Is Jesus Actually the Archangel Michael?

Hebrews 1

¹In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, ²but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. ³The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. ⁴So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

⁵For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?

Or again,

“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”

⁶And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

⁷In speaking of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire.”

⁸But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

⁹You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

¹⁰He also says,

“In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.

¹¹They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.

¹²You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.

But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”

¹³To which of the angels did God ever say,

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool

¹⁴Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation? (Hebrews 1:1-14, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Did you know that the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is actually the archangel Michael?

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus is Jehovah’s first created being, and that after creating Jesus, Jehovah used Jesus to create everything else.

Additionally, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that as a created being, Jesus is actually the archangel Michael, who assumed the name Jesus when he became a man in order to pay the ransom that was required to redeem mankind by reversing the disastrous consequences of Adam’s sin.

The first chapter of Hebrews provides a sound refutation to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine that Jesus is an exalted angel as the author effectively argues that Jesus is much better than the angels. In the process, this passage provides even more evidence for the traditional Christian doctrine that Jesus is God.

I previously wrote about the first 3 verses of Hebrews 1 in my blog post, “Better Than…” which sought to explain the purpose of the writing of the book of Hebrews, which was to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over angels, Moses, the Old Covenant and the entire Jewish legal system, all in an effort to convince Jewish Christians not to revert back to the old Jewish legal system as a means of attempting to gain favor with God.

In this first chapter, the writer to the Hebrews provides at least 6 reasons why Jesus is better than the angels.

REASON #1 – Jesus is a son, the angels are not

In verse 5, the writer quotes two different Old Testament verses (Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14) to show that Jesus was the promised Messiah who fulfilled the prophecies related to the Davidic covenant.

In the Old Testament, angels are often referenced as “sons of God”, but angels are never referenced as “God’s Son”. Jesus is distinctly unique in this respect. Hence, he is greater than the angels.

REASON #2 – The angels worship Jesus

In verse 6, the angels are directly commanded to worship Jesus. Since the lesser always worships the greater, Jesus must be greater than the angels.

Incidentally, this verse provides still more evidence for Jesus’ divine nature for it’s clear in Scripture that only God is to be worshiped (see Exodus 20:3-5, Exodus 34:14, Deuteronomy 6:13 and Matthew 4:10). Also, in Revelation 22:8-9, John falls down in worship to an angel who had shown him the things he was seeing. John is rebuked by the angel who tells John,

“Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.”

If only God is to be worshiped and the angels are commanded to worship Jesus, it not only confirms that Jesus is better than the angels but provides strong evidence that Jesus must possess the nature of God.

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

REASON #3 – The angels are God’s ministers but the Son is God, ruling with righteousness

The writer to the Hebrews explains that angels are ministering spirits whose purpose is to serve those who will inherit salvation (verse 14). By contrast, verses 8-9 show that Jesus’ purpose is to reign in righteousness.

These verses further demonstrate the divine nature of Jesus as the son is referred to as “God” in verse 8 and again in verse 9.

The writer also attributes to Jesus a throne that will last forever and ever. Jesus is depicted as reigning forever on a throne of righteousness while being called “God”.

Jesus is indeed better than the angels because Jesus is God!

REASON #4 – Jesus is creator of the heavens and the earth

The writer states in verse 2 that God “made the world” through Jesus and that Jesus “upholds all things by the word of his power.”

Later, in verse 10, Jesus is referred to as “Lord” by God himself and is demonstrated to be the author of all creation. Jesus “laid the foundations of the earth” and “the heavens are the work of your [Jesus’] hands!”

Jesus is the creator while angels are created. Hence, Jesus is better than the angels.

REASON #5 – The creation perishes, but the creator, Jesus, remains

Because we are finite creatures, we tend to look at the world and see it as permanent and unchangeable. But the truth is, the world and the universe is decaying and energy is running down. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that the creation will eventually wear out just like an old garment, but Jesus remains the same. This is strong evidence for his immutability, which further buttresses the case for his divinity.

Verse 12 says that the creation not only changes but it will come to an end. On the other hand, Jesus’ years will NOT come to an end because he is eternal.

So Jesus is both immutable and eternal, both characteristics which demonstrate divinity.

REASON #6 – Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father and all enemies are subjected to him

Verse 14 shows that angels are ministering spirits who come before God and serve him while Jesus is seated at the right hand of God with his enemies under his feet.

This demonstrates that Jesus has ultimate authority and sovereignty over every living thing. Being seated at the right hand of God demonstrates his equality with God, which is yet another evidence for his divinity.

This entire passage clearly shows that Jesus is greater than the angels, and yet, Jehovah’s Witnesses contend that Jesus actually IS an angel.

If Jesus is better than angels, as the writer to the Hebrews clearly demonstrates, how is it possible that he himself is an angel?

Jesus is better than the angels not just because he has a higher position, as Jehovah’s Witnesses may argue, but Jesus is better than the angels because he has a better nature.

Jesus is divine. He is God. Therefore, he cannot be the archangel Michael.

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,

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”

August 30, 2026August 30, 2026

Bible References to the Term “Firstborn”

This is a complete list of all Bible verses that contain the word “firstborn”. This list is provided for convenience to those who want to do a word study to determine the meaning and the usage of the word “firstborn”, particularly so you can accurately interpret the meaning of “firstborn” as it relates to Jesus in Colossians 1:15 and Colossians 1:18.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses insist that the meaning of the word “firstborn” in those verses is the normal standard meaning of one born first. Or to put it another way, they claim the word means something like “first in line” or “first in chronology.”

To determine whether their interpretation is correct or even a valid option, it is helpful to see how the word is used throughout Scripture. Specifically, we want to see if the word is ever used with the meaning they attribute in Colossians. If the word is used in other parts of Scripture in the way they define it in Colossians then it lends more credibility to their interpretation.

All references are in the New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise noted

Old Testament

Genesis

Genesis 10:15 – Canaan became the father of Sidon, his firstborn
Genesis 19:31 – Then the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth.

Lot’s daughter, the firstborn, hatched a plan with her younger sister to get their father to impregnate them in order to ensure that they would have offspring

Genesis 19:33 – So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father;
Genesis 19:34 – On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father;
Genesis 19:37 – The firstborn bore a son, and called his name Moab

Lot’s oldest bore a son who became the father of the Moabites. The younger daughter bore a son who became the father of the Ammonites.

Genesis 22:20-21 – “Behold, Milcah also has borne children to your brother Nahor: ²¹Uz his firstborn and Buz his brother

Uz was Abraham’s nephew, the firstborn of Abraham’s brother Nahor

Genesis 25:13 – and these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, in the order of their birth: Nebaioth, the firstborn of Ishmael, and Kedar and Adbeel and Mibsam
Genesis 27:19 – Jacob said to his father, “I am Esau your firstborn; I have done as you told me. Get up, please, sit and eat of my game, that you may bless me.”

Jacob was deceiving Isaac, pretending to be Esau, the firstborn son

Genesis 27:32 – Isaac his father said to him, “Who are you?” And he said, “I am your son, your firstborn, Esau.”
Genesis 29:26 – But Laban said, “It is not the practice in our place to marry off the younger before the firstborn.

Leah was the firstborn. She was older than Rachel so the custom was that she should be married off first

Genesis 35:23 – the sons of Leah: Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, then Simeon and Levi and Judah and Issachar and Zebulun;
Genesis 36:15 – The sons of Eliphaz, the firstborn of Esau, are chief Teman, chief Omar, chief Zepho, chief Kenaz
Genesis 38:6 – Now Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
Genesis 38:7 – But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life.
Genesis 41:51 – Joseph named the firstborn Manasseh,
Genesis 43:33 – Now they were seated before him, the firstborn according to his birthright and the youngest according to his youth, and the men looked at one another in astonishment.

Joseph had seated his brothers according to their birth order. Joseph’s brothers were amazed, as they still were unaware that it was Joseph

Genesis 46:8 – Now these are the names of the sons of Israel, Jacob and his sons, who went to Egypt: Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn.
Genesis 48:14 – 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.

Jacob intentionally gave Ephraim the blessing of the firstborn even though he was NOT the firstborn

Genesis 48:18 – Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn. Place your right hand on his head.”

Joseph tried to correct his father to give the favored blessing to Manasseh, who held that status as the firstborn. In the next verse, Genesis 48:19, Jacob tells Joseph that he realizes Manasseh is the firstborn, yet he knows what he’s doing, so Ephraim received the blessing of the firstborn.

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.

A critical passage in which the definition of “firstborn” is provided by Jacob as he tells Reuben that even though he’s the firstborn, he would not experience the preeminence that is due the firstborn

Exodus

Exodus 4:22 – “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.”’”

A critical passage in which the term “firstborn” appears twice. The first time, it refers to the nation of Israel. Obviously, the meaning of this first occurrence is NOT that Israel was born first, for Israel was not born in the same sense that people are. They were chosen. It must be stated that Israel was NOT created first. They were NOT the first nation to appear. They were “firstborn” in the sense that they were “preeminent” – they had a special status and unique favor by God as the nation through which God’s blessings would extend to the world.

NOTE that the second occurrence of “firstborn” in this verse is the typical usage – it refers to the literal firstborn son of Pharaoh.

Exodus 4:23 – “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.”’”
Exodus 6:14 – These are the heads of their fathers’ households. The sons of Reuben, Israel’s firstborn: Hanoch and Pallu, Hezron and Carmi; these are the families of Reuben.
Exodus 11:5 – and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of the Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the slave girl who is behind the millstones; all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

Four occurrences of the term “firstborn”. Notice the first occurrence generally refers to all the firstborn, whether people or animals. The following occurrences serve to clarify or provide more specifics. The second occurrence refers to Pharaoh’s firstborn. The third and fourth occurrences are interesting because this is the first time we see the word “firstborn” used with a prepositional phrase “of….” That does not include the name of the father. We’ve seen “Reuben, firstborn of Jacob” but this is “firstborn of the slave girl” and “firstborn of the cattle”. So we deduce that this refers to the literal first person born of slave girls or cattle. Note though that these are living beings who bear offspring in natural ways. They BIRTH their offspring. Hence, their first offspring can naturally be referred to as “firstborn”. This is noted because the word “firstborn” is not used in this way in Colossians 1.

Exodus 12:12 – ‘For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the LORD.
Exodus 12:29 – Now it came about at midnight that the LORD struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of cattle.
Exodus 13:2 – “Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me.”

After the Passover, God issues a decree that the firstborn of people and cattle should be consecrated to the Lord

Exodus 13:12 (ESV) – you shall set apart to the LORD all that first opens the womb. All the firstborn of your animals that are males shall be the LORD’s.
Exodus 13:13 (ESV) – Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.

Another example of the word “firstborn” being used with the phrase “of”. In this case “of man” makes it clear that it’s speaking of the first offspring of all men

Exodus 13:15 – ‘It came about, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the LORD killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore, I sacrifice to the LORD the males, the first offspring of every womb, but every firstborn of my sons I redeem.’
Exodus 22:29 – “You shall not delay the offering from your harvest and your vintage. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.
Exodus 34:19 (ESV) – All that open the womb are mine, all your male livestock, the firstborn of cow and sheep.
Exodus 34:20 (ESV) – The firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem. And none shall appear before me empty-handed.

Leviticus

Leviticus 27:26 – However, a firstborn among animals, which as a firstborn belongs to the LORD, no man may consecrate it; whether ox or sheep, it is the LORD’s.

Numbers

Numbers 1:20 – Now the sons of Reuben, Israel’s firstborn, their genealogical registration by their families, by their fathers’ households, according to the number of names, head by head, every male from twenty years old and upward, whoever was able to go out to war,
Numbers 3:2 – These then are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadab the firstborn, and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.
Numbers 3:12 – “Now, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the sons of Israel instead of every firstborn, the first issue of the womb among the sons of Israel. So the Levites shall be Mine.
Numbers 3:13 – “For all the firstborn are Mine; on the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to Myself all the firstborn in Israel, from man to beast. They shall be Mine; I am the LORD.”
Numbers 3:40 – Then the LORD said to Moses, “Number every firstborn male of the sons of Israel from a month old and upward, and make a list of their names.
Numbers 3:41 – “You shall take the Levites for Me, I am the LORD, instead of all the firstborn among the sons of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the cattle of the sons of Israel.”
Numbers 3:42 – So Moses numbered all the firstborn among the sons of Israel, just as the LORD had commanded him
Numbers 3:43 – and all the firstborn males by the number of names from a month old and upward, for their numbered men were 22,273.
Numbers 3:45 – “Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the sons of Israel and the cattle of the Levites. And the Levites shall be Mine; I am the LORD.
Numbers 3:46 – “For the ransom of the 273 of the firstborn of the sons of Israel who are in excess beyond the Levites,
Numbers 8:16 – for they are wholly given to Me from among the sons of Israel. I have taken them for Myself instead of every first issue of the womb, the firstborn of all the sons of Israel.
Numbers 8:17 – “For every firstborn among the sons of Israel is Mine, among the men and among the animals; on the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified them for Myself.
Numbers 8:18 – “But I have taken the Levites instead of every firstborn among the sons of Israel.
Numbers 18:15 – “Every first issue of the womb of all flesh, whether man or animal, which they offer to the LORD, shall be yours; nevertheless the firstborn of man you shall surely redeem, and the firstborn of unclean animals you shall redeem.

NOTE the use of firstborn of man, and of animals. These are living creatures that bear offspring through live birth. Hence, firstborn here refers to their FIRST offspring.

Numbers 18:17 – “But the firstborn of an ox or the firstborn of a sheep or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy. You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and shall offer up their fat in smoke as an offering by fire, for a soothing aroma to the LORD.
Numbers 26:5 – Reuben, Israel’s firstborn, the sons of Reuben: of Hanoch, the family of the Hanochites; of Pallu, the family of the Palluites;

Here, Israel refers to Jacob. Reuben was Israel’s (Jacob’s) first born son.

Numbers 33:4 – while the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn whom the LORD had struck down among them. The LORD had also executed judgments on their gods.

Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy 12:6 – “There you shall bring your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the contribution of your hand, your votive offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock.

Herds and flocks are living creatures whose offspring enter via live birth. Hence, the firstborn of herds and flocks refers to the first offspring.

Deuteronomy 12:17 – “You are not allowed to eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or new wine or oil, or the firstborn of your herd or flock, or any of your votive offerings which you vow, or your freewill offerings, or the contribution of your hand.
Deuteronomy 14:23 – “You shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God, at the place where He chooses to establish His name, the tithe of your grain, your new wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and your flock, so that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.
Deuteronomy 15:19 – “You shall consecrate to the LORD your God all the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock; you shall not work with the firstborn of your herd, nor shear the firstborn of your flock.
Deuteronomy 21:15 – “If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,
Deuteronomy 21:16 – then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn.
Deuteronomy 21:17 – “But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.
Deuteronomy 25:6 – “It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
Deuteronomy 33:17 –

“As the firstborn of his ox, majesty is his,

And his horns are the horns of the wild ox;

With them he will push the peoples,

All at once, to the ends of the earth.

And those are the ten thousands of Ephraim,

And those are the thousands of Manasseh.”

This is a prophecy related to Joseph (see Deuteronomy 33:13. Joseph represented Israel’s firstborn ox. Literally, Joseph was Jacob’s strength. His double blessing was represented by Ephraim and Manasseh

Joshua

Joshua 6:26 – Then Joshua made them take an oath at that time, saying, “Cursed before the LORD is the man who rises up and builds this city Jericho; with the loss of his firstborn he shall lay its foundation, and with the loss of his youngest son he shall set up its gates.”

This was a curse…the person who rebuilt Jericho would lose their firstborn. This curse was fulfilled in 1 Kings 16:34

Joshua 17:1 – Now this was the lot for the tribe of Manasseh, for he was the firstborn of Joseph. To Machir the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead, were allotted Gilead and Bashan, because he was a man of war.

Manasseh was LITERALLY the first one born to Joseph. So yes, he was firstborn in the sense that he was born first. But he was NOT firstborn in the sense of preeminence and favor. That was reserved for Ephraim (see Jeremiah 31:9).

Judges

Judges 8:20 – So he said to Jether his firstborn, “Rise, kill them.” But the youth did not draw his sword, for he was afraid, because he was still a youth.

1 Samuel

1 Samuel 8:2 – Now the name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judging in Beersheba.
1 Samuel 14:49 – Now the sons of Saul were Jonathan and Ishvi and Malchi-shua; and the names of his two daughters were these: the name of the firstborn Merab and the name of the younger Michal.
1 Samuel 17:13 – The three older sons of Jesse had gone after Saul to the battle. And the names of his three sons who went to the battle were Eliab the firstborn, and the second to him Abinadab, and the third Shammah.

The next verse, 1 Samuel 17:14 says that David was the YOUNGEST. Yet Psalm 89:27 says David was the “firstborn”

2 Samuel

2 Samuel 3:2 – Sons were born to David at Hebron: his firstborn was Amnon, by Ahinoam the Jezreelitess;

1 Kings

1 Kings 16:34 – In his days Hiel the Bethelite built Jericho; he laid its foundations with the loss of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates with the loss of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the LORD, which He spoke by Joshua the son of Nun.

1 Chronicles

1 Chronicles 1:13 – Canaan became the father of Sidon, his firstborn, Heth, ¹⁴and the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, ¹⁵the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, ¹⁶the Arvadites, the Zemarites and the Hamathites.

Canaan’s firstborn was Sidon, father of the Sidonians. Canaan also fathered, Heth and the various other nations listed. All came from Canaan.

1 Chronicles 1:29 – These are their genealogies: the firstborn of Ishmael was Nebaioth, then Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam,

Note that Ishmael was literally the first one born to Isaac but he was NOT the firstborn. Isaac was the firstborn.

1 Chronicles 2:3 – The sons of Judah were Er, Onan and Shelah; these three were born to him by Bath-shua the Canaanitess. And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, so He put him to death.
1 Chronicles 2:13 – and Jesse became the father of Eliab his firstborn, then Abinadab the second, Shimea the third,

The next verse continues and demonstrates that David was the SEVENTH born to Jesse

1 Chronicles 2:25 – Now the sons of Jerahmeel the firstborn of Hezron were Ram the firstborn, then Bunah, Oren, Ozem and
1 Chronicles 2:27 – The sons of Ram, the firstborn of Jerahmeel, were Maaz, Jamin and Eker.
1 Chronicles 2:42 – Now the sons of Caleb, the brother of Jerahmeel, were Mesha his firstborn, who was the father of Ziph; and his son was Mareshah, the father of Hebron.
1 Chronicles 2:50 – The sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah, were Shobal the father of Kiriath-jearim,
1 Chronicles 3:1 – Now these were the sons of David who were born to him in Hebron: the firstborn was Amnon, by Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the second was Daniel, by Abigail the Carmelitess;
1 Chronicles 3:15 – The sons of Josiah were Johanan the firstborn, and the second was Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.
1 Chronicles 4:4 – Penuel was the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah. These were the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah, the father of Bethlehem.
1 Chronicles 5:1 – Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn, but because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; so that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright.
1 Chronicles 5:3 – the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel were Hanoch and Pallu, Hezron and Carmi.
1 Chronicles 6:28 – The sons of Samuel were Joel the firstborn, and Abijah the second.
1 Chronicles 8:1 – And Benjamin became the father of Bela his firstborn, Ashbel the second, Aharah the third,
1 Chronicles 8:30 – and his firstborn son was Abdon, then Zur, Kish, Baal, Nadab,
1 Chronicles 8:39 – he sons of Eshek his brother were Ulam his firstborn, Jeush the second and Eliphelet the third.
1 Chronicles 9:5 – From the Shilonites were Asaiah the firstborn and his sons.
1 Chronicles 9:31 – Mattithiah, one of the Levites, who was the firstborn of Shallum the Korahite, had the responsibility over the things which were baked in pans.
1 Chronicles 9:35-37 – In Gibeon Jeiel the father of Gibeon lived, and his wife’s name was Maacah, ³⁶and his firstborn son was Abdon, then Zur, Kish, Baal, Ner, Nadab, ³⁷Gedor, Ahio, Zechariah and Mikloth.
1 Chronicles 26:10 – Meshelemiah had sons: Zechariah the firstborn, Jediael the second, Zebadiah the third, Jathniel the fourth,

2 Chronicles

2 Chronicles 21:3 – Their father [Jehoshaphat] gave them many gifts of silver, gold and precious things, with fortified cities in Judah, but he gave the kingdom to Jehoram because he was the firstborn.

Nehemiah

Nehemiah 10:36 – and bring to the house of our God the firstborn of our sons and of our cattle, and the firstborn of our herds and our flocks as it is written in the law, for the priests who are ministering in the house of our God.

Job

Job 18:13 –

“His skin is devoured by disease,

The firstborn of death devours his limbs.

An interesting use of the word “firstborn”. This is part of a larger discourse by Bildad pontificating on the fate of the wicked. Bildad postulates that the wicked ultimate get trapped and they get theirs. He is thus inferring that the reason Job has experienced such calamity is because his wickedness (sin) has finally caught up.

But note the use of the term “firstborn”. It is very similar to Colossians 1:18 in which Paul refers to Jesus as the firstborn from the dead.

Are we to believe that the use of “firstborn” in this case means “first in line”? Clearly, this verse in Job firstborn of death refers to the author of death. Literally, “death devours his limbs”.

Death does not birth anything and does not have a literal first offspring. But death CAN rule. Death can overwhelm. That is the sense that is being conveyed here.

Psalms

Psalms 78:51 –

And smote all the firstborn in Egypt,

The first issue of their virility in the tents of Ham.

Psalms 89:27 –

“I also shall make him My firstborn,

The highest of the kings of the earth.

This Psalm is speaking about David, who was NOT the firstborn son of Jesse. David was the SEVENTH son, literally the last son of Jesse.

But God elevated him to the position of preeminence. Hence, David was the firstborn.

Psalms 105:36 –

He also struck down all the firstborn in their land,

The first fruits of all their vigor.

Psalms 135:8 –

He smote the firstborn of Egypt,

Both of man and beast.

Psalms 136:10 –

To Him who smote the Egyptians in their firstborn,

For His lovingkindness is everlasting,

Isaiah

Isaiah 14:30 (ESV) –

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.

Another interesting use of “firstborn” where it is used in a phrase that does not include a person or animal. Therefore, the “firstborn” CANNOT refer to first offspring.

So what does it mean to be “firstborn of the poor”

The Jehovah’s Witnesses want to twist and stretch the meaning of firstborn in Colossians to mean something like “first in line” or “first one to experience”. They have to create this meaning in order to make its usage with respect to Jesus fit their theological understanding of his nature, namely that he is NOT God, but is a created being.

So if that is the meaning of the word “firstborn” in that case, then that same meaning and usage should fit here, in a similar usage. Does it work?

Hardly.

What exactly would this mean if its saying the first to be poor? Or how could the Philistines (those to whom this prophecy is directed be the first ones to experience being poor?

The meaning of the word cannot mean what Jehovah’s Witnesses contend. If it did, you would end up with a garbled, incoherent mess.

But if firstborn is taken to mean preeminence or rank, then this verse is saying that those who are supremely poor will be fed. Or another way of thinking about it is “those who are the MOST poor”. This is why the NIV doesn’t even translate the word “firstborn.” It simply says “the poorest of the poor.” The NASB, which is one of the most literal translations doesn’t even use the word “firstborn” for this verse. This verse will not show up in a search of the NASB1995 (though it will in 2020 version). The NASB1995 translates this “those who are most helpless will eat.”

Jeremiah

Jeremiah 31:9 –

“With weeping they will come,

And by supplication I will lead them;

I will make them walk by streams of waters,

On a straight path in which they will not stumble;

For I am a father to Israel,

And Ephraim is My firstborn.”

An important verse in this discussion. We’ve already seen that Manasseh was Joseph’s first offspring. (See Genesis 48:14 and Genesis 48:18)

Yet even though Manasseh was the firstborn in terms of being the first offspring, Ephraim was the “firstborn” in terms of preeminence.

It’s clear that preeminence is MORE important than birth order. True, the first offspring normally held the preeminent position, but not always.

Hence, when spoken of Christ, who had NO spiritual brothers to share the inheritance, is it more likely that the term “firstborn” is being used to let us know that he was the first in a line of children, or is it more likely that it is being used to let us know that he is preeminent?

I think the answer is obvious. Since he has NO sibling rivals to compete for the birthright, there is no need to inform us that he is the “first offspring”.

Ezekiel

Ezekiel 20:26 – and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the LORD.’”

The Israelites had offered their firstborn children as sacrifices to pagan idols

Micah

Micah 6:7 –

Does the LORD take delight in thousands of rams,

In ten thousand rivers of oil?

Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts,

The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

This verse is akin to the modern day saying, “what do I have to do? Give you my firstborn?”

Zechariah

Zechariah 12:10 – “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

New Testament

Luke

Luke 2:7 – And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Yes, Jesus WAS the firstborn son of Mary. He was literally the first of her offspring

Luke 2:23 – (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “EVERY firstborn MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD”),

Romans

Romans 8:29 – 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, we are going to be LIKE him. We will be sinless and holy and righteous in reality. 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. But he is the firstborn among all these brethren. Which simply means, he is preeminent. He is 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 the brethren.

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

Colossians

Colossians 1:15 – He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

This is one of the passages in dispute with Jehovah’s Witnesses. They contend that this verse means that Jesus is the first one created by Jehovah. So firstborn here means something like “first in line” or “first one to experience…”

But as we’ve seen, there is no other verse where this is the meaning of “firstborn”, even in verses of similar construction. It cannot mean that Jesus is literally the first offspring of creation for creation cannot have offspring.

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the use of firstborn here should carry the normal meaning that is seen in the majority of verses in Scripture. But we’ve seen that the normal usage applies to the first child of normal parents who bore that child through natural child birthing. But this cannot describe Jesus because even if you believe that he was created, he certainly was not birthed in the same way that people are. Jesus did not have a spiritual mother who “bore” him.

Additionally, Jesus has no spiritual siblings. Therefore, there is no need to distinguish him from rival siblings in terms of the firstborn status.

First born does NOT mean first-created. There is a different word that specifically communicates that, and Paul did not use that word to describe Jesus.

Therefore, the logical understanding of the term “firstborn” in this verse is preeminence or rule. The idea is that Jesus reigns over creation. Why? Because he is creator, as the verses that follow teach.

Colossians 1:18 – He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

The second verse in this passage that uses the term “firstborn”. How do the Jehovah’s Witnesses explain this occurrence?

They pull out their made up meaning of “first in line”. Remember there has been no other occurrence of the term “firstborn” in the more than 100 instances where the idea is anything similar to “first in line.”

Their understanding of this verse is that Jesus was “first in line” to come “from the dead”.

This is faulty for a number of reasons. First of all, Jesus was not the first to die and he was NOT the first to be resurrected.

The response from Jehovah’s Witnesses is that Jesus was the first to be raised to immortality. But this doesn’t make sense within the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ framework, for they do not even believe that Jesus was raised with a physical body. They believe that Jesus was raised from the dead (so was Lazarus) and Jesus now has returned to his pre-incarnate state of being the archangel, Michael. So Jesus is still alive. But so is Moses and Elijah. They appeared with Jesus at the transfiguration.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ view here that Jesus was the first to overcome death doesn’t make sense, especially given the statement that follows from Paul, “so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.”

The meaning of preeminence for the word “firstborn” makes complete sense in this verse, as well as the prior verse and it fits perfectly with the context, including the statement that follows.

Jesus is preeminent over creation, he RULES over creation because he’s the creator. Jesus is preeminent over death, he RULES over death because he CONQUERED death. As a result, He himself will have first place in everything.” Jesus will have supremacy.

See the post “What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn?”

Hebrews

Hebrews 1:6 –

And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,

“AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”

This verse is interesting because firstborn 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. The more logical understanding of this term as applied to Jesus is “preeminent one”.

This makes sense given the context. This passage starting in verse 5 and ending with verse 13 is designed to demonstrate that Jesus is superior (better than) the angels.

So when the firstborn, the preeminent one comes into the world, God says “let all the angels worship Him.”

Now two things should be said about this. First of all, only God should 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 he is the highest of angels and God the Father (Jehovah to the Jehovah’s Witnesses) tasked Michael with 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 task was complete, he returned to heaven and assumed his prior identity.

So you have an angel coming to earth, taking on a human nature and God the Father is instructing all the other angels to WORSHIP him. This does not 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. Indeed, this is what Hebrews says in Hebrews 1:3 and 4. 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 11:28 – By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that he who destroyed the firstborn would not touch them.

This verse is talking about Moses. Moses was faithful to follow the Passover instructions so that the angel of death would not touch the firstborn children of Israel.

Hebrews 12:23 – 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’s referring to a group of people in heaven. It’s also clear that the idea of “first offspring” is not in view here. It cannot mean that because it’s talking about people who are in heaven with the Lord so it doesn’t make sense that it’s referring to people who are born first.

Revelation

Revelation 1:5 – 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” and it is the one occurrence that most resembles the usage of Colossians, especially Colossians 1:18.

So what does this mean?

Jehovah’s Witnesses will 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, 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. Jesus rules over death, just as he rules over the kings of earth.

A reminder 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 hundred other references that referred to the first offspring of some person?

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.

Image created by Grok

August 26, 2026

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.

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

August 14, 2026

How Does Isaiah 44 Demonstrate that Jesus is God?

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.

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

July 22, 2026July 22, 2026

Did Jesus Die on the Cross or Merely Faint?

John 19

²⁸Jesus knew that everything was now finished, and to fulfill the Scriptures he said, “I am thirsty.” ²⁹A jar of sour wine was sitting there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put it on a hyssop branch, and held it up to his lips. ³⁰When Jesus had tasted it, he said, “It is finished!” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

³¹The Jewish leaders didn’t want the victims hanging there the next day, which was the Sabbath (and a very special Sabbath at that, because it was the Passover), so they asked Pilate to hasten their deaths by ordering that their legs be broken. Then their bodies could be taken down. ³²So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men crucified with Jesus. ³³But when they came to Jesus, they saw that he was dead already, so they didn’t break his legs. ³⁴One of the soldiers, however, pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out. ³⁵This report is from an eyewitness giving an accurate account; it is presented so that you also can believe. ³⁶These things happened in fulfillment of the Scriptures that say, “Not one of his bones will be broken,” ³⁷and “They will look on him whom they pierced.” (John 19:28-37, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Christianity stands or falls on one event – the resurrection.

Over the years, critics of Christianity have promoted a number of theories to argue that the resurrection never actually happened. If Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead, Christianity is nothing more than another moral code.

One of the more novel theories to explain away a supernatural resurrection is the Swoon theory, which suggests that Jesus never actually died on the cross but merely fainted. Later, after he was buried, the cool air of the tomb revived him. He emerged from the tomb alive and people mistakenly believed that he had resurrected.

There are numerous problems with this theory.

First of all, if Jesus did indeed faint and then was revived, how is it that he had the strength to move a 2-ton boulder that covered the tomb entrance and then overcome the armed battalion that guarded the tomb?

Jesus was brutally whipped and scourged before he was even nailed to the cross. He was so weak from the lashes and the beating at the hands of the Roman soldiers that he wasn’t even able to carry his own cross to the crucifixion site.

He then hung on a cross for hours, which undoubtedly weakened him further. Even if he did not die, he was in critical condition. Yet this theory wants us to believe that a person in his condition was able to unravel himself from 75 pounds of grave clothes, then move a 2-ton boulder out of the way, fend off a contingency of elitely trained and armed Roman guards so that he could later appear to his followers and declare himself to be the resurrected Messiah. This would take more faith than believing in an actual resurrection.

Secondly, as C.S. Lewis has argued, if Jesus merely fainted and then emerged alive, declaring himself to be the resurrected Messiah, he would more aptly be compared to the devil than to God. Why is that?

In this scenario, Jesus would have foisted the greatest scam on people in the history of the world. Jesus, knowing he wasn’t God, would’ve had to have deceptively convinced people to give their lives for something that was a bold-faced lie.

As Lewis argued in Mere Christianity, this line of reasoning does not align with what we know about Jesus the man, namely that he was the greatest moral teacher the world has ever known.

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

Yet the Swoon theory forces us to believe that Jesus was not really a moral teacher as much as he was the best snake oil salesman who ever lived. He was so good, in fact, that most people still don’t realize they’ve been scammed.

Those are the philosophical reasons to reject the Swoon theory. However, there is evidence from this passage in John 19 that refutes the very basis of the Swoon theory.

The Swoon theory rests on the premise that Jesus didn’t actually die. Yet this passage provides convincing proof that Jesus indeed DID die.

How so?

Verse 31 tells us that the Jewish leaders didn’t want the crucified victims to be hanging on the cross during the Sabbath which was quickly approaching. The legs of crucifixion victims were often broken in order to hasten death. Essentially, the victims would no longer be able to push themselves up on the cross to inhale and they would suffocate rather quickly after their legs were broken. The text says that the soldiers broke the legs of the other two men who were crucified with Jesus. However, with Jesus, the soldiers saw that he was already dead, so there was no need to break his legs.

This is strong evidence that Jesus was already dead, contrary to those who might claim that he had only fainted or passed out.

There is another, even more convincing piece of evidence from this passage that demonstrates that Jesus was definitely dead when he came off that cross.

After the soldiers decided NOT to break Jesus’ legs, the text says that one of the soldiers took a spear and pierced Jesus’ side. There is no explanation as to why he decided to do that. What is interesting though is the description of what happened next. It says that “blood and water flowed out.”

The description of “blood and water” is significant. The author would not have had a medical understanding at that time that this was evidence of death. Blood and water would not have separated if Jesus were still alive but the fact that it WAS visibly separated PROVES that Jesus was dead.

Since this medical understanding was unknown in Jesus’ time, one cannot claim that the author deceptively described it this way in order to promote a false risen savior narrative.

One may still be unconvinced that Jesus resurrected, but one thing is certain, Jesus DID die. The idea that he fainted but then somehow emerged and declared himself to be the resurrected Messiah takes more faith than believing in the resurrection.

What this reveals is that for many, facts and rational explanations are not necessary in order to reject Jesus. All that’s necessary is a hardened heart.

Reflection

Do you think the Swoon theory is an adequate explanation for Jesus’ death on the cross? Why or why not?

If Jesus did only faint on the cross instead of actually dying, how do you explain a) the soldiers not breaking his legs, b) the description of water and blood flowing from the pierced side, c) Jesus’ ability to move the stone that covered the entrance and d) his ability to fend off the armed soldiers who guarded the tomb?

Do you agree with C.S. Lewis, that Jesus could not be considered a good moral teacher if he in fact KNEW that he hadn’t died and had not resurrected but yet convinced people that he DID resurrect? How does Lewis’s argument bolster the case for a supernatural resurrection?

Why do you think someone would believe this alternate explanation which requires a number of logical leaps instead of just believing what the text claims, which is that Jesus was resurrected?

Photo by Nik Shuliahin 💛💙 on Unsplash

July 8, 2026

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.

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

July 7, 2026

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:

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/

July 5, 2026August 8, 2026

What is Baptism?

Romans 6

¹What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? ²By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? ³Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ⁴We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

⁵If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. ⁶For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— ⁷because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

⁸Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. ⁹For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. ¹⁰The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

¹¹In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Romans 6:1-11, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

This is the question I posed in a recent post of the same title.

My prompt for delving into this topic was a recent online conversation I had with a Mormon, who, in making his case for the legitimacy and necessity of the Mormon church, had made the claim that the Bible teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Mormons teach that a great apostasy occurred shortly after the apostles died and the authoritative line for administering baptisms was lost….for nearly 1800 years! (I’ve addressed this theological error in my post “Did Paul Predict an Apostasy in Which the Church Would be Completely Lost?”). But fortunately, according to Mormonism, Jesus supposedly restored the priestly line and authority for baptisms through Joseph Smith and the Mormon church.

I argued in my post “Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?” that those who hold to this view, that baptism is necessary for salvation, often have an inaccurate understanding of what baptism is.

Many have an understanding of baptism that is informed only by their own religious experience. Hence, they think that any time the word appears in the Bible, it must be referring to the act of immersing someone in water for some efficacious religious purpose, i.e. cleansing of their sins and completing the salvation process.

But the meaning of the word “baptism” is broader than our own religious experience dictates and is often used in the Bible in ways that have nothing to do with any kind of immersive water experience.

So what is baptism exactly?

This passage in Romans is one of the clearest in terms of helping us understand exactly what baptism is and how it was understood by the apostles.

Specifically, there are two parallel statements that give clarification regarding what baptism is.

Verse 3 says, “don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?”

But verse 5 says, “If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.”

Clearly, these two parallel verses demonstrate that to be “baptized into Christ and his death” is to be “united with Christ and His death.”

Hence, baptism is union with Christ.

This fits exactly with the broader biblical meaning of the word “baptize” which is identification.

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

Paul is saying that when one identifies with Christ, they are identified with His death. This is exactly what the gospel teaches. When a person receives Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they experience a change in identity. Instead of being a person who is alienated and separated from God, the new believer enters into a union with Christ that is characterized by a new family relationship – they are now a child of God – an adopted son or daughter.

This new identity takes place at the moment a person believes in Jesus. They receive forgiveness precisely because they are united with Jesus in His death. Simply put, when a person receives Jesus, they are indicating that they want Jesus’ death to pay for their sins instead of having to pay the penalty for their sins on their own, which leads to judgment and eternal death.

Jesus’ death now counts for the believer. His death pays for all their sins and as a result, they experience complete and total forgiveness.

Those who hold to baptismal regeneration (the belief that baptism by immersion is necessary for salvation) might argue that this new identity doesn’t happen until a person is baptized with water by immersion.

But this contradicts what Scripture teaches, which is that a person is justified by faith alone and that believers receive the Holy Spirit (the sign that we are now members of God’s family) at the moment of belief, not at the moment of being baptized.

Furthermore, if the broader understanding of baptism is one of identification, then it makes sense that the purpose of water baptism is not to complete some salvation formula but is simply a way of identifying to the world in a physical way (being immersed in water) to a spiritual reality that has already taken place. The spiritual reality is that the person, based on their belief and trust in Jesus, now identifies with Jesus and Jesus’ death and is now a member of God’s family.

So what is baptism?

Baptism is a union with Jesus that takes place when we put our faith in Him and His death. At the very moment we do that, we become united with Jesus AND we become united with His death. Being united with His death means that His death now pays for my sins, which means I can experience forgiveness and I can escape the punishment I deserve for the sins I’ve committed.

This union with Christ means that I have a new identity – I’m a child of God!

Reflection

What was your experience with baptism growing up? Were you baptized? If so, what meaning was attributed to this religious ceremony by your religious tradition?

What do you think it means to be united with Christ?

If you think baptism is a religious ceremony that completes the salvation process, what do you think was the reason and purpose for Jesus being baptized? (See my post “Why Was Jesus Baptized?”)

If baptism was necessary for salvation, how do you explain Jesus’ words to the thief on the cross, who was never baptized, but was promised by Jesus that he would be with Jesus in paradise that very day?

Photo by Logan Gutierrez on Unsplash

June 27, 2026

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

Luke 3

¹⁵Everyone was expecting the Messiah to come soon, and they were eager to know whether John might be the Messiah. ¹⁶John answered their questions by saying, “I baptize with water; but someone is coming soon who is greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. ¹⁷He is ready to separate the chaff from the grain with his winnowing fork. Then he will clean up the threshing area, storing the grain in his barn but burning the chaff with never-ending fire.” ¹⁸John used many such warnings as he announced the Good News to the people.

¹⁹John also publicly criticized Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee, for marrying Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for many other wrongs he had done. ²⁰So Herod put John in prison, adding this sin to his many others.

²¹One day when the crowds were being baptized, Jesus himself was baptized. As he was praying, the heavens opened, ²²and the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a dove. And a voice from heaven said, “You are my beloved Son, and I am fully pleased with you.” (Luke 3:15-22, NLT)

Acts 1

¹Dear Theophilus:

In my first book I told you about everything Jesus began to do and teach ²until the day he ascended to heaven after giving his chosen apostles further instructions from the Holy Spirit. ³During the forty days after his crucifixion, he appeared to the apostles from time to time and proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. On these occasions he talked to them about the Kingdom of God.

⁴In one of these meetings as he was eating a meal with them, he told them, “Do not leave Jerusalem until the Father sends you what he promised. Remember, I have told you about this before. ⁵John baptized with water, but in just a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:1-6, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

Some Christians will whole-heartedly say “YES”, while many Catholics might also agree.

I’ve engaged with others over this question many times before but was recently re-introduced to this debate from an unexpected source.

You may recall that around the beginning of June (2026) there was some controversy surrounding the government and the Mormon church. I’ve shared some details about that in my blog post “Should People Take the Mormon Challenge?” but the summary is that the Department of Defense, in an effort to simplify the job of military chaplains, decided to reduce the number of codes that identify the different religious affiliations that troop members might align with from over 200 down to about 30.

These codes included a number of different “Christian” affiliations, such as “Christian-Baptist” and “Christian-Presbyterian”. However, when identifying the Mormon church, the code was listed simply as “Latter Day Saint”.

This had a number of Mormons objecting that the government did not identify the Mormon church as a subset of Christianity.

In the ensuing online debate, I ended up engaging with a Mormon who was attempting to explain the legitimacy of the Mormon church to those who were suggesting that Mormons aren’t Christians.

One of the points this person made was that the Mormon church had re-established the priesthood, which Mormonism claims had been lost by the church for nearly 1800 years, and that this “restored” priesthood now allowed for legitimate baptisms. This is important, according to Mormons, because since baptism is necessary for salvation (in their view), the church needs a legitimate priesthood in order to administer baptisms and thus “save” people.

There’s a lot of Mormon theology that could be debated here but for this post, I want to look strictly at the assertion this Mormon made that baptism is necessary for salvation.

As luck would have it, that next day, two of the chapters in my daily Bible reading were the two chapters listed above, both of which talk about baptism.

An exhaustive discussion of whether baptism is necessary for salvation would likely take more room to unpack than just this blog post but these two passages do give us some insight into the issue.

First of all, if water baptism is necessary for salvation, one has to wonder why Jesus was baptized. Did Jesus need to be saved?

Clearly, Jesus didn’t need to be saved so there must be a different reason for His baptism. This alone tells us that baptism is not always associated with salvation. I wrote about this issue in my blog post “Why Was Jesus Baptized?”

A second observation from these passages is the fact that there are clearly different kinds of baptism mentioned.

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

Note that John the Baptist himself said that he baptized with water but someone would come after Him (Jesus) who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. John makes a point to say that this person who would come after him (Jesus) was greater than he was. This implies also that the baptism of Jesus was greater, better and more important than the baptism of John.

Jesus confirms this in the Acts passage when he reminds his disciples what they had been taught before, that John would baptize with water but He (Jesus) would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

Jesus then told them that this baptism with the Holy Spirit would take place “in just a few days”.

It’s clear from Scripture that Jesus was referencing the events of Pentecost in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit descended upon these early believers and came to indwell them. It’s at this moment that the church was born.

So for the person who believes that water baptism is essential for salvation, the question they must ask is: why does Jesus emphasize His baptism of the Spirit over the water baptism that John the Baptist performed?

One thing is absolutely clear from these two passages: Jesus’ baptism is different from the baptism of John the Baptist. While John the Baptist baptized people with water, Jesus would baptize people with the Holy Spirit.

If we’re going to have any chance of resolving the question of whether baptism is necessary for salvation, we have to come to an understanding of what it means when Jesus said he would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

The problem that too many people experience when they’re faced with this issue is one of familiarity.

What I mean by that is that most people, when they hear the word “baptize”, immediately conjure up an image in their mind based on their own understanding of the word, which is primarily shaped by their own experience with baptism.

For most people, their only association with the word is that they’ve seen many people who have been baptized with water, either by sprinkling in the Catholic church and various Protestant traditions or by immersion in many evangelical traditions.

If your only exposure to the word “baptize” is seeing someone who has been baptized with water, then you naturally will assume that whenever you see the word, it must refer to being sprinkled or immersed with water.

But as these two texts above demonstrate, baptism is not always associated with water. Therefore, the idea that one must be sprinkled or immersed in water as a part of the salvation process is already in doubt. And since both John the Baptist and Jesus affirm that the baptism Jesus would bring was NOT water baptism, then there is virtually no reason to believe that being baptized with water is anything more than symbolism.

A more careful study of the word “baptize” reveals that this is exactly the case.

The more broad meaning of the word “baptize” is “to identify with.”

Hence, people who were baptized by John the Baptist were identifying with him. As a way to demonstrate publicly that they agreed with John’s preaching, they took the step to be baptized by him, thus identifying themselves with his core message of repentance. One might think of it as an initiation.

Jesus’ baptism is not one that is associated with water but the Holy Spirit. Being baptized in the Spirit means that the person now identifies with the Holy Spirit and thus is now a member of God’s family.

The apostles were all first identified with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. They were “baptized” by the Spirit and “initiated” into the body of Christ, the family of God.

The question for us is when is the believer first associated with the Holy Spirit? Is it at the moment of being baptized with water, as Mormons and some Protestants claim? If that is the case, then we can affirm that water baptism is indeed necessary for salvation.

But Scripture tells us otherwise. Most notably, Paul, in Ephesians 1:13, says that the Holy Spirit is given to the Christian as a seal at the moment of belief, NOT at the moment of being immersed in water. I wrote about this aspect of the Holy Spirit in my blog post, “The Holy Spirit as a Seal.”

So then, if water baptism is not essential for savlation, what is the purpose? Why do it?

Like a lot of things in Scripture, water baptism is a physical representation of a spiritual reality.

In Scripture, water is often a symbol of the Holy Spirit. In John 7:37-39, Jesus addresses the crowds and tells them that if anyone is thirsty, they should come to Him and drink and streams of living water would flow from within them. The text follows by explaining that Jesus was talking about the Holy Spirit.

So the act of being baptized with water is simply an act whereby the believer is attesting to the fact that they now identify with Jesus and are a part of His family. The qualifying characteristic of being a part of the family of Jesus is that you must have the Holy Spirit. The believer, in being baptized with water, is making a declaration of faith – that they now have placed their trust in Christ and as a result, they have received the promised Holy Spirit and have been placed into the family of God.

So let’s circle back to our original question: “Is baptism necessary for salvation?” The answer is that it depends on what you’re referring to when you talk about baptism.

If you are asking whether a person needs to be baptized with water in order to be saved, the answer from Scripture is clearly NO.

But if you understand baptism to be an identification and union with the Holy Spirit, then the answer is YES, you absolutely must be SPIRITUALLY baptized in order to be saved, for one cannot be saved unless they become a member of the family of God and the prerequisite to becoming a member of the family of God IS receiving the Holy Spirit, which, according to Scripture, occurs the moment a person puts their faith in Jesus.

Reflection

What has been your experience with baptism? What comes to your mind when you hear the word “baptize”?

What do you think is the purpose of baptism? If you have been baptized, how did you interpret that experience in terms of its meaning?

Would you agree that Jesus’ baptism is greater than and more important than John’s baptism?

If Jesus’ baptism is more important that John’s baptism, then they must be different in some way. What do you think are the differences between these two kinds of baptism?

If the purpose of water baptism is to save people, then why do you think Jesus was baptized by John? Clearly Jesus didn’t need to be saved.

Photo by Paul Ndayambaje: https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-man-in-a-blue-dress-is-in-the-water-28181227/

Hebrews 1

The Daily DAVEotional

More blog posts related to Jehovah’s Witness Beliefs

Colossians 1

The Daily DAVEotional

Old Testament

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus

Numbers

Deuteronomy

Joshua

Judges

1 Samuel

2 Samuel

1 Kings

1 Chronicles

2 Chronicles

Nehemiah

Job

Psalms

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Ezekiel

Micah

Zechariah

New Testament

Luke

Romans

Colossians

Hebrews

Revelation

Philippians 2

The Daily DAVEotional

Isaiah 44

The Daily DAVEotional

John 19

The Daily DAVEotional

2 Thessalonians 2

The Daily DAVEotional

John 3

The Daily DAVEotional

Romans 6

The Daily DAVEotional

Luke 3

Acts 1

The Daily DAVEotional