Category: Other Religions

Posted on

What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn? (Part 2)

Colossians 1

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Colossians 1:15-20, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

About a year ago, I posted my thoughts on this very passage, explaining the meaning of the term “firstborn” and why it doesn’t teach that Jesus is a created being, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses argue.

I don’t want to rehash all of my points from that post so if you haven’t read it, I encourage you to read the original post, “What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn?” to get up to speed on the debate between the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus and the Arian view that Jehovah’s Witnesses hold.

My purpose in this post is to provide a response to some of the arguments levied by Jehovah’s Witnesses who argue against my interpretation of this passage.

In my initial post, I made the claim that the primary meaning of “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 and 18 is “preeminence”. I reasoned that this makes the most sense since Paul uses “firstborn” in conjunction with two different terms, “creation” and “death”, neither of which have anything to do with a parent. Therefore, it seems most natural that Paul is using the term to demonstrate Jesus’ supremacy (pre-eminence) over creation and death.

In recent weeks, I’ve encountered a number of committed Jehovah’s Witnesses online who disagree with my interpretation and have offered up their own explanations for this passage.

The standard Jehovah’s Witness talking point as it relates to the meaning of “firstborn” in Colossians 1 is that the term means something like “first in line.”

The argument is that the term “firstborn” most often refers to the first offspring of a particular person. Therefore, the word should be interpreted in a similar manner when it’s used in a verse that is not referencing offspring.

If you agree with the Jehovah’s Witness logic, then the interpretation of Colossians 1 yields the following:

Jesus is the firstborn of creation, which means that he was the first one to be created by Jehovah.

Jesus is the firstborn from among the dead, which means he’s the first one to overcome death.

To some, particularly Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who hold to an Arian view of Christ, the debate is over. In their mind, the logic is irrefutable.

But is it?

Sound Bible study methods dictate that we investigate their claims. Is their understanding of the word the standard interpretation?

Let’s see.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

I did a Bible search and found that the word “firstborn” shows up in 111 Bible verses, all but 9 of which are found in the Old Testament. In some verses, the word “firstborn” appears multiple times. Hence, the term is used more than 120 times throughout the Bible.

I’ve catalogued every verse where the term shows up, so you can see for yourself. You can access this list of verses in my blog post “Bible References to the Term “Firstborn”“.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are right in this respect – a majority of the references to the term “firstborn” do actually refer to the first one born to a particular person. However, it is rather obvious from the context of all of those passages that this is the meaning.

Take Genesis 10:15 for example, which is the very first occurrence of the term. The verse says,

Canaan became the father of Sidon, his firstborn.

In a majority of the occurrences of the term “firstborn”, it’s used in this same manner where the term is by itself, but referencing a parent. Occasionally, the term is referenced to another living creature as in Exodus 11:5 which states that God was going to kill the firstborn of Pharaoh as well as the firstborn of all cattle.

It’s clear in these situations that the term does mean “first offspring” primarily because the verse gives the name of the parent and the son or daughter.

But how is the word understood when it is not used in conjunction with a living being (man or animal)? Is it understood in the same way?

Typically not.

One of the first occurrences where firstborn is used in a non-traditional way is Exodus 4:22, which says,

“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23“So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’”

Notice that the term shows up twice. In the second instance it’s used in the same way we typically see the word being used, in reference to the first offspring of a person. In this case, it’s referring to the first offspring of Pharaoh.

But in the first instance of the term “firstborn”, it is not used in the typical fashion.

According to Jehovah’s Witness’ argumentation, the word should have the same meaning even when it’s used in a non-traditional way.

It turns out that the first instance of “firstborn” in this passage CANNOT mean what the Jehovah’s Witnesses attribute to the term. God specifically states that Israel, the nation, is his firstborn. If we understand “firstborn” to be “first in line”, in what sense is Israel the “first in line”?

Israel was not the first nation to be created. And God doesn’t “birth” nations anyway, so the word cannot mean “first offspring”.

It’s clear by the context that the first occurrence of “firstborn” in this verse is to be understood as Israel having a favored status. God selected Israel for a distinct and unique purpose – to be a nation through which all the other nations would be blessed and come to know the one true God.

In this case, the meaning of “preeminent” is clearly the correct understanding.

Genesis 48 provides an insightful story that helps us understand the significance of the firstborn.

In this passage, Joseph brings his sons Manasseh and Ephraim to Jacob in order to receive a blessing before Jacob passes.

Jacob is old and his vision is failing. As he reaches out to bless Joseph’s sons, he crosses his arms so that his right hand is on Ephraim instead of Manasseh who is the first offspring of Joseph and therefore the firstborn.

Genesis 48:14 says,

But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, crossing his hands, although Manasseh was the firstborn.

In Genesis 48:18, Joseph tries to correct his father, saying,

“Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn. Place your right hand on his head.”

Jacob tells Joseph that he is aware of the situation and he knows what he is doing. He tells Joseph that Ephraim, though he is the younger, will have a higher position over his brother. He will be the firstborn, the favored son.

Just a few verses later, in the next chapter, Jacob is giving his final words to each of his sons. Here is what he says to Reuben, his first son, in Genesis 49:3-4,

“Reuben, you are my firstborn; My might and the beginning of my strength, Preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. 4“Uncontrolled as water, you shall not have preeminence, Because you went up to your father’s bed; Then you defiled it —he went up to my couch.

Jacob not only defines the term “firstborn” for us but expounds on its significance. The firstborn IS the might of the father AND the beginning of the father’s strength. The firstborn is PREEMINENT.

Jacob tells Reuben that he is the firstborn in terms of offspring. But he would NOT be firstborn in terms of preeminence.

These passages, which show up early in the biblical narrative, demonstrate clearly that the idea of “preeminence” was nearly synonymous with the term “firstborn”.

Though Manasseh was Joseph’s first offspring, it turns out that he was not considered the “firstborn” in terms of stature and rank. In Jeremiah 31:9, God  confirms that “Ephraim is my firstborn.”

In 1 Chronicles 2:13, we read that,

Jesse became the father of Eliab his firstborn, then Abinadab the second, Shimea the third,

In verse 14, we learn that David was the seventh and last son born to Jesse. Yet, in Psalm 89:27, God says about David,

“I also shall make him My firstborn,
The highest of the kings of the earth.

David was not the first offspring of Jesse, but God made David His firstborn.

What does that mean?

It cannot mean that David was “first in line” because David was neither the first offspring of Jesse nor was he the first king of Israel.

What it means is that David was made by God to assume the highest rank among rulers. David was made firstborn – he was made to be preeminent.

The context dictates the meaning and sense of the word and so far, when the word is used in a way that doesn’t mean “first offspring”, it carries the meaning of “preeminence.”

There’s an interesting passage in Job that uses the term firstborn. It’s found in Job 18:13, which says:

“His skin is devoured by disease,
The firstborn of death devours his limbs.

This occurrence is informative because it uses the term “firstborn” with the prepositional phrase “of….” that doesn’t have a person or animal following. Whenever we see a person or animal (cattle, herd) follow, as in “firstborn of Jacob” or “firstborn of cattle”, the term always refers to the first offspring.

But in this case, the “firstborn of” phrase is not followed by a person or animal.

Does the standard Jehovah’s Witness meaning of “first in line” follow?

Not really.

Death is inanimate. It’s not a living organism that gives birth as humans and mammals do.

So what is this verse saying?

This verse is part of a larger discourse by Bildad in which he’s communicating his ideology that the wicked eventually get the punishment they deserve. He’s using this argumentation to try to prove that the reason Job has experienced so much trauma and suffering is because Job’s sin has finally caught up to him.

In describing the punishment the wicked will endure, Bildad claims that the skin of the wicked gets devoured by disease AND the “firstborn of death” devours his limbs. It’s obvious that Bildad is making reference to Job’s physical ailments as a proof of Job’s supposed secret sin.

But what is meant by “firstborn of death”?

Note that this term is very similar to how Paul uses “firstborn” in Colossians 1:18.

If “firstborn” means “first in line” in these kinds of cases, what exactly does that mean?

The context will not allow that interpretation because if you assume that meaning, you end up with a garbled mess of a sentence that is completely incoherent.

It’s clear in this context that death is afflicting its victim. There is no sense in which the term “firstborn of death” includes the meaning “first in line”. Death does not birth anything and does not produce a literal offspring.

But death CAN rule. Death CAN overwhelm. That is the sense that is being conveyed here. There is no meaningful or coherent sense in which “first in line” as a meaning applies to the term “firstborn” here.

There’s another uncommon use of the term “firstborn” in Isaiah that does not follow the typical examples that are littered throughout the Old Testament.

Isaiah 14:30 in the ESV says,

And the firstborn of the poor will graze,
And the needy lie down in safety;
but I will kill your root with famine,
and your remnant it will slay.

Here is another example of the word “firstborn” being used in connection with something that is a non-person and a non-animal, negating the traditional meaning of “first offspring.”

What exactly, then is the “firstborn of the poor” and does the definition of “first in line” fit here given the context?

This verse is part of a prophecy that the Lord is giving to Philistia. God warns that Philistia will experience complete devastation and that only “the firstborn of the poor will graze.”

What exactly does that mean?

One thing it doesn’t mean is “first in line”. If we apply the meaning of “highest rank” or “supreme” then it means that those who are the MOST poor will graze (be fed). In other words, it’s going to be bad, and only the most poor, or the poorest of the poor will survive.

It appears that in pretty much every case where the term “firstborn” is used in a way that doesn’t include the parent with the first offspring, the term means “preeminent.”

As mentioned at the outset, there are only 9 verses in the New Testament that use the term “firstborn”.

There are two verses in Luke 2 that use the term, and in both cases, the term “firstborn” is used to refer to Jesus as Mary’s first offspring.

In Hebrews 11:28, the term “firstborn” is referencing the Egyptian plague when the angel of death passed over the Israelites and all of the firstborn of the Israelites were shielded from the plague.

That leaves 6 more verses that use the term “firstborn” including the two in Colossians. None of these other verses use the term in the normal sense where it obviously refers to the first offspring of a certain person.

I’ll examine each of the non-Colossians verses before coming back to Colossians and then summarizing what this tells us.

Romans 8:29 says,

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

What is this verse saying?

It’s saying that those who become children of God are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus. That is, believers ultimately are going to be LIKE him. We won’t just be declared righteous, we will BE righteous because in the end, our sin nature will finally be eradicated.

This is the sense that we will fully be Christ’s brethren. Though we will be LIKE him, we will not be equal to him. Jesus will be the firstborn among all these brethren, which simply means, he will be preeminent. He will be supreme.

So this verse, as applied to Jesus, does not state that he is the first of Jehovah’s creation. It’s stating that he will have a preeminent position among all of the brethren.

This interpretation makes complete sense if we understand that Jesus is a son by nature but we are sons (and daughters) by adoption.

Hebrews 1:6 says,

And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
“AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”

The term “firstborn” in this verse clearly refers to Jesus, but does it mean that he was the first offspring?

That is a doubtful interpretation for reasons that have already been enumerated. Jesus was not born. Therefore, the more logical understanding of this term as applied to Jesus is “preeminent one”.

This makes sense given the context of Hebrews 1. This passage, starting in verse 5 and ending with verse 13, is demonstrating that Jesus is superior to, or better than the angels.

So when the firstborn, the preeminent one, comes into the world, God says “let all the angels worship Him.” It logically follows that the angels are commanded to worship Jesus because he is preeminent over them.

Now two things should be said about this. First of all, it’s clear from Scripture that only God is to be worshipped. So what does it say about Jesus that God instructs the angels to worship Him?

Secondly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is actually the archangel Michael. They believe that Michael is the highest of angels and that God the Father (Jehovah to the Jehovah’s Witnesses) gave Michael the task of coming into the world to redeem humanity. Michael took on a human nature and changed his name for some reason. When his mission was complete, Jesus returned to heaven and assumed his prior identity as Michael the archangel.

So according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a powerful angel came to earth, took on a human body and God the Father instructed all the other angels to WORSHIP him.

This doesn’t sound like an angel or even someone who is god-like, as Jehovah’s Witnesses will say. This sounds like someone who possesses the divine nature. In fact, this is exactly what Hebrews 1:3 -4 teaches, that Jesus is the EXACT representation of God’s nature AND he is BETTER than the angels. How can he be better than the angels if he himself IS an angel?

Hebrews 12:23 says,

to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,

There is some debate about what the term “church of the firstborn” refers to but we know it does NOT refer to Jesus. It clearly refers to a group of people in heaven. It’s also clear that the idea of “first offspring” is not in view here.

I think the most likely understanding of “firstborn” in this verse is either “favored status” or “inheritance.” Remember that the firstborn son had a favored status and received a double portion of the inheritance. So both of these ideas are already inherent in the term.

In this sense, the phrase “church of the firstborn” likely refers to those who have received the inheritance. In other words, it’s referring to those who, because they have placed their faith in Jesus and belong to him, receive exclusive spiritual blessings that are not available to those who are not in the church.

This view makes more sense than anything resembling “first in line”.

Revelation 1:5 says,

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—

This is the last occurrence of the term “firstborn” in the Bible and it’s the one occurrence that most resembles the usage of Colossians, especially Colossians 1:18.

So what does this mean?

Jehovah’s Witnesses will likely argue for the interpretation that they hold for Colossians 1:18, namely that this means that Jesus is the first to overcome death, that Jesus is “first in line”.

But given the context, noting that John follows this phrase by saying that Jesus is the RULER of the kings of the earth, it makes more sense that John is using the term to communicate that Jesus is the one who is preeminent over death. In other words, Jesus rules over death, just as he rules over the kings of earth.

It bears repeating that Jesus was not born. So what would be the purpose of using the term “firstborn” if it does not apply to Jesus as it applied to Reuben, Manasseh and the dozens of other references that referred to the first offspring of some person?

In other words, the term firstborn, in a majority of cases, was used to identify the first offspring of a person in order to distinguish that person from other siblings who were not first. But since Jesus has no spiritual “siblings”, there is no need to use the term “firstborn” to distinguish him from rival siblings.

Clearly, John is pointing to Jesus’ special status. To conclude otherwise is to stretch or twist the context of these passages and phrases to unnatural and incoherent meanings.

Now let’s circle back to the Colossians verses that use the term “firstborn”.

What we’ve seen in every use of the term “firstborn” is that it most often refers to “first offspring”. But it never means “first offspring” when the term “firstborn” is used in conjunction with  a non-person or non-mammal. In those cases, some form of preeminence, rule or supremacy is meant.

One thing that is clear is that there are no verses where the term firstborn means “first in line”. Yes, it means “first offspring” when speaking of a person or animal that bears offspring in the natural way. However, when “firstborn” is coupled with a non-person, the idea of “first in line” is never in view.

Yet that is exactly what the Jehovah’s Witnesses contend that it means in these two verses in Colossians. They argue that Colossians 1:15 means that Jesus was first in line to be created and Colossians 1:18 means that Jesus was first in line to be raised from the dead.

Their argument is that this understanding is demanded because it is the normal meaning when you see the term.

But, as we’ve seen, it’s only normal when the term is used to refer to “first offspring”. There is no instance where it carries that meaning apart from the term “firstborn” being connected with a living person or an animal such as “cattle” or “herd”.

When the term “firstborn” is used apart from a living person or animal, it always has the meaning of preeminence, supremacy or highest rank.

This rendering makes the most sense in Colossians, especially when you look at the context and realize that Paul is seeking to demonstrate that “in everything Christ might have supremacy.” 

If Paul’s argument is designed to show that Christ will have supremacy in everything (verse 18), then it makes sense that he is going to support that argument by showing that Jesus has supremacy over creation and over death.

So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses still insist that “firstborn”, when attributed to Jesus, means “first in line” when it’s never used that way in any other example?

The answer is that they have manufactured this definition as a way to maintain their theological view that Jesus is a created being.

Jehovah’s Witnesses demonstrate the most egregious form of the Bible study error known as eisegesis, which means to “read into the text.”

In simple terms, the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not approach the text in order to inform their theology. Instead, they add phrases to the text and change the normal meaning of words in order to conform the text to their theology.

It’s clear that, as it relates to Jesus, Paul is using the term “firstborn” in the sense of “preeminence”. This is how the word is used in cases that clearly don’t refer to “first offspring.”

Additionally, the context supports the idea of “preeminence” as the meaning of firstborn.

Paul states that Jesus is the “firstborn of creation” which means Jesus is preeminent over creation.

In the verses that follow, Paul states that Jesus is the creator of all things. So Jesus is preeminent over creation because he is the creator.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have to manufacture a meaning of firstborn to mean something like “first in line” in order to convince you that Paul is trying to tell you that Jesus is the first created being of Jehovah.

Yet if Paul was trying to communicate that Jesus was “first-created”, he would have used the Greek word “protoktisis” which literally means “first-created.”

That Paul didn’t use that word speaks volumes.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses then have to add the word “other” to the text four times in order to change the meaning of the text to show that Jesus is not really the creator as the original Greek text indicates.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are like the person who tells a small lie to promote a false narrative but are then forced to create bigger lies in order to maintain the fabricated story.

They first had to offer up a definition for “firstborn” that is literally not used in any of the more than 100 occurrences of the term.

Then, to keep their narrative alive that Jesus is a created being, they have to add the word “other” to the passage four times. Their explanations and justifications for their interpretive choices get increasingly more complicated and logically convoluted in their effort to maintain their theological view.

The most direct, plain and understandable meaning of this passage is that Jesus is preeminent over creation because he is the creator. Additionally, Jesus is preeminent over death because he conquered death. All of this demonstrates that Jesus will come to have first place (i.e. preeminence) in everything!

No extra words and no uncommon and unnatural definitions are required to arrive at this understanding.

So we are back to my original premise in my first blog post, which is that the word “firstborn” does not mean what the Jehovah’s Witnesses think it means.

Jehovah’s Witnesses would do well to heed the advice of Inigo Montoya, who famously said,

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Do you agree with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of Colossians 1;15 and Colossians 1:18 that the term “firstborn” should be understood as “first in line”? If so, how do you interpret the other passages that use “firstborn” in a context that doesn’t refer to “first offspring”?

Have you ever told a small lie that escalated into much bigger fabrications? What is the motivation for lying in the first place? What are the reasons a person might continue to promote a falsehood?

What are some examples you can think of where a person is so committed to their narrative that they resort to convoluted logic and distorted definitions in an attempt to justify their narrative?

If the term “firstborn” means “first in line” in Colossians, as Jehovah’s Witnesses assert, what exactly is the meaning of the phrase “firstborn from among the dead”? How does the idea of “first in line” apply to Jesus’ death?

 

Photo is a screenshot from the movie “The Princess Bride”

Posted on

Does Philippians 2 Prove Jesus is God? Examining the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Claim

Philippians 2

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature* of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

For those who deny the deity of Christ, such as today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses, Philippians 2 offers one of the clearest passages in the New Testament to attest to the divine nature of Jesus.

Verse 6 is the key statement as Paul says that Jesus, “who being in very nature God…”

According to this verse, Jesus possessed the very nature of God, which means, of course, that Jesus IS God.

How do the Jehovah’s Witnesses explain this passage?

Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly deny that this passage teaches that Jesus is divine. They point to the Greek word “morphe” that the NIV translates as “nature”.

This Greek word “morphe” actually means “form”.

Here then is how the passage is translated by the New American Standard Bible:

5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11, NASB)

Let’s look at this passage where it is translated with the word “form” and  try to determine which interpretation makes more sense – the traditional Christian understanding or the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ understanding.

While most Biblical translators contend that this passage strongly communicates that Jesus, in his very nature, existed as God, which explains why the NIV uses the phrase “being in very nature God”, the Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that this passage demonstrates that Jesus is NOT God.

Their argument is as follows:

Verse 6 says that Jesus existed in the “form” of God.

What is God’s form?

According to John 4:24, “God is Spirit.”

Hence, when Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus existed in the “form of God”, it’s saying that Jesus existed as a spirit.

This argument is not convincing and fails on many levels.

First of all, their understanding of the word “form” does not align with the underlying meaning of the Greek word morphe.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words gives this definition for the word “morphe” [G3444, morphe]:

[morphe] denotes the special or characteristic form or feature” of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Philippians 2:6–Philippians 2:7, in the phrases “being in the form of God,” and “taking the form of a servant.” An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: “morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists. … Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses assign a meaning to the word “form” that is more akin to “shape”, “pattern”, or “that which is seen externally.” The problem is that there is a different Greek word that communicates that idea (G1491, eidos) and Paul did not use that word.

Secondly, if Paul was trying to communicate that Jesus existed as a spirit, why does he say that Jesus existed in the “form of God” instead of the “form of a spirit”? Would that not communicate exactly what the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach without any of the confusion?

Alternatively, why would Paul not just say that Jesus existed in the “form of an angelic being” since Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus is the exalted archangel Michael?

Furthermore, in verse 7, Paul says that Jesus “emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant”.

What exactly is the form of a bond-servant?

The Jehovah’s Witnesses will likely respond that the form of a bond-servant is a person, or a man.

If that’s the case, why does Paul not just say that Jesus took the “form of a person” or the “form of a man”?

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

If we’re to adopt the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of this passage, we are forced to believe that Paul used the phrases “form of God” and “form of a bond-servant” as euphemisms to communicate the simple concept that Jesus was once a “spirit”who then became a “man”.

This is a curious interpretation indeed. Instead of assuming that Paul used the phrases that he did for a particular purpose, we’re asked to believe that Paul used the phrases as sort of intermediate codes that actually point to a different meaning that is not as obvious as the original text. It’s as if we need secret decoder rings to decipher what these phrases actually mean.

There’s another reason why the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ understanding of these terms is flawed.

Later in verse 7, Paul says that Jesus was “made in the likeness of men”. So he explicitly says later in the same verse, using a different phrase, that Jesus became a man. So how can one argue that the phrase “taking the form of a bond-servant” means that Jesus became a man when Paul communicates that very idea later in the same verse but with a different phrase?

According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation, if we swap out Paul’s “form of” phrases for the meaning that the Jehovah’s Witnesses ascribe to them, we’re left with the following bizarre rendering of verse 7:

Jesus emptied himself….he became a man, and being made in likeness of men.

We end up with a garbled redundancy that makes no sense. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ explanation of this passage is a classic example of Scripture twisting. In their effort to make the passage say something other than what it clearly states, we end up with meaningless phrases and incoherent sentences.

It’s obvious that the phrase “form of” carries the meaning of “nature”, which means that Jesus possessed the nature of God but then took on the nature of a bond-servant. There is no other reasonable explanation for why Paul would couple the terms “God” and “bond-servant” with the phrase “form of” if he only intended to communicate that Jesus existed as a “spirit” but then became a “man.”

Paul must be using these phrases for a specific reason, otherwise, why use them?

This understanding of the word “form” is confirmed by Vines, which states:

The true meaning of morphe [nature] in the expression ‘form of God’ is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, ‘form of a servant.’ It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that ‘form’ must therefore have the same sense in both.” * [* From Gillford, “The Incarnation,” pp. 16,19,39.] (bold brackets added)

It’s clear that a bond-servant is a particular type of man. A bond-servant is a “man” who possesses specific characteristics which Jesus then embodied.

Similarly, God is Spirit, but not just any spirit. He is DIVINE spirit. Therefore, Paul is communicating that Jesus is a spirit who embodied the qualities of God. His statement is literally one of the clearest declarations of the divine nature of Jesus in all of Scripture.

There’s no doubt why Paul is using these terms and exactly what is being communicated – Jesus existed with the form, i.e. the nature of God, but he emptied himself, meaning he gave up his rights and his position as God in order to take on the form, i.e. the nature of a bond-servant, someone who was completely obedient to the Father, in order to accomplish the purpose of redeeming and reconciling mankind.

If there was any doubt that this is the correct understanding of verses 6 & 7, we only need to look at the verses that follow, which indicate that as a result of Jesus’ death on the cross, the Father exalts Jesus so that EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord.

Jesus will be worshiped by EVERYONE. Since only God can legitimately receive worship, Paul is clearly communicating that Jesus possesses the nature of God and will eventually be worshiped as such by the entire created order.

If one adopts the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ understanding of this verse, you have the awkward situation where Jesus, who is NOT divine, is exalted to a position where he is clearly worshiped by all of creation.

How exactly does that work? How can Jesus receive worship if he is not God?

Clearly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not allow the biblical text to inform their theology. Instead, they have a consistent pattern of conforming the biblical text to their pre-determined theological conclusion, namely, their view that Jesus is NOT God.

To make the Scriptures conform to this theological outcome, they must add words to various texts, while changing the meaning of words in other texts, all the while ignoring context and plain logic.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Are you convinced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ explanation of this verse? Why or why not?

If Jesus is NOT divine, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses contend, how do you explain the fact that Jesus will be exalted and EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord? In other words, how can Jesus be worshiped if he is not God?

The author of the post says that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not allow the biblical text to inform their theology but instead they conform the biblical text to their theology. What do you think that means? In what ways do you see people, including Christians, doing the same thing? What is the danger of interpreting the Bible in this way?

Paul invites the reader to have the same attitude that Jesus had. What is that attitude? How can you demonstrate that same attitude in your life today? This week? 

 

Image created by Grok

Posted on

Evidence that Jesus is God – Part 2

John 10

22Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. (John 10:22-39, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Lately I’ve had a number of online conversations with some Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding the nature of Jesus. Most of the discussions have come about as a result of a Jehovah’s Witness responding to one of my many blog posts on the topic, including the following:

One recent discussion has centered around my blog post “Evidence that Jesus is God” which is based on Jesus’ interaction with the religious leaders in John 10:22-33.

I encourage you to read the entire post to get the full argument, but the summary of that post is as follows:

    1. Jesus claimed that he and the Father are one which I argued was a clear claim of divinity by Jesus.
    2. Jehovah’s Witnesses typically respond that Jesus was only claiming to be “one in purpose” with the Father – he was not claiming deity.
    3. But the context of the passage shows that the explanation offered by the Jehovah’s Witnesses is unlikely as the Jewish leaders picked up stones to kill him.
    4. When Jesus asks why they want to stone him, they respond, “for blasphemy – you being a mere man claim to be God.” It’s clear from the context that the Jewish religious leaders understood Jesus to be making a claim of deity. Why else would they accuse him of blasphemy?
    5. I point out that if Jesus was only “one in purpose” with the Father, if he was NOT claiming to be God, then why did Jesus not correct their misunderstanding as Paul and Barnabas did in Acts 14 when the locals mistook them for gods?
    6. I argued that the reason Jesus didn’t correct the religious leaders was because their understanding of the claim he was making was clearly correct.

In this recent online encounter, a committed Jehovah’s Witness responded to my post by quoting the fuller text of John 10:22-38, arguing that in the verses that followed (which I had not included in my original post) Jesus DID correct their misunderstanding by claiming to be a “little g” god instead of a “big G” God.

His argument is that Jesus explained to these Jewish leaders that he is God’s son in the same way that others in the Old Testament were called “gods.” This is conclusive proof, according to this Jehovah’s Witness, that Jesus has defined for us what he means when he calls himself the Son of God – he does NOT claim equality with the Father, but is simply claiming a status as a “little g” god, which has been attributed to many other “mere men” in the past.

What are we to make of this argument? Is he on to something that has been overlooked and ignored by the traditional church for the last 2000 years?

I think the answer is clearly NO, and I’ll explain why.

As you read through the gospels, it’s apparent that the Jewish religious leaders are opposed to Jesus. They don’t like him and in fact, they resort to seeking to kill him.

The deeper question is why don’t they like him? Why are they so opposed to him? Regardless of what you believe about Jesus’ nature, most agree that he was the greatest moral teacher to ever live. Jesus traveled around healing and helping people. Isn’t that a good thing? So why are these religious leaders so intent on killing him?

In Jesus’ encounters with the religious leaders there is one thing in common – he seeks to expose their hard-heartedness. He does this in various ways by unmasking their selfishness, their hypocrisy and their duplicitous nature.

Jesus’ harshest words are reserved for these very religious leaders, who not only opposed him but are often seen trying to entrap him into saying or doing something that could be used against him.

Though Jesus has healed the sick, raised the dead, exorcised the demon-possessed and performed numerous miracles, they still come to him demanding a sign. I wrote about their unreasonable demands and Jesus’ response in my blog post “When Someone DEMANDS Evidence!”

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

So what is Jesus doing in this passage? What’s he saying to these religious leaders?

Jesus is setting a logical trap for these religious leaders.

How exactly does he do this?

Let’s look at the full interaction.

Jesus is walking around minding his own business when he’s encountered by the religious leaders who once again ask,

“how long will you keep us in suspense? If you’re the Christ, tell us plainly.”

Jesus responds that he’s already told them plainly but they just don’t want to believe. He then appeals to the many miracles he had done in the Father’s name, evidence which he says speaks for itself.

The next two verses are important to the foundation Jesus is laying for the intellectual trap that he’s setting: Jesus says that the reason they don’t believe is because they are NOT his sheep. His sheep hear his voice and follow him, but they’re incapable of hearing his voice and following him because they are NOT his sheep.

Remember, he had a similar encounter with the religious leaders just two chapters earlier in John 8, where Jesus told them that their true father is the devil. I wrote about this critical exchange in my post “Who’s Your Daddy?”

Jesus is addressing the hardness of their heart. They see the miracles just like everyone else yet it has no effect. They come to Jesus and demand more evidence, more miracles, more proof. Jesus isn’t playing their game. He’s telling them that the miracles he has done speak for themselves and so he has no need to provide any more evidence.

In verse 28, Jesus continues speaking about his sheep, his true followers, saying that he gives them eternal life, they will never perish and that no one can snatch them out of his hand.

Who but God can grant eternal life and promise eternal protection for his followers?

Jesus is telling these religious leaders that he performs activities that are attributed only to God. This is an additional evidence for Jesus’ deity. Not only does Jesus make direct claims of deity, but he performs acts and possesses qualities that can only be attributed to God.

Jesus then says that the Father has given him the sheep and no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand. So in two consecutive verses, Jesus has said that no one can snatch the followers out of his hand AND no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

In the very next verse (John 10:30) Jesus says,

I and the Father are one.

This is not simply “oneness of purpose” as Jehovah’s Witnesses argue. This is oneness of essence and activity. Jesus is appealing to a special relational unity.

It’s clear from the response that the Jewish religious leaders understood what Jesus was saying as they picked up stones to stone him. When Jesus asks why they’re picking up stones, they reply that it’s not because of his works,

but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.

Now this is where we get into the response from my recent online conversation with a Jehovah’s Witness.

He argues that what follows in the text is Jesus’ explanation of his true nature, that he is just a man who is a servant of God and so when he calls himself the son of God, it’s just like Psalm 82:6 (which Jesus himself references) when other men were called “gods”.

Unfortunately, my online Jehovah’s Witness friend completely misunderstands and misinterprets what is happening in this exchange.

Remember, Jesus’ encounters with the religious leaders often showed him exposing the hardness of their heart – their greed, their selfishness, their hypocrisy, their lust for power, their stubborn unwillingness to believe. This encounter is no different. Jesus has now set the trap that will reveal their true intentions.

How so?

They’ve already said that they believe that Jesus is a mere man who is claiming to be God. This was their basis for charging him with blasphemy. So Jesus appeals to Psalm 82:6 and essentially says, “well if I’m just a man, what reason do you have to accuse me of blasphemy? Wouldn’t I be just like these other ‘mere men’ who were servants of God?”

For emphasis, Jesus adds “this is in your Law!”

The argument made by my online Jehovah’s Witness opponent is that Jesus has just admitted to being a “mere man” who is a servant of God. Therefore, he is a “little g” god. This fits perfectly with the doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which denies that Jesus is God but says that he’s “god-like”.

But Jesus has not stated that he’s a “little g” god. He has simply referenced a passage from Psalm 82:6 in order to set the trap.

Jesus continues with his response by saying that if the Scriptures, which cannot be broken, called these other people “gods” then

“what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?”

Instead of calling himself a “god”, Jesus has just established that he’s superior to the so-called “gods” of Psalm 82:6 by virtue of his unique and special relationship with the Father. Jesus then reasserts that he does what the Father does.

Jesus then tells these religious leaders essentially, “look, if you don’t believe what I say, at least believe the miracles that I’m doing. This should prove to you that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

This last statement is another declaration of the special unity that Jesus has with the Father. This is more than just “oneness of purpose” as if Jesus has simply adopted allegiance to a corporate mission statement.

Jesus has consistently communicated a unity with the Father that the religious leaders interpreted as a claim of deity. This is clear throughout the gospels as Jesus encounters the religious leaders. And it’s the exact reason why they sought to kill him and eventually did kill him.

Verse 39 makes this clear as it says,

Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

The point that was made in the initial post, “Evidence that Jesus is God” still stands. Jesus made a statement about himself that his opponents interpreted as a claim of deity. Jesus does not correct their misunderstanding. Yes, Jesus refers to Psalm 82:6, which references people as “gods” but he does so as a tactic to reveal to the religious leaders that their problem was not that Jesus wasn’t clear and it was not that he hadn’t provided enough evidence of who he was.

Their problem was that their will (heart) refused to believe what their minds knew to be true. This is hard-heartedness, which will cause us to defy logic and all rationality in our attempt to hold to a pre-suppositional belief.

The Jewish religious leaders are an illustration for humanity – we have been given all the evidence we need to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, God in the flesh, and yet if we refuse to believe, it’s because we don’t want to. That is the very definition of a hard heart.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

When is a time that you did not want to believe a truth that was clearly presented to you? What are examples in your own life where you’ve demonstrated a hardness of your heart?

If Jesus did admit to the religious leaders that he was not deity, but only a “god” in the sense demonstrated in Psalm 82:6, as Jehovah’s Witnesses contend, how do you explain the Jewish leaders’ continued desire to seize him and kill him for blasphemy?

What do you think Jesus means when he claims that he and the Father are one? 

What do you think Jesus means when he says “that the Father is in me, and I in the Father”?

What do you think is the benefit of engaging in this kind of discussion about the nature of Jesus? Do you think it really matters how we view him? Why or why not?

 

Photo by Tim Hüfner on Unsplash

Posted on

How Does Isaiah 44 Demonstrate that Jesus is God?

If you’re wondering why there is an image of a pretzel with a side of mustard for a blog post related to Isaiah 44, read to the end of the post to find out

Isaiah 44

24The LORD, your Redeemer and Creator, says: “I am the LORD, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens. By myself I made the earth and everything in it. (Isaiah 44:24, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

The lion’s share of verses in Isaiah 44 deal with the foolishness of idols, which I wrote about in my blog post “A Discourse on the Foolishness of Idols”.

However, at the end of Isaiah 44, the prophecy shifts as God gives His people hope regarding the future restoration of the holy city of Jerusalem, which has been decimated due to the fact that many of its inhabitants have been exiled to Babylon. It’s this later passage that I want to focus on in this post, specifically, the first verse in that section.

You’re probably asking, “how exactly does Isaiah 44 demonstrate that Jesus is God, especially since Jesus isn’t mentioned at all in the passage?”

That’s a good question. To answer that question, we must first look at a New Testament passage from Colossians 1.

Speaking of Jesus, Paul, in Colossians 1:16-17, says:

16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (NIV)

The clear teaching of these verses is unmistakeable. Jesus is the creator of ALL things. As such, He CANNOT himself be a created thing. In addition, He is BEFORE all things, which means He existed before all things. That means He is eternal. Lastly, He holds all things together, which means He is all-powerful.

By every possible measure, these two verses unequivocally teach that Jesus is God, for He possesses attributes that only God possesses (eternality, omnipotence) and He performs acts that only God could perform, namely creating ALL things.

What’s interesting though is how this same passage is interpreted by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Jehovah’s Witnesses do not use any of the standard Christian Bible translations that you’re probably familiar with. Instead, they have their own translation, The New World Translation (NWT), which renders Colossians 1:16-17 this way:

16  because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.  17  Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,  (NWT)

Do you notice the differences between these two translations?

The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation inserts the word “other” into the text four times despite the fact that the word “other” is nowhere in the original Greek text. So why is this word inserted four times into the text when it’s not in the original Greek text?

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

It’s obvious that the Jehovah’s Witnesses add the word “other” multiple times in order to dilute the clear meaning of the original Greek text, which is that Jesus is the creator of ALL things.

Not only do the Jehovah’s Witnesses unjustifiably add the word “other” to the text, but they do so deceptively.

It’s customary in Bible translations to put any added word in brackets if isn’t in the original Greek text. When the reader sees a word in brackets, it’s a cue that the word is not original to the text but has been added by the translators for some reason, usually for readability.

The online version of the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation. Note that Colossians 1:16-17 does not have brackets around the four occurrences of the word “other” despite the fact that the word “other” appears nowhere in the original Greek text.

It is highly unusual that a translator would add a word to the translation that isn’t in the original Greek and NOT put it in brackets, especially when the addition of the word completely changes the meaning of the text. One can only conclude that the Jehovah’s Witnesses omit the brackets in order to deceive the average person, who will naturally assume that the Jehovah’s Witnesses version of the text accurately reflects what the original Greek text says.

The obvious teaching from Colossians 1:16-17 is uncomfortable to Jehovah’s Witnesses who are so committed to their doctrine that Jesus is a created being that they MUST add the word “other” in order to make the passage fit their doctrinal bias.

Now I’m certain that after I post this online, I’ll encounter many Jehovah’s Witnesses who will attempt to educate me on why it’s ok and even necessary for their translators to add the word “other” to this passage.

Their argument is that the Greek word “panta” can be translated “all other” in some contexts in order to make the reading more “smooth”.  They will undoubtedly point to Luke 13:2 as an example where “panta” is translated as “all other Galileans” instead of just “all Galileans”.

While it’s true that panta can be translated as “all other” in some contexts, it’s not true that it can be translated “all other” whenever the word occurs. The general rule is that the addition of the word “other” is acceptable if it makes the verse more readable BUT DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE VERSE.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses violate this rule by adding the word “other” four times to Colossians 1:16-17 because that is the only way to make those two verses align with their teaching that Jesus is a created being.

So what does any of this have to do with Isaiah 44:24, which is supposed to be the subject of this devotional blog post?

I’m glad you asked.

Let’s assume for one moment that grammatically, the Jehovah’s Witnesses addition of the word “other” four times is linguistically allowed. It’s not, since the word appears nowhere in the original Greek text, but let’s just play along for the sake of argument.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses theological position is that Jehovah created Jesus and THEN Jesus created everything else (all other things).

But Isaiah 44:24 directly refutes this position, as Jehovah says:

I am the LORD, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens. By myself I made the earth and everything in it.

Did you catch that?

Jehovah says that he acted ALONE and created ALL THINGS by HIMSELF. He made the earth and EVERYTHING in it.

This directly refutes the Jehovah’s Witnesses doctrinal teaching that Jesus was first created and then created all “other” things.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses teaching is therefore logically false. In order to accept their teaching, one must ignore certain scriptures altogether while directly altering other verses in an effort to bring them into alignment with their prescribed viewpoint.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus is created and then Jesus created all “other” things. This view is communicated only in the Jehovah’s Witnesses own translation (the NWT) which conveniently changes key verses in order to force them to agree with their heretical christological view.

Colossians 1:16-17 clearly teaches that all things were created by Jesus, which means he himself cannot be created. Adding the word “other” becomes problematic for Jehovah’s Witnesses as it means they must either deny the clear teaching of Isaiah 44:24 or try to explain it using some other kind of pretzel logic.

The problem for Jehovah’s Witnesses is that they have created so many doctrinal pretzels with their edited translation that their isn’t enough theological mustard available in the world to help us choke down what they’re serving.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

Reflection

If Jesus created all “other” things, how is it possible that Jehovah alone created all things by himself?

How do you explain the fact that all major Bible translations omit the word “other” from Colossians 1:16-17 but the Jehovah’s Witnesses add the word four times?

If Jesus is indeed the creator of all things, and is indeed before all things, what does that imply about his nature?

If Jesus is a created being, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim, how does Jesus secure salvation for humankind? In other words, how is it possible that a being who is not eternal and who is not infinitely holy can secure forgiveness and redemption for mankind?

 

Photo Created with Grok
Posted on

Did Paul Predict an Apostasy in Which the Church Would be Completely Lost?

2 Thessalonians 2

1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

5Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-13, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Not long ago, I was engaged in an online conversation with a Mormon who was explaining the necessity and legitimacy of the Mormon church.

You can read about the larger context that prompted this discussion in my blog post “Should People Take the Mormon Challenge?”

If you’re not familiar with Mormonism, you should know that it is not just another of the many Christian denominations that exist. It is something entirely different from the traditional Christianity that is represented by the many mainline Christian denominations and traditions.

Mormonism was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith, who, according to his testimony, was confused by the many different Christian denominations in place at the time. He sought to determine which one was right so he could know which one he should follow.

Joseph Smith claims that he received a revelation directly from God the Father and Jesus, in which he was told that NONE of the denominations were correct and that he should not follow any of them.

Supposedly, Joseph Smith was later directed by an angel to some buried golden plates, which were subsequently translated into “The Book of Mormon”.  Not long after, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormonism) was formed as the re-establishment of the true church that had allegedly been lost ever since the original apostles died off.

Interestingly, Mormonism today seeks to be known as “Christian” even though all of the Christian denominations of today were apparently labeled by Jesus himself as wrong.

Naturally, most Christians today do not think that they’re wrong, nor do they believe that they have fallen off the path, as Joseph Smith maintains that Jesus told him.

Hence, there is genuine debate regarding the origins of Mormonism and the truthfulness of its claims.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

A key argument that Mormons make to support their claim that Jesus visited Joseph Smith is the assertion that the original New Testament church fell into apostasy and the original church teachings and church authority were lost….for nearly 1800 years!

This passage in 2 Thessalonians is often used as one proof text to assert that Paul himself predicted that the church would fall into apostasy.

If the church indeed fell into apostasy and it can be demonstrated that even the apostles knew this would happen, then the idea that Jesus would appear at some point to someone to re-establish the true church seems at least plausible, if not inevitable.

Unfortunately, there are quite a number of problems with the Mormon teaching on this passage as it relates to their view of a universal and cataclysmic apostasy of the church.

First of all, how does one reconcile the Mormon view that the church fell into apostasy and was lost with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 16, in which he said that he would establish his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it? Jesus taught that nothing could ultimately eliminate his church. Yet Mormons teach that the gates of hell could prevail against Christ’s church and indeed DID prevail….for nearly 1800 years!

Secondly, if the church DID fall into apostasy and was completely lost (which we assert is not possible according to Jesus), why would Jesus wait 1800 years to re-establish His church? That’s an awfully long time with a lot of lost people who ultimately had no hope, given the complete absence of the church.

Third, Mormons make the interpretive error of eisegesis (reading their preferred interpretation into the text) when they assume that passages which warn of false teachers and ideologies are evidence of a universal apostasy in which the church would be lost. While Jesus and the apostles often warned of false teachers and frequently pointed to our sinful tendencies to pursue worldly desires at the expense of following Christ and obeying His Great Commission, there are NO passages where Jesus or any of his apostles predict that the universal church and its teachings would be completely lost.

Finally, this passage in 2 Thessalonians 2 is offered up as one of several primary passages that speak to this alleged apostasy. According to Mormon teaching, Jesus, Paul and others all KNEW that the church would fall into apostasy and spoke openly about it.

The problem for Mormons is that this passage says nothing about the church being lost, nor does it even hint that there would be a universal apostasy shortly after the apostles left the scene. In short, this passage doesn’t teach what Mormons say it teaches.

It’s clear from the very first verse of this chapter that Paul is speaking about the 2nd coming of Christ. Paul had taught the Thessalonians about this subject on many occasions, as he states in verse 5.

The Thessalonians were confused about the timing of the 2nd coming and were anxious because of false reports coming from would-be prophets and random itinerant preachers who claimed that the day of the Lord had already occurred.

The Thessalonians were worried that perhaps they had missed the big day and had been left behind. Paul assures them that the “day of the Lord”, which refers to the 2nd coming of Christ, had NOT happened yet and would not happen until certain visible and identifiable events had taken place.

Paul lists these events, including the “man of lawlessness” entering the temple and calling himself god.

This event clearly has not happened yet and when it does happen, it will not lead to an apostasy of the church as Mormons claim, but it will lead to the 2nd coming of Christ as is clear from verse 1.

Since it’s clear from the text that the events Paul is talking about are STILL future events, this passage cannot be legitimately offered up as evidence that the church was lost shortly after the apostles died off and therefore needed to be restored nearly 1800 years later.

The truth is, there is no evidence that the church of the New Testament was ever lost. Sure, there have been many within the church who have been led to follow a path of false teachings. That has always been the case. Even in the time of the apostles we see that there were many false teachers and many false teachings. We even see devout disciples who are led astray. But none of this proves that the church as a whole was fully and fundamentally lost.

Additionally, there is no evidence that the New Testament church’s teachings and structure resembled anything remotely mirroring the current Mormon church.

The New Testament documents are fairly well preserved and we can trace the traditions and the teachings of not only the apostles but the early church fathers. Historically, we can trace theological heresies as well as denominational splinter groups. We can compare all of it with the teachings of the New Testament to determine what is accurate and what is not.

Mormonism wants you to believe that Jesus told Joseph Smith that all the Christian denominations were wrong and that Mormonism is right.

The problem is that we cannot verify that Joseph Smith ever had a real encounter with Jesus, but we can evaluate Mormon teachings to those of Jesus and the New Testament apostles. By that metric, Mormonism fails because it teaches a gospel message that is in stark contrast to that which we know was taught by Jesus and his disciples.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Mormons claim that this passage teaches a universal apostasy of the church shortly after the apostles died off. Based on the plain reading of the text, do you agree that this is what Paul is teaching? Why or why not?

Mormons say that church authority and structure were lost when the church fell into apostasy. Yet Jesus taught that the gates of hell could not prevail against His church. How does one ultimately determine which view is correct? What standards or protocols do you think are needed to evaluate the veracity of each sides’ claims?

We have a record of Jesus’ teachings and the teachings of many of His disciples. We call this the New Testament. Do you think the New Testament has been accurately preserved? In other words, do you believe that the New Testament is an accurate reflection of the account of Jesus’ life and ministry as well as an accurate account of the New Testament church and its teachings? What are the reasons for the position you hold?

If the church did fall into apostasy and was completely lost as Mormons claim, when and where did the “man of lawlessness” event take place? To what is Paul referring to?

Paul says that “the secret power of lawlessness is already at work”? What is Paul referring to? What does that mean? Paul also says that “the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.” Who do you think is the one who now holds back the secret power of lawlessness?

 

Image created by Grok

Posted on

Did Jesus Teach that You Need to be Baptized to be Saved?

John 3

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.

4“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”

5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

9“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” (John 3:1-21, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

A few weeks ago, I had an online encounter with a Mormon who, in his quest to explain the legitimacy and necessity of the Mormon church, made the claim that the Bible teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation.

One of the passages he referenced to back up his claim was this passage from John 3, where Jesus has a conversation with Nicodemus, a Pharisee who came to Jesus secretly at night.

I previously wrote on this same passage (John 3:1-8) in my blog post “The Born-Again Redundancy” but that post, while it expounded some on the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus, never addressed the issue of baptism.

There’s a good reason why my previous post did not talk about the issue of baptism and that’s because neither the word nor the concept is found anywhere in the passage.

But since this passage was offered up as a proof text for the view that baptism by immersion with water (what I’ll from here on out refer to as “water baptism” or “baptismal regeneration”) is essential for salvation, it seems necessary and appropriate to comment on what Jesus is actually teaching in this passage.

If the words “baptism” and “baptize” are nowhere to be found within this passage, why would someone use this passage as “evidence” that Jesus taught baptism was necessary for salvation?

In short, I believe this passage is used as evidence by those who hold to the necessity of baptism for salvation simply because Jesus mentions water.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

As I conversed with this Mormon acquaintance online, he noted that Jesus himself said that in order to enter the Kingdom of God, one must be born of water and the Spirit. He argued that when Jesus mentioned being “born of water” he was referencing the ordinance of baptism.

This conclusion is actually a perfect example of the theological error known as eisegesis, which means “to read into the text.”

What exactly does that mean?

When we read and study the Bible, our goal should be to understand what the author meant when he wrote what he wrote. We do our best to place ourselves in the context of the person living at the time the text was written and seek to understand what it would have meant to a person living within that culture at that specific time. This is known as exegesis, or “drawing out of the text.”

When we understand what the author’s original intent was, we can then understand how the original hearer of the text would have understood what they were reading and hearing. That is the original message we want to capture, understand and apply to our own situation.

But eisegesis functions in the exact opposite way. Instead of seeking to understand what the text meant to the original audience, the person imports their preferred meaning into the text and then declares that to be the teaching.

So in our case, it looks like this:

Jesus had a conversation with Nicodemus about how one enters the kingdom of God and Jesus said that a person must be born of water and the Spirit.

Even though Jesus says nothing about baptism and it’s unclear at first glance what it means to be born of water and what it means to be born of the Spirit, the person who holds to baptismal regeneration has already concluded that the passage is talking about baptism.

Since the conclusion is already determined, reasons justifying that conclusion are then produced. In this case, the passage has the term water in it and baptism requires water so it is argued that this passage must be speaking about baptism.

This line of reasoning utterly fails.

Not only does Jesus not say baptism is necessary for salvation, he doesn’t even mention baptism in this interchange.

So then what is Jesus saying?

I explain this more fully in my blog post “The Born-Again Redundancy” but Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus that just as a person is born physically which leads to physical life, so a person must be born spiritually in order to experience spiritual life, or life in the kingdom of God.

Jesus himself explains what is meant by the phrase “being born of water and the Spirit” when he says just a few verses later that “flesh gives birth to flesh but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.”

It’s clear that being born of water refers to physical birth while being born of the Spirit refers to a spiritual birth. According to Jesus, both are necessary for salvation. In reality, everyone who has ever existed has already experienced physical birth just by being born.

So then, what is necessary to enter the kingdom of God is to experience a spiritual birth. This is the entire point Jesus is making to Nicodemus – to enter the kingdom of God, you must experience a spiritual birth.

The natural question then is “how does one experience a spiritual birth?”

Notice that as Jesus continues his discourse with Nicodemus, he does not mention baptism as a condition for salvation (spiritual birth). In fact, baptism is not mentioned anywhere in the passage.

What Jesus DOES mention as necessary for salvation, multiple times in fact, is BELIEF.

Specifically, in verse 15, Jesus says “that everyone who believes in him [Jesus] may have eternal life.”

Again, in verse 16, one of the most famously quoted verses in the entire Bible, Jesus says “that whoever believes in him [Jesus] shall not perish but have eternal life.”

So what is the verdict?

Concerning the charge that Jesus taught that baptism was/is necessary for salvation, the charge is false. Jesus did not teach that in this passage. Instead, he taught that a spiritual birth is necessary in order to know God and experience life in his kingdom. Jesus, as well as the other New Testament authors, taught that this spiritual birth comes as a result of BELIEF in the person and the work of Jesus on the cross.

To examine this issue further, see the following related posts:

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What are some examples you have seen of eisegesis – when a person imports their doctrine or theological preference upon a text that doesn’t appear to be teaching that doctrine or idea at all?

If you believe that Jesus, in this passage, is talking about the importance of baptism to Nicodemus, what reasons do you have to support that interpretation?

Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to see the kingdom of God, a person must be “born again”. What do you think it means to be “born again?” How do you understand that phrase?

It’s clear that Nicodemus falsely understood Jesus’ term “born again” to be referring to a 2nd physical birth. Jesus corrects him and explains that he’s talking about a spiritual reality that must take place. Based on this passage, what does Jesus teach about how a person experiences this spiritual birth?

Have you personally experienced a spiritual birth? If not, what keeps you from taking that step?

If you want to learn more about experiencing a “spiritual birth” and experiencing eternal life and life in the kingdom of God, read my blog post “Four Points to Understand How to Experience Eternal Life.”

 

Photo by Daniel & Hannah Snipes: https://www.pexels.com/photo/outdoor-baptism-ceremony-in-south-carolina-30477080/

Posted on

Should People Take the Mormon “Challenge”?

Galatians 1

6I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who in his love and mercy called you to share the eternal life he gives through Christ. You are already following a different way 7that pretends to be the Good News but is not the Good News at all. You are being fooled by those who twist and change the truth concerning Christ.

8Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. 9I will say it again: If anyone preaches any other gospel than the one you welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon that person.

10Obviously, I’m not trying to be a people pleaser! No, I am trying to please God. If I were still trying to please people, I would not be Christ’s servant. (Galatians 1:6-10, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

If you haven’t noticed, Mormonism has been a huge topic on social media the last few days. The main topic of discussion and debate has been centered around the question of whether or not Mormons are Christians.

For context, the Department of Defense recently posted a memo regarding new abbreviated codes to identify the many different religious backgrounds that might be represented among the troops.

According to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, the previous list of religious options was out of control, with over 200 different options. The goal was to simplify the number of codes and options, making it easier for chaplains to do their job of ministering to the troops.

The problem was that the new list had a number of different Christian denominations listed, such as “Christian-Baptist” and “Christian-Presbyterian” but the Mormon Church was not listed as Christian. Instead, it was listed simply as “Latter Day Saint.”

This set off a firestorm among many Mormon influencers and regular Mormon Joes who were offended that the U.S. government apparently didn’t consider Mormons to be Christian.

Chief among those speaking out online were Utah Senator Mike Lee (@basedMikeLee on X), who took every opportunity to post his thoughts and objections to this “egregious error” inflicted on Latter Day Saints.

This incident sparked a lot of online conversations about whether or not Mormons are Christians.

Mormons, of course, believe they ARE Christians, while evangelicals have argued that Mormons are NOT Christians because, despite the fact that Jesus Christ is in their name, they do not hold to the traditional Christian doctrinal views on Jesus, God, the Church, salvation, or the Scriptures.

The online discussion afforded many Mormons, including Senator Lee, the opportunity to inform and proselytize others regarding the Mormon faith.

In one of his posts, Senator Lee offered up what I’m calling the “Mormon challenge”:

This is the Mormon “trump” card so to speak. “Just read the Book of Mormon in it’s entirety”, they say, “and ask God humbly and with sincerity if it’s true.” This challenge is often offered as a gauntlet that is laid down for those who portend to be truth-seekers.

“What do you have to lose”, Mormons ask. The sentiment is, “Don’t be a chicken!”

Millions of Mormons attest that Mormonism is indeed true based on this challenge.

Should Christians accept this challenge?

The answer is a resounding NO.

There are two reasons why Christians should not take this challenge and neither of them have to do with being scared of the outcome.

The first reason you should not take this challenge is because it’s not falsifiable. The challenge is actually like the old “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition, which means that the challenge is designed to “prove” Mormonism is true regardless of the results of your humble and sincere prayer.

Think about it: if you pray and you say that you felt nothing or you didn’t get any firm and obvious confirmation from your prayer, the Mormon can just say that you were obviously not sincere enough, or humble enough or something similar.

Yet if you say that you DID feel something, that emotional response, regardless of how small or incomprehensible, is offered as proof that Mormonism is true.

In other words, the challenge simply appeals to an emotional response as evidence of veracity.

This leads to the second reason one should NOT take this challenge, which is that it’s unbiblical.

Nowhere in Scripture are people encouraged to evaluate truth claims by appealing to an emotional response.

Instead, we are exhorted to test a message against the clear revelation that has already been given by God.

Acts 17 is a good example of this. I have written about this passage in another blog post, “Fact-Checking and Misinformation in the New Testament” in which the Bereans were commended for testing Paul’s message against the Scriptures.

A second clear example of testing a message is in the Galatians passage listed above, in which Paul tells his audience that any “gospel” message that is not in alignment or in agreement with the gospel message he had already preached to them was to be rejected. Paul tells the Galatians that the person giving this false message is to be cursed.

We know exactly what the message was that Paul originally preached to the Galatians because he writes his letter to the Galatians to reinforce the original message and to correct their subsequent misunderstanding brought about by false teachers. The gospel message Paul preached was a message of justification by faith in Christ alone, apart from any works.

Since we already know that the Mormon message is different than Paul’s message on many different levels doctrinally, there is no need to “pray on it.” In fact, reading the Book of Mormon and praying on it could be considered disobedience to Paul’s admonition to outright reject so-called gospel messages that are different from what he taught the Galatians.

The debate about whether Mormons are Christian or not, while interesting, is in many ways irrelevant. The truth is that anyone can identify themselves as a Christian. Yet, it’s not as important what you call yourself as what you believe.

Mormons say they are Christians because they follow Jesus Christ. But so do Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Liberal Christians and even Progressive Christians. Even Muslims will tell you that they respect and revere Jesus as a prophet.

All these groups, along with Latter Day Saints, have wildly different theological views on God, Jesus, salvation and the nature of the church, and yet, they all consider themselves “Christian”.

Are they Christian? The only way we can really know is to evaluate their beliefs in relation to what the Bible teaches.

With that in mind, I propose an alternate challenge to those who consider themselves Mormons…a challenge that is actually biblical. The challenge is to read the Bible cover to cover. Then compare the teachings of Mormonism with the teachings of the Bible, and specifically, compare the Mormon message with the gospel message taught by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament.

Then tell me – does Mormonism line up with the already revealed and accepted teachings of Jesus and the apostles?

So Mike Lee (and other Mormons)….will you accept the challenge?

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What is your definition of a Christian? According to the Bible and the gospel, how does one become a Christian?

What was the essence of the salvation message taught by Jesus and His disciples? What is the essence of the Mormon message regarding how a person is saved?

What is the traditional Christian teaching on the nature of Jesus? How do Mormons view the nature of Jesus? Are these two views the same? How do they differ?

Do you think it matters what a person believes about Jesus in order to be saved? Or is it simply enough to say you believe in Jesus? 

 

photo by Dave Lowe