Covenant and Canon: Why do We Even Have a New Testament?

Posted by: Clark Bates
July 31, 2017

“Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant. . . ”

                                                                                    2 Corinthians 3:4-6 (ESV)

In the last article I wrote, and in a series of upcoming videos, I make mention of Paul’s perspective of himself and the Apostles as “ministers of a new covenant”.  There’s a reason I place particular emphasis on this point, and it is necessarily linked to the New Testament books that we call the Canon.  I don’t know if you’ve ever asked or been asked this, but “Why do we even have a New Testament Canon?”  In reality, this question is essential to understanding the purpose of the New Testament as a whole, and without a proper understanding of the “why” of the Canon, we can never truly understand the “what” of the Canon.  In other words, until you know the Canon’s purpose, you’ll never understand why it contains the books that it does.

Why Do We Need a Canon?

If you use this question as a survey of most scholarship, particularly secular scholarship, the answer is often that the New Testament Canon is nothing more than a byproduct of historical factors many centuries after the time of the Apostles.  The very concept of canonicity from this approach, is something retroactively imposed on the New Testament books and certainly was nothing that could have been planned or predicted ahead of time.


A very common claim, made famous by Adolf von Harnak, but repeated many times since, is that “The impelling force for the formation of the canon was the second century heretic, Marcion.”[1]  It is suggested along this line, that the church father Irenaeus created the New Testament Canon for the direct purpose of combatting heresy.  A consequence of this view is that the Apostolic authors of the New Testament had no intention of producing a Canon.  In short, “nothing dictated that there should be a NT canon at all.”[2]


Should we really think that this is the most accurate explanation for the existence of the New Testament?  Should we just accept the idea that the governing force over the New Testament Canon only goes back to the second century?  I would suggest that there is a better way.  In fact, I would argue that remaining focused exclusively on the time after the Apostles does a disservice to the world in which they existed.  To understand why a New Testament Canon had to exist, we must turn our attention to the time before the Apostles ever put pen to paper.

Covenant

If we are to understand the redemptive-historical environment from which the authors of the Canon

came, we must understand the covenantal backdrop of the New Testament itself.  It's because of this covenantal backdrop that we can clearly affirm that the authors of the New Testament possessed a “canon consciousness” centuries before the work of Irenaeus or Marcion.  They possessed this consciousness, precisely because the authors emerged from the covenantal context laid down by the Old Testament.


A covenant can be described as “an arrangement or contract between two parties that includes the terms of their relationship, covenant obligations (stipulations), and blessings and curses.”[3]  Covenants are often made between individuals, but the dominant covenantal theme of the Old Testament is between God and man (Gen. 15:18; 17:2; Ex. 34:28; Is. 55:3; Lk. 1:72; 22:20; Heb. 8:6-13).  In a sense, the covenantal relationship between God and His chosen people began immediately after the fall.  Provisions were made by the Lord to save a particular people for Himself by grace through the shed blood of the One promised to crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15).  This covenant found its fulfillment in the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, by perfectly keeping its obligations and taking upon himself the curse of disobedience at the cross, securing the blessings for the people he represented (1 Cor. 15:21-22).


The Old Testament covenantal structure is patterned after the treaty covenants of the ancient Near-Eastern world.  These covenants would follow a consistent format of Preamble, Prologue, Stipulations, Sanctions and Deposit of a Written Text of the Covenant.  Ancient Hittite treaty covenants always provided a written copy for both parties, with provisions to have the covenant documents read publicly at regular intervals.


If we examine the Ten Commandments in comparison with the ancient covenant outline, we find: a preamble (Ex. 20:2a: “I am the Lord your God…”), a prologue (Ex. 20:2b: “who brought you out of the land of Egypt. . .”), stipulations (Ex. 20:3-17), blessings and curses (Ex. 20:5,6,7,11,12), and two copies of the covenant in written form (Ex. 31:18; Deut. 10:2).[4]  While much of our popular Sunday School art memorabilia has depicted Moses writing the Ten Commandments on two tablets because he could only fit 5 on each stone, the reality is that each tablet contained the entirety of the covenant; one copy for each party, after the patter of Near-Eastern covenant treaties.  If this evidence is not quite convincing, there is the additional feature of most Near-Eastern covenant treaties containing an inscriptional curse, pronouncing judgment on those who would change the wording of the documents.  The very same type of curse is found in Deut. 4:2:


“You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.”

Canon

Just as Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians, the writings of the New Testament were to be a new covenant to the chosen people of God.  The religious world of Judaism was already anticipating a future covenant wherein Israel would be redeemed.  In Jeremiah 31:31-32 we read:

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. . .”

Given that the prophet Jeremiah would have understood this covenant in the same terms as the ancient Near- Eastern covenants of the Old Testament, there would have been a clear expectation that this new covenant, like the old covenant, would be accompanied by written texts that would testify to the terms of the new arrangement between God and His people.  That the New Testament even acknowledges this of itself can be seen in the parallel, inscriptional curse found in Rev. 22:18-19:

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

The Apostle Paul, clearly acknowledged himself, and others, to be the ones to administer this new covenant.  He speaks of the “old covenant” of Moses in 2 Cor. 3:14 with a repeated emphasis on it being “read”; a clear indication that this old covenant was, for Paul at least, a written one.  Therefore, “If Paul’s concept of a covenant is intimately connected to written texts, and he announces in a written text that he is the authoritative minister of the new covenant, it is difficult to avoid the implication that he also understands the new covenant as having written texts.”[5]

The Covenant/Canon Pattern

At the opening of the Decalogue, the old covenant, God speaks of His redemptive activity, delivering the people of Israel from Egypt.  In this we see the Old Testament pattern of canonical documents acting as the result of God’s redemptive activity on behalf of His people.  What’s more, they function as a means to proclaim that redemption to all the people for generations to come; a form of "revelation" to the world.  By the first century, the Jews were clearly awaiting a new deliverance from God (Luke 2:38).  If early Christians saw the actions of Jesus as the fulfillment of this long-awaited redemption of God, being immersed in the Old Testament documents themselves and expecting a redemption-revelation pattern, they would expect a new revelation deposit, or Canon, to accompany that redemption.


Evidence of this state of mind is even found in the very writings of this “New” Testament.  In the Old, we read from the prophet Isaiah that:

"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. . ."[6]

A verse later quoted by Jesus himself as applicable to his own ministry.  The “good news” of the prophet Isaiah is the word ευαγγελιον (ū-an-gel-i-on) in the Greek, also interpreted as “gospel”.  It's by no accident that the accounts of Jesus' redemptive ministry were then given the title “Gospel” (Ευαγγελιον) since they were considered the embodiment of the divine message promised by the Old Testament covenant.

Conclusion

Contrary to much of popular scholarship, the New Testament Canon was not a result of historical-political occurrences centuries after their writings, but the anticipated covenant documents that would immediately follow a redemptive act of God.  The apostolic character of these books reminds us that their authority, even their existence, doesn’t depend on the actions of a later church council, but is rooted in the foundational role played by the apostles as “ministers of the new covenant”.  Long before the time of Marcion and Irenaeus there existed a structural framework for a canon: the covenant; and there was a clear and powerful rationale for the canon: redemption.


The answer to the question, “Why do we even have a New Testament Canon?” is that the redemptive covenant between God and His people has always come with written, covenant documents.  And these documents exist so that this redemption may be proclaimed as a revelation to all the world.





[1] Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. 2, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 8.
Adolf Von Harnak, Marcion: Das Evangelium von Fremdem Gott, (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924).


[2] Harry Gamble Y., The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 12.


[3] Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 163.


[4] Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 9Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 13-26.


[5] Kruger, Canon Revisited, 168.


[6] Is. 61:1-2

Like Books? Thank a Christian: How the Codex Supports the Canon

Posted by Clark Bates
July 24, 2017


It might seem like an oxymoron, but while a large portion of the earliest Christians were illiterate, Christianity itself carved out a niche for itself as one of the most “bookish” religions in the Greco-Roman world.  The sheer quantity of New Testament manuscripts available, with more still being discovered today, testify to this fact and provide a critical clue, for historians and theologians alike, as to how central canonical books were to the community of burgeoning Christians.[1]  So prolific was this literary dissemination, that it becomes clear that a commitment to an authoritative body of Scripture was a very early development in the Christian faith.

The Collection of Early Manuscripts

The “embarrassment of riches” that are New Testament Manuscripts aside, an often overlooked, but equally important historic feature is the habit of combining various New Testament books into a single Manuscript.  While it’s true that our earliest complete codices date into the fourth centuries, there are still connections between books in the earlier centuries that can be said to “anticipate what would eventually become the four New Testament collection units: the four Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, Acts/General Epistles, and Revelation.”[2]

An example of such a collection is the second century manuscript known as P75.  This manuscript was found in the 1950’s as one of the famed Bodmer Papyri and currently resides in the Vatican Library.  It’s dating is estimated between AD175 – 225 and contains approximately half of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John.  A fascinating aspect of P75 is that the ending of the Gospel of Luke appears on the same page as the beginning of the Gospel of John rather than the following Gospel opening on its own leaf.  The remnants of this manuscript consist of 102 pages, but it’s surmised to have originally contained 144.  These missing pages are thought by some to have once contained the Gospels of Matthew and Mark as well.[3]  If the arguments for the additional Gospels is valid, it would make P75 one of the oldest four-Gospel codices, but even if it only contained Luke and John, we have a clear demonstration that the earliest Christian communities saw a need to combine the Gospels of Jesus Christ together, an early stage of canonical recognition.[4]

Christianity and the Codex

The most notable feature of early Christian manuscripts is that they are almost always in the form of a codex rather than a scroll.  A codex was created by taking a stack of papyrus or parchment leaves, folding them in half, and binding them at the spine.  In contrast to the more prominent and preferred form of book production in the Greco-Roman world (i.e. the scroll), a codex allowed for writing on both sides of each page.  A single-quire (binding) codex could hold up to 250 pages.


It was once suggested that it was the Christians that invented the codex, but this is very unlikely.  However, it was Christianity that first resorted to using the codex as its primary means of book production and mass producing it on a level completely unheard of in the surrounding world.  What’s more, various manuscript discoveries indicate that use of the codex was a widely established Christian practice in the early second century, and possibly even as early as the first.[5]  What’s remarkable about this is that Christians weren’t on the cusp of some new literary trend, but that while Christianity nearly exclusively utilized the codex for the production of its religious texts, the rest of the Greco-Roman world continued to prefer the scroll.[6]  In fact, the rest of the world did not begin to prefer the codex until after the fourth century, and this is likely due to its repeated use in Christian communities.


Why did Christians prefer such an unorthodox form of book production?


And what does any of this have to do with the New Testament Canon as we know it today? 


Certainly, we can recognize the pragmatic reasons for preferring a codex over a roll.  They could be written in compact form, were likely cheaper in some respects to a scroll, and made it possible to carry more books at one time than would be possible with scrolls.  However, these considerations would only account for a gradual shift toward codex production and not what appears to be the almost immediate and dramatic shift that exists in the manuscript evidence.  The most plausible suggestion, according to Canon scholar Michael Kruger, is that “Christians began to prefer the codex about the same time that the New Testament canon was beginning to take shape. . . it was able to do something a scroll could never do: hold all four Gospels in one volume.”[7] [8]


In a similar vein, it has been suggested that the codex was a perfect vehicle to transport a collection of Pauline writings.[9]  In both cases, there is a recognition that the Christian use of the codex is intimately connected to the development of a Canon.  The codex performed two critical functions for the early church:

1. It allowed certain books to be physically grouped together by placing them in the same volume.

And,

2. It provided a natural way to limit the number of books to those contained within the codex; acting as a safeguard.

In short, the Canon and the codex were married in such a way that a fixed canon could be more easily controlled and promulgated.  It became the means by which originally separate documents could be gathered together as one.  Therefore, the counter-cultural adoption of the codex is a sign that the earliest Christians were already linking some books together and excluding others.  The formation of the New Testament Canon was well underway by the turn of the century.  Long before Marcion, and long before critical scholarship allows.

“Bring the Parchments. . .”

Understanding this about the Christian use of the codex brings us to an interesting passage in the New Testament.  In 2 Timothy 4:13, Paul writes to Timothy, asking him to bring several things:


“When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.”
2 Timothy 4:13 (ESV)

What’s puzzling about Paul’s request to young Timothy is his apparent distinction between “the books” (τα βιβλια) and “the parchments” (τας μεμβρανας).  This distinction suggests that the apostle Paul had two separate types of writings in mind.  The word for “books”, βιβλια in the Greek, is a common word used in reference to the Old Testament and likely refers to scrolls. [10]  The second word, “parchments” (μεμβρανας), is it bit more confusing.


To begin, the Greek word μεμβρανας is not actually a Greek word.  It’s a transliteration of the Latin word membrana from which we derive the English word “membrane” or “skin” and refers to a parchment codex.  While this confirms that Christians were indeed using the codex for documents in the days of Paul, placing its use to the latter half of the first century, the question we are left with, is what was on these parchments?[11]


Several suggestions have been proffered, some more compelling than the others.  It’s a known fact that early Christian communities often carried small documents known as testimonia, which were collections of Old Testament proof-texts supporting the Messianic claims of Jesus.[12]  Therefore, some have suggested that Paul is asking Timothy to bring him Old Testament scrolls and testimonia, perhaps for evangelistic purposes.  Another, more appealing, suggestion is that, given Paul’s use of the Gospel of Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18, it’s possible that the parchments in question are the Gospel according to Luke and possibly even the other Synoptic Gospels.  The most intriguing suggestion, however, comes, again, from Dr. Michael Kruger.


According to Dr. Kruger, Paul’s parchments are actually copies of his own letters.  This might seem like an odd suggestion to us, but the practice of keeping copies of one’s own correspondence was quite common in the Greco-Roman world.[13]  We must remember that this is long before the days of photocopiers, emails or fax machines.  Once a letter was sent out to its intended recipient, that would be the end of it.  The only way an author could retain a copy for their records was to write two and retain one.  Not only does Dr. Kruger’s suggestion bolster the suggestion that the codex was used by Christians for collecting Paul’s letters, but it also proposes that Paul would have been one of the first to do so.  A tertiary aspect of this possibility is that it offers a reason why some of Paul’s letters have been lost to time (1 Cor. 5:9).  They were lost, because no copy was retained.

Conclusion

In critical scholarship, very little attention is given to development of the New Testament Canon.  At best, it’s considered to be the result of an ecumenical council, deciding what form of Christianity should continue.  At worst, it’s merely an historical accident in response to heretical teachings infiltrating a community.  Contrary to such views, the historic use of the codex paints an entirely different history of the New Testament.  Not only were the Christians of the 2^nd and 3^rd century already formulating the canonical compilation of books, the writings of the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 4:13 reveal one more detail:

	At a very early stage, Christians conceived of their religious writings in two parts, the Old testament writings (τα βιβλια) and the newly produced Christian writings (τας μεμβρανας), or the “New Testament

While the E-reader might be the next wave in literary technology, the physical book has shaped the world for millennia.  While it would be too far of a reach to suggest that Christians created the codex, it’s a historical fact that it was Christianity’s prolific use of the codex that changed the world of literary binding.  The Christian use of the codex is responsible for the production of the modern concept of book binding and effectively changing the literary world, and for all of us who have enjoyed countless hours of leather-bound text, it is to the Christians that we should be thankful.





[1] The current estimate of NT MSS in the Greek language is 5,800.  If this estimate includes MSS from other languages, such as Latin, Coptic or Syriac, the total reaches closer to 24,000.


[2] Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Wheaton: Crossway, 2012, 239.


[3] T.C. Skeat, “The Origin of the Christian Codex,” ZPE 102 (1994), 263-268.  It is suggested that while P75 is a single quire codex, other quires would have been attached, containing the other Gospels.
Graham Stanton, Jesus and Gospel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, 72.


[4] An additional point in support of the early collection of the Gospels is found in the very title: ευαγγελιον κατα Ιωαννην (The Gospel according to John).  A title such as this suggests that it is a message recorded by the author, not about the author, but also a singular message from varying sources. As Bauckham notes, “A Christian community that knew of only one gospel writing would not have needed to entitle it in this way.” Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Grand rapids: Eerdmans, 2006, 302.


[5] Roberts and Skeat, The Birth of the Codex, London: Oxford University Press, 1987, 65-66.


[6] Larry Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006, 44-53.


[7] Kruger, Canon, 249.


[8] It is worth noting that this claim is possibly substantiated in the writings of Irenaeus when he writes, “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the ‘illar and ground’ of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, XI, viii.  His prominent use of the number four in relation to the Gospels strongly suggests that he may have possessed a four-Gospel codex of his own.


[9]Hurtado, Artifacts, 69-83; Harry Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995, 58-66.


[10] Luke 4:20; Gal. 3:10; Heb. 9:19; Josephus, Antiquities 3.74; 2 Clement, 14.2.


[11] If Paul had intended to say “parchment scrolls” he would have used the word διφθεραι.


[12] Martin C. Allbl, And Scripture Cannot Be Broken: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections, Leiden: Brill, 1999.


[13] We find evidence of this practice in the works of Cicero and Plutarch.  In both cases, the reason for keeping these copies revolves around the need for re-sending them to recipients or being able to evaluate what was originally written in the event of a corollary reply.

The Most Important Word in all of Scripture

Posted by Clark Bates
July 17, 2017



It might seem that a claim like the one in the title of this article is a bit far-fetched.  After all, how could I, or anyone for that matter, assume which word, or words, in all of the New Testament are the most important?  Surely, each reader has particular words or phrases that mean the most to them.  To claim that there is only one word that is most important for all Christians would be like telling the church that there is only one Bible verse that everyone should feel is their “life verse”.


Recognizing this up front, I should probably explain what I mean.  I’m not suggesting that you, as an individual, cannot or should not have particular words that resonate with you.  Perhaps you find great power in the word “justification” (δικαιωσις) because it conveys the imputation of God’s righteousness to salvation upon you.  Maybe you prefer to plunge the depths of the words of Christ on the cross, “it is finished” (τετελεσται) and how forms of that word re-occur throughout the New Testament.  And if you have words such as these that are near and dear to your heart, I am not suggesting you are wrong about them, but the word of which I am speaking provides the framework from which all other words you may love exist.

Breathed by God

So, with all the prefatory comments out of the way, what word am I talking about?  It is the word θεοπνευστος (pronounced thā-ă-nū-stăs).  This Greek word is found in 2 Timothy 3:16, which reads:


“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. . .”
2 Tim. 3:16 (ESV)

While other English translations also render this word, “inspired by God”,[1] or the “inspiration of God”, both are legitimate renderings of this single word.[2]

The contextual implications of Paul’s message to Timothy is that all of Scripture, primarily the Old Testament at this time, finds its source in God and derives its authority from the highest authority in all of existence.


In the words of Canon scholar Michael Kruger, “The term literally means ‘breathed out by God’ or ‘God-breathed.’  It is a way of saying that Scripture is the very breath of God himself.  This suggests the absolute highest authority for Scripture, the authority of the divine voice.”[3]  

If the apostle is suggesting that all of Scripture contains the authority of God, it follows that there can be no higher authority than Scripture itself, making the very text of the Bible self-authenticating.[4]


What’s more, it is the “God-breathed” nature of Scripture that provides the meaning for all other claims made within it.  The justification found from the imputation of Christ’s righteousness means nothing in the pages of Romans if there is not breath of God behind the promise.  Neither can we truly understand the depth of the completed nature of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross or the process by which believers are continuously conformed to the image of the Son.  For this reason, it is the θεοπνευστος nature of Scripture that provides trustworthiness in all its assertions.

Does it Really Mean That?

However, I cannot defend the title to this article, or even my initial assertion, without at least acknowledging that there exists opposing views relating to how this text is to be understood.  The argument largely surrounds the proper placement of the second adjective, “God-breathed”.  Should the text be interpreted, as above, that “All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable. . .” or should it read, “All God-breathed Scripture is profitable. . .”?


While this might appear to be an argument over incidentals it does shift the understanding

dramatically.  If the latter interpretation is the valid one, it would suggest that Paul viewed some Scripture as “God-breathed” while others as not, and it is only those Scriptures which were “God-breathed” that are authoritative.  This, of course, leaves the reader in a nebulous investigative mode, seeking to discover which texts, Paul might have had in mind.


If the former interpretation is to be accepted, the assertion is, as has been already claimed, that all of what Paul believes to be “Scripture” is “God-breathed” and carries the authority of the Almighty.  What makes this determination difficult is the rarity of this form of adjective-noun-adjective composition in the New Testament.


Text-critical scholar Dan Wallace set about investigating this passage some time ago having felt that it was “of central importance to the self-witness of scripture.”[5]  After examining over 5,000 lines of text from the New Testament, LXX, and extra-testamental literature in which this adjective-noun-adjective, or similar combinations, were contained, he concluded that, “the construction πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος [“all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable”] constitutes an equative clause because it requires an implied verb which, in turn, asserts, at least, that all scripture is profitable.”[6]


In a similar fashion, Dr. Kruger addressed this textual issue in response to the book There is No Bible in the Bible, by Fr. Stephen Freeman of the Orthodox Church in America.  In Fr. Freeman’s treatment of 2 Timothy 3:16, he notes that,


“In Protestant usage, the key phrase is ‘all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.’ But, in fact, the phrase ‘given by inspiration of God’ is a single word (θεόπνευστος), just as accurately translated, ‘all Scripture that is inspired of God,’ thus being a limiting phrase and not one that serves as an authoritative licensing of something later described as ‘the Bible.’”[7]


This is a clear example of the interpretive debate mentioned only a moment ago.  In response to Fr. Freeman, Kruger identifies an issue common within the ranks of those who argue for θεοπνευστος as a limiting phrase,


“. . . . [Freeman] adds a relative pronoun to the construction: ‘all Scripture that is inspired of God.’ He uses this to limit the extent of inspiration (implying that some Scripture may not be inspired).  However, that relative pronoun is not in the text.  And virtually all major English translations acknowledge this fact, using the verb “is” instead: ‘All Scripture is inspired by God.’  Thus, it is clear that inspiration is not limited after all.”[8]


Falling in line with Dr. Wallace, Kruger sees that the predicate use of θεοπνευστος as the more likely option, necessitating the insertion of an action verb separating “Scripture” from “God-breathed”.  While debate will always exist over this issue (and always does in academia), the available evidence for an interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 favors that which is found above and in the majority of English translations.

Implications for the New Testament Canon

A final question that must be addressed, is what the apostle meant by “Scripture”?  While much has been written on this topic, a short answer can be rendered here.  As a Rabbinic Jew, the apostle Paul would clearly have valued all teachings of the Old Testament as Scripture, or divinely authoritative.  Beyond this, the existence of several gospels and Paul’s own epistles would be circulating at the time of his writing to Timothy.  That the Apostle thought of the New Testament writings as equally authoritative can be seen in two passages of Scripture.

	Every apologetic interaction believers engage in will always come down to this one question, “Has God spoken or has He not?”

In his earlier letter to the young Timothy, Paul writes in regard to monetary support for pastors that, “the laborer deserves his wages.”[9] 

This is a direct quote of Luke 10:7 and is paired with the previous quote, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain” a direct quote of Deut. 25:4, suggesting rather forcefully that the Apostle saw the gospel of Luke on par with the Torah in regards to its authority.


The second passage is 2 Corinthians 3:6 in which he writes, “. . . our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant. . .”[10] 

While space is insufficient here to discuss the implications of old and new covenant, it is clear that the old covenant of Moses was first given orally, being written immediately after.  So prevalent was the written form of the covenant that by the time of the Kings of Israel, any mention of the “law” was referring to the written form.  If the apostle Paul saw himself and the other apostles as “ministers of a new covenant” the expectation of it being written would clearly follow, and would come from those who were acting as its ministers.


Therefore, while it may be stated that the “Scripture” in mind at 2 Timothy 3:16 most certainly indicated the Old Covenant writings, the Apostle Paul surely had in mind the writings of the New Covenant, still in production.  The conclusion of this is nothing less than the affirmation by the apostle Paul that all that we know now as “the Bible”, both Old and New Testaments, carry divine authority, coming from the very mind of God.

Conclusion

Every apologetic endeavor I’ve ever engaged in, and every apologetic interaction all believers engage in, always come down to this one question, “Has God spoken or has He not?”  As believers and apologists, we seek to guide others through the Christian worldview of a variety of current social issues.  Whether we are defending the sanctity of life or the sacredness of natural marriage, it must always return to the breath of God, for if Scripture is not grounded in the ultimate authority of God, there is no ultimate grounding for the Christian worldview.


All believers find great security in various parts of the Bible.  We treasure certain verses, sometimes entire books.  As in the introduction, many often cite certain theological doctrines as their source for encouragement.  Every aspect of Scripture is to be treasured, but none so greatly as the realization that it is God-breathed.  For in this one word is found all that Scripture is- the Word of God, handed down to mankind through the prophets and apostles, and the sole infallible authority for all the church, making θεοπνευστος the most important word in all of Scripture.





[1] KJV, NASB, and RSV


[2] BDAG, 356. Or see Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, (British Columbia: Trafford Publishing, 2005), 196.


[3] https://michaeljkruger.com/there-is-no-bible-in-the-bible-really/


[4] For more in-depth understanding of what is meant by a “self-authenticating” Scripture, I recommend reading Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books; Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority; and B.B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.

Further arguments for this understanding of θεοπνευστος are found in Alan, M. Stibbs, “The Witness of Scripture to Its Inspiration,” Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale Press, 1959. pp.107-118, wherein he states,

“All Scripture is ‘God-breathed’ We have noted that in II Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is inspired by God” (RSV), the Greek adjective theopneustos means literally “God-breathed,” i.e., ‘inspired of God.’ The word ‘inspired,’ however, is not to be understood as indicating something “extra” superimposed on the writer or writing, to make the writing different from what it would otherwise be. It indicates rather how the writing came into being. It asserts that the writing is a product of the creative activity of the divine breath. The word thus goes right back to the beginning or first cause of the emergence of Scripture, and indicates that Scripture has in its origin this distinctive hallmark, that it owes its very existence to the direct creative activity of God himself. Although men wrote it, it is God who brought it into being. Its content and character have all been decisively determined by the originating and controlling activity of the creative Spirit. For this reason, the context affirms that Scripture is profitable ‘for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training for righteousness,’ since its character and quality, and indeed its very existence, are God-determined.”

And from Goheen, Michael. "The organism of revelation." 1996b) pp (2002): 331-345,

“Theopneustos refers to the divinely authoritative message concerning salvation that has come from God and is recorded in the Scriptures. Inspiration refers to the process by which that Scripture has come into being while theopneustos qualifies the Scripture as a finished product. Theopneustos is concerned with the divinely authoritative message in the Scripture while inspiration is concerned with how the Spirit brought that message into being in the human authors. Therefore, Scripture consists of thoroughly human documents that bear divine authority. It is a false dilemma to pit the humanness of Scripture against the divine authority of Scripture.”


[5] Wallace, Daniel Baird. "The relation of [Theopneustos] to [Graphåe] in 2 Timothy 3: 16/Daniel B. Wallace." (2005).


[6] Ibid., For those with at least a rudimentary understanding of koine Greek or curious how issues such as this are resolved academically, I strongly recommend Wallace’s article.  It is fairly technical however, and may result in more confusion than clarification for the untrained reader.  Wallace concludes that, “As applied to 2 Tim 3:16, this principle indicates that a predicate θεόπνευστος is certainly a valid—and perhaps the only—option. Hence, we translate the passage, ‘All/every scripture is inspired and profitable. . .’”


[7] Taken from https://michaeljkruger.com/there-is-no-bible-in-the-bible-really/


[8] Ibid., italics added for emphasis.


[9]  1 Tim. 5:18b (ESV)

The Deity of Christ in the New World Translation: Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End

Posted by Clark Bates
July 10, 2017



It is only fitting to conclude this short series with a passage from the book of Revelation.  As has been demonstrated in the previous article in this series, as well as those before it, the divinity of Christ bleeds from the pages of Scripture in such a way that it cannot be hidden.  The New World Translation (NWT) of the Bible is the unique translation of the Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses), created with the express purpose of denying that truth.  When we engage with those trapped in this deception, ground cannot be gained by arguing against their translation, doing so will only shut down the conversation.  This is why I recommend using the Bible that they bring to your doorstep to show them the Truth.  As in all the posts in this series, all biblical passages are drawn from the NWT without any reference to other translations of the Bible.

Revelation 1:8 and 1:17

When we come to the book of Revelation, we see the capstone of God’s redemptive plan.  In it, we find possibly the most direct association of Jesus Christ with Yahweh (Jehovah) of the Old Testament.  The first instance of this comparison is found in the opening chapter of John’s apocalypse.  From the NWT we read:


“I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”
Rev. 1:8 (NWT)


And also,


“When I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet.  And he laid his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave.”
Rev. 1:17-18 (NWT)[1]


When dealing with verse 8 of Revelation 1 it is clear that the one speaking is Jehovah God of the Old Testament.  The one, true God according to the Watchtower Society.  Lest there be any doubt that this is the conclusion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and not merely a personal interpretation, the footnotes of the NWT contain this marginal reference attached to verse 8:


“Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I have called.  I am the same One.  I am the first; I am also the last.”
Isaiah 48:12 (NWT)[2]


The reference to Jehovah as the “Alpha and Omega” is a clear reference to the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and indicative of God’s sovereignty over the beginning and end of time.  It would not be out of line to acknowledge that this suggests His sovereignty over all that transpires in between as well.


The marginal note connecting verse 8 to Isaiah 48:12 is additionally clarifying given its acknowledgment of Jehovah God as “the first and the last.”  As we can see by looking at vv. 17-18, the one speaking to the Apostle John also identifies as “the first and the last.” 

The question to ask the Watchtower member is, “Who is speaking to John in verse 17?”


Before it can be asserted that the Being-in-Question is Jehovah, we must answer the additional title in v.18, “I became dead, and Look! I am living forever and ever. . .” 

Watchtower doctrine does not conclude that Jehovah has ever died and returned to life, therefore it cannot be Jehovah who is speaking.  Also, the marginal verses attached to this passage are 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Pet. 3:18, and Rom. 6:9, all of which are references to Jesus Christ.  Therefore, while Rev. 1:8 attributes the title “Alpha and Omega” to Jehovah, a reference to “the first and the last” of Is. 48:12, Rev. 1:17 attributes the same title “the first and the last” to Jesus Christ; a clear indication of the equal divinity and sovereignty of our Lord.


But wait, there’s more!

Revelation 21:6 and 22:13

Only to further prove the connection between Jehovah and Jesus in the book of Revelation, we turn to chapters 21 and 22.  In them we read:


“And the One seated on the throne said: ‘Look! I am making all things new.’ Also, he says: ‘Write, for these words are faithful and true.’  And he said to me: ‘They have come to pass! I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga, the beginning and the end. . .’ ”
Rev. 21:5-6 (NWT)


And,


“‘Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to repay each one according to his work.  I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. . . ‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you . . .’ ”
Rev. 22:13; 16a (NWT)

By combining the opening descriptor, “the One seated on the throne” with “the Alpha and Omega” the reader is forced to recall both the description of Jehovah in Rev. 4:1 and Ez. 1.[3]  In so doing, the author is clearly speaking to Jehovah.  Yet again, as in Rev. 1:8 and 17, we read in Rev. 22:13 the ascription of “Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end . . .” to Jesus.  The identity of the speaker in v.13 is made clear by the self-attestation of v.16.  The author parallels the pattern at the close of Revelation that he utilizes at its opening creating an inclusio or “book-end” to the writing.


“This is the last of the . . . ‘Alpha and Omega’ passages, and fittingly all three types of this saying are found here . . . . The titles refer to the sovereignty of God and Christ over history . . . . Since this is the only passage to contain all three titles, it has the greatest emphasis of them all on the all-embracing power of Christ over human history.”[4]

 

The divinity of Christ is the foundation upon which the redemption of mankind rests, and no work of man to suppress this truth will ever succeed.

 

Conclusion

When presenting the divinity of Christ from the New World Translation of the Bible to a Jehovah’s Witness, it is always paramount that we do so with grace, mercy and love.  These passages are not to be used with an arrogant superiority but with a desire to plant the seed of truth within the heart of the unbeliever so that it might grow through the inner-working of Christ.  While it will be almost certain that the Watchtower member will attempt to deflect these passages as referring exclusively to Jehovah, a careful explanation, as has been given here, of the surrounding context will demonstrate the futility of such attempts.  The divinity of Christ is the foundation upon which the redemption of mankind rests, and no work of man to suppress this truth will ever succeed.  This is why even a biblical translation, created explicitly with this intent, cannot and will not succeed.





[1] All verses taken from https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/revelation/1/


[2] https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/isaiah/48/#v23048012


[3] Incidentally, these passages are also used as marginal references in the NWT demonstrating that even the Watchtower Society agrees on this point.


[4] Grant  R. Osborne, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Revelation, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 789.

The Deity of Christ in the New World Translation: Philippians 2:9-11

Posted by Clark Bates
July 2, 2017



The heart of this series is to aid readers in evangelizing members of the Watchtower Society in the most direct way possible.  I believe that a particular avenue of this approach is to use their own Bible, the New World Translation (NWT), to demonstrate the deity of Jesus Christ (a doctrine the Watchtower Society expressly denies).  The simple truth is that the deity of Jesus is so replete in the pages of Scripture that it cannot be denied, even when a group attempts to create their own Bible.  Because the Jehovah’s Witnesses have translated their text from the Greek (even if fraudulently so) they have not been able to erase this truth.  There have been two other installments in this series and they can be read here and here.

The Carmen Christi

This week’s article will focus on a passage in Philippians often referred to as the Carmen Christi or the “Song of Christ”.  For our purposes here, the portion of the hymn to focus on is found in Phil. 2:9-11 and reads in the NWT as follows:


“For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground—and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”


It is unlikely that the hymn Paul includes in his letter to the church at Philippi was created by him, but rather is a common song, well-known to the churches.  The verses that precede the passage above serve, for many in orthodox Christianity, as undeniable proof of Jesus’ equality with God.  It is said that Jesus “was in the form of God”, a translation of the Greek word μορφη (morphe) to be understood as having the exact nature of God.  For greater clarification, this is paralleled with the phrase “taking on the form of a servant.”  Unless we are to adopt the heretical view of Docetism, which viewed the human form of Jesus to be nothing more than a phantasm, we must accept that the use of μορφη in reference to Jesus’ human nature is the same as its use in regards to his heavenly nature.  That is to say, if Philippians 2:7 tells us that Jesus was truly human, Philippians 2:6 tells us that he is also truly divine.


The conclusion to the depiction of Christ’s voluntary humiliation on the cross is his exaltation with the Father, elucidated in verses 9-11.  Christ’s voluntary humiliation will, one day, result in the involuntary submission of all creation to his name.[1]  While much debate could be carried on with a member of the Watchtower Society regarding the early verses of the hymn, there is a specific reason that emphasis should be placed on these closing statements.

Isaiah 45:23

The conclusion of Philippians 2:9-11 is virtually a quotation of Isaiah 45:23. In the New World Translation, this passage reads,


“By myself I have sworn;
The word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness,
And it will not return:
 To me every knee will bend,
Every tongue will swear loyalty.”


The “I” of Isaiah’s prophecy is none other than Jehovah (v.21), therefore the person to whom every knee is to bow and every tongue confess is Jehovah God.  Yet Paul has applied this to Christ.

It must be stated as well, that during the first century, while Hebrew scrolls were somewhat available the texts more commonly used by the New Testament authors were the various Greek translations of the Hebrew scrolls.  Many such translations existed for various books of, what we call, the Old Testament, which we currently refer to collectively as the Septuagint (LXX).[2]

Observe the comparison of Philippians 2:10-11 with the LXX of Isaiah 45:23:

Philippians 2:10-11 (GNT)	Isaiah 45:23 (LXX)
10. Ινα εν τω ονοματι Ιησου παν γονυ καμψη επουραωινιων και επιγειων και       καταχθονιων 11. και πασα γλωσσα εξομολογησηται οτι        κυριος Ιησους Χριστος . . .	23.  . . .οτι εμοι καμψει παν γονυ και εξομολογησεται πασα γλωσσα τω θεω

Even if you are unable to read the Greek, simply by comparing the text in bold, you can see the exact same word usage between them.  There is no doubt that the apostle Paul, when recording this early Christian hymn in his letter, quoted directly from the Greek Old Testament, and chose a passage originally intended for Jehovah God but applied it to Jesus Christ.


If any argument is made regarding the use of “Lord” (κυριος in the Greek) as a title rather than a divine name, it should be pointed out that in Isaiah 45:25 of the NWT it states that


“In Jehovah, all the offspring of Israel will prove to be right,
And in him they will make their boast.”


Yet, in the LXX rendering of this same text “Jehovah”, or YHWH, has been replaced with “kurios”, the Greek word for Lord.  This demonstrates quite clearly, that within the context of the Greek OT, the very OT used in Philippians 2:10-11, the ascription of “Lord” to the name of Jesus Christ, is an ascription of deity, or the divine name of Jehovah.  The implications of such a comparison are as deep as they are wide, and cannot be ignored.

Conclusion

Quite a few debates have begun from the application of Old Testament Scripture to New Testament circumstances.  On many occasions, it is asserted the OT is misquoted.   At other times, it is asserted that the NT author is using the OT improperly, but for his own ends.  In some circumstances, this can be resolved with an examination of the Greek OT in contrast to the Hebrew, but often a clearer picture of the NT author’s purpose can be observed by expanding the reading in the OT beyond just the quoted text to the entire thought that surrounds it.[3]  Just as singing a single line from a popular song can bring to mind the entire song, a quotation from a Hebrew prophet would bring to the Jewish mind the entire prophecy from which it sprang.


In light of this, we must conclude by pausing to appreciate the stunning implications of applying Is. 45:23 to Jesus in its greater context.  Beginning in v.18, from the NWT, the text reads,

“ ‘I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. . . .

I am Jehovah, who speaks what is righteous and declares what is upright. . . .

They know nothing, those who carry around carved images

And pray to a god that cannot save them. . .

There is no other God but me;

A righteous God and a Savior, there is none besides me.

Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth,

For I am God, and there is no one else.

By myself I have sworn. . . .

To me every knee will bend,

Every tongue will swear loyalty.’ ”

The Carmen Christi, the Christ-hymn, patently expresses the conviction of the early church that the worship of Jesus Christ does not compromise Israel’s monotheistic faith.  On the contrary, Jesus Christ, the righteous Savior, bears the name of the one Lord, Yahweh, “to the glory of God the Father.”[4]


And the New World Translation of the Bible affirms this.

[1]   According to Moises Silva, quoting John Calvin, “Paul is not speaking here of voluntary obedience.” Moises Silva, Baker Exegetical Commentary Series: Philippians, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 111.


[2] As an aside, when you find New Testament quotations of Old Testament passages that do not align with what you read in the actual passage, this is often because the source for the Old Testament in English is the Masoretic (Hebrew) text, while the source for the New Testament citation is the Greek text.  A study of these variations and their usage by the apostles is both profitable and recommended.


[3] A perfect example of this can be found in Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1-2 in Matt. 2:13-15.  If one reads the entirety of Hosea 11, particularly vv.1-9, the deep Christology intended by Matthew becomes more clear.


[4] Silva, Philippians, 112.

Book Review: A Practical Guide To Culture : Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today's World

Posted by Clark Bates
June 28, 2017

         “To be human and to be alive is to deal with a world of ideas, values, issues, artifacts, institutions, and structures.  We have no choice but to jump in, make decisions, interact with others, and build lives together as families and citizens while navigating around the landmines that seem to be everywhere.”[1]

For many Christian parents, the world in which our children are growing up is a battleground that we’d rather they remain conscientious objectors to.  We fear the cultural changes and the ever-increasing animus toward people of Christian faith.  It is a natural reaction for us to want to shelter and protect our young, but as we all know, and try to ignore, the day is coming when they will no longer be under our protective wing.  What will they do then?  How will they fare in a world of competing ideas and inflammatory rhetoric aimed at the very foundations of their worldview?  The answer, championed in the quote above, is to prepare them now so that they might endure in that day of battle.

This is exactly what A Practical Guide to Culture was written to do.  Authors John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle have spent the majority of their years in ministry seeking to equip parents and young people to engage with the current culture.  Having spent his entire life in a Christian home, only to have his faith dismantled by a college philosophy professor, Brett now spends his life preparing young people to succeed where he failed.  He serves as the Student Impact Director at Stand to Reason, and brings more than 18 years of experience working with youth to his writing.  John has also worked with young people through years of service to organizations like Summit Ministries and Ratio Christi and is currently the President of the Chuck Colson Center and on-air personality for Breakpoint.org.  He is the author of several books, including Restoring All Things: God’s Audacious Plan to Change the World Through Everyday People and a champion for the defense of the Christian worldview.  Both men seek to impart decades of practical wisdom to their readers, through this current project, in the hope that the coming generation will “navigate this cultural moment as champions for Christ.”[2]

Summary

The book is divided into several categories, beginning with a theoretical understanding of culture itself, then moving toward specific social topics faced by most teenagers today.  From there, it broaches practical means by which parents or mentors can guide children toward answers found in Scripture and a brief closing section on the reliability of the Bible in shaping one’s worldview.  Interspersing technical data with personal experience, the authors guide parents gently into the ominous waters of the culture war with the care and compassion that readers should reciprocate to their children.


For many who are unfamiliar with social engagements faced by the younger generation, the first section of A Practical Guide to Culture will be helpfully illuminating.  The authors rightly distinguish between creation and culture, writing that, “Culture doesn't refer to this​ created world; rather, it refers to what humans do with it.  To clarify a bit further, culture refers not to what humans do by instinct or nature, but to what they do freely.”[3] Establishing this distinction, they seek to remind readers that while a withdrawal from culture might seem preferred or even righteous, it is through proper focus on the greater story of redemption and the Redeemer that believers can functionally navigate a culture that seems to turn increasingly against them.

In the second section, Kunkle and Stonestreet take much of the norms in the modern information age to task regarding the damaging psychological and sociological effects that have resulted from an excess of both entertainment and data.  Readers are made aware of the need to engage children with a greater intentionality, providing both structure, leadership and comfort; aspects of life which are slowly eroding with the advent of social media and the internet search engine.  Ultimately, the disconnection within the family that results from the availability of outside material can be remedied as parents seek to entertain the questions their children pose and guide them within an environment built on trust.  As per the authors, “The issue of trust is complicated only if kids think that so-called Christian authorities are untrustworthy. . . We must never give our kids the idea that questioning is doubting or that doubting is sinning.”[4]


The closing sections of the text will resonate deeply for those seeking specific responses to specific struggles.  Covering the gamut of concerns from pornography to affluence and entertainment, both authors speak truth to various lies surrounding each point of cultural engagement and provide avenues for deeper discussion.  Concluding their work within the very philosophy upon which it is written, the authors point readers to the need for biblical foundations within the home.  Both Kunkle and Stonestreet draw upon their years in apologetic instruction, briefly and ably expounding on the reliability of the Christian Scriptures and the rationality of the faith.

What’s Good About the Book

Possibly the most encouraging portion of the text is what the authors call, “hope casting”.  At the close of each third section chapter, a portion of the discussion is devoted to upward or positive trends observed in recent studies.  It can be far too easy to lose hope in the current Western climate.  Even while scanning through the various struggles in this writing, the reader can feel the weight of the future upon them.  Because of this, the authors choice to provide light amidst the darkness is well placed.

Parents and youth pastors alike should have a place for this writing on their shelf, but only if they plan to act on the wisdom contained within.

In addition to this, the authors write at a level that is well blended between academic authority and far-reaching approachability.  The text never ventures too far into statistics and studies to risk losing the average layperson, but also intersperses enough supporting information to provide assurance in the authors’ research of their positions.  For this reviewer, possibly the most encouraging feature of this book is its abundance of Scripture.  For many books of this type the emphasis drifts into the primacy of philosophy or sociology with only enough Scripture to support a pre-determined conclusion.  When reading A Practical Guide to Christianity there is no point at which the authors guidance by the Word of God is overshadowed by their philosophical training, and that is a refreshing change.

What’s Bad About It?

While this book is both an informative and encouraging read, it must be said that it is difficult to see where it stands out among its peers.  Both Kunkle and Stonestreet have a certain level of name recognition that follows them, and while their communicative ability is outstanding, the question must be asked if it will be enough.  This is less a critique of the work in hand as it is a bemoaning of what feels like a saturation of culture-related works geared at youth.  Certainly, such saturation is a blessing in some ways and clearly an indicator of renewed interest in matters of faith for the next generation, but it also creates a distinct challenge in getting quality writing of this sort to the audience that needs it most.

Conclusion

The Apostle Paul wrote often of what theologians have referred to as the “already/not yet" of the Christian life.  For Paul, the believer has been redeemed from this sinful world and already enjoys the presence of God as if they were seated at his right hand presently.  However, the ultimate fulfillment of this great promise has not yet been realized, and thus, Christians must remain in the fallen world acting as ambassadors for God's kingdom until the end.  In a large way, this is also the message of this book.  However great the desire may be for the believer to desert the world and its cultural influences, preferring far more to live in seclusion, awaiting the return of Christ, this is not what they've been called to do.  They've been called to engage with the culture as ambassadors for the kingdom.  Brett and John seek to equip their readers with both the understanding that this brings and the practical means to do so.


This work is written on a level that is reachable by all.  From the pastor in the pulpit to the parent of the pre-teen, this book should become part of their life.  The ease with which it reads equates to the power with which it can equip, which is itself a testimony to the refined abilities of the authors.  For many years, books have been written to youth about what they face and how to face it.  Finally, a book has been written for those that guide them.  Parents and youth pastors alike should have a place for this writing on their shelf, but only if they plan to act on the wisdom contained within.






[1] John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle, A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World, (Colorado Springs, David C. Cook: 2017), 27.


[2] Stonestreet and Kunkle, A Practical Guide, 19.


[3] Ibid., 31-32.


[4] Ibid., 83-84.

The Deity of Christ in the New World Translation: John 12:41

Posted by Clark Bates
June 26, 2017



A cardinal tenet of Jehovah’s Witness doctrine is the belief that Jesus was not God, but a created being.  According to the Watchtower Society,


“God created Jesus before he created Adam. . . As God’s firstborn Son, Jesus was a spirit creature in heaven before he was born as a human on earth.”[1]


While orthodox Christianity and the Watchtower Society differ in many areas, none is more distinct or insurmountable than their denial of the deity of Jesus Christ.  At the root of this doctrine is the Society’s own translation of the Bible, known as the New World Translation.  This translation has been widely rejected by all Greek scholars for its multiple points of deviation and error from the manuscript data, but is cherished within the community of the Kingdom Hall.


That being said, most evangelistic engagements with Jehovah’s Witnesses, devolve into an argument over the deity of Jesus and the proper biblical translation to use.  In my experience, these kinds of debates are fruitless, because they revolve around attacking the Watchtower member’s cherished text, and while this may be justified, given the heretical deviations contained within the book, placing the Witness in a defensive position prevents any real dialogue from taking place.  If we are truly seeking to bring them to saving faith in Jesus Christ, it is not an argument we should wish to win, but their hearts.


If I may suggest a better approach, it is far more effective to testify to the deity of Jesus Christ with the Watchtower Society’s own Bible than to run into your house, grab your favorite translation and return for battle.  How is this possible?  The reality is, the deity of our Lord is so prevalent within the text of the New Testament that it practically bleeds from the pages.  Even the Watchtower Society, in spite of their best efforts, cannot overcome this.  One could legitimately point out that it would be impossible for those without the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit to even realize these matters, but perhaps that discussion should be saved for another time.


The focus of this series will be to identify various passages taken from the New World Translation of the New Testament that clearly point to the divinity of Jesus Christ.  The purpose of this endeavor is to aid fellow believers in avoiding fruitless argumentation and open doors for Jehovah’s Witnesses to see the truth from the pages of their own Scriptures.  This week’s passage is John 12:36 – 41.

John 12:36-41

In the New World Translation (NWT), the passage reads:


“ ‘While you have the light, exercise faith in the light, so that you may become sons of light.’ Jesus said these things and went off and hid from them.  Although he had performed so many signs before them, they were not putting faith in him, so that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, who said: ‘Jehovah, who has put faith in the thing heard from us?  And as for the arm of Jehovah, to whom has it been revealed?’ The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said: ‘He has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.’  Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him.”


Theologically and exegetically, this passage follows on the heels of the triumphal entry (John 12:12-19), and contains several statements from Jesus regarding, not only his manner of death, but the inability of some to believe he is who he claims to be; the Messiah.  While much could be said regarding the theological consequences of the Isaianic quotations and their illumination of the sovereign act of God in hardening the hearts of men and preventing them from seeing the light, that is not the key point of interest for this particular discussion.


John 12:38-40 contain two references from thebook of Isaiah, found in chapter 53 and in chapter 6.  This is a fact also acknowledged in the marginal notes of the NWT.[2]  The use of these passages in Isaiah is quite revealing of the gospel author’s intent for his audience.

Isaiah 53:1; 6:1-3; 8-10

Again, using the NWT, the text in Isaiah reads:


“Who has put faith in the thing heard from us? And as for the arm of Jehovah, to whom has it been revealed?”

Is. 53:1 (NWT)/ John 12:38b

“In the year that King Uz·ziʹah died, I saw Jehovah sitting on a lofty and elevated throne, and the skirts of his robe filled the temple.  Seraphs were standing above him; each had six wings.  Each covered his face with two and covered his feet with two, and each of them would fly about with two.  And one called to the other: ‘Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of armies.  The whole earth is filled with his glory.’ . . . . Then I heard the voice of Jehovah saying: ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’ And I said: ‘Here I am! Send me!’  And he replied, ‘Go, and say to this people: ‘You will hear again and again, but you will not understand; you will see again and again, but you will not get any knowledge.’  Make the heart of this people unreceptive, make their ears unresponsive, and paste their eyes together, so that they may not see with their eyes and hear with their ears, so that their heart may not understand and they may not turn back and be healed.’”

Is. 6:1-3; 8-10 (NWT)/John 12:40


Many will recognize the first quotation as the opening for the famous “Suffering Servant” passage of Isaiah.  This is widely recognized by both orthodox Christianity and the Watchtower Society as a prophetic utterance from the prophet referring to the crucifixion of Christ.  Given that in John’s gospel, only five verses earlier, the Lord is said to be referring to “the manner in which he would die”, the connection to Isaiah 53 is clear and undeniable.


The second quotation is less recognizable, which is why I have chosen to include the opening verses of Isaiah 6 as a means of context and suggest that you do the same if using this particular method of engagement.  In Isaiah 6:1-3 we are given the vision of Isaiah as he enters the heavenly throne room of Jehovah.  It is said that the prophet sees the Lord sitting high and lofty on his throne with a train filling the temple and that his glory can be seen filling the entire earth.  It is a glorious sight.  It is in the presence of Jehovah that the prophet volunteers himself for service and is given the oracle to proclaim to Israel that they will be hardened against the Lord for their sins.

Wait. . .Who's glory?

In the gospel of John, the author is using the Isaianic as prophetic of the Jewish rejection of Jesus.  It is clear from the citations that the referent in Isaiah is the prophet’s experience with Jehovah, but then comes the intriguing statement of John 12:41,


“Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him.”


In John, the antecedent to the pronouns “he” and “him” is Jesus (from v.36b), which means the author is stating that in the heavenly throne room of Jehovah, the prophet Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus.  The only beings revealed by the prophet Isaiah to be part of the heavenly vision are Jehovah, the prophet himself, and several Seraphim (angels).  Clearly the prophet Isaiah could not be Jesus, as he is both mortal and the one having the vision, and Jesus could not be one of the Seraphim, as even the Watchtower Society acknowledges that this would contradict the teaching of Hebrews 1:4-8 in which Jesus is placed higher than the angels, which leaves only one being left in the throne room: Jehovah.  Yet, far from suggesting that Jesus is Jehovah, the apostle John is unambiguously tying Jesus to Jehovah and saying that, while in the presence of Jehovah, the glory spoken of by the angels, seen by the prophet Isaiah, was the pre-incarnate Christ.

Even if the Watchtower member is unwilling to acknowledge this point and suggests that the “he” of v.41 is a reference to Jehovah and not Jesus, the suggestion remains that Christ is the glory of Jehovah.  Why?  Because the Apostle is tying the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, recognized by the Watchtower Society as being Christ, to the throne room passage of Isaiah 6.  This is even more likely given the “dozen or so overtones of Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 found within John 12 that show the Evangelist had the Servant Song in mind when he composed the chapter.”[3]

The Apostle John is clear, the prophet Isaiah, while in the presence of Jehovah God, was given a vision of His glory, and that glory was the pre-incarnate Christ.

Conclusion

What we have done with this post, and intend to do with several that follow, is utilize nothing more than the Bible carried by the Jehovah’s Witness to contradict the fundamental doctrine of the Watchtower Society.  What advantage does this provide?  It eliminates the argument over which translation should be used, and allows the believer to stay in contact with the Society member for the duration of the conversation.  The goal is no longer to show them how their Bible is wrong, but to show them how their Society is wrong about the Bible, and in particular, the Lord Jesus Christ.



[1] https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/jesus-gods-son/


[2] https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/12/


[3] D.A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 450.