Spiritual Pride

The first and worst cause of error that prevails in our day is spiritual pride. This is the main door by which the devil comes into the hearts of those who are zealous for the advancement of Christ. It is the chief inlet of smoke from the bottomless pit to darken the mind and mislead the judgment, and the main handle by which Satan takes hold of Christians to hinder a work of God. Until this disease is cured, medicines are applied in vain to heal all other diseases. Pride is much more difficult to discern than any other corruption because, by nature, pride is a person having too high a thought of himself. Is it any surprise, then, that a person who has too high a thought of himself is unaware of it? He thinks the opinion he has of himself has just grounds and therefore is not too high. As a result, there is no other matter in which the heart is more deceitful and unsearchable. The very nature of it is to work self-confidence and drive away any suspicion of evil respecting itself. Pride takes many forms and shapes and encompasses the heart like the layers of an onion- when you pull off one layer, there is another underneath. Therefore, we need to have the greatest watch imaginable over our hearts with respect to this matter and to cry most earnestly to the great searcher of hearts for His help. He who trusts his own heart is a fool. Since spiritual pride in its own nature is secretive, it cannot be well discerned by immediate intuition of the thing itself. It is best identified by its fruits and effects, some of which I will mention together with the contrary fruits of Christian humility. The spiritually proud person is full of light already and feels that he does not need instruction, so he is ready to despise the offer of it. On the other hand, the humble person is like a little child who easily receives instruction. He is cautious in his estimate of himself, sensitive as to how liable he is to go astray. If it is suggested to him that he does go astray, he is most ready to inquire into the matter. Proud people tend to speak of other's sins, the miserable delusion of hypocrites, the deadness of some saints with bitterness, or the opposition to holiness of many believers. Pure Christian humility, however, is silent about the sins of others, or speaks of them with grief and pity. The spiritually proud person finds fault with other saints for their lack of progress in grace, while the humble Christian sees so much evil in his own heart, and is so concerned about it, that he is not apt to be very busy with other hearts. He complains most of himself and his own spiritual coldness and readily hopes that most everybody has more love and thankfulness to God than he. Spiritually proud people often speak of almost everything they see in others in the harshest, most severe language. Commonly, their criticism is directed against not only wicked men but also toward true children of God and those who are their superiors. The humble, however, even when they have extraordinary discoveries of God's glory, are overwhelmed with their own vileness and sinfulness. Their exhortations to fellow Christians are given in a loving and humble manner, and they treat others with as much humility and gentleness as Christ, who is infinitely above them, treats them. Spiritual pride often disposes people to act different in external appearance, to assume a different way of speaking, countenance, or behavior. However, the humble Christian, though he will be firm in his duty; going the way of heaven alone even if all the world forsake him; yet he does not delight in being different for difference's sake. He does not try to set himself up to be viewed and observed as one distinguished, but on the contrary, is disposed to become all things to all men, to yield to others, to conform to them, and to please them in all but sin. Proud people take great notice of opposition and injuries, and are prone to speak often about them with an air of bitterness or contempt. Christian humility, on the other hand, disposes a person to be more like his blessed Lord, who when reviled did not open His mouth but committed Himself in silence to Him who judges righteously. For the humble Christian, the more clamorous and furious the world is against him, the more silent and still he will be. Another pattern of spiritually proud people is to behave in ways that make them the focus of others. It is natural for a person under the influence of pride to take all the respect that is paid to him. If others show a disposition to submit to him and yield in deference to him, he is open to it and freely receives it. In fact, they come to expect such treatment and to form an ill opinion of those who do not give them what they feel they deserve. Adapted from "Some Thoughts concerning the Present Revival of Religion in New England" from The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Banner of Truth).

By Jonathan Edwards

8 Symptoms of False Doctrine

Many things combine to make the present inroad of false doctrine peculiarly dangerous.

1. There is an undeniable zeal in some of the teachers of error: their “earnestness” makes many think they must be right.

2. There is a great appearance of learning and theological knowledge: many fancy that such clever and intellectual men must surely be safe guides.

3. There is a general tendency to free thought and free inquiry in these latter days: many like to prove their independence of judgment, by believing novelties.

4. There is a wide-spread desire to appear charitable and liberal-minded: many seem half ashamed of saying that anybody can be in the wrong.

5. There is a quantity of half-truth taught by the modern false teachers: they are incessantly using. Scriptural terms and phrases in an unscriptural sense.

6. There is a morbid craving in the public mind for a more sensuous, ceremonial, sensational, showy worship: men are impatient of inward, invisible heart-work.

7. There is a silly readiness in every direction to believe everybody who talks cleverly, lovingly and earnestly, and a determination to forget that Satan often masquerades himself “as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14).

8. There is a wide-spread “gullibility” among professing Christians: every heretic who tells his story plausibly is sure to be believed, and everybody who doubts him is called a persecutor and a narrow-minded man.

All these things are peculiar symptoms of our times. I defy any observing person to deny them. They tend to make the assaults of false doctrine in our day peculiarly dangerous. They make it more than ever needful to cry aloud, “Do not be carried away!”

~ J.C. Ryle

What Is Doctrine?

Christian doctrine is unique in that it is an intellectual response to the historical activity and revelatory disclosure of God. Doctrine is rational reflection upon God’s saving activity in Jesus Christ. Foundational to the idea of “doctrine” is the fact that we need to be told what God is like. It is not ours to determine what kind of God we will believe and obey. It is God’s to determine to show Himself to us. Doctrine is our effort to articulate what He has made known. Doctrine is the divinely authorized attempt to describe God in accordance with how He has revealed Himself in creation, in history, in Jesus Christ and in the Scriptures. In doing so, doctrine also serves to expose false interpretations of reality, false concepts of God. It is the aim of doctrine to make sense of the individual’s and the church’s experience of God as He has made Himself known in Jesus Christ.

Alister McGrath, Understanding Doctrine: Its Relevance and Purpose for Today

The Biblical Basis of Christian Apologetics and Counter-Cult Ministry

“Would Jesus have done that?” A Biblical Look at Defending the Faith
By James White
Matthew 22:29: Jesus told the Sadducees, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God.”Matthew 23:13-36: In this passage Jesus pronounced seven woes upon the Pharisees. In this discourse Jesus used such words as “hypocrites” “blind guides” “fools” “blind men” “white�washed tombs” “serpents” “brood of vipers” and said they were “full of hypocrisy and law�lessness.” He then ended by saying “how shall you escape the sentence of hell?” John 8:24: Jesus informed the Jews “I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins. Acts 13:8-11: When Paul encountered Elymas, a magician who was keeping the proconsul from accepting the Lord, he said “You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord?” Acts 17:2-3: “..for three Sabbaths (he) reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying ‘This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.’” Acts 18:28: “...for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” Romans 16:17-18: “Now I urge you, brethren, keep you eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Jesus Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.” 1 Corinthians 16:13-14: “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.” Galatians 1:6-9: “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.” Ephesians 4:14-15: “As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspect into Him, who is the head, even Christ...” Colossians 2:8-9: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form...” 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.” 1 Timothy 1:5-7: “But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.”1 Timothy 4:1, 6, 16: “But the Spirit explicitly states says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons...In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following...Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.” 1 Timothy 6:3-5: “If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.” 2 Timothy 1:13: “Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 2:23-26: “But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses, and escape from the snares of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” 2 Timothy 3:14: “You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them.” 2 Timothy 4:1-4: “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires; and will turn away from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.” Titus 1:9, 13-14: “...holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict...For this cause reprove them severely that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.” Titus 2:1, 15: “But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine...These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” 1 Peter 3:15: “...but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence...”Jude 3-4, 20-23: “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ...But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.”

The Trinity

What the Trinity is Not

• The Trinity is not three gods. This is Tri-theism and it is repulsive to God.
• The Trinity is not one person with three names. This is a heresy known as Modalism.
• The Trinity is not one god and two lesser beings. This is a heresy known as Subordinationism.

Some Important Terms

• A “Being” is something that exists. A rock is a being, you are a being, and God is a being. Being is sometimes called Essence, or Substance
• A “Person” is an individual, a self; a conscious, rational being with an intellect, emotions and a will. “Personality” is an attribute possessed by some beings.
• The “Trinity” is one God who is three persons. God is one being, three persons. God is three persons, one being. 

An Important Distinction

It is important to notice the distinction between “being” and “person”. We often use the terms synonymously. But this is not the case when we discuss the Trinity.  

• A worm is one being and zero persons.
• A human is one being and one person.
• God is one being and three persons.   

A Statement

God is one being, three persons. 

A Common Objection

Critics of the Trinity will insist that the doctrine of the Trinity violates a rule of logic. They charge Christians with believing a contradiction. Of course, if the doctrine of the Trinity involved a contradiction, we would have to reject it. A bona fide contradiction is fatal to any doctrine. However, a careful examination of both the doctrine of the Trinity and the Law of Non-Contradiction will show that the doctrine of the Trinity does not involve a contradiction.

The Law of Non-Contradiction: X cannot be X and not X in the same way at the same time.

• God is only one being, God is three Beings, is a contradiction.
• God is three persons, God is only one person, is a contradiction.
• God is one being, God is three persons, is not a contradiction.
• God is three persons, God is one being, is not a contradiction.

Another Common Objection

No doubt, you have heard it before, “The word ‘Trinity’ is not even in the bible.” This is true but irrelevant. We get our word “Trinity” or “Tri-unity” from the Greek word, trias and the Latin word,trinitas, both mean, three in one.  Trias and trintas were used by early Christians to describe the Bible’s teaching about God. “Trinity” is a word that summarizes the tri-unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is not uncommon for the Church to borrow, or even create, words to describe theological truths. For example, the word “incarnation” means, in the flesh. It is not found in the Bible. Yet the truth of God in the flesh is undeniable. So, it is okay to use the word “incarnation” to describe God in the flesh. The word “Trinity” is no different. It does not appear in the Bible, but the truth that it expresses is present throughout the entire Bible.

Summary of the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity

The Bible’s teaching on the Trinity can be summarized by the following three truths.

• There is one God (Deut. 6:4; Isa. 44:6, 8)
• God is three persons (Mt. 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; Titus 3:4-6)
• Each person is fully God (Psalm 100:3; Col. 1:16; Psalm 104:30)

Each of these truths is undeniable, and they must all be held simultaneously.  These biblical truths are perfectly rational. Still, it is difficult for our minds to grasp these three truths all at one time. Yet, we should not be surprised that our feeble minds strain to grasp the Almighty God.

By Rick Appelton

Israel and the Church: Are They Different?

Cornelis P. Venema

We have frequently noted that one of the principal tenets of Dispensational Premillennialism is the strict separation between God’s earthly people, Israel, and his heavenly people, the church. It could even be argued that this separation between Israel and the church is the root principle of classical — as distinguished from ‘progressive’ Dispensationalism. From this separation of an earthly and a spiritual people stems another basic feature of Dispensationalism, one which we will consider in a subsequent section of this chapter: its insistence on a literalistic reading of the Bible. This actually stems from the insistence of classical Dispensationalism that the promises of the Lord to his earthly people, Israel, must be interpreted in a strictly literal rather than a figurative or spiritual way. Furthermore, among the seven distinct dispensations, the most important from the point of view of the future are those that reflect this separation between Israel and the church. The earliest dispensations of human conscience and government, for example, are of only passing interest in the overall scheme of Dispensationalism.

I. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH

Before subjecting the dispensational distinction between Israel and the church to biblical evaluation, a brief summary of the basic features of this separation is necessary. The following notes from the original Scofield Reference Bible clearly articulate these features:

(1) ‘I will make of thee a great nation.’ Fulfilled in a three-fold way: (a) In a natural posterity — ‘as the dust of the earth’ (Gen. 13:16, John 8:37), viz., the Hebrew people. (b) In a spiritual posterity — ‘look now towardheaven. . . so shall thy seed be’ (John 8:39, Rom. 4:16, 17; 9:7, 8, Gal. 3:6, 7, 29), viz, all men of faith, whether Jew or Gentile. (c) Fulfilled also through Ishmael (Gen. 17,18—20) [sic].¹

The Christian is of the heavenly seed of Abraham (Gen. 15:5, 6, Gal. 3:29), and partakes of the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15:18, note); but Israel as a nation always has its own place, and is yet to have its greatest exaltation as the earthly people of God.²

As these notes indicate, classical Dispensationalism regards God’s purposes in history as twofold, corresponding to these two distinct peoples, the one earthly, the other heavenly. God’s dispensational dealings with these two peoples have two quite distinct ends in view: the salvation of an earthly people that is consummated in an eternal kingdom upon the new earth, and the salvation of a heavenly people that is consummated in an eternal kingdom in the new heavens. Thus, just as God has two distinct peoples and programmes of salvation in history, so he has in mind two quite distinct eternal destinies. The line of separation that keeps Israel and the church apart in history will continue into the final state in which the earthly and heavenly natures of these peoples will correspond to salvation blessings that are distinctively earthly and heavenly.

This separation between Israel and the church corresponds to Dispensationalism’s emphasis upon a literal understanding of Old Testament prophecies on the one hand, and the contrast between the present ‘age of the church’ and the coming ‘age of the kingdom’ or the millennium on the other. The prophecies of the Old Testament, insofar as they are directed to the earthly people of God, Israel, must be understood in their literal or earthly sense. A promise of the possession of the land, for example, must mean the earthly land of Canaan. A promise of a restored temple must refer to the temple in Jerusalem.

The present age of the church, because it represents God’s dealings with his heavenly people, must also be regarded as a ‘parenthesis’ period of history, a period between God’s former dealings and his soon-to-be-resumed dealings with Israel in the millennial age to come. During the present age of God’s dealings with the church, his dealings with Israel have been temporarily suspended, but when the time of fulfilment comes (preceded by the rapture), the prophetic promises will be fulfilled. Because these were directed to Israel, they are silent for the most part respecting God’s dealings with the church, dealings comprised by the mystery which God had kept hidden until the gospel age.

Though this represents only a brief sketch of the classical dispensationalist separation between Israel and the church, it will serve as background for our consideration of the question, Who, according to the teaching of the Bible, is the ‘Israel of God’? Does the Bible actually draw this line of separation between these two peoples of God, Israel and the church? To answer this question, we will have to consider several features of the Bible’s teaching about the Israel of God.

II. THE CHURCH IS NO PARENTHESIS

The biblical understanding of the church, however, cannot be squared with this understanding of it as a parenthesis. In the New Testament, the church is commonly understood to be in direct continuity with the people of God in the Old Testament; the images used in the Old Testament to describe the people of the Lord are used in the New Testament to describe the church. The New Testament word for the church, ekklesia, is the equivalent of the common Old Testament word, qahal, meaning the ‘assembly’ or ‘gathering’ of the people of Israel.³ The New Testament church is also called the ‘temple’ of God (1 Cor. 3:16—17, Eph. 2:21—22), evoking the imagery and symbolism of the Old Testament, in which the temple was regarded to be the special place of the Lord’s dwelling in the midst of his people. Just as the temple was the place where fellowship between the Lord and his people was provided for (through the sacrificial rites and ordinances) and experienced, so the church is the place of the Lord’s dwelling by his Holy Spirit. Accordingly, the church can also be identified with Jerusalem, the city of God, which is above and which comprises believers from every tribe and tongue and nation. In Hebrews 12:22—23, this is expressly stated: ‘But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect.’

Rather than being regarded as an interruption in God’s dealings with his people, Israel, the church of the new covenant is regarded as the fulfilment of the Lord’s promises to the people of God of the old covenant. The great covenant promise made to Abraham was that in his seed all the families and peoples would be blessed (Gen.12:3; 22:18). Throughout the Old Testament, the Lord’s dealings with Israel are never isolated from his promises of redemption for all the nations and peoples of the earth. This theme of the salvation of the nations is interwoven throughout the fabric of the Old Testament, not only in the provisions in the law for the inclusion in the community of Israel of strangers and aliens,⁴ but also in the explicit language of the Psalter, the song book of Israel’s worship, and in the prophets.

The Psalms contain references throughout to the Lord’s purpose to gather the nations into the fellowship of his people. Psalm 2 includes a record of the Lord’s vow to grant the nations to his beloved Son. Psalm 22 speaks of how ‘all the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will worship before Thee (verse 27). Psalm 67 calls all the nations to join Israel in singing God’s praises. These are not isolated notes; they echo and re-echo throughout the Psalms. Furthermore, in the prophets, many promises speak of the day when the Gentile nations will be joined with the people of Israel in the service and praise of the Lord (for example, Isa. 45:22; 49:6, Mal. 1:1).

The simplest understanding of the Old and the New Testament people of the Lord recognizes the church to be his new covenant people, in direct communion with Israel, his old covenant people. Though salvation may historically be to the Jew first and, secondly, also to the Gentile (Rom. 1:16), the Lord is gathering to himself in history only one people, comprising Jew and Gentile alike. However, lest this appear to be a premature conclusion based upon an inadequate consideration of the biblical material, we turn now to other biblical considerations.

III. THE KINGDOM IS NOT POSTPONED

Closely linked to the idea that the church is a parenthesis in history is the dispensationalist claim that God’s dealings with Israel have been postponed during the present time. It is taught that because the Jews did not receive him as their promised Messiah and King, Jesus deferred the establishment of the kingdom, the earthly manifestation of God’s salvation to the Jews, until after the dispensation of the gospel to the Gentiles. This idea of the kingdom’s postponement has several problems.

First, it suggests that the church is an afterthought in the plan and purposes of God. This view of history seems to teach that Christ was frustrated in his original purpose for the establishment of the Davidic kingdom for Israel and was obliged to adjust the divine programme of redemption accordingly. However, such a suggestion is consistent neither with the biblical presentation of God’s sovereignty over history nor with the Bible’s view of the church.

Christ’s Great Commission to his disciples (Matt. 28:16—20), fulfils his earlier declaration regarding the church that he will build, against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail (Matt. 16:18—19). Far from being an afterthought or interim project, the church in these passages is described as the central accomplishment and interest of the Lord Jesus Christ in history. Indeed, this church which is being gathered from all the nations can be understood only as a fulfilment of the promises God made to the Son of David, to whom the nations would be given as his rightful inheritance (see Psa. 2:8). Consequently, when the Apostle Paul describes the church of Jesus Christ, he can speak of it as the ‘fullness of him who fills all and all’ (Eph. 1:22—23), through which the manifold wisdom of God is being made known ‘in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (Eph. 3:8—11). None of these descriptions of the church suggest that it is anything less than the central focus and instrument through which God’s final purpose of redemption in history is being realized.

Second, the dispensationalist idea of a postponement of the kingdom is based upon a misreading of the Gospel accounts of Christ’s preaching of the kingdom. Though it is true that many of the Jews in Jesus’ day did reject him as the Messiah, it must not be forgotten that Jesus himself was born from among the Jewish people — and he is a member, indeed the foremost member, of the church! — and that many of the Jews did respond to him in faith and repentance, though his proclamation of the nature of this kingdom did not always accord with the expectations of many of the people.

It should not be overlooked, for example, that the twelve disciples, the nucleus of the New Testament church, were all from among the Jewish people. In the account in Acts of the growth of the early church, the pattern of ‘to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile’ is clearly in evidence. Though some among the Jewish Christian community resisted the inclusion of Gentile believers, it is clear that Christ’s work through his apostles was directed to the salvation of Jew and Gentile alike. Christ and his apostles preached the gospel of the kingdom (for example, Acts 20:28), a kingdom that Christ proclaimed was ‘among them’ (Matt. 12:28) and that would be built through the preaching of the gospel (Matt. 16:19). The idea that Christ offered the kingdom to the Jews, only to have them reject it, is contradicted by these realities and Christ’s own testimony that they had misunderstood his kingdom (see John 18:36). Were Christ to have offered the kingdom to the Jews, only to have them reject it, one would expect this to have been included among the charges brought against him at his trial. However, the Gospel accounts make no mention of any such charge brought against him, namely, that he had offered to establish the kingdom among them only to have this offer refused.

Third, the idea of a postponement of the kingdom implies that the suffering and crucifixion of Christ might have been delayed, even become unnecessary, were the Jews of his day to have received him as their earthly king. This means that Christ’s own teaching, that he must first suffer and only then enter his glory, would have been invalidated (Luke 24:26). It also means that the uniform testimony of the New Testament Gospels and epistles, that Christ came in order to be obedient to his Father’s will, including his death upon the cross, would be compromised. Though dispensationalists might attempt to argue that Christ’s death would have nonetheless been necessary, even were his offer of the kingdom to have been accepted by his countrymen, it seems difficult to envision how it might have occurred. Surely the establishment of his earthly kingdom would have mitigated any need to endure suffering and death on behalf of his people.⁵

The mere suggestion that Christ’s death was the result of the Jewish people’s unbelief contradicts a variety of New Testament teachings. In the Gospel accounts of Christ’s suffering and death, the evangelists frequently note that all of this occurred to fulfil what was written in the Scriptures (for example, Matt. 16:23; 26:24, 45, 56).After his resurrection from the dead, Christ was compelled to rebuke the men on the way to Emmaus because they did not believe in ‘all the prophets had spoken’. They did not understand that it ‘was necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter his glory’ (Luke 24:25—26). The Gospel of John frequently testifies that Jesus Christ, the Word become flesh, came into the world for the express purpose of doing his Father’s will, namely, to be the ‘Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’ (cf. 1:29; 2:4; 6:38; 7:6; 10:10—18; 12:27; 13:1—3;17).

The same emphasis upon Christ’s death as the purpose for his coming is found in the book of Acts and the epistles of the New Testament. In his sermon at Pentecost, the Apostle Peter notes that Jesus was ‘delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God’ (Acts 2:23). When the Apostle Paul summarizes his gospel, he speaks of how ‘Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. . . and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures’. The writer to the Hebrews describes at length the manner in which Christ’s coming, priesthood and sacrifice are the fulfilment of the old covenant types and shadows. Christ came, he writes, in order ‘that He might become a merciful and faithful priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people’ (2:17). In a striking passage, this writer also speaks of God bringing Jesus up from the dead ‘by the blood of the eternal covenant’ (13:20). Nothing in this is congenial to the view that Christ’s death was occasioned primarily by the Jewish people’s refusal to acknowledge him as their earthly king.

And fourth, the idea that the kingdom has been postponed does not correspond to the New Testament’s insistence that Christ is now king and Lord over all. In the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension, it is evident that Christ has been installed as King at the Father’s right hand.⁶ He exercises as Mediator a rule over all things for the sake of the church. This kingly rule of Christ, moreover, fulfils the promises that had been made to his father, David, regarding his inheritance of the nations. At the angel Gabriel’s announcement of Christ’s birth, it was declared that ‘the Lord God will give him [the child to be born to Mary] the throne of his father David’ (Luke 1:32).

When Christ mandated that the disciples go and make disciples of all nations, he declared, ‘all authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth’ (Matt. 28:18). Peter, in his sermon at Pentecost, claimed that with God’s raising of Jesus from the dead, ‘all Israel’ was to acknowledge that ‘God has made Him both Lord and Christ’ (Acts 2:33—36). Christ is the Davidic King to whom the nations will be given as his rightful inheritance (see Acts4:24—26). Or, as the Apostle Paul describes the Lord, he has been ‘declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead’ (Rom. 1:4). Christ has now been given all rule and authority and power and dominion (Eph. 1:20—23; cf. Phil. 2:9—11). Therefore, he must ‘reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet’ (1 Cor. 15:25).

In the light of these and other passages that describe the present kingship of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, it seems wrong to distinguish sharply between the present age of the church and the future age of the kingdom. Though the present form and administration of the kingdom of Christ may not be earthly or physical in the dispensationalist sense of these terms, there is no escaping the biblical teaching that Christ now reigns upon the earth through his Spirit and Word and manifests his kingly rule primarily through the gathering of his church from all the tribes and peoples of the earth. Serious injury is done to the biblical conception of Christ’s kingship when Dispensationalism relegates it to some future period during which God’s dealings are directed narrowly to the earthly people of God, Israel.

IV. GOD’S ONE PURPOSE OF SALVATION FOR HIS PEOPLE

The basic reason why Dispensationalism wrongly speaks of the church as a parenthesis in history and of the postponement of the kingdom, is that it fails to see that God has one purpose of salvation for his people in the old and new covenants. Contrary to the dispensationalist view, the Israel of God of the old covenant is one people in direct continuity with the people of God, the church of Jesus Christ, of the new covenant. Israel and the church are different ways of referring to the one people of God. To put it as straight-forwardly as possible: Israel is the church, and the church is Israel. This can be illustrated in various ways from the New Testament.

In 1 Peter 2:9—10, the apostle gives a summary statement regarding the New Testament church. Writing to the scattered believers and churches throughout Asia Minor, Peter defines the new covenant church in terms drawn from the old covenant descriptions of the people of Israel:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.⁷

What is so remarkable about this description of the church is that it identifies the church with the exact terminology used in the Old Testament to describe the people of Israel with whom the Lord covenanted. The best reading of this language takes it literally to mean that the new covenant church is altogether one with the old covenant church. The Lord does not have two peculiar peoples, two holy nations, two royal priesthoods, two chosen races — he has only one, the church of Jesus Christ.

Similarly, in Romans 9—11, the Apostle Paul discloses God’s purposes of redemption in the salvation of the Gentiles and subsequently of all Israel (Rom. 11:25) in a way that makes it unmistakably clear that the people of God are one, not two.⁸ Dispensationalists argue that the salvation of all Israel mentioned in Romans 11:25 refers to the future national conversion of Israel and her restoration to the land of Palestine. This salvation will occur in the context of God’s resumed dealings with his earthly people, Israel.⁹ The great problem with this reading of the Apostle Paul’s argument in Romans 9—11 is that the argument depends upon the most intimate interrelationship between elect Israel and the elect Gentiles in God’s purposes of redemption.

The main thrust of the argument in these chapters is that the unbelief of many of the people of Israel has been in the purpose of God the occasion for the conversion of the ‘fullness of the Gentiles’. This conversion of the fullness of the Gentiles, however, will in turn under God’s blessing provoke Israel to jealousy and lead to the salvation of ‘all Israel’. No mention is made regarding the restoration of the nation of Israel as a racial entity to the land of Palestine. Nor is anything said about the establishment of an earthly form of the Davidic kingdom. On the contrary, the salvation of all of God’s people, Jew and Gentile alike, is described in terms of their belonging to the one olive tree, the church of Jesus Christ. All who are saved are saved through faith in Jesus Christ and are incorporated into the one fellowship of his church. This passage militates in the strongest possible terms against the idea of the existence of two separate olive trees or two separate purposes of salvation, a present one for the Gentiles, a future one for the Jews.

Thus, in the account of the growth of the church in the book of Acts, the earliest members of the church were drawn predominantly, though by no means exclusively, from among the Jewish people. Indeed, the incorporation of Gentile believers into the one fellowship of the church was initially resisted considerably. It is especially striking, then, to read the account of the Apostle Paul’s preaching at the synagogue (note well!) in Antioch. In his preaching, the Apostle Paul announces that the ‘holy and sure blessings of David’ are being fulfilled through the proclamation of the gospel of the forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ. In this sermon, the apostle declares that Jesus is the promised Davidic King and Saviour through whom the promised blessings to the fathers are now being realized in the community of those who believe. No clearer identification could be imagined of God’s purposes with Israel through David and his Son, and his purposes with the church through Jesus Christ. The words of this sermon speak for themselves:

And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘Thou art My Son; today I have begotten Thee.’ And as for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no more to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David’ (Acts 13:32—34).¹⁰

In these respects, as well as in those previously mentioned, it is apparent that God’s purpose of redemption in history is to gather one people, all of whom are the spiritual descendants of Abraham (Gal. 3:28—29), the father of all believers. The Lord has but one people, not two. Indeed, it is his purpose to join this people together in the most perfect unity (Eph. 2:14), not to leave them forever separated from each other into Israel and the church.

V. WHO BELONGS TO THE ‘ISRAEL OF GOD’ (GAL. 6:16)?

In addition to the cumulative force of the preceding points against the dispensationalist view of a separation between Israel and the church, one text by itself sufficiently refutes this position: it is Galatians 6:15—16. We will conclude this part of our evaluation of Dispensationalism with a consideration of this text.

These verses come towards the end of the Epistle to the Galatians, and they draw upon many of the emphases previously set out. The Apostle Paul makes this solemn and sweeping declaration: ‘For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And those who will follow this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.’ In Galatians, it is clear that the Apostle Paul is emphatically rejecting the idea that what commends anyone to God is obedience to the law, particularly the law prescribing circumcision as a sign of the covenant. He is opposing the false gospel of the Judaizers who were teaching that in order for a person to be acceptable to God, to be justified or found innocent before him, they had to submit to the requirements of the law, specifically the stipulations regarding circumcision. Against this false gospel, the apostle places the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, a gospel that is equally valid for Jew and Gentile alike. He sums up his argument with the formulation, ‘neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation’.

Having stated this governing principle, however, the Apostle Paul goes on to pronounce a benediction upon ‘those who will follow this rule’: ‘peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.’ The language used in this benediction is striking. The blessing of God rests upon those and only those who follow this specific rule or canon.¹¹ Conversely, those who do not follow or acknowledge it may not expect to receive God’s peace and mercy.

But what is even more striking, for our purpose, is the apostle’s identification of the church, comprising Jew and Gentile alike, as the Israel of God. The Israel of God in this text refers to the church as it honours this rule or canon, making no distinction, so far as justification before God is concerned, upon the basis of circumcision or uncircumcision. The Apostle Paul here sets forth a rule for the whole people of God, the church consisting of Jews and Gentiles, that seems to conflict with any separation at all between Israel as an earthly people and the church as a heavenly people. Such a separation makes the matter of circumcision and uncircumcision a fundamental principle of distinction between those who are of Israel and those who are not.

Now, it is possible to argue that when the apostle speaks in this text of ‘peace and mercy upon them, and upon the Israel of God’, he is actually distinguishing the Gentile church (‘them’) from the Jewish believing community (‘the Israel of God’). This has in fact been proposed by dispensationalist authors.¹² However, the problem with this suggestion should be clear: it excludes believing Jews from ‘all who will follow this rule’, an exclusion which would be contradictory and self-defeating. Were the word ‘and’ here to have this sense of ‘and also’, as dispensationalists maintain, the Apostle Paul would be pronouncing a benediction not only upon those who follow this rule, but also upon others, believing Jews, who may not follow it. The apostle would thus be denying the very rule or canon that he had asserted previously. Believing Jews would be exempt from this rule, thus rendering it null and void as a rule for faith and practice among all the people of God. Perhaps for this reason, the New International Version translates these verses as follows: ‘Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.’ Here the NIV is following a long tradition of interpreters, including Calvin, who understand the connector, ‘and’, as equivalent to ‘even’ or ‘that is’¹³

The sense of this text is that the apostle extends peace and mercy to those who follow this rule that in the church of Jesus Christ circumcision and uncircumcision count for nothing so far as our standing with God is concerned. He pronounces this benediction ‘to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God’. Thus, he answers the question — who belongs to the ‘Israel of God’? — by declaring emphatically that the Israel of God comprises all believers, Jews and Gentiles, who subscribe to and live by the principle that what alone counts before God is a new creation.

In short, no more emphatic word could be spoken that in the church illegitimate distinctions are no longer permitted between Jew and Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised. This should not surprise us, coming as it does from the same apostle who reminded the church in Ephesus that Christ ‘Himself is our peace, who made both [Jew and Gentile] one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall’ (Eph. 2:14). By the standard of this apostolic teaching and rule, Dispensationalism seems to be in serious error in its distinction between Israel and the church.

USING THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION AGAINST JEHOVAH'S WITNESS THEOLOGY

By Andrew Foland, M.A.A.

That knock on my door had become a familiar sound. We had met together several times and I had been looking particularly forward to today's meeting. I felt the time was right, so I went for it. As I handed her a tract which outlines flaws in Watchtower theology, her words betrayed her expression. "Oh, thank you" she politely said. But she couldn't hide the look – a look that said, "Oh, Satanic propaganda . . . I'll file this under 'T' for trash."

I did not know then what I understand now; namely, that Jehovah's Witnesses are strictly forbidden to read any materials that challenge the Watchtower. In fact, the Watchtower seems to have an almost Orwellian Big Brother persona over its members in that everything is to be seen through the organization's perspective. Therefore, in order to get a Jehovah's Witness (JW) to see a viewpoint different from his/her own, one needs to shake his/her faith in the Watchtower. One way this can be done is through the use of their translation of the Bible: The New World Translation. Witnesses may be closed to anti-Watchtower materials but they are certainly open to their own bibles. They would be surprised to learn, however, that there are theological inconsistencies between the NWT and Watchtower theology. The hope is that by demonstrating such inconsistencies, a JW may begin to question whether the Watchtower Society is really the mouthpiece of God that it claims to be.

While there are numerous places in the NWT which indicate inconsistencies, we will try to simplify matters by working from our home base: Isaiah 40-48. By simply reading these eight chapters, or at least select passages from within them, and comparing them to other biblical teachings, major cracks in the foundation of the Watchtower's primary biblical translation emerge. 

The context of Isaiah 40-48 is extremely significant to our overall argument. In the eight chapters, God is trying to restore a bruised relationship with Israel. The Hebrews have repeatedly gone after false gods. In order to gain a healed relationship, the nation of Israel needs to have a proper understanding of who God is; consequently, Jehovah describes His identity, often in contrast to ideas of false gods. By doing this, Israel would once again be able to know God, respect His attributes and actions that distinguish Him, and would worship Him alone. By setting Himself apart from ideas of false gods, we can assume that the descriptions God gives of Himself are descriptions that should only rightly be attributed to Him. After all, He uses these portrayals as a way to recognize who He is. But Watchtower theology struggles with this since, even in their translation of the Bible, the descriptions of Jehovah are attributed to Jesus. This must mean that Jesus is Almighty God, something the Watchtower vehemently rejects.With this context in mind, let us begin in Isaiah 40. 

A Special Announcement

As we begin in Chapter 40 we soon note an announcement proclaimed: 

Isa. 40:3 NWT "Listen! Someone is calling out in the wilderness: 'Clear up the way of Jehovah, YOU people! MAKE the highway for our God through the desert plain straight.'" 

What is noteworthy for our purposes is that this is a proclamation in which someone announces the coming of Jehovah. As verse 9 says, "Do not be afraid. Say to the cities of Judah: 'Here is YOUR God.'"

It is fascinating that all four Gospel writers apply the Isaiah passage in such a way as to claim that John the Baptist is the announcer and that he is announcing the coming of Jesus.

 Matt. 3:3 NWT "Listen! Someone is crying out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of Jehovah, YOU people! Make his roads straight.’"

Of course the Watchtower recognizes that Matthew is quoting from Isaiah. Certainly the passage is calling for Israel to repent. But why repent? The answer is because someone is coming. The question is, Who is John the Baptist announcing? The NWT clearly says "Jehovah." But does the context not imply Jesus? Consider the rest of the Baptist narrative. For example, we read, "'I, for my part, baptize YOU with water because of YOUR repentance; but the one coming after me is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not fit to take off. That one will baptizeYOU people with holy spirit and with fire. His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will completely clean up his threshing floor, and will gather his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn up with fire that cannot be put out.' Then Jesus came from Gal´i·lee to the Jordan to John, in order to be baptized by him."

Isn't it curious, we can ask our JW friend, that all four New Testament writers used a passage that announces the coming of Jehovah and applied it to Jesus? 

The Shepherd

Is the prior example merely a coincidental isolated incident? As will be shown, the type of textual treatment which compares Jesus to Jehovah is not an isolated incident, but rather a calculated occurrence. Just a few verses farther in Isaiah we find another description of Jehovah:

Isa. 40:11 NWT "Like a shepherd he will shepherd his own drove. With his arm he will collect together the lambs; and in his bosom he will carry [them]. Those giving suck he will conduct [with care]."

The Old Testament concept of God as a shepherd is not isolated to Isaiah.Yet in the New Testament, Jesus takes this job description for Himself:      

John 10:14 NWT "I am the fine shepherd, and I know my sheep and my sheep know me . . . ."

In this passage, Jesus is trying to teach us about his ministerial role and identity. Why would Jesus take a job title for God and apply it to Himself?

 The First and the Last

Remember that in these Isaiah passages, Jehovah is distinguishing Himself as unique. One of the ways He does this is by claiming certain titles which describe His eternality. For example, Jehovah claims to be "the first" and "the last."

Isa. 44:6 NWT "This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, 'I am the first and I am the last . . . .'"       

Isa. 48:12a NWT "Listen to me, O Jacob, and you Israel my called one. I am the same One. I am the first. Moreover, I am the last."

Two major points need emphasis. The obvious first is that Jehovah clearly claims to be the first and last. The second point is also obvious; there can only be one "first." These evident points are significant because in the book of Revelation Jesus repeatedly assumes this title for Himself:

Rev. 1:17-18 NWT "And when I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet. And he laid his right hand upon me and said: 'Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des.'"

Rev. 22:12-13 NWT "Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

In Rev. 1:17-18, Jesus is clearly speaking because he "became dead" and is now "living forever." The same one who "became dead" is "the First and the Last." For Jesus to use for himself a title reserved for Almighty God would be blasphemy unless Jesus was Almighty God.

Some JW's may argue that Rev. 22:13 is not Jesus, but rather Jehovah, who is speaking. But note that this does not relieve them from the Rev. 1:17 dilemma. Additionally, consider the context of Rev. 22:13. It is clear that Jesus is speaking for at least two reasons. First, verse 16 indicates that Jesus is speaking, "I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness  . . . ." Second, the one who is speaking in verses 12-13 is the same one who is "coming quickly." As verse 20 of the NWT makes clear, Jesus is the one coming quickly:

"He that bears witness of these things says, 'Yes; I am coming quickly.' Amen! Come, Lord Jesus."  

Let us conclude this logically: Jesus is the one who is "coming quickly" (Rev. 22:20). The one who is "coming quickly" is "the first and the last" (Rev. 22:12-13). "The first and the last" is Jehovah (Isa. 48:12). Therefore, Jesus is Jehovah.

Also worth pointing out, our conclusion is in harmony with the rest of Rev. 22:12-13 which indicates that the one who is "the first and the last" is also "the Alpha and the Omega." This is particularly sticky for the JW because in Rev. 1:8 NWT the title of Alpha and Omega is identified with Jehovah: "'I am the Al´pha and the O·me´ga,' says Jehovah God, 'the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.'"   

The Creator and Sustainer 

After reading Isaiah chapters 40-48 of the NWT, one can hardly miss the claim that Jehovah establishes His uniqueness from other gods with His claim to be the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. But how can this harmonize with all the New Testament verses that seem to indicate that Jesus had a role in creation? According to Watchtower theology, Jehovah made everything through Jesus, but Jesus is in no way Jehovah. One Jehovah's Witness gave me the following analogy: Jehovah is the architect and Jesus is the builder. Evidently, the Watchtower has two beings involved in creation.

The Watchtower theology, however, cannot be adequately harmonized with some passages in Isaiah, which clearly indicate that Jehovah wasthe lone creator and builder of the heavens and the earth.            

Isa. 44:24 NWT: "This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?"      

This verse alone completely destroys Watchtower theology because it obliterates any notion that Jehovah used a junior partner in the act of creation. Clearly, the implication of the rhetorical question "Who was with me?" is "No one." This is what sets Jehovah apart. Regarding creation, Jehovah claimed, "I, Jehovah, am doing everything . . . by myself." Jehovah is creating and building alone. Clearly, God is distinguishing that He alone, and not created things, creates. 

Isa. 45:12 NWT "I myself [Jehovah] have made the earth and have created even man upon it. I—my own hands have stretched out the heavens, and all the army of them I have commanded.”   

Again, Jehovah emphasizes "I myself" used "my own hands." Jehovah was the lone craftsman. 

Isa. 48:13 NWT "Moreover, my own hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my own right hand extended out the heavens. I am calling to them, that they may keep standing together." 

This verse not only indicates that Jehovah's "own hand" created heaven and earth, but that Jehovah, "I", is sustaining his creation as well.

When one examines New Testament verses regarding Jesus, one can see that Jesus is also credited as Creator and Sustainer. For example:

John 1:3 NWT "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

Col. 1:16-17 NWT ". . . because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist . . . ."

Heb. 1:2 "God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, andhe sustains all things by the word of his power;"

As Trinitarians, we don't deny that the Father made the world through the Son. But with Scripture, we affirm that only Jehovah created. Therefore, the Father and Son must be Jehovah. Given the strength of these comparisons, the JW ought to give serious reflection as to what the author of Hebrews meant when he called Jesus "the exactrepresentation of his [Jehovah's] very being."

It is particularly interesting to compare Isa. 45:12 (which is a quote from Jehovah) with Heb. 1:10 (in which the Father is speaking about the Son): 

Isa. 45:12 NWT "I myself have made the earth and have created even man upon it. I—my own hands have stretched out the heavens, and all the army of them I have commanded.”  

Heb. 1:10 NWT "And: “You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands." 

The same language is used of the Father and the Son. Creation is the work of both their hands, both have stretched out the heavens, and both sustain all things. But if only Jehovah's hands created, and the Father and the Son's hands created, is not the only logical conclusion that both the Father and the Son are Jehovah?

By now the dilemma should be clear and is worthy of asking your JW friend. If Jehovah created everything by Himself, how is it possible that He did so through a separate being? The force of the argument is that the Watchtower is forced to admit that Jesus created and sustains all things and yet, Isaiah is clear that Jehovah alone created and sustains everything. If Jehovah alone created and sustains everything, and Jesus created and sustains all things, then Jesus must be of the same nature as Jehovah. 

How Many Gods? 

For God, the thought of being compared to any created being is repugnant: "'But to whom can YOU people liken me so that I should be made his equal?' says the Holy One." As a result, God uses at least two arguments to distinguish Himself from created beings. First, God argues that there are certain divine attributes that only He possesses. Second, God argues that He is, in fact, the only God. In other words, no created beings are truly Divine. Regarding the latter, consider: 

Isa. 45:5 NWT "I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God."

 Isa. 45:21 NWT "Is it not I, Jehovah, besides whom there is no other God"

 Isa. 46:9 NWT "I am the Divine One and there is no other God, nor anyone like me"

Importantly, notice that He doesn't merely say He is the only Jehovah, or the only Almighty; rather He says He is the only God. There are no other beings worthy of that title; there are no other beings possessing Deity.

Though clear claims of monotheism are presented above, the Bible, nevertheless, repeatedly refers to Jesus as God. Therefore, either the JW must reject monotheism, or he must deny that the term god refers to deity, or he must accept that Jesus is Jehovah.

Isa. 9:6 "For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

The Watchtower tries to argue that this verse only claims Jesus is a "Mighty God," not Almighty God. They emphasize that the messiah is also referred to as "Prince," not King. Regarding this passage, the Watchtower publication Awake! remarks, "So, as the 'Prince'—the son of the Great King, Jehovah—Jesus will serve as Ruler of the heavenly government of 'God Almighty.'"

The Watchtower interpretation is unconvincing for several reasons. First, when all of the descriptions of the Messiah are considered from Isa. 9:6, "Mighty God" is clearly a reference to Deity. For example, the Messiah is referred to as "Eternal Father," which means Father of Eternity or possessor of Eternity. Who but God is Eternal? Certainly no temporal, created creature could be considered the Father of Eternity. Furthermore, the reference to the "Prince of Peace" in no way demeans the Messiah's Deity; rather, as verse 7 indicates, the Messiah's rule will be a reign of unending peace: "there will be no end." Additionally, if the Watchtower requires a "King" reference in order to indicate Almighty Sovereignty for the Messiah, they can have it. Rev. 19:16 of their NWT refers to Jesus as "King of kings and Lord of lords."

Additional evidence that the Watchtower misinterprets "Mighty God" is the fact that the same name is used in reference to Jehovah in the very next chapter. It would be most incongruous of Isaiah to use the title "Mighty God" for a mere creature in one chapter and of Jehovah in the very next chapter.

Finally, even if "Mighty God" did refer to a lesser "God," this does not alleviate the Watchtower's dilemma because Jehovah has clearly, repeatedly stated that he is the only God. The only reasonable conclusion from this passage is that the Messiah is Deity.

The New Testament also testifies that Jesus is God.  

John 1:1 "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

A lot of good material has been written demonstrating that the Watchtower translation "a god" is unwarranted. For the purposes of this article, we simply add that even the Watchtower translation does not get them off the hook. Their theology is still henotheistic (one main god with lesser god(s) existing), while Isaiah clearly teaches monotheism.Incidentally, that Isaiah is actually teaching monotheism is supported by 1 Cor. 8:4 NWT which states, " . . . we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one." The NWT is simply not consistent.

The Watchtower response to this dilemma is to argue that "Jesus is a god in the sense of being divine, but he is not the Father."Further, the Watchtower argues that the term "god" is used elsewhere in the Bible with reference to human judges and even Satan. Therefore, they reason, surely Jesus can be called a god.

Christians quite agree that Jesus is divine, and yet not the Father; however, this is not the issue. The point is that Jehovah has already made it clear that there is only one divine – only one God! While the term "god" is used of other beings in the Bible, it is never used of created beings when describing a supreme act of God's identity, such as creation. To do so would be to obliterate the arguments Jehovah presents in Isaiah. If Witnesses want to define divine so as to remove the character of Deity, they might remember that they are drawing their characterization of Jesus' divinity from John 1:1-3 in which Jesus is called "god" and credited with the work that Jehovah alone accomplished, namely creation.

 John's Gospel is filled with references to Jesus' Deity. One of the most outright is: 

John 20:28 NWT "In answer Thomas said to him: 'My Lord and my God!'"

In response to this verse, the Watchtower once again recognizes the divinity of Jesus but only as a lesser God. And once again, we respond that the Bible clearly teaches that there is only one true God, only one Divine. Furthermore, according to Thomas, his God is Jesus for in Greek, the verse reads, "ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou," which translates to "the Lord of me and the God of me." Either Thomas is blaspheming or Jesus is God.

Dilemma:

If there is only one God, then Jesus must be Jehovah, the one God. If there is more than one God, then the NWT is wrong when it teaches monotheism.

Either there is only one God or there is more than one God.

Therefore, either Jesus must be Jehovah, or the NWT is wrong when teaching monotheism.

One way or the other the Watchtower Society must be wrong for either their theology is wrong or their bible is mistaken. Therefore, they cannot be the prophetic organization that they claim to be. 

Glory for Whom?

For Christians, it is clear that the glory of God belongs to Him alone. As even the NWT teaches:

Isa. 42:8 NWT "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images."

Yet, in John 17 Jesus claims to possess the glory of God.

 John 17:5 NWT "So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was."

 It is important to observe that Jesus had glory with the Father at a time when Jehovah had said that no one possessed that kind of divine glory. If Jehovah will not give his glory to anyone, and Jesus possesses the glory of Jehovah, then the most plausible explanation is that Jesus is of the essence of Jehovah. 

Who is the Savior?

 Jehovah's Witnesses openly acknowledge that Jesus is their Savior Sadly, they do not have a proper understanding of this term, essentially believing that Jesus, as a "corresponding ransom," provides man a clean slate from original sin whereby man can then earn his salvation via good works. The Watchtower understanding of Jesus as Savior has missed the gospel, but it also has difficulty harmonizing with key passages in Isaiah. 

Isa. 43:11-12 NWT "'I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.I myself have told forth and have saved and have caused [it] to be heard, when there was among YOU no strange [god]. So YOU are my witnesses,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'and I am God.'"

Isa. 45:21e-22 NWT "Is it not I, Jehovah, besides whom there is no other God; a righteous God and a Savior, there being none excepting me?Turn to me and be saved, all YOU [at the] ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no one else."

Two points bear emphasizing: First, these verses (along with others) teach that Jehovah is the "savior." Second, Jehovah is the onlysavior, for "besides me there is no savior." The New Testament writers were well aware of these facts and yet still felt compelled to write the following about Jesus:

Acts 4:10-12 NWT ". . . let it be known to all of YOU and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ the Naz·a·rene´ . . .there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved."

These verses indicate that salvation is found in Jesus. But how can salvation be in Christ if Jehovah is the only savior? Furthermore, the Watchtower has an additional problem with Acts 4. JW's hold that it is the name of Jehovah that saves. After all, in the NWT version of Rom. 10:13 (which is a bad translation) we read, "For 'everyone who calls onthe name of Jehovah will be saved.'" Comparing this verse to Acts 4:12 is devastating to the Watchtower denial of Christ's Deity because the Acts verse specifically notes that "not another name under heaven" is given other that Jesus by which we must get saved. Would the authors of the New Testament really play so fast and loose with scripture? Isn't it more reasonable to conclude that they are not merely being sloppy, but are trying to communicate an intricate theological truth about the nature of God? Consider another verse that affirms Jesus as Savior:

Titus 2:13 NWT ". . . while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus"

To be sure, the Watchtower translation "of the great God and of [the] Savior of us" is a biased rendering in order to avoid exclaiming that Jesus is God. But for our purposes the point is that the text still clearly gives Jesus the credit as the Savior. But there is no Savior but Jehovah.

Other examples could be sighted, but the point of Scripture is clear. The Savior is Jehovah. Jesus is the Savior. Therefore, Jesus is Jehovah.  

 For Whose Sake?

 Isaiah 43:25 NWT "I [Jehovah]—I am the One that is wiping out your        transgressions for my own sake, and your sins I shall not remember."

While this verse teaches that sins are wiped away for Jehovah's own sake, interestingly, when one reads 1 John 2:12 one finds that sins are forgiven for Jesus' sake:

1 John 2:12 NWT "I [John] am writing YOU, little children, becauseYOUR sins have been forgiven YOU for the sake of his name."

The question is, To whom is the pronoun "his" referring in 1 John 2:12? The answer is that it refers to Jesus as is evident for two reasons: First, "his" refers back to "Jesus Christ, a righteous one" in verse 1 of chapter 2. Second, in the even more immediate context, verse 13 refers to the same person as "him who is from [the] beginning." And as is indicated from 1 John 1:1, Jesus is the one "which was from the beginning."

This leads to the question we should lovingly ask our JW friends, For whose sake are sins forgiven? It cannot be overstated that the New Testament writers knew the book of Isaiah, yet they repeatedly and unashamedly took Old Testament verses about Jehovah and applied them to Jesus. Given the first century Jewish mindset, wouldn't such a tribute be utterly profane unless Jesus was God?

 The Rock

In Isa. 44:8 NWT Jehovah declares that He is the only God and that besides Him there is no rock. In fact, earlier in Isaiah one reads that Jehovah Himself is the stone upon which Israel would stumble.

Isa. 8:13-14 "Jehovah of armies—he is the One whom YOU should treat as holy, and he should be the object of YOUR fear, and he should be the One causing YOU to tremble.' And he must become as a sacred place; but as a stone to strike against and as a rock over which to stumble to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and as a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."

Yet in 1 Peter, the apostle applies the stumbling stone imagery directly to Christ.

1 Pet. 2:7 "It is to YOU, therefore, that he is precious, because YOU are believers; but to those not believing, 'the identical stone that the builders rejected has become [the] head of [the] corner,' and 'a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense.'"

If Jehovah is the only rock and the rock over which Israel stumbles, what are we to make of Peter's statement which flatly states that Jesus is the rock over which Israel stumbled? It would seem that either the authors of the Bible are deeply confused or they are vigorously trying to tell us something about the identity of Jesus.

To Whom will I Bow?

In the last chapter of the last book of the Bible, the apostle John is given a stern warning to "Worship God" and not a creature. Throughout chapters 40-48 of Isaiah, God has emphatically driven home the same point; namely, worship God, for there is only one true God and only He is worthy of worship. In fact, God even predicts that one day everyone will recognize His sovereignty. This is beautifully put in Isa. 45:22-24.

"Turn to me and be saved, all YOU [at the] ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no one else. By my own self I have sworn—out of my own mouth in righteousness the word has gone forth, so that it will not return—that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear,saying, ‘Surely in Jehovah there are full righteousness and strength."

In the Isaiah passage, every knee will bow and every tongue will swear in recognition of Jehovah. But in the New Testament the same phrasing is used in the recognition of Jesus.

Phil. 2:10-11 ". . . so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bendof those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."

Ask the JW, Why would holy spirit inspire language expressly used to recognize Jehovah and apply it to a creature? Would it not be deceitful for God to inspire such language about a created being when the context of Isaiah is about God establishing His identity? Does it not seem more reasonable to conclude that God is consistent with the use of terminology, particularly when it comes to His indistinguishability? Further, doesn't the context of Philippians 2 indicate that Jesus existed "in God's form"? How can a finite creature have ever existed "in God's form"? And if the Son is not Almighty God, how can he receive sovereign worship reserved expressly for Almighty God?        

Conclusion

Though the NWT has been warped by the Watchtower in many places so as to seemingly teach that Jesus is not Almighty God, we have demonstrated that it has not succeeded in stealing the Deity from Christ. Even in the theologically biased translation, some truth can be found regarding The Divinity of the Son, which should give the open minded Jehovah's Witness serious concerns about his theology and the inaccuracies of his bible.

Even in the NWT, the New Testament writers repeatedly take the titles, attributes, and actions strictly reserved for Jehovah and apply them to Jesus. The best explanation for these facts is that the New Testament authors are trying to communicate that Jesus is Almighty God, while making every effort distinguish the persons of the Father and the Son.

We would be remiss if we did not note that one of the primary reasons it is so difficult to for JW's to accept what the Bible is clearly teaching is that they believe the Trinity is an unreasonable doctrine. While giving a complete defense of the Trinity is beyond the scope of this article, a few preliminary comments are in order regarding the mindset with which one should approach the scriptures.

In Isa. 1:18, God attempts to reason with his followers. To be sure, there are numerous places in scripture where God calls us to use our minds. While God places a value on human reason, however, there are also numerous places in scripture that indicate that God is beyond our understanding. For example, in Isa. 55:9 NWT God declares, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher thanYOUR ways, and my thoughts than YOUR thoughts." So while God never goes against our reason, He does go beyond our reason. There is a big difference between a contradiction and that which extends beyond full human comprehension. The Trinity is not a contradiction.  We canapprehend the Trinity without needing to fully comprehend it just as we do with many of God's attributes (such as infinitude.) Let us be honest enough to follow all of the Scriptures where they lead rather than forcing human limitations on how God defines Himself.