Plead my Cause: A Hint of the Trinity in the Old Testament

Posted by Clark Bates
December 23, 2018



For most readers, regardless of culture, the image of a courtroom is familiar.  Certainly, the design and specificities of the legal procedures may differ, but the overall concept remains the same.  There is typically a room with locations for the person on trial to sit or stand, in most cases with a legal defense.  There is another place nearby, in the same room, for the representative of the state or the wronged party arguing against the person on trial.  And then there’s the place at the head of the room for the judge.  In some cases there are jurors, but not all, so we’ll leave that out.

If you’ve read thus far, you’ve likely already pictured the courtroom in your mind.  It might surprise some readers to know that the Old Testament often depicts the realm of God as a divine court room.  It could be argued that this is the case in Job 1:6-12 wherein Satan comes before the Lord and accuses Job.  God acts as the judge while Satan serves as the accusing party.  Perhaps the clearest image of this courtroom is found in the vision of Zecharaiah 3:1-16 where the prophet witnesses the high priest Joshua standing before the LORD and Satan, again acting as accuser, pointing out all of his sins.  This imagery has been written about in the academic world for many years, often acknowledge g the familiar motif of divine courtrooms in other religions, particularly those of the Greco-Roman world.

The Divine Courtroom

In most, if not all, cases the gods argue for or against the events that should transpire on earth.  Mankind is typically on trial, with the gods choosing sides and the chief god (Zeus in this case) acts as judge.  While it may be a reach too far to suggest that the depictions in the Old Testament rely on these other religious views, but it would equally be disingenuous to ignore them altogether.  The purpose for such imagery is to reinforce the belief that God holds dominion over creation.  All must come before Him and plead their case.  What sets Christianity apart in this imagery from the other religions of the world is the recognition that no deeds of man can ever satisfy the guilt they bear.  By example, in Zechariah 3, the high priest, the holiest of the people, stands before the LORD in filthy garments, illustrating his sin.  He has no righteousness of his own to use as a defense, and it is only by the direction of the LORD that he is covered in pure robes and declared innocent.

Judge and Defense?

What does this have to do with the Trinity?  In several Old Testament passages, we read a particular phrase.  This can change based on the translation used but, it ultimately says something to the effect of, “The LORD will plead my case…”  The word in Hebrew for “plead” is רִיב (rîyb).  In some cases it can mean to strive with or contend with (Deut. 33:7), but a secondary definition of the word is forensic, meaning “to plead” as in arguing a case before a court.  Where we find this form often is in the Psalms and the prophets, but also once even in the narrative of 1 Samuel.

In 1 Samuel 25:39, King David declares,

“Blessed be the Lord, who has pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal and has kept back His servant from evil. The Lord has also returned the evildoing of Nabal on his own head."  (NASB)

and while more functional translations like the ESV have chosen to render the statement as the “The LORD has avenged the insult…” the formal translation of the Hebrew is what is found in the NASB.  IN this case, Nabal treated the king unfairly and subsequently died.  The ESV has sought to translate this as David praising the vengeance of the Lord upon is enemy, and this is perfectly accurate, but it does so by avoiding the legal language.  It is inescapable that the praise of David is that God has pled the king’s case and won justice.

In Micah 7:9 we also read,

I will bear the indignation of the Lord
because I have sinned against him,
until he pleads my cause
and executes judgment for me.
He will bring me out to the light;
I shall look upon his vindication. (ESV)

wherein even the ESV renders the text formally as “he pleads my cause”.  In both instances, as in several others, the imagery reverts to the divine courtroom, with the King as the defendant, in the case of 1 Samuel, or the prophet, in the case of Micah.  In the prophecies of Isaiah, it is the entire nation of Israel that stands on trial.  What makes passages like this worth a second look is the idea that it is God pleading the case.

In typical divine courtroom, the supreme god is the judge, not the defense attorney, yet in both instances above, it is the supreme God who is acting as the defense for the people.  The accusing attorney is already identified, as in Zechariah and Job, as Satan.  We might safely assert that this is always the case, as the very name Satan, means “accuser”.  But here is the question,

“If God is the defense attorney, who is the judge?”

There can be no answer for this unless God acts as both defense and judge, but if God were strictly one in person as well as essence, this could not be.    In Hebrews 7:25, the preacher states of Christ that,

"Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." (ESV)

This word, “intercession” has also been used in classical Greek to mean a legal pleading or petition before a king or court.  We read in Hebrews that, in his function as the Great High Priest, Jesus now intercedes with the Father on behalf of the elect.  We read also in the letter to the Romans that the Holy Spirit acts in a similar way,

"And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." (8:27 ESV)

Conclusion

While I’m not trying to say that the imagery of the divine courtroom in the Old Testament is an explicit declaration of the Triune nature of God, it does portray God as both judge and as the defense.  In the New testament we also see God the Father as judge (James 4:12; 5:9) and the Son as defense (Heb. 7:25).  In other instances, we are told that he Son will act as judge (Jn. 5:22) and the Spirit acts as defense (Rom. 8:27).  In either instance, what the Old Testament conceals with God, the New Testament reveals, and the divine courtroom begins to look far more trinitarian than it had before.

What Do You Do When The Church Fathers Quote the Non-Canonical Gospels?

Posted by Clark Bates
October 18, 2018




Something that has always impressed me when reading the church fathers, particularly the apostolic fathers[1], is the amount of Scriptural quotations and allusions that they contain.  You can’t read 2 pages into Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians without encountering 8 references to Scripture.  The Same could be said of Ignatius, 1 Clement, The Epistle of Barnabas, and others.  The overwhelming influence of both Old and New Testament writings serves as a constant reminder to me that the faith upon which I stand has always been based in the traditions and teachings of the Old and New Testaments!

But there’s a problem….

They didn’t JUST quote from the Old and New Testaments.

Allow me to offer a case study using the book commonly called 2 Clement.

Why 2 Clement?

While it’s often referred to as the 2nd epistle of Clement, 2 Clement isn’t an epistle at all.  It reads like a sermon.  It may be that, like the epistle to the Hebrews or even the Epistle of Barnabas, it was originally delivered as a sermon or homily and then re-drafted as a letter, but the overwhelming indications, and position of most historians is that 2 Clement is a sermon.  Its actual date is unknown, but it’s almost certain that it’s not written by the same author as 1 Clement and, with the exception of a very small few, it is not related in any way to the events surrounding 1 Clement.[2]  The epistle is accepted by most to be from some time in the 2nd century.  Its choice as a case study is fitting for this article because of its sermon-like qualities and the dating, which places it within the time of the early church.

What’s the Problem?

As you read through 2 Clement, there are many enjoyable passages.  For instance, it reads:

---

“And also, another Scripture says, ‘I did not come to call the upright, but sinners.’ This means that he was to save those who were perishing.  For it is a great and astonishing feat to fix in place something that is toppling over, not something that is standing.” (2.4-6)

---

We would say “amen!” and even recognize the author’s use of Matthew 9:13.  Or in another place it reads:

---

“And so we should repent while we are still on earth.  For we are clay in the hand of the artisan….While we are still in the world, we should repent from our whole heart of the evil we have done in the flesh, so the Lord will save us – while there is still time for repentance.” (8.1-2)

---

Most Christians would again agree with this statement.  For the most part, 2 Clement says a great many things that are inspirational and convicting, making it an effective sermon for even modern readers.

But then you come to places like this:

---

“For the Lord himself was asked by someone when his kingdom would come, he said, ‘When the two are one, and the outside like the inside, and the male with the female is neither male nor female,’ Now the ‘two are one’ when we speak truth to one another and one soul exists in two bodies without hypocrisy.” (12.2-3)

---

Setting aside the author’s attempted explanation, it might shock the reader to see this bizarre quote
attributed to Jesus.  This doesn’t come from the canonical gospels.  Its source lies in three possibilities: The Gospel of the Egyptians, as cited by Clement of Alexandria, The Gospel of Thomas, or a third source from which the other two were drawn.

The Gospel of the Egyptians reads:

---

“When Salome inquired when the things concerning which she asked should be known, the Lord said: When ye have trampled on the garment of shame, and when the two become one and the male with the female is neither male nor female. In the first place, then, we have not this saying in the four Gospels that have been delivered to us, but in that according to the Egyptians.”
(Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 3.13.92)

---

And the Gospel of Thomas reads:

---

“Jesus saw infants being suckled.  He said to his disciples: ‘These little ones being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom.’  They said to him: ‘Then will we enter the kingdom as little ones?’  Jesus said to them: ‘When you make the two into one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside and the above like the below – that is, to make the male and the female into a single one, so that the male will not be male and the female will not be female – and when you make eyes instead of an eye and a hand instead of a hand and a foot instead of a foot, an image instead of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom].’” (Thomas, saying 22)

---

The saying in 2 Clement is a combination of the two.  But why would the author use this?  Does that make these sources Scripture?  Before answering, let’s look at one other place:

---

“For this reason, the Lord has said, ‘Even if you were nestled close to my breast but did not do what I have commanded, I would cast you away and say to you, ‘Leave me! I do not know where you are from, you who do what is lawless’….For the Lord said, ‘You will be like sheep in the midst of wolves.’ But Peter replied to him, ‘What if the wolves rip apart the sheep?’ Jesus said to Peter, ‘After they are dead, the sheep should fear the wolves no longer…’” (4.5; 5.2-4)

---

In this section Jesus is cited two times saying things that are found in no available source!  We don’t have any record anywhere, in any document, that Jesus, or Peter, ever said these things!  So, what is going on?!

Take a Deep Breath

To many in the church, this is very disconcerting.  The very idea that an author or pastor would be citing non-canonical, and even Gnostic writings must have devastating implications to the faith!  But it doesn’t.  There are some very careful realities that must be acknowledged when you find writings like these.

1. The first few centuries of the church were the time when it had to make its way without apostolic authority.  The Twelve had died.  A new church age was commencing and they needed an authority to look to.
2. Not every writing that we have in the New Testament had circulated to every region right away. Some writers seem unaware of the works of Paul and only use the Gospels.  Others only use a select Gospel.
3. It is a matter of history, both in the Gospel of John and in the writings of Papias, that Jesus said and did more than is recorded in the Gospels. Papias even claimed to have a collection of His sayings.

What does all that mean?  Primarily, it means that church history is not as neat and tidy as most are told.  We as Christians, especially apologists, would do well to acknowledge that immediately.  It also means that in its infancy the church wanted to gather everything that Jesus ever said.  They needed His authority to guide them.  Are they all genuine sayings?  It doesn’t seem so, and as the years go on, the church as a whole begins to recognize those sayings and teachings that were authentic and those that weren’t.  In kind, the quotations from spurious sources becomes less and less until they are non-existent.  This is not a result of some government mandate, merely a response both to the work of the Holy Spirit among the body and a recognition of the continuity of the teaching contained in Gospels, epistles and Paul.

As far as 2 Clement is concerned, it’s not even clear why or how he is using the texts.  Some say he is using them because he agrees.  Others say he’s pointing out the inaccuracies of Gnosticism but only in a subtle way.  And some even say he’s adopting Gnostic teachings and incorporating it into the orthodoxy of the church.  In many cases, we’ll never know “why” these leaders used what they did, but the fact THAT they used them occasionally is not enough to determine that they were scripture.

Conclusion

A simple analogy would be the average church service each Sunday morning.  Undoubtedly, at least in this country, you will hear a sermon from a biblical text, but it will be mixed with analogies and personal anecdotes and possibly even quotations from (gasp) non-biblical sources!  Does your pastor’s use of Robert Frost or Rudyard Kipling in a sermon place them on the same pedestal as the work of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?  Of course not!  Therefore, if looked at objectively, that should not be the conclusion reached here with the early church.

Additionally, it is a modern, primarily American, phenomenon to think that any Christian writing that isn’t canonical should be shunned.  This is certainly not the approach of our religious forefathers and it shouldn’t be ours.  The Shepherd of Hermas was one of the most influential Christian writings of the 2nd century, yet hardly anyone in the modern church has read it.  There are sources that make it clear that Hermas was not placed equally with Scripture, but it was valuable enough to be included at the close of Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete Bible in existence.  Even 2 Clement with its many oddities conveys important lessons.  These books do not have to be Scripture to be valuable.  They were helpful to the church then, and they can still be informative to us now.

The church today is teetering on the edge of collapse in regards to its appreciation of Scripture, and realizations like the one in this article send many away from it.  Lay people abandon Scripture as a result, because they were led believe that history was different, and because they weren’t exposed to the truth they weren’t able to handle it.  If there’s a disease spreading, the body needs an inoculation to survive.  If the church is to survive the challenges of today, the answer is not to hide them away from difficult truths.  It’s to expose them, so they can become inoculated to what’s coming.

Read good books!  Know your history!  And work through the challenges they present!

[1] The term “apostolic fathers” first appears in the Hogedos written by Anastasius, the 7th century abbot of St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai.  Ironically, he used this term in reference to a convert of the apostle Paul, named Dionysius the Aeropagite, whose work is not included in contemporary collections of the “Apostolic Fathers”.  This title is used in modern parlance to designate the disparate collection of early Christian writings whose authors are believed to have followed or been companions of the original apostles of Jesus Christ.  These works represent the earliest Christian writing after the deaths of the apostles themselves.  For more information, consult, Ehrman, Bart D., The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1 of Loeb Classical Library 24 (Cambridge: Harvard University, 2003)., and/or Holmes, Michael W. ed., The Apostolic Fathers: Translated by J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989).

[2] Karl Donfried, The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity, Leiden: Brill, 1974.  Donfried argues strenuously that both epistles are connected and that the natural rendering of 2 Clement is a homily delivered by one of the deposed elders, now re-instated after the letter of 1 Clement was received and obeyed.  This is not a position held by most in academia, then or now.

Guest Appearances on the Alisa Childers Podcast

Over the last year, I have had the honor and pleasure to be a guest on the Alisa Childers Podcast.  Alisa is a friend from several years ago and an active apologist, specializing in confronting the teachings of "progressive Christianity".  Our discussions have always dealt with biblical interpretation and popularly misused Bible verses.  You can access all of htese podcasts and the rest of Alisa's website at the links below:


What are the 5 Most Misunderstood Bible Verses?

Misunderstood Bible Verses the Series: Part 1

Misunderstood Bible Verses the Series: Part 2

Misunderstood Bible Verses the Series: Part 3

Is YHWH "One" or is He God "Alone", and Does it Matter?

Posted by Clark Bates
September 12, 2018

“Hear! O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

- Deut. 6:4

There may not be a more prized verse in the Old Testament, both for Jews and for Christians.  Known as the “Great Shema”, named after the opening word in the verse: שמע (she·mă), which translates to “listen” or “hear”.  For my entire life in the church, and in the Bible, I have always read this verse in the way it is written above.  This shouldn’t be surprising, considering this is how most English translation render the verse.  In the Christian tradition, oceans full of ink has been spilt plunging the depths of this passage.  “The nation is being reminded of their monotheistic faith”, says one.  “The plurality of the word for God (אלהינו - el·ō·hĭ·nū), combined with the word אחד (“one”) is an implicit recognition of the triune nature of God” says another.  And while I don’t fundamentally disagree with either point, I’ve recently looked at this verse anew and come to a startling realization:  I think I’ve been reading it wrongly all this time.

One or Only?

This realization came about, almost entirely, by accident.  I happened to be reading this section in Deuteronomy in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible and noticed the different rendering:[1]

---

“Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord alone.”

---

This is a subtle difference, but one that makes a rather large interpretive point.  Could it be that this verse isn’t an ontological statement about the being of God?![2]  Admittedly, my initial response was merely to reject the translation as inadequate or a result of the bias of the particular version of the text, but then I decided the better approach, the approach I often champion to others, would be to investigate the matter for myself.

As it turns out, there are, to my knowledge, only three English Bibles that translate the verse this way, the NRSV, NLT, and NAB.  Therefore, the majority of English translations do not adopt this particular reading.  But, as most apologist are often quick to point out, truth is not determined by the majority, so this alone does not negate the need for further study.

The next question for me was if this English interpretation was grammatically possible from the original Hebrew. 

The Hebrew reads thus:

---

שמע ישֹראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אהד

---

If read from right to left in sequence, it reads very much like the bulk of English translations.  The only caveat is that this is a “verb less clause” so the English has to add the “is”.  The two most likely options for this verse, as it relates to the word “one” (אהד) are to read it as a noun in the predicate nominative position (i.e. the Lord is our God, the Lord is one), or to read it adverbially (the Lord is our God, the Lord alone).  On the basis of the grammar and the lack of any articulated verbs, either is possible.  That being said, if there is another passage in the Hebrew Bible that possesses a similar construction and is translates אהד as “alone” this will lend support to the NRSV reading.

It just so happens that there is.

In Zechariah 14:9 we read:

---

“And the Lord will be King over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one and his name will be the only one.”

---

In Hebrew, it reads thus:

---

והיה יהוה למלך על כל הארץ ביום ההוא יהוה יהוה אהד ושמו אהד

---

It’s fairly clear that both the placement of the word אהד (“on”/ “only”/ “alone”) is the same in both Zech. 14:9 and Deut. 6:4, and in this instance, the bulk of English translations render it adverbially as above.  What this does, is it provides support for the alternative reading of the Shema as is found in other translations, in contrast to how it is most often read.  This is not enough, though.  The grammar is still ambiguous enough to allow for both, therefore context must help us determine which seems more appropriate.

Context, Context, Context…

Anyone who is familiar with my writing, speaking or podcast appearances will have heard me say on more than one occasion that context is key when it comes to interpreting Scripture.  Many a heretical teaching, or simply a misunderstood Bible verse, has come from removing a single verse in the text out of its context and using it for purposes it wasn’t intended.

If we look at Deut. 6:4 in isolation an argument for either interpretation stands on equal grounds.  But Deut. 6:4 doesn’t exist in isolation.  It is part of a larger thought in the verses that precede it and follow it.  In Deut. 5, Moses gives the ten commandments to the people of Israel a second time.  The next generation of Israelites is about to enter the promised land and they must first commit to the Law.

In 5:32 he says,

---

“Be careful, therefore, to do just as the Lord your God has commanded you; do not turn to the right or to the left.”

---

Turning “to the right or to the left” is idiomatic of forsaking the exclusive worship of YHWH.  It is to say, “Don’t forsake the worship of YHWH alone!”  Then, we read in 6:1-3 that the people are to be certain to obey YHWH so that they might remain in the land.  This is followed by the Shema in 6:4. After the Shema we read, that we are to “love the Lord your God with all your mind, your heart and your being.”[3]  The exhortation continues through v.9, telling the Israelites to teach these laws to their children and to live by them, and vv.10- 12 tell of the land they will be brought to.  Verse 13-15 however, read thus:

---

“You must revere the Lord your God, serve him, and take oaths using only his name.  You must not go after other gods, those of the surrounding peoples, for the Lord your God, who is present among you, is a jealous God and his anger will erupt against you and remove you from the land.”

---

These verses reflect the sentiment at the close of chapter 5 mentioned above.  When taken in it’s full context, if you were to exclude the Shema (6:4) from the rest of the verses, I believe most would agree that the point of the passage is to remind the nation of Israel that in spite of the other gods in the land they are entering, they are to serve only YHWH.  With that in mind, it makes little sense that this discussion of worship exclusively given to YHWH should be disrupted with an ontological statement about His being.  Rather, in keeping with the larger subject matter, the Shema would make more sense in the NRSV translation, that Israel is to remember that YHWH is their only God, not any of the gods they will see in the land of Canaan.

For this reason, I believe, as do some others, that the Shema should be read,

---

“Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is our God alone.”

---

The effect this has on the overall use of the passage is different than it's typical approach, but no less significant.  Rather being used to reveal the nature of God's "oneness", the nation is being reminded that worship is reserved exclusively for YHWH.  He and He alone is their God.  This reminder is no less soluble for Christians in the modern age.  Where do we spend our time?  Where do we spend our money?  Do our actions demonstrate a divided worship?  We live, in effect, in the land of Canaan, with idols of all kinds, gods without number.  Perhaps we should always be reminding ourselves of the Great Shema, "Hear O Christian, YHWH is your God alone."  Reserve your worship for Him.

Does it Matter?

I recently posted this position on a forum of language professionals with mixed responses.  Those that rejected the position did so for three reasons:

1. If you change it, it changes the monotheism of the Jews (and makes trinitarianism in this verse difficult),

2. It’s not how the Jews read it, and/or

3. There are other, clearer, ways of writing “alone” or “only” in Hebrew. 

These are valid concerns and I respect them.  In brief response let me just say that changing Deut. 6:4[4], do not read it as I have suggested.  However, is it a helpful maxim to say that we should read[5], however if the argument is that 6:4 should be understood from these other verses, why is it not first understood in light of its immediate context?  Does not a proper hermeneutic begin with the passage itself before examining the larger body of Scripture?
the OT in the same way that Orthodox Jews do?  Would you read Is. 53 as they do?  I don’t believe so.  Also, my argument is not based on the majority reading, but the grammatical and contextual probability, which has nothing to do with how others read it.  And lastly, it is also true that there are other ways to convey this sentiment in Hebrew that are not ambiguous

does nothing to the monotheistic teaching of the Jews.  The concept of monotheism is spread throughout the Hebrew Bible and does not rest solely on this verse.  In the same way, the triune nature of God, does not hinge on Deut. 6:4, therefore it is not detrimental to change it.  Secondly, it is true that the Jews, both in the past and even today

I point this out simply to address a broader point.  While I believe that my defense of this reading is sound, others will disagree with me, and that’s okay.  I admit that either reading is possible.  Some who react extremely to this suggested change, tend to do so out of a desire to clutch a long -held tradition of the reading, not out of a desire to examine the evidence.  This was my first response when exposed to it as well.  We must be very cautious about this reaction, and be willing to recognize it, not just in others but in ourselves.  Do we interpret Scripture, or derive our understanding of God simply from the repeating of the standard we have been taught?  Or should we investigate all that we have been taught in order to lay hold of a faith that is our own?  Don’t we tell non-believers and those of other faiths that this is exactly what they should do?  Do we not tell them that they should be willing to examine what they’ve been taught, either in the mosque, the temple or the university, and seek the truth even if it contradicts their traditional understanding?  How can we expect others to do what we are not willing to do ourselves?

The larger point is this, when faced with the possibility of having misunderstood Scripture for many years, or even some aspect of the nature of God, the natural reaction is revulsion.  We want to defend how we’ve always done it.  But how we’ve always done it may not be right.  And if truth matters to us, like we say that it does, we must be willing to challenge even those sacred beliefs.  I recommend a few questions for everyone when faced with this dilemma:

1. Ask yourself, “Does the alternative make sense?”

Some alternatives are clearly contradictory to the revelation of God.  Others are not.  Take a moment and ask if the alternative view, even if it is not your own, makes sense in light of this revelation.

2. Ask yourself, “What’s at stake here?”

Not every issue is a gospel issue.  Be willing to ask if the alternative view really makes any difference to the main message of the Christian faith.  If this verse changes, does it affect others? Or is it incidental?  Knowing the difference between a mountain to die on and valley of compromise makes a world of difference.

Conclusion

I set about writing this article to defend an understandably minority opinion.  I did this knowing it may upset some people.  I wrote it, knowing that it might upset some people, because I think it serves as an excellent point for the larger discussion.  As Christians we strive, or at least should strive, for unity with one another.  However, in the age of social media, we often are known for division and strife.  Rather than fall victim to the age of constant offense that we live in, let us strive to be counter-cultural and do the hard work of analyzing opposing views, assessing their value, and seeking concord rather than discord.







[1] Some readers may balk at this, given that the committee that translated the NRSV stated that they did so “without theological bias”, resulting in a largely biased translation in favor of neutral or non-spiritual nuances to the text.  That being said, this, in and of itself, is not reason to reject every reading carte blanche, but simply to read with a critical eye.  Also, the reading above is not unique to the NRSV, but is found in the NAB and the NLT.


[2] Ontology - The science or study of being; that branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature or essence of being or existence.

[3] Famously repeated by Jesus in Matt.22:37-39; Mk. 12:29-30 and Lk. 10:27.

[4] Many thanks to an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine for her insight into the modern understanding of this passage!

[5] See Deut. 4:35 and Deut. 32:39

The Foreknowledge of God and the Crucifixion of Christ

Posted by Clark Bates
March 30, 2018




When I was growing up in a church I never really thought deeply about what I was taught.  God knew

everything and nothing on earth would ever change that.  Jesus was crucified, but it wasn’t something God didn’t know was going to happen.  All of this used to give me a sense of security in the God that I had been taught about, but as I grew older and experienced a great deal of hurt from within and without the church, I left the faith entirely.  For roughly a decade I wanted nothing to do with Christianity, but when I came back to the faith I was a different man.  I had seen real suffering, death and tragedy in the military.  I had experienced the darkness of mankind in a real way and even seen it within myself.  I couldn’t just sit in a pew and be told that God knows everything and therefore you don’t need to worry, because God “knowing” everything sure didn’t seem to stop any of the bad stuff from happening.

When I think about it, the average Christian probably remains content in the place that I was growing up.  They don’t think too deeply about the nature of God apart from what they’re taught from the pulpit, but in the apologetics community we face these questions regularly, and usually from skeptics of the faith.  For some unknown reason, it seems that the only ones willing to probe the truths of Christianity are those who reject them.  This is something that I believe needs to change.

Foreknowledge

The doctrinal truth I’m referring to is formally known as God’s foreknowledge, and while there are several different avenues to approach this teaching, the most common is that it means God has the unlimited knowledge of all things that will happen, or even could happen, in the course of all existence.  What I struggled with as I returned to the faith was why, if God knew horrible things were going to happen, did He let them happen anyway?  And for this, I feel that the philosophical definition of God’s foreknowledge is still lacking.

Given that this website is devoted to biblical apologetics I would like to take a moment to examine what the Bible has to say about the foreknowledge of God, and since this is the resurrection season, how that effects our understanding of the crucifixion of Christ and our understanding of suffering in general.

Foreknowledge Through the Years

The Greek word translated as “foreknowledge” is πρόγνωσις (prognōsis); or in its verb form προγινώσκω (proginōskō), which means “to know beforehand or in advance.”[1]  A version of this word is attested as early as the Homeric Hymns with the meaning “to perceive beforehand,” similar to the English “foresee”. [2]  However, in the old Greek it tends to refer to human ability and never means a knowledge of the future in the way that it is often used of God.  Rather, it’s often an expectation that may be based on instinct or reason.  A good example of this is found in Isocrates, where he writes, “I think it is evident to all that to foreknow (προγιγνώσκειν) of coming events is not part of our nature.”[3]  He even goes on to say that the gods themselves debate the future.

The Greek philosophers known as the Stoics transformed this concept into a pantheistic combination of created order and destiny.  Yet, this and other uses do not indicate predictive power, but simply a prior evaluation of knowledge.  A good example of this can be found in our modern jargon when we speak of a doctor’s “prognosis” of an illness.  It isn’t as though the doctor knew the disease beforehand, but that his knowledge of disease in general has helped him to come to a conclusion before others.

In the Greek Old Testament, often called the LXX (Septuagint), we begin to see the term used in true foreknowledge fashion.  In the Wisdom of Solomon, the personified Wisdom is able to know the future and signs and wonders that appear.[4]  In the book of Judith, the books namesake credits God with knowing the future events that they experience presently.[5]  It is here, as it is used in Judith, that the New Testament use begins, for in Judith God’s foreknowledge is not spoken of as merely knowledge of what will happen, but is directly tied to his decrees.

Foreknowledge in the New Testament

In the NT, foreknowledge is only used 7 times; 5 as a verb and 2 as a noun.  All of the occurrences of the word group are found in Acts, Romans, and 1-2 Peter.  In Acts 26:5 it's in reference to humans, wherein Paul states that they have “known me for a long time.”  However, when it is used of God, “foreknowledge” takes on an entirely different theological significance.

In Romans 8:29, following one of the most often quoted Scriptures for encouragement, we read that those whom God “foreknew, he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…”  In this case, God’s foreknowledge is combined with his predestination.  Following this, in Romans 11, Paul writes that, “God has not rejected his people, whom he foreknew.”[6]  The “people” in mind here are the Jews.  Could it be that God only knew in advance that there would be a people that would become the line from which Jesus would come and bring salvation to the Gentiles?  A brief examination of the OT reveals that this isn’t the case.  In Genesis, God states that He has “chosen” Abraham to be a great nation.[7]  In Deuteronomy, the people of Israel are said to be “chosen” by God to be His people.[8]  The place where they were to live was “chosen” by the Lord.[9]  The repeated refrain of the OT authors is that the nation of Israel was “chosen” by God to be His people, not that He was merely aware in advance that they would exist and made the best use of them.[10]

If there is any doubt about the necessary relationship in the NT between God’s foreknowledge and His predestination, the apostle Peter wrote in his first epistle that Jesus himself was “foreknown from before the foundation of the world.”[11]  In no way could it be argued that the Father’s foreknowledge of Jesus was only an advanced awareness.  This foreknowledge of Jesus is necessarily linked to His earthly ministry.

God’s Foreknowledge and the Crucifixion of Christ

It was this same Peter, that proclaimed the first sermon of the church after Jesus’ ascension.  In it he speaks of the crucifixion of Christ like this,

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.”[12]

In the same way that God foreknew those whom He has chosen and the way He foreknew and chose His people Israel, God foreknew Jesus.  Not just the person of Jesus but the crucifixion and resurrection as well.  The crucifixion was not an accident to which God reacted, neither was it only an event which God knew was coming.  Rather, it was part of the predetermined plan of redemption established by God from before the creation of the world itself.  When we gather to celebrate the empty tomb this weekend, we celebrate God’s decreed plan.  The tomb is empty because God determined that it would be.

God’s Foreknowledge and Suffering

For some reading this, the idea that God’s foreknowledge is not just being aware of the future, but decreeing it, finds little benefit.  It might seem confusing how this could be any more comforting in light of suffering than simply being aware that God knows it will happen.  I can’t make you find comfort in these words, but I can tell you why I do.  In all that I have experienced and seen, nothing compares to the agony of the cross.  If God’s knowledge of the greatest suffering of all mankind was part of His greater plan of redemption, how much more does that make mine?  If God merely knows I’m going to suffer and does nothing to stop it, I can be led to believe that He doesn’t care for me at all, but if God’s foreknowledge is necessarily connected to His predetermined plan for creation, I know that my suffering fits into that plan, and a day will come, when it will not only end, but it will all be clear to me.

As we celebrate the resurrection of Christ this weekend, we bring many things with us; abusive past, suffering present, divorce, adultery, depression, disease, affliction of all kinds.  I often tell people that while many say bring your hurts to the cross, I prefer to say, “Bring them to the empty tomb” because it is the empty tomb that proves that God is making right all that is wrong in this world.  What’s more, it’s evidence that everything, including your pain, fits into that plan.  It means that He has included you and your experience in that plan.  And that plan means healing, emotionally, spiritually, and physically.

---

“He is risen.   He is risen, indeed.”

---

[1] BDAG, 703.

[2] Homer, In Cererem, 257.

[3] Spohocles, 2.

[4] Wis. Of Sol., 8:8, “If a man desire much experience, she knoweth things of old, and conjectureth aright what is to come: she knoweth the subtilties of speeches, and can expound dark sentences: she foreseeth signs and wonders, and the events of seasons and times.”

[5] Jud. 9:6, “Yea, what things thou didst determine were ready at hand, and said, Lo, we are here: for all thy ways are prepared, and thy judgments are in thy foreknowledge.”

[6] Rom. 11:2 (italics mine)

[7]Gen. 18:19.

[8] Deut. 7:1-6; 14:2.

[9] 1 Ki. 8:44-48; 11:13, 32.

[10] Ps. 33:12; 105:26, 43; 106:5;135:4; Is. 41:8, 9; 43:10, 20; 44:2; 45:4; 49:7; Zech. 3:2.

[11] 1 Pet. 1:20.

[12] Acts 2:22-24.

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.

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.

Did Isaiah Prophesy That Jesus would Come?

Posted by Clark Bates
May 3, 2017




We read in the book of Isaiah, chapters 52 and 53:

Behold, my servant shall act wisely;
he shall be high and lifted up,
and shall be exalted . . .
He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. . .
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed . . .[1]


For many Christians, this passage is a prophetic utterance from the 7^th century BCE that clearly foretells the coming of Jesus.  It’s commonly referred to as “The Suffering Servant” and stands out among all other prophecies as one of the most cherished and heralded sections of Old Testament Scripture.  If the passage truly does speak of Jesus, then it serves as incontrovertible proof that the Bible contains the most specific example of prophecy ever recorded, and that Jesus of Nazareth was far more than a mere sage.


However, the question must be asked, “Can we be certain that it does, in fact, speak of Jesus?” The Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 is certainly not the only interpretation available.  Some have sought to understand the Servant of Isaiah as other famous Jewish figures.[2] Others have preferred to interpret the Servant as an allegory for the fall of Jerusalem.[3]  A common view that began in the Middle Ages and persists among most Orthodox Jews today is that the Suffering Servant was an allegory for the people of Israel.[4]  With the multitude of contrary perspectives, is it even possible to know who is really in the mind of the prophet?  To find out, we must investigate this “Suffering Servant” and what else Isaiah had to write about him.

The Two Views

The Isaianic Servant makes his first appearance in Isaiah 42:1 and re-appears in at least three other passages.[5]  Contemporary interpretations of Yahweh's servant can be divided into two broad categories, corporate and singular.  Those who hold a corporate view visualize the Servant as God's chosen people Israel, a school of exilic prophets, or even the city of Jerusalem, while those who hold the singular view imagine the Servant as the Messiah, or another Israelite hero.


In defense of the corporate view, there are clear moments in which the nation of Israel is referred to as the servant of God:


But you, Israel, my servant,
Jacob, whom I have chosen,
the offspring of Abraham, my friend . . .
Isaiah 41:8-9
“But now hear, O Jacob my servant,
Israel whom I have chosen!”
Remember these things, O Jacob,
and Israel, for you are my servant. . .
Isaiah 44:1; 21


However, upon careful consideration, the blanket application of the corporate servant here, to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 Is not a consistent one.  Take, for instance Isaiah 49:1-6 in which the Servant is said to “raise up the tribes of Jacob.”  The context demonstrates that the purpose of the servant is to restore a sinful Israel to the Lord.[6]  How could the nation of Israel raise the fallen nation of Israel up from rebellion to Yahweh?  Another example of the deficiency of the corporate view is found in the key Suffering Servant passage itself.  The Servant is said to be “pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our sins.  The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”  The “our” and “us” of the passage is the prophet Isaiah speaking on behalf of the nation of Israel, so once again, we are left to ask, “How can the nation itself serve as the sacrifice for itself?”

Who is this Servant?

If the corporate view is lacking in textual support it should rightly be abandoned, but this does nothing to determine the actual identity of the individual servant.  As you may have guessed, the attempted explanations regarding who the servant might be, are plenteous as well, although not all opinions are equal.  Among the popular suggestions are the coming Messiah[7], Cyrus the Great,[8] Moses[9] and even Zerubbabel.[10]

It should not be necessary here to demonstrate the inefficiency of the application of the Suffering Servant to Moses or the even more obscure Zerubbabel, which leaves the remaining possibilities of the Messiah or Cyrus the Great.  The suggestion of Cyrus as the Servant of the Lord arises from Is. 44:28 in which the Persian King is called the Shepherd of Yahweh.  Yet the Servant in Is. 42 is said to be of such humble character that he will not break a bruised reed, whereas the mighty Cyrus is said to level mountains and cut through bars of iron.  It seems quite unlikely that this is the same individual.  What’s more, there is no historical evidence that the suffering described in Isaiah 53 could adequately be applied to the lifetime of Cyrus the Great.


Acknowledging that the Servant in Isaiah must be an individual, and recognizing that most propositions from Hebrew history fail to adequately account for what is recorded, we must turn to what specifically is said of this Servant and to what conclusion we must arrive. Consider that the dialogue of Is. 52:1-12 is between Yahweh and Israel; yet in v.13ff. Yahweh is pictured as presenting his servant before the nation.  Unless we are to believe that the Lord is presenting His servant to His servant, the national imagery does not stand.  The person described as the "arm of the Lord in 53:1 is none other than the servant of 42:1-9; 49:1-6, and 50:4-9, meaning that the character and mission of the servant are the same and the suffering of the servant remain the same.  Just as in 50.4-9 the suffering is unjust.  Even those who wish to deny any substitutionary element in the servant's suffering admit that the plain sense is that the Servant suffers undeservedly because of human sin.

The words used to describe the servant in 52:13 as being "lifted up" and "exalted" are used only to speak of God in the remainder of this book, can they be said to refer to a human prophet or Jewish leader?  For those who suggest that Isaiah himself is in view here, must be reminded that the prophet himself condemns the very idea of human exaltation in Is. 2:6-22.  Can we then say that here, the nation of Israel is lifted up as God? Can we say that here now the prophet exalts himself or some other peer?  No, the one spoken of here, as before, must be one greater than Moses, one who embodies Israel as it was meant to be.  This is the Messiah or it is no one at all.

But is it Jesus?

It would be too much of a stretch to suggest that the prophet had Jesus of Nazareth in mind when delivering these oracles; however, the promise of the Messiah was to be one that would restore Israel, fulfilling all that Israel was originally commissioned to do.  “The main idea, then, is this: The servant people need the individual Suffering Servant to reconcile them to Yahweh and do what they are unable to accomplish. The new servant will not only 'raise up the tribes of Jacob, and restore the survivors of Israel' (49.6), but also Yahweh will make him "as a light to the nations, so that [His] salvation may be to the ends of the earth" (49.6).[11]

The one spoken of here, as before, must be one greater than Moses, one who embodies Israel as it was meant to be.  This is the Messiah or it is no one at all.

It is absolutely clear that Jesus of Nazareth believed himself to be this "servant" (Lk. 4.18ff.), and that through word and deed verified this to be true.  The prophet may not have seen the "Lamb of God" as such, but, under the shadow of exile, he saw a nation, judged by God, unable to fulfill the expectations of God; but also, a nation forgiven by God, to be restored by God through the life and death of one who would embody Israel itself in a pure and holy way.  No other person, or group, in all of history can be said to have done this or be able to do this; therefore, the clearest textual understanding of the "servant songs" is that it must speak of one especially chosen by God, unblemished by the failings of men.  In short, it must be the Messiah.


Of all who came to the nation proclaiming themselves to be the Messiah, only one was confirmed by miraculous signs and wonders.  All were put to death, but only one was executed in such a way that his death enacted the very suffering described in Isaiah 53.  Only one Messianic figure was “lifted up”, “pierced”, “crushed”, put to death “with the wicked”, but buried as a “rich man”.  All of which would be impossible to pre-arrange.  And above all else, only one was resurrected on the third day, confirming all that he said of himself to be true.  Only one messianic figure has ever fulfilled every aspect of Isaiah’s coming Suffering Servant, the man, Jesus of Nazareth.





[1] Verses listed are 52:13; 53:3; and 5 in the ESV Bible.  For more context read Is. 52 – 53.


[2] Watts sees a very thoughtful reflection of Zerubbabel in Is. 52:13-53:12 in his World Biblical Commentary: Isaiah 34-66. (Waco: Word Books Publishers, 1987); while Klaus Baltzer adamantly defends Moses as the namesake of Yahweh's servant in his Hermeneia- A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible: Deutero-Isaiah, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001).


[3] Leland E. Wilshire, Insight into Two Biblical Passages: "The Anatomy of a Prohibition" 1 Timothy 2:12 and "The Servant City" The Servant Songs of Isaiah 40-66 and the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC/BCE. (Lanham, Maryland: University Press, 2010): 117.


[4] Kristen Joachimsen, "Steck's Five Stories of the Servant in Isaiah lii 13-liii 12 and Beyond," Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007): 208.


[5] Isaiah 49:1-6; 50:4-9; and 52:13-53:12.


[6] Is. 49:5-6


[7] John N. Oswalt, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40-66, (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1998).


[8] Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, 111.   Reference is made not to Watts here, but to the work of  W.E. Barnes, "Cyrus, the Servant of Jahweh," JTS 32 (1930-31).


[9] Klaus Baltzer, Hermeneia- A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible: Deutero-Isaiah. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001).


[10] John D. Watts, World Biblical Commentary: Isaiah 34-66. (Waco: Word Books Publishers, 1987).


[11] Reed, Concordia Journal, 132.