Thursday, January 26, 2012

Answering the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 7)

Click here to follow this series of articles from the beginning. If this is a subject that interests you, you will find some great arguments that will prepare you for your next encounter with the Jehovah's Witnesses.

In this article, I want to address one of the most controversial verses in the debate over whether or not Jesus Christ is divine - John 1:1. Of course, the verse is not controversial at all among most Christians, but in any debate or conversation with Jehovah's Witnesses, the simple is made complicated...as always.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Lest there be any confusion, the "Word" is Jesus Christ.
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
We generally refer to Jesus as the "Son of God," but it's worth noting that Jesus is the Son of God only in regards to His virgin birth; He was conceived in the womb by the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:32, 35). In the Old Testament, Jesus is only referred to as the "Son" in prophecy. In fact, Jesus wasn't Jesus in the Old Testament; that name was given to Him upon His birth, and it represented His purpose in coming to earth, to be the Savior of the world (Mt. 1:21). The reason I point this out is because the JWs will often use the expression "Son of God" to prove that Jesus is a created being, born of God in the beginning. However, the expression is not about Jesus' origins in the beginning, but His origins as a human - He existed prior to the virgin birth as "the Word."

But the main point here is that Jesus - the Word - was/is God according to John 1:1. He was with God in the beginning and He was God. So He and the Father are distinct, and yet both are said to be divine.

Here's where the verse is made controversial. The Jehovah's Witnesses, in their "New World Translation" of the Bible, have added a word to the verse. Instead of saying "the Word was God," their version says, "the Word was a god." They'll argue that the term "god" refers to "a mighty one" and thereby limit Jesus to being an archangel, rather than divine.

The problem is that there is NO justification for the insertion of "a" in John 1:1. Moreover, in John 20:28, the disciple Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God." If Jesus was just "a mighty one," why didn't He rebuke Thomas for calling Him "God" (theos)? So a deeper study of scripture confirms that the traditional interpretation of John 1:1 is correct - Jesus is not a God, He is God!

Click here to read the next installment in this series.

No comments:

Post a Comment