure from earlier belief, which never affirmed the reality of the gods beyond the images, but never formally denied it. The monotheism of Second Isaiah appears also in his presentation of Yahweh as lord of nature and lord of history- which appear in earlier prophets also, but not explicitly connected with the unity of Yahweh…” (McKenzie, pp. 584-585 bold and capital emphasis mine)

 

It should be pointed out that McKenzie does not believe that a single author wrote the book of Isaiah. Instead, McKenzie adopts the liberal view that Isaiah 40-55 was written after the Babylonian Captivity when the Jews returned from exile. Hence, to McKenzie the only time Israel formally and explicitly denies the existence of the pagan gods is only during the 6^th century when the Jews returned home from their Exile.

 

Commenting on Abraham’s religion, McKenzie states:

 

“… In no tradition of Abraham does God demand that He be worshiped EXCLUSIVELY, and the omission is significant, since this feature of Hebrew belief is so emphasized IN LATER HISTORY and yet not read back into the story of Abraham; cf. Josh. 24:2…” (Ibid., p. 6 bold and capital emphasis mine)

 

McKenzie’s claims regarding the composition of Isaiah, the monotheism of the Patriarch’s and that OT monotheism not being the same as the monotheism of the NT are rejected by both Evangelicals and JWs alike.

 

Finally, McKenzie’s definition of monotheism completely negates Heinz’s position. McKenzie defines monotheism not just as the exclusive worship of the one God, but the belief in the existence of only one God. According to McKenzie, historians define the belief in a host of gods with the exclusive worship of only one God as henotheism and/or monolatry. This is precisely the point I made throughout my article, that JWs are not biblical monotheists but rather are henotheists disguising themselves as monotheists.

 

Hence, the very source Heinz appeals to ends up affirming my position while negating Heinz’s entire argument.

 

Heinz:

 

Sons of God as members of a class:
Sam states:

 

Thus, Stafford’s reasoning is that the term "sons of God" must mean that angels are divine beings since this is the way Scripture uses the phrase "sons of"; to refer to membership or participation in a particular class. What Stafford failed to note is that although the phrase is used at times to denote participation in a given class, it is not always used in this sense.
"As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, sons of Belial, surrounded the house... " Judges 19:22
"The sons of Eli were sons of Belial, having no regard for Jehovah." 1 Samuel 1:12
The Israelites are also addressed as the sons or children of God:
"You are the children (Heb.- beney) of the LORD your God." Deut. 14:1 NIV
"Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ " Hosea 1:10 NIV
This presumably being the case, JWs face further difficulties since Adam is another one who is addressed as God’s son:
"... the son of Adam, the son of God." Luke 3:38 NIV

 

Hosea is probably the only exception where you will see the term "sons of God" to someone other than angels. What Stafford printed in his book that Sam takes aim at are quotations from Gesenius and Sam Cooke. Stafford explains alot more that Sam let's on, including the following,

 

"The description "sons of God" are given to the Israelites in Hosea 1:10. That this description has a much different meaning than when used of the angels is clear from the fact that the description in Hosea is figurative, relating to their newfound relationship with God, as oppsed to His rejection of them mentioned in the same verse. The angels in Genesis (6:4), Job (1:6; 2:1; 38:7) and the book of Psalms (89:6; compare 29:1) are not described as sons of God in such a context. Rather, they, as "sons of God," "take their situation before Jehovah" in the heavens (Job 1:6; 2:1), and witnessed the creation of the heavens and the earth (Job 38:7)." JWD2 pp. 114, 115

 

Response:

 

Heinz does not tell his readers that my paper originally addressed the first edition of Stafford’s book. Stafford only added the above citation to his second edition, apparently in response to what I had written in my article.

 

Furthermore, Stafford must assume that the different context implies whether the term “sons of God” is figurative or not. But there are several problems with Stafford’s reasoning.

 

First, Stafford built his entire case on the argument that the phrase “son of” implied membership and/ or participation in a specific class. Stafford also provided several examples from the OT to illustrate his point:

 

 

“Further evidence that the angels were considered ‘gods’ or ‘divine beings’ is found in the use of the Hebrew for ‘sons of.’ In the Hebrew Bible, when we read of the ‘sons of’ someone or some group of people, they are typically seen as members of the group or class of whom they are ‘sons.’ For example, in 1 Kings 20:35 the ‘sons of the prophets’ are ‘prophets,’ and in Nehemiah 12:28 the ‘sons of the singers’ are ‘singers.’ Commenting on this use of son Gesenius tells us: ‘There is another use of... [ben, ‘son’] or... [beney, ‘sons’] to denote membership in a guild or society (or of a tribe, and any definite class).

 

“Thus... [beney elohim, ‘sons of God’]... [beney ha-elohim, ‘sons of (the) God’] Gn 6:2, 4, Jb 1:6, 2:1, 38:7... properly means not sons of god(s) but being of the CLASS of... [elohim].’ Gerald Cooke concludes that ‘the “sons of God(s)” are to be understood without question as lesser divine beings.’” (Stafford, first edition, p. 190 bold emphasis mine)

 

My use of Hosea 1:10 along with the other OT references where individuals are called sons of Belial proved that Stafford’s reasoning is not necessarily true in all instances. The fact that he had to address Hosea 1:10 and claim that it is an exception to what he had originally claimed in his first edition only proves my point. It proves that Stafford realized that Hosea 1:10 posed a problem with his position and therefore needed to explain it away in his second edition.

 

Furthermore, to say that Hosea 1:10 is using figurative language backfires against Stafford. In the above quotation, Stafford mentions the “sons of the prophets” and the “sons of the singers” to support his claim. Yet these examples can only be figurative since the phrase “sons of” does not imply biological descent from individuals who were either prophets or singers. Rather, it refers to the fact that these individuals belonged to the class of prophets or singers. The use “sons of” is therefore a figurative expression. This being the case, Stafford’s attempt of evading Hosea 1:10 through the use of figurative language proves absolutely nothing.

 

Third, in Heinz’ citation from the second edition of Stafford’s book we are not told in what sense is Hosea’s use of the term “children of God” in relation to Israel simply figurative. Does Stafford mean that whereas the children of Israel are not God’s children in a literal sense, angels in fact are? If so, what does Stafford mean by literal? That God produced these angels in the same way a human father produces children, i.e. through sexual union with a consort? This would be Mormonism, not JW teaching.

 

Does Stafford mean that angels are God’s spiritual sons? If so, what difference is there between born-again Christians being referred to as the sons of God from angels being called God’s son? The Holy Bible states that all who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ become children of God. (Cf. John 1:12-13; Romans 8:14-17, 19, 21; 9:22-26 [Sam’s note- Paul interestingly cites Hosea 1:10 here as being fulfilled in the gracious calling of both Jews and Gentiles into the family of God]; Galatians 4:4-7; 1 John 3:1-2, 9-10; 4:4-7; 5:1-2, 18-19)

 

This sonship is obviously spiritual and is neither literal nor metaphorical.

 

Does Stafford mean by spiritual that angels derive their life from God? If so, then my original argument stands. Notice what I said:

 

“…With this point in mind, the phrase “sons of God” when used of angels presumably means that since they derive their existence from God, God is then viewed as their Father in that he is their Creator. This interpretation bears out in light of Malachi 2:10:

 

“Have we not all one Father? Did not ONE GOD create us?…”

 

Since God created us, he is our Father and we are his offspring. Paul quotes Greek poets who had this same idea in mind, namely that since we exist because of God we are therefore his children:

 

“‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’” Acts 17:28

 

Hence, in light of the biblical data we are left to conclude that Stafford’s position is simply indefensible.”

 

Does Stafford mean that angels partake of the divine nature? If so, then what does Stafford mean by divine nature? Does he mean that angels share in the holy and incorruptible life of God? If so, then even believers partake of this divine nature as was mentioned earlier.

 

Does he mean that angels are also gods in a real sense? If so, then Stafford is clearly wrong.

 

Finally, Heinz failed to address the final problem with Stafford’s reasoning. Both Stafford and Heinz allude to Genesis 6:2 regarding the term “sons of God.” Here is my original comment showing why this passage sounds the death knell to Stafford’s claims:

 

 

“A final problem with Stafford’s position is that it views the sons of God in Genesis 6, who according to many biblical scholars and JWs are fallen angels (i.e. demons), as lesser divine beings. For instance, the JW book, Aid to Bible Understanding, defends the view that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are angels by stating:

 

‘The identification of the “sons of the true God” at Genesis 6:2-4 with angelic creatures is objected to by those holding the previously mentioned view (author- namely that Gen. 6:2-4 refers to the godly seed of Seth as opposed to Cain’ s corrupt seed) because they say the context relates entirely to human wickedness. This objection is not valid, however, since the wrongful interjection of spirit creatures in human affairs most certainly could contribute to or accelerate the growth of human wickedness… The mention of a mixing into human affairs by angelic sons of God could reasonably appear in the Genesis account precisely because of its explaining to a considerable degree the gravity of the situation that had developed on earth prior to the Flood...

 

Supporting this are the apostle Peter’s references to “the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days” (1 Pet. 3:19, 20), and to the “angels that sinned” mentioned in connection with the “ancient world” of Noah’s time (2 Pet. 2:4, 5), as well as Jude’s statement concerning “the angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place.” (Jude 6) If it is denied that the ‘sons of the true God’ of Genesis 6:2-4 were spirit creatures, then these statements by the Christian writers become enigmatic, with nothing to explain the manner in which this angelic disobedience took place, or its actual relation to Noah’s time… There seems to be no valid reason then, for doubting that the “sons of God” of Genesis 6:2-4 were angelic sons...”’ (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971 ed., pp. 1527-1528 emphasis ours)

 

In fact, the publication goes on to identify these angels as demons:

 

‘Demon. An invisible wicked spirit creature, sometimes called a ‘fallen angel,’ having superhuman powers... In Noah’s day these disobedient angels materialized, married woman, fathered a hybrid generation known as Nephilim... and dematerialized when the flood came. (Gen 6:1-4)...’ (Ibid, pp. 441-442 emphasis ours)

 

In light of the earlier citations, these beings could in no way be gods since the Bible denies the possibility of fallen angels-demons from ever partaking in the divine nature…”

 

Therefore, to simply claim that Hosea 1:10 is using figurative language does nothing to solve the problem for Stafford or Heinz.

 

Heinz:

 

This is why "sons of God" are the primary definition for angels in such publications like Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible, and the Oxford Companion to the Bible (which also includes "gods" as another definition). You will find that this is not the case with Adam, or Israel or the other cases presented.

 

Response:

 

Heinz again cites authorities as if somehow citing authorities establishes his point. One must produce sound exegetical evidence to support the claims made by an authority. Furthermore, to say that angels are called primarily  “sons of God” does not tell us in what sense is the term being used.

 

Heinz is also wrong by stating that the title “sons of God” is not used as a primary definition for either Israel or Adam. If the frequent usage of a title proves anything then Israel is called God’s “sons”, “children”, and “firstborn son” at least eleven times. (Cf. Exodus 4:22-23; Deuteronomy 14:1-2; 32:5-6, 18-20; Isaiah 1:1-3; 45:10-11; Jeremiah 31:9; Ezekiel 16:20-21, 23:36-37; Hosea 11:10)

 

In contrast, angels are called “sons of God” only four times. (Cf. Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6, 2:1; Psalm 89:6).

 

Heinz also fails to mention that whereas Adam is called the son of God once, not a single individual angel is ever referred to as the son of God. The term is applied to angels collectively as a group, but never individually.

 

Finally, both Adam and man in general are said to be in the image of God, something never said of angels. If anything, this should serve as greater proof that human beings, not angels, are actual gods. Yet the Holy Bible clearly refutes the notion of man being god in any sense. (Cf. Ezekiel 28:1-10)

 

This demonstrates that Heinz’s appeal to frequent usage again proves absolutely nothing.

 

Heinz:

 

Sam: Another major weakness in the argument is that it leaves JWs with a serious problem. In the Old Testament, Jehovah is pictured as the Light:
"Jehovah is my light and my salvation... " Ps. 27:1
"... for Jehovah will be your everlasting Light... Jehovah will be your everlasting Light..." Isaiah 60:19, 20
"... Though I sit in darkness, Jehovah will be my light." Mic. 7:8
If as JWs assume that Jesus is not Jehovah, this implies that Jehovah is not the true light but a copy of the true one. Using Stafford’s reasoning, Jesus as the one true light is the one reality and source from which others can only reflect, but never possess. Therefore, since Jesus is the true light and Jehovah is not Jesus, then Jehovah’s light is not "true in the sense of the reality only possessed by the archetype alone," but one of its derivative copies. The only way to resolve this problem is to affirm that Jesus is Jehovah, since what is true of Jehovah is true of Jesus.

Reply: This was written before Jesus time, where Jehovah was the only true light to contend with. The scriptures mentioned preceeded Jesus time on earth.

Response:

 

Heinz again begs the question since he assumes that Jehovah is unipersonal and therefore to say that Jehovah is the only true light implies that Jesus’ light must be derived since, to Heinz, Jesus is not Jehovah. Yet this is precisely the problem that Heinz has tried to avoid, namely if in fact Jesus is not Jehovah then Jehovah is not the true source of light. Rather Jesus is the archetype from which Jehovah derives his light.

 

The second problem with Heinz’ statement is that John 1 is referring to Jesus’ pre-incarnate state:

 

“In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.” John 1:1-5 NIV

“There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God: his name was John. This [man] came for a witness, in order to bear witness about the light, that people of all sorts might believe through him. He was not that light, but he was meant to be a witness about that light. The true light that gives light to every sort of man was about to come into the world.” John 1:6-9 NWT

 

Heinz is therefore simply wrong to assume that since these OT passages precede Christ’s sojourn on earth they are therefore inapplicable here. John’s statement has a direct understanding on how we view these OT passages since John is speaking of the Logos’ relation to the Father even before creation. Hence, if the Logos exists as the true light even prior to the creation of the universe, then Heinz has not addressed my initial argument. How can Jesus exist as the true light prior to the creation of the cosmos and not be Jehovah God? If Jehovah is light and yet Jesus is not Jehovah, this means that Jesus is the source of Jehovah’s light.

 

Heinz

Heb. 1:1 says that in times past, God was represented by prophets.
Moses was a prophet who reflected God's glory:
Interestingly, the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible says this of Moses,

"In the OT as well as the NT Moses is above all the mediator or revelation. Several times his most intimate relation with the LORD is emphasized (e.g., Exod 19:9.19; 20:18-21; 24:18; 33:11.18-23; Num 12:7,8; Deut 5:20-28; Ps 103:7; Sir 45:5; cf. John 9:29; Acts 7:38; Heb 8:5), evidently to emphasize that Moses' words and prescriptions really are the words and rules of the LORD himself. In connection with his role as a mediator of revelation, Moses is portrayed with superhuman traits (cf. also Deut 34:5; Sir 45:20. According to Exod 34:29-35 the skin of Moses' face radiated after his meeting with the Lord on Mount Sinai (Exod 34:29.30.35), i.e.his face was enveloped in a divine aura. By this nimbus Moses was legitimated as the true representative of the LORD (cf. Matt 17:2, Acts 6:15)."

 

Response:

 

Heinz commits the fallacy of false analogy as well as the fallacy of equivocation. Whereas Moses merely reflected the light of Jehovah, Jesus is the source of all light. (Cf. John 1:4; 8:12; 9:5)

 

Whereas Moses is ascribed with superhuman traits, Jesus is the fullness of Deity in bodily form, being the very exact representation of God’s nature and essence. (Cf. Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:3)

 

Whereas Moses spoke God’s words, Jesus is the eternal Word of God and the only perfect revelation of God to man. (Cf. John 1:1, 18; Revelation 19:13)

 

Whereas Moses reflected God’s glory, Jesus shares the same divine glory of the Father. (Cf. John 17:5)

 

To therefore compare Jesus to Moses is to compare the sun to a smoking wick.

 

Heinz:

 

But according to Heb 1:1-3, it is now Jesus who is the reflection of God's glory...."glory as of the only begotten from the Father".

Response:

 

Correction. It is not just now that Jesus reflects the glory of God, but has always done so even before the creation of the world.

 

Furthermore, to be more precise Jesus reflects the glory of the Father who is God. The reason why he does so is because, unlike Moses, Jesus is fully God in nature and contains within his own Person the very same divine glory that the Father has. (Cf. John 17:5)

 

Jesus therefore not only reflects the Father’s glory, but shares the same divine glory of the Father since he is all that the Father is in essence and nature.

 

Heinz:

 

Jehovah, as Father (Is 64:8; Deut 32:6), is the source of all light (Is 45:7; Gen 1:3), and he is the "Father of lights"(Jas 1:17), meaning obviously, that there would be other lights.
As McKenzie puts it:

Response:

 

Yet if Jesus is not Jehovah and Jesus is the true light, then Jehovah is one of the many that derive the source of their light from Jesus.

 

Heinz:

 

"The Servant of Yahweh is a light to the nations, an agent of salvation (Is 42:6; 49:6)." Dictionary of the Bible, p. 511

When Jesus came down to earth, he revealed the invisible God (John 1:18), and as the true light, to see Jesus was to see the Father (John 14:9).

For more on OT Monotheism go to http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/otstudies/elohim.htm

 

Response:

 

Heinz has still not addressed my question. Quoting McKenzie regarding Jesus being the Servant of Yahweh does nothing to explain how Jesus can be the true light without him also being Jehovah God. The reason why Jesus can be a light to the nations is due to the fact that Jesus is the true light that gives life to all men. Therefore, the light that gives life to all dwells within Christ personally and is intrinsic to his very nature. It is part of who Jesus is. Yet, if Jesus is not Jehovah and yet Jesus is the true light then Jehovah’s light is borrowed or derived from the One who is true.

 

So far Heinz has been unable to address this question. This leads us to conclude that Jesus is in fact Jehovah God (yet not the Father). This further establishes that the one true God exists in more than one Person, namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

PostScript

 

On April 5, 2001Heinz included an addendum to his initial response to my paper where he attempts to rebut Robert Hommel’s article regarding the proper understanding of John 17:3. Aside from Heinz erroneously attributing the article to me, an attribution which he later partially corrected after being informed of his error, the mistakes in Heinz’s logic and exegesis are quite glaring. This will be documented in a future rebuttal, Lord willing.

 

Here, I would like to address Heinz’s response to Jude 4 where Jesus is said to be our only Sovereign Master and Lord. Heinz begins:

 

Sam: Witnesses who argue as Stafford does deny the possibility of a multipersonal God from the outset. They therefore place considerable emphasis on their preferred definition of "true," for without it, they would be forced to concede that the Son is a false god. However, we may ask how it is that John 17:3 excludes Jesus from the category of "true" God, when Jude 4 does not exclude the Father from the category of Lord?

Reply: Because, the Son was "MADE LORD." (Acts 2:36) The Father was never MADE anything, and as almighty, does not need to be made anything. Again, you can see what is happening here. Again, there is no proof of a tri-personal/triune anything, as it is all about the Dynamic Duo, never the Triune Trio. This is sheer trickery at work.

 

Heinz then goes on to claim:

 

Sam sent: But then we may ask why it is that this same exclusive connotation does not exclude the Father from being "Lord" and "Master" in Jude 4?

Reply: Again, like I said, the Father was never made Lord (Acts 2:36). He GAVE Jesus authority (Mt 28:18). Obviously there was a time when he was not Lord, and did not have authority. Oh what confusion this terrible Trinity brings with it.
Robert Wilken wrote in _The Myth of Christian Beginnings:

"From the very beginning, the Christian tradition had struggled with the question of JESUS' relation to God . . . Very early Christians tried to account for his extraordinary life and accomplishments and his Resurrection, and it was not long before he was called Son of God--then God. EVEN SO, HE WAS NOT GOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE FATHER WAS GOD--OR WAS HE? Was he creator, was he eternal, should he be addressed in prayer? These and other questions troubled thoughtful Christians for almost three centuries. During these years, MOST CHRISTIANS VAGUELY THOUGHT OF JESUS AS GOD; yet they did not actually think of him IN THE SAME WAY THAT THEY THOUGHT OF GOD THE FATHER. They seldom addressed prayers to him, and thought of him somehow as SECOND TO GOD--DIVINE, YES, BUT NOT FULLY GOD . . . When the controversy over the relation of Jesus to God the Father broke out in the early fourth century, most Christians were "SUBORDINATIONISTS," i.e. they believed that Christ was God BUT NOT IN PRECISELY THE SAME WAY THAT THE FATHER WAS GOD" (See pp. 177-183).

 

Response:

 

Aside from the ad hominem slurs, Heinz’s response is actually no response. I had already anticipated and addressed Heinz’s claim that Jesus was made Lord. As I stated, even if Jesus was made Lord by the Father this still does not answer the question. Here is the question that Heinz still did not answer. Since the NT clearly teaches that Jesus is the one Lord, and more specifically our only Sovereign Master and Lord, how can the Father also be both Lord and the Sovereign Master of believers as the NT teaches? Either the NT contradicts itself (something unacceptable to both Evangelicals and JWs), or (as my position assumes) the exclusive use of a title for one member of a group does not rule out the use of the same title for another member. The reason why the Father can be referred to as Sovereign Master and Lord while the Son is said to be our only Sovereign Master and Lord is because both the Father and the Son share the same eternal Being of the one true God. Hence, what is said of one member of the Godhead equally applies to the other member(s) as far as their divine nature and attributes are concerned.

 

Furthermore, Heinz does not care to mention that Acts 2:36 actually states that Jesus was made both Lord and Christ. Heinz also forgot to mention that the context of this statement refers to Jesus’ post-resurrection ascension and exaltation:

 

“God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, ‘The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Acts 2:32-36 NIV

 

The context implies that Jesus was made both Lord and Christ after his resurrection. Yet scripture elsewhere states that Jesus was both Lord and Christ even before his death and resurrection:

 

“After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him.’ When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. ‘In Bethlehem in Judea,’ they replied, ‘for this is what the prophet has written: “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.”’” Matthew 2:1-6 NIV

 

“‘But what about you?’ he asked. ‘Who do you say I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.” Matthew 16:15-20 NIV

 

“But the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.’” Luke 2:10-12 NIV

 

“The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (that is, the Christ).” John 1:41 NIV

 

“You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet.” John 13:13-14 NIV

 

If Heinz insists that Jesus only became Lord and Christ at his exaltation to heaven then he must presume that the Holy Bible contradicts itself. Since neither Heinz nor myself believe that the Holy Bible contains any real contradictions then the problem lies with Heinz’s insistence on taking the word “made” to mean that Jesus actually became something at his resurrection that he had not been previously.

 

In light of the preceding passages, the sense in which God “made” Jesus both Lord and Christ is that through the resurrection God demonstrated that Jesus was in fact who he claimed to be. Christ’s resurrection and exaltation was God’s declaration to the world that Jesus is his beloved Son, the Christ and the Lord of all. (Cf. Romans 1:3-4) Therefore, there was no name given to Jesus after his resurrection that did not already belong to him prior to this event.

 

Heinz then cites Matthew 28:18 where Jesus is said to be given authority. Seemingly, Heinz is trying to establish the fact that Jesus cannot be God if his authority was given to him by another. Heinz commits a categorically fallacy since he confuses Jesus’ position with his nature. Heinz fails to take into consideration that at the incarnation Jesus took on the form of a slave and set aside his authority for a season. (Cf. Philippians 2:5-8)

 

Therefore, Jesus received an authority that he already possessed prior to becoming man. Jesus himself asserts this:

 

“So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself WITH THE GLORY I HAD ALONGSIDE YOU before the world was.” John 17:5 NWT

 

Jesus is demanding to receive the very same glory he already possessed with the Father before entering into the world. Jesus is receiving something that already belonged to him but which he voluntarily set aside.

 

Heinz’s reasoning would also prove that the Father is not fully God in the sense that Jesus is since the Holy Bible teaches that Jesus will give the Father all authority and dominion at the consummation of the age:

 

“Then comes the end, when He (Christ) delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.” 1 Corinthians 15:24 NKJV

 

Heinz might wish to argue that the context clearly states that Jesus is giving to the Father something that he already possessed but passed on to his Son. Therefore, this passage does not prove that the Father is not God or that Jesus is a greater God than the Father. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:25-28)

 

If so this affirms my point, namely that just because the Son was given authority does not rule out the fact that Jesus is God. Heinz’s argument no more proves that Jesus is not God in the same sense that the Father is then the fact that the Father receives dominion from the Son proves that the Father is not the same kind of God that Jesus is.

Another problem with Heinz’s use of Matthew 28:18 is that it ignores the immediate context. When read in its intended context the passage actually affirms that Jesus is God Almighty:

 

 

“Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the thins that I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” Matthew 28:19-20 NWT

 

Matthew affirms that Jesus shares the same divine name of the Father and is also omnipresent. Matthew ends his Gospel in the same manner in which he began it. Namely that Jesus is Immanuel, the eternal God himself who is always with us:

 

“All this actually came about for that to be fulfilled which was spoken by Jehovah through his prophet, saying: ‘Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Im-manu’el,’ which means when translated, ‘With Us Is God (ho Theos- THE GOD)’.” Matthew 1:22-23 NWT

 

Heinz once more commits the fallacy of appealing to authority by citing Wilken’s The Myth of Christian Religion. Wilken is wrong in claiming that Jesus is not God in the same sense that the Father is. His very own criterion establishes that Jesus is indeed God Almighty. Both the NT and the early Church clearly taught that Jesus was the Creator, Eternal, the very One addressed in prayer as well as receiving the very same exact type of worship that the Father receives.

 

Furthermore, the only ones that struggled with Jesus’ Deity weren’t orthodox believers but heretics who denied the Son’s essential equality with the Father.

 

Third, the way in which the Fathers thought of Jesus being different from the Father is in the Son’s eternal generation. Whereas the Father was Unoriginate/Unbegotten, the Son was eternally begotten yet NOT MADE. The Fathers were clear in distinguishing Jesus’ generation from the Father with asserting that Jesus was created. They clearly denied that Jesus was a creature, affirming instead that he was the eternal Creator.

 

Wilken also commits a categorical fallacy since he assumes that the early Fathers’ belief in Jesus’ subordination to the Father somehow implies that the Fathers denied Jesus’ essential equality with the Father. The early Church Fathers wholeheartedly affirmed that Jesus was equal with the Father in nature and essence, having the same substance, while remaining subordinate to the Father in position and rank.

 

We therefore find both Heinz and Wilken committing a chronological fallacy. They read their own modern understanding of what it means that Jesus was subordinate to his Father into the writings of the early Church. They refuse to allow the Fathers to define what they meant since to do so leads to the inevitable conclusion that the Fathers were in fact Trinitarians.

 

This concludes our rebuttal to Heinz for now. 

 

In the service of the one true God Jehovah, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One God in three Persons, a blessed Trinity. Amen.

 

PPS

 

Heinz also added the following statement at the beginning of his article:

 

Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901
A Partial Reply to http://pionet.net/~cultrsch/biblical_mono....but wait, as of April 10 2001, Sam Shamoun indicated to me that he did not write this, or parts of this. As you can see, Trinitarians are very confusing.

 

Aside from Heinz’s sarcasm, it is pretty evident that Heinz doesn’t mind using underhanded tactics to undermine his detractors. If Heinz is claiming that I denied writing the article on Biblical monotheism then Heinz is simply being deceptive. Here is what I said:

 

Heinz’s email:

 

I have added an addendum (per your email) at the same page at

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/alethinos.htm

 

Thanx

Heinz

END

 

Sam’s email response:

 

Ahh, your apparent ignorance is quite glaring. I did not write that article. So please stop lying to your readers by attributing something to me. I am almost done with my response.

END

 

Heinz’s Reply:

 

Ahh, I think that is interesting from a psychological standpoint, don't you. Are you a habitual liar?

-Heinz

END

 

Sam’s Reply:

 

Ahh Hector, your Mother has taught you well. You are much like your father who only knows to lie. John 8:44

 

The author of that article is Robert Hommel who will be informed of your gross errors and scripture twisting. Just wait and see how Jehovah Jesus delivers you over by exposing your misquotations and logical fallacies. You are a master of logical fallacies, I must say. I am about done. Just be patient. You will be exposed soon.

END

 

It is quite apparent that the only part I denied writing was the article regarding John 17:3 since that article was written by Robert Hommel. It is quite sad to see JW apologists stooping to such levels of dishonesty and name-calling in order to obtain an unfair advantage over their opponents. As I stated to Heinz, it is only those who are under the bondage of Satan that feel the need to lie. John 8:44

 

We pray that the Lord Jesus will set him and the other JW apologists free and come to accept the biblical truth that Jesus is Jehovah God incarnate. John 8:31-36