Part 3

“The Word”—Who Is He? According to John

1. (a) Who was John, and whom did he argue Jesus Christ to be? (b) What do Trinity teachers argue that John 10:30 means?

JOHN the son of Zebedee of the city of Bethsaida was personally acquainted with the Word. He tells us that this Word had been the companion of God in heaven, but that he “became flesh” by birth from a Jewish virgin in the city of Bethlehem, almost two thousand years ago. John identifies him as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and John became one of his twelve apostles. Today there are men who use John’s writings about the Word to argue that Jesus Christ was more than God’s Son, that he was God himself and that he became a God-Man. One saying of Jesus that these Trinity teachers use in arguing that Jesus himself claimed to be God is found in John 10:30, reading: “I and my Father are one.” (AV) However, in the argument that followed between Jesus and the Jews he proved that he had by no means said that he was God. Jesus explained: “I said, I am the Son of God.” (John 10:36, AV) But if he was not God himself, how were he and his Father one?

2, 3. What did the Jews ask Jesus to tell them, and what did Jesus answer, leading up to his words in John 10:30?

² Jesus had just told a parable or illustration in which he spoke of himself as the Fine Shepherd and his followers as sheep. Then the Jews encircled him and said: “How long are you to keep our souls in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us outspokenly.”

³ Jesus replied that his works spoke for him: “I told you, and yet you do not believe. The works that I am doing in the name of my Father, these bear witness about me. But you do not believe, because you are none of my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father. I and the Father are one.”—John 10:24-30.

4. Why does this oneness not refer to a Trinity, as clergymen teach?

⁴ How were they one? One in body, one in identity, one in together making up one God, one as members of a Trinity or three-in-one God, the third member of which was the Holy Ghost? No! For if they belonged to a Trinity or triune God, then the two of them were not one but only two-thirds, as the Trinity has three Persons, namely, “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.”

5. How were they one in the relationship of Father and Son, and how one in witnessing?

⁵ Instead of being in a Trinity, Jesus and his Father were one by being in agreement with each other as Father and Son. Never was there any disagreement between them. The witness that the Father gave and the witness that the Son gave were in agreement. Jesus the Son said to the Jews: “The Father who sent me is with me. Also, in your own Law it is written, ‘The witness of two men is true.’ I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” (John 8:16-18) Jesus here spoke of himself and of his Father as two distinct individuals. So by them enough testimony was provided for the Jews to believe, since testimony was required of two witnesses at least. Though two distinct individuals, yet the Father and the Son were one in their witness or testimony, because both their testimonies agreed.

6, 7. (a) According to the prophet Ezekiel, what shepherding arrangements did Jehovah promise to set up for his sheeplike people? (b) How were Jesus and the Father one as regards these sheep?

⁶ The Father and the Son were also one in their care of the sheep. Long previously God had promised to set up a faithful shepherd over his sheeplike people. In Ezekiel 34:23, 24 (AS) God said: “I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I, Jehovah, will be their God, and my servant David prince among them; I, Jehovah, have spoken it.” So Jehovah God raised up his Son Jesus Christ as a descendant of King David to fulfill this prophecy about the “one shepherd” like King David.

⁷ Jesus as Shepherd said he would not let any wolfish enemy snatch the sheep out of his hand. Neither would the Father, who turned these sheep over to his Son, let an enemy snatch them out of his own hand. The Father and the Son were agreed as to this protection and preservation of the sheep. They had one purpose in common, that of keeping these sheep from being destroyed but saving them to everlasting life. So in this sharing of interests the Father and the Son were one. That is why Jesus said he was doing his works “in the name of my Father.” In his works he acted as an agent for his Father, as a representative of his Father.

8. How were they one as to the will that was to be done?

⁸ Proving that they were always at one and never at disagreement, Jesus said: “I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me. This is the will of him that sent me, that I should lose nothing out of all that he has given me but that I should resurrect it at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone that beholds the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him at the last day.” (John 6:38-40) He did not fail that will of God, but fairly lived on doing it. He said: “My food is for me to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work.”—John 4:34.

9. How were they one as regards the initiative for action?

⁹ Jesus never did anything independently of his Father, but always kept at unity with his Father. He said: “I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.” (John 5:30) Does that not bespeak perfect oneness between Father and Son? But such unity did not require Jesus to say: I am God; I am my Father.

10, 11. What prayer of Jesus to his Father throws light on the kind of oneness that exists between them?

¹⁰ That this is the kind of oneness that exists between Jesus Christ and Jehovah God is proved by Jesus’ own prayer to his heavenly Father for the sake of the sheep. In this prayer Jesus does not speak of himself as God but says to his Father:

¹¹ “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.”—John 17:3, 6, 20-24, AV.

12. (a) Why did Jesus not mean that he and his Father were “one in substance”? (b) What shows that Jesus did not class himself as God?

¹² In this prayer to his heavenly Father, Jesus called him “the only true God” and said: “Thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,” and, “we are one.” Did Jesus mean that he and his Father were one God, or two Persons of one triune God, the third member of which God is not even mentioned? Did Jesus mean that he and his Father were, as trinitarians say, “one in substance”? How could that be so in the face of what else Jesus, then of fleshly substance, said in this prayer to God who is spirit? (John 4:24) By calling his Father “the only true God” he shut himself out from being God or even a part or a Person of God. Otherwise, the Father would not be the “only true God.” The word “only” means, according to the dictionary, “alone in its class; without others of the same class or kind; sole; single; alone, by reason of superiority; pre-eminent; chief.” According to Jesus, his Father was, not only the “true God,” but also the “only” one. According to his own words, Jesus did not class himself with God.

13. Who was it that gave Jesus men out of this world?

¹³ When Jesus said that his Father “the only true God” gave him disciples out of this world, Jesus did not mean that he as God gave himself something. Some of Jesus’ apostles who were listening to his prayer were previously the disciples of John the Baptist, but John turned them over to Jesus as the Bridegroom who was entitled to the Bride class. But Jesus spoke of all his disciples, not as a gift made by himself to himself, but as a gift made to him by the “only true God,” his heavenly Father. “Thou gavest them me.”

14. (a) If the Trinity were so, what would the disciples’ becoming one as Jesus and his Father are one mean? (b) In what way, then, are the disciples made one?

¹⁴ In addition, Jesus did not speak of merely himself and his Father as being one but also of all his disciples as being one: “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: . . . that they may be one, even as we are one.” By praying that his disciples “may be one in us” Jesus certainly did not mean that his disciples were to be incorporated into a Trinity, so that the Trinity was to increase its membership or Persons from three to a hundred and forty-four thousand and three, to be no longer a three-in-one God but henceforth a many-in-one God. That is nonsensical! Jesus said that, as he and his Father were one, so his disciples were to be made one. How are his disciples made one? Not as one God; not as one individual of many Persons. No, but one in belief in the one God and in the name of the one whom God sent; one in the kind of fruitage that they produced by the same spirit; one in kind of work; one in harmony and agreement among themselves; one in the same purpose and objective, which is the vindicating of Jehovah as “the only true God” and the salvation of the human family by Jesus Christ for God’s glory.

15. (a) On this basis, why are Jesus and his Father not one in a Trinity sense? (b) How are all the disciples one in the Father and the Son?

¹⁵ They are also one family group, inasmuch as all these disciples are begotten by God to become spiritual sons of God and to become thus the brothers of Jesus Christ. Since the way that all these disciples are one is the way in which the heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ are one, then the Father and the Son are not both one God of more than one Person. The heavenly Father stays “the only true God,” and Jesus Christ whom he sent remains the Son of the “only true God.” All the 144,000 spirit-begotten disciples of Jesus Christ are one in the Father and the Son by being in union with them, in a special harmonious family relationship.

“I AM”

16, 17. (a) What other text involving Abraham will trinitarians bring up to argue their point? (b) What does the Drioux Bible edition say on that expression, and also what does the Knox edition say?

¹⁶ Another text in John’s writings the trinitarians bring up in their arguing that John’s writings teach that Jesus Christ is God. That text is found in Jesus’ argument with the Jews given in John 8:56-58 (AV): “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

¹⁷ On this expression the comment of the Abbé Drioux edition of the Holy Bible is: “Before Abraham was, I am, in fact God eternal, before Abraham was born.”a In a footnote in his Bible translation Monsignor Ronald A. Knox says: “Joh 8 Verse 58. ‘I am’; here our Lord seems explicitly to claim a Divine title, compare Exodus 3:14.”b So we turn to Exodus 3:14 (Dy) and read. “God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.” But the King James Version reads: “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”

18. (a) How was the expression “I AM” used in Exodus 3:14? (b) What modern translations of John 8:58 do not show Jesus as claiming to be Jehovah God?

¹⁸ The expression “I AM” is there used as a title or a name, and in the Hebrew this expression is the one word Ehyéh (אהיה). Jehovah God was there speaking to Moses and sending him to the children of Israel. Well, then, in John 8:58, was Jesus claiming to be Jehovah God? Not according to many modern Bible translators, as the following quotations will prove: Moffatt: “I have existed before Abraham was born.” Schonfield and An American Translation: “I existed before Abraham was born.” Stage (German): “Before Abraham came to be, I was.”c Pfaefflin (German): “Before there was an Abraham, I was already there!”d George M. Lamsa, translating from the Syriac Peshitta, says: “Before Abraham was born, I was.” Dr. James Murdock, also translating from the Syriac Peshitto Version, says: “Before Abraham existed, I was.” The Brazilian Sacred Bible published by the Catholic Bible Center of São Paulo says: “Before Abraham existed, I was existing.”—2nd edition, of 1960, Bíblia Sagrada, Editora “AVE MARIA” Ltda.e

19. (a) In what language did Jesus say that to the Jews? (b) How does the Hebrew rendering of his words by modern translators prove that Jesus was not pretending to be the great “I AM”?

¹⁹ We must remember, also, that when Jesus spoke to those Jews, he spoke to them in the Hebrew of his day, not in Greek. How Jesus said John 8:58 to the Jews is therefore presented to us in the modern translations by Hebrew scholars who translated the Greek into the Bible Hebrew, as follows: Dr. Franz Delitzsch: “Before Abraham was, I have been.”f Isaac Salkinson and David Ginsburg: “I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham.”g In both of these Hebrew translations the translators use for the expression “I have been” two Hebrew words, both a pronoun and a verb, namely, aní hayíthi; they do not use the one Hebrew word: Ehyéh. So they do not make out that in John 8:58 Jesus was trying to imitate Jehovah God and give us the impression that he himself was Jehovah, the I AM.

20. (a) What can be said about the occurrence of the Greek expression Egó eimí in chapter 8 of John? (b) Why do many Bible translations not render this expression in John 8:58 the same as they do in those other verses?

²⁰ In what language did John write his life account of Jesus Christ? In the Greek language, not in Hebrew; and in the Greek text the controversial expression is Egó eimí. Just by itself, without any introductory material ahead of it, Egó eimí means “I am.” Now this expression Egó eimí occurs also in John 8:24, 28; and in those verses the Authorized or King James Version and the Douay Version and others render the expression into English as “I am he,” the pronoun he being put in italics to indicate that the pronoun he is added or inserted. (AV; AS; Yg) But here, in John 8:58, those versions do not render this same expression as “I am he,” but only as “I am.” They evidently want to give us the idea that Jesus was not simply referring to his existence but also giving himself a title that belongs to Jehovah God,h in imitation of Exodus 3:14.

21. (a) Does the Septuagint Greek translation of Exodus 3:14 use “Egó eimí” for God’s name? (b) Hence what cannot the trinitarians interpret John 8:58 to mean?

²¹ When writing John 8:58, the apostle was not quoting from the Greek Septuagint Version, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made by Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria, Egypt, before the birth of Christ. Let anyone who reads Greek compare John 8:58 in Greek and Exodus 3:14 in the Greek Septuagint, and he will find that the Septuagint reading of Exodus 3:14 does not use the expression Egó eimí for God’s name, when God says to Moses: “I AM hath sent me unto you.” The Greek Septuagint uses the expression ho Ōn, which means “The Being,” or, “The One who is.” This fact is clearly presented to us in Bagster’s translation of the Greek Septuagint, at Exodus 3:14, which reads: “And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING [ho Ōn]; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING [ho Ōn] has sent me to you.” According to Charles Thomson’s translation of the Greek Septuagint, Exodus 3:14 reads: “God spoke to Moses saying, I am The I Am [ho Ōn]. Moreover he said, Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, The I Am [ho Ōn] hath sent me to you.”i Thus this comparison of the two Greek texts, that of the Septuagint and that of John 8:58, removes all basis for trinitarians to argue that Jesus, in John 8:58, was trying to fit Exodus 3:14 to himself, as if he was Jehovah God.

22, 23. (a) How is the expression ho ōn used and applied elsewhere in John’s writings? (b) What, then, was Jesus merely saying in John 8:58?

²² O yes, the Greek expression ho Ōn does occur in the apostle John’s writings. It occurs in the Greek text of John 1:18; 3:13 (AV; Yg), Joh 3:31; 6:40; 8:47; 12:17; 18:37, but not as a title or name. So in four of those verses it applies, not to Jesus, but to other persons. However, in the Revelation or Apocalypse the apostle John does use the expression ho Ōn as a title or designation five times, namely, in Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5. But in all five cases the expression ho Ōn is applied to Jehovah God the Almighty, and not to the Lamb of God, the Word of God.

²³ For example, Revelation 1:4, 8 (AV) reads: “John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is [ho ōn], and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne.” “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is [ho ōn], and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” Revelation 4:8 applies ho ōn to the Lord God Almighty on his heavenly throne, and Revelation 5:6, 7 shows that the Lamb of God comes to him later on. Revelation 11:17 applies ho ōn to the Lord God Almighty when he takes power to rule as King. Revelation 16:5 applies ho ōn to the Lord God when he acts as Judge. Hence John 8:58 fails the clergy as proof of there being a “triune God,” for in that verse, as well translated by Dr. James Moffatt, An American Translation, and others, Jesus was saying merely that he had had a prehuman existence in heaven with his Father and that this prehuman existence began before Abraham was born.

LIKE, YET SUBORDINATE

24. How do trinitarians argue with John 14:9, but what did Jesus mean by saying: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”?

²⁴ But, objects a trinitarian, are you not forgetting what Jesus said to the apostle Philip? What was that? This: “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” (John 14:9, AV) Ah, yes, but that is far different from Jesus’ saying, ‘I am the Father.’ Jesus had just told Philip and the other faithful apostles that he was going away to God his Father; and so how could Jesus in the same breath say that Philip, when looking at Jesus, was looking at the Father? Jesus could not have meant that, for he dissociated God his Father from himself, just as when he said: “Ye believe in God, believe also in me.” (John 14:1, AV) Why the expression “also in me,” if Jesus were God himself? Philip asked Jesus: “Lord, shew us the Father,” and Jesus answered that that was what he had been doing all along, namely, showing them the Father. He had been explaining who his heavenly Father was. He had been showing them what his heavenly Father was like. He imitated his Father. He was like him, so much so that when one saw Jesus it was as if seeing his Father.

25, 26. (a) In view of John 1:18, why could not Jesus have meant that the apostles were looking on the Father? (b) What did Jesus say to the Jews in John 5:37 that proves that Jesus is not God?

²⁵ By saying: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” Jesus could not have meant that the apostles were seeing God, the One whom Jesus addressed or spoke of as Father. Many years after Jesus said those words, the apostle John wrote: “And the Word was made 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. . . . grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (John 1:14, 17, 18, AV) By thus declaring God his Father, by explaining him, by giving an account of him, by being and acting like him, Jesus produced the effect that the apostles, by seeing Jesus, saw God his Father also.

²⁶ Hence Jesus said to the Jews: “The Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.” (John 5:37, AV) But those Jews did see Jesus’ shape and hear his voice. Also, Jesus told them that if they had believed the prophet Moses they would also have believed him; and Jesus knew from Moses’ writings that God had said to Moses up in the mountain: “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.” (Ex. 33:20, AV) But those Jews did see Jesus and live, which proved that Jesus was not God. Consequently John 14:9 also fails to prove that Jesus is God.

27. How did Jesus liken himself to a pupil, and so in what position did he put himself toward God?

²⁷ So again we note that Jesus never spoke of himself as God or called himself God. He always put himself below God rather than on an equality with God. He put himself in the position of a disciple of God, when Jesus said: “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” (John 8:28, AV) God was the Teacher of Jesus, and Jesus as a pupil was not above his Teacher, God, nor the equal of Him. Jesus thus classed himself with the other children of God’s organization Zion, concerning whom Jesus said: “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” (John 6:45, AV; Isa. 54:13) As a disciple or pupil of his Father, Jesus learned things from him continually.

28. Hence, as a learner, what did Jesus speak of himself as doing respecting the Father?

²⁸ To this effect John 8:25-27 (AV) reads: “Jesus saith unto them, . . . he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.” Later Jesus said to those Jews: “Ye seek to kill me, a man [Greek: ánthropos] that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God [ho Theós].” To his faithful apostles he said: “I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.”—John 8:40; 15:15, AV.

29. Hence what action did Jesus say that the Father took toward him, and what does this prove regarding Jesus in comparison with God?

²⁹ As one who heard, as one who was taught, Jesus repeatedly spoke of himself as being sent by his heavenly Father. For example, John 12:44, 45, 49, 50 (AV) says: “Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” The very fact that he was sent proves he was not equal with God but was less than God his Father.

30. How did Jesus, by his own stated rule, show whether he was as great as his Father?

³⁰ This results from Jesus’ own rule as stated to his apostles: “The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.” (John 13:16, AV) As God was greater than Jesus in sending him, so Jesus was greater than his disciples in sending them. Jesus made this comparison when he said to them: “Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” (John 20:21, AV) So the Greater One sends the one who is less.

31. Hence what was food for him, though physically hungry?

³¹ Jesus, because of being sent on an errand, did not come to do his own will or to please himself according to the flesh. He came to do the will of the Greater One who sent him. He did God’s will even though he was hungry bodily, saying: “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.”—John 4:34, AV.

32. From where was Jesus sent, and hence where was he lower than God?

³² It was not first when he was in the flesh on earth that Jesus was sent, but he was sent from heaven. In proof of that he said: “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing.” (John 6:38, 39, AV) So even in heaven Jesus was less than his Father. During what time he had for it Jesus kept constantly at the work of his Father, his Sender. He said: “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.” (John 9:4, AV) All this gives added proof that Jesus was not God whose will was to be done, but was lower than God, doing God’s will.

Part 4

Source of His Life

33. (a) As a Son, what did Jesus render to the One who was his Father? (b) How far did Jesus say that all men were to honor the Son?

ALL along the evidence has been mounting up from John’s own writings that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. This very fact in itself argues that Jesus as a Son was dependent upon God and was not equal to God. A son is not greater than his father, but must honor his father, according to God’s command. As God’s Son, Jesus said: “I honor my Father.” (John 8:49) How, then, can anyone say he was making himself God or the equal of God when he said: “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him”? (John 5:22, 23, AV) In those words Jesus was not telling us to honor him as being the Father or as being God. He did not say we were to honor the Son as much as the Father.

34. In this regard, why was the Son to be honored, and how much?

³⁴ Look at Jesus’ words again and see why he said he was to be honored just as the Father is to be honored. Jesus said that the Father had appointed him to be judge, to act as the deputy or representative of God the Supreme Judge. Hence as God’s appointed Judge the Son deserved to be honored. By honoring the Son we show respect for God’s appointment of the Son as Judge. If we do not honor the Son as Judge, then we do not honor “the Father which hath sent him.” But that does not mean we honor the Son as being God himself or honor the Son as much as God himself, who sent the Son.

35. (a) Who was it that honored Jesus, and how much? (b) As to greatness, how did Jesus compare with God and with Abraham?

³⁵ Even God the Father did not honor or glorify the Son as his equal. But God did honor or glorify his Son Jesus Christ more than all his other sons. Certainly, then, the one whom God honors or glorifies, we too ought to honor. In fact, God requires us to do so. Jesus himself said: “If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God.” (John 8:54, AV) Jesus’ Father was the God of the Jews. They did not consider Jesus to be a God-Man, God himself in the flesh; and Jesus did not pretend to be God. He said that the Deity who the Jews said was their God was the One who honored Jesus. Then Jesus went on to declare he was not as great as God but was greater than Abraham because of having a prehuman existence in heaven.

36. What does the title “father” mean, and what did the heavenly Father appropriately give to the Son of God?

³⁶ The title “father” means a male parent, and a male parent means a progenitor, an author or source, one who begets or brings forth offspring. Since God was the Father of Jesus, was Jesus also dependent upon God for life? Only Jesus’ own words could give a convincing answer to this question. Note now these words of Jesus: “The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” (John 5:25, 26, AV) God as the Father is the Source of life; and he gives to his Son the privilege to have life in himself. We can therefore appreciate what John 1:4, 5 (AV) says of the Word or Logos: “In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

37. From whom and through whom does the life that enlightens men come?

³⁷ The life that enlightens men who are going down into the darkness of death is from the Father as the Source and is through the Son as the channel. The Son received the life from the Father. So the apostle Peter could well say to his Master Jesus Christ: “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”—John 6:68, 69, AV.

38. How did Jesus compare the origin of his own life with that gained by those who feed upon him by faith?

³⁸ When speaking of himself as a human sacrifice to be laid down for the life of believing men, Jesus showed the origin of his own life, saying: “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.” (John 6:56, 57, AV) Eaters who live by Jesus begin to live by means of him. So too Jesus began to live by means of God. So if the Son Jesus had been coeternal with his Father and without a beginning of life, how could he truthfully say: “I live by the Father”? Hence Jesus was really a Son of God in having received his life from God. He got his life from his heavenly Father just as much as a man who feeds on Jesus’ human sacrifice by faith gets life through Jesus and lives by him. Were it not for Jesus as a human sacrifice, the man would never live forever in God’s new world. So were it not for God, the Son would never have lived.

39, 40. (a) Upon what did Jesus’ continuance in life depend? (b) How was Jesus’ dependence upon God for life shown in another way miraculously?

³⁹ Jesus’ own continuance in life depended on his obedience to God his Father. Very fittingly, then, when Jesus was tempted by the Devil to turn stones into bread to break his forty-day fast, Jesus applied to himself the words of the prophet Moses: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matt. 4:4, AV) Jesus’ dependence upon God the Father for life is shown in another way. How? In that God raised his Son Jesus from the dead on the third day after he laid down his human life in sacrifice.

⁴⁰ In John 5:21 (AS; RS; Dy) Jesus spoke of God’s power to resurrect the dead and give them life, saying: “As the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom he will.” Jesus did not raise himself out of death; he depended upon his immortal Father in heaven to raise him up out of death. On the third day of his sacrificial death God raised up his Son and gave him life again and his Son received it, accepted it or took it up again. It was just as Jesus had said: “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”—John 10:17, 18, AV.

41. How and why did Jesus lay down his life, and how did he take it back again?

⁴¹ Jesus laid down his life (Greek: psykhé; soul). Of course, the Roman soldiers killed him at Calvary, but Jesus permitted them to do so, and this was in harmony with his Father’s will, or by his Father’s commandment to Jesus. Jesus took back his life, not that he took his human sacrifice off the altar or that he raised himself to life, but that on the third day God commanded Jesus to rise from the dead. Jesus did so by accepting or receiving life at his Father’s hand, by God’s authority. As Jesus said: “I have the right to receive it back again; this charge I have received from my Father.”—New English Bible.

42. How is Jesus, as he said to John, “the first and the last”?

⁴² Jesus now lives again in heaven. After his return to his Father there, Jesus appeared in a vision to the apostle John and said: “I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” He was the first and the last in the matter of resurrection, for John speaks of him as “Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, . . . him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood.” (Rev. 1:17, 18, 5, AS) He was the first one on earth that God raised from the dead to be “alive for evermore.” He is also the last one whom God raises thus directly, for now God has given an unlocking power, the “keys of death and of Hades,” to the resurrected Jesus. So during his kingdom Jesus as Judge raises and gives life to whom he will.

43. (a) How do trinitarians argue as to the meaning of Revelation 3:14? (b) But about whose work of creation did Jesus there speak?

⁴³ All this helps us to get the true meaning of what the resurrected Jesus told John to write to the congregation in Laodicea, Asia Minor. Jesus said: “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” (Rev. 3:14, AV)a Trinitarians argue that this means that Jesus Christ is the Beginner, the Originator or Origin of God’s creation; and they can point to An American Translation and Moffatt’s translation, which read: “The origin of God’s creation.” Note that expression “God’s creation.” This, of course, does not mean creating God, for God is uncreated. Jesus said “God’s creation,” not, “creation by me,” as though he were talking about things created by him. He was talking about works created by someone else, namely, God’s creative works.

44, 45. (a) In what case is the Greek word for “God”—in the nominative case or in the genitive case? (b) What does the so-called Subjective Genitive indicate, according to grammarians?

⁴⁴ In the Greek text the word for “God” [Theoũ] is in the genitive case. Now in Greek as well as in English the genitive case can mean a number of different relations or connections that the word in the genitive case has to the person or thing that it modifies.

⁴⁵ According to Dr. A. T. Robertson it can be a genitive of a number of kinds, such as the Possessive Genitive, the Attributive Genitive, the Subjective Genitive, the Objective Genitive.b One Greek grammar explains the genitive of source or author by saying: “The Subjective Genitive. We have the subjective genitive when the noun in the genitive produces the action, being therefore related as subject to the verbal idea of the noun modified. . . . The preaching of Jesus Christ. Rom. 16:25.”c Another Greek grammar explains the sense of the subjective genitive, saying: “The SUBJECT of an action or feeling: . . . the good-will of the people (that is, which the people feel).”d

46. (a) What kind of genitive could the word “God” be in, in Revelation 3:14? (b) What is the thought of the word “beginning” in Proverbs 8:22 in the Greek Septuagint?

⁴⁶ Thus the expression “the creation of God” could mean the creation possessed by God or belonging to God. Or, it could grammatically mean also the creation produced by God. The apostle John helps us by his writings to know which kind of genitive it is in the Greek. However, it is agreed by producers of the Greek text of the Christian Scriptures that Revelation 3:14 quoted or borrowed its Greek words from Proverbs 8:22.e As translated by Charles Thomson from the Greek Septuagint, Proverbs 8:22 reads: “The Lord created me, the beginning of His ways, for His works.” Certainly there the word “beginning” (Greek LXX: arkhé) does not mean Beginner, Origin or Originator. Plainly it means the first one or original one of God’s ways to be created. This same thought is conveyed in Revelation 3:14 in regard to the “beginning of the creation of God.” Hence the word “God” must be in the Subjective Genitive.

47. (a) When was there an interruption of the life of the Word? (b) How, then, was Jesus Christ the “beginning of the creation of God”?

⁴⁷ John quoted Jesus as saying that he received his life from his Father, God. There was an interruption of this life, not when “the Word became flesh,” but when he was killed as a man and lay dead for three days. Then he was restored to life by Almighty God’s power, to be alive forevermore, immortal. At his resurrection Jesus Christ was God’s creation or a creation by God. But at the very beginning of all creation Jesus was God’s creation, a creature produced by God. As the Word “in the beginning” in heaven he was the first of God’s creation, “the chief of the creation of God.” (Yg) By means of him as an agent God made all other things, as stated in John 1:3. He was not the Origin or Originator of God’s creation. He was, rather, the Original One of God’s creation.

48. (a) Why can it be said that the New World Translation renders Revelation 3:14 correctly? (b) To whom do John’s writings ascribe all creation?

⁴⁸ The New World Translation renders Revelation 3:14 correctly as follows: “the beginning of the creation by God.” In all his writings the apostle John does not apply to Jesus Christ the title Creator (Ktístes) but John ascribes all creation to the “Lord God Almighty, which was and is [ho ōn], and is to come,” the One seated on his heavenly throne. To him it is said: “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” (Rev. 4:8-11; 10:5, 6, AV) The Word was God’s first heavenly creation.

“MY LORD AND MY GOD”

49. How did it happen that the apostle Thomas said to Jesus: “My Lord and my God”?

⁴⁹ Teachers of the Trinity doctrine will argue that the Godship of Jesus Christ is proved by the words of the apostle Thomas in John 20:28. Thomas had told the other apostles that he would not believe that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead until Jesus materialized before him and let him put his finger in the print of the nails by which he had been fastened to the stake and until he thrust his hand into Jesus’ side, where a Roman soldier had jabbed him with a spear to make sure of Jesus’ death. So the following week Jesus reappeared to the apostles and told Thomas to do as he had said, to convince himself. “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” (AV) In the original Greek text this expression literally reads, word for word: “The Lord of me and the God of me.”

50. According to Greek Professor Moule, does the use of the definite article the before God necessarily mean that Jesus was called the very God?

⁵⁰ So the trinitarians argue that Thomas’ expression “the God” spoken to Jesus proved that Jesus was the very God, a God of three Persons. However, Professor C. F. D. Moule says that the article the before the noun God may not be significant so as to mean such a thing.f Regardless of that fact, let us take into account the situation back there to be sure of what the apostle Thomas meant.

51. On Jesus’ resurrection day what message did Thomas receive from Jesus, and so what did Thomas know as to Jesus and his worship?

⁵¹ Less than two weeks previously Thomas had heard Jesus pray to his heavenly Father and say: “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3, AV) On the fourth day after that prayer, or on his day of resurrection, Jesus sent a special message to Thomas and the other disciples by means of Mary Magdalene. “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.” (John 20:17, 18, AV) So from Jesus’ prayer and from this message through Mary Magdalene, Thomas knew who his own God was. His God was not Jesus Christ, but his God was the God of Jesus Christ. Also his Father was the Father of Jesus Christ. Thus Thomas knew that Jesus had a God whom he worshiped, namely, his heavenly Father.

52. Why should we not read the wrong meaning into Thomas’ words: “My Lord and my God”?

⁵² How, then, could Thomas in an ecstasy of joy at seeing the resurrected Jesus for the first time burst out with an exclamation and speak to Jesus himself as being the one and only living, true God, the God whose name is Jehovah? How could Thomas, by what he spoke, mean that Jesus was himself “the only true God” or that Jesus was God in the Second Person of a Trinity? In view of what Thomas had heard from Jesus and had been told by Jesus, how can we read such a meaning into Thomas’ words: “My Lord and my God”?

53. Why did Jesus not reprove Thomas for what he said?

⁵³ Jesus would have reproved Thomas if Jesus had understood that Thomas meant that he, Jesus, was “the only true God” whom Jesus had called “my God” and “my Father.” Certainly Jesus would not take a title away from God his Father or take away the unique position from God his Father. Since Jesus did not reprove Thomas as if addressing him in a wrong way, Jesus knew how to understand Thomas’ words, Scripturally. And so did the apostle John.g

54. This point in John’s account would have been an excellent place for him to do what with regard to John 1:1?

⁵⁴ John was there and heard Thomas exclaim: “My Lord and my God.” Did John say that the only thing for us to conclude from Thomas’ words was that Jesus was God, “the only true God” whose name is Jehovah? (Ps. 35:23, 24) Here would have been an excellent place for John to explain John 1:1 and say that Jesus Christ, who was the Word made flesh, was God himself, that he was “God the Son, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.” But is that the conclusion that John reached? Is that the conclusion to which John brings his readers? Listen to the conclusion that John wants us to reach:

55, 56. (a) To make us believe what about Jesus Christ did John write the things in his account? (b) So to what conclusion do we follow John up to this point?

⁵⁵ “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe.” That we might believe what? “That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”—John 20:29-31, AV.

⁵⁶ In his life account of Jesus John wrote the things to persuade us to believe, not that Jesus is God, that Christ is God, or that Jesus is “God the Son,” but that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” The trinitarians designedly twist things by saying “God the Son.” But we take John’s explanation the way that he words it, namely, “Christ, the Son of God.” We follow John to the same conclusion that he reached, that Jesus is the Son of the One whom Jesus calls “my Father” and “my God,” in this same twentieth chapter of John. Hence Thomas was not worshiping “God the Father” and “God the Son” at one and the same time as equals in a “triune God.”

57. (a) By his words “My God” addressed to Jesus, what was Thomas recognizing as to Jesus’ Father? (b) What do chapters 4 and 5 of Revelation illustrate John 14:28 as meaning?

⁵⁷ Thomas worshiped the same God whom Jesus Christ worshiped, namely, Jehovah God, the Father. So if Thomas addressed Jesus as “my God,” Thomas had to recognize Jesus’ Father as the God of a God, hence as a God higher than Jesus Christ, a God whom Jesus himself worshiped. Revelation 4:1-11 gives a symbolic description of this God, the “Lord God Almighty,” who sits upon the heavenly throne and who lives forever and ever; but the next chapter, Revelation 5:1-8, describes Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God who comes to the Lord God Almighty on his throne and takes a scroll out of God’s hand. This illustrates the meaning of Jesus’ words to Thomas and the other apostles: “I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28, AV) Jesus thus recognized his Father as the Lord God Almighty, without an equal, greater than his Son.

[Footnotes]

In the Greek Septuagint Proverbs 8:22 reads: “Kýrios éktisen me arkhèn hodôn autoû eis érga autoû.” See also The Septuagint Version—Greek & English, published by S. Bagster and Sons, Limited.

For instance, to show that a vocative in Greek ordinarily has the definite article before it, we note that in 1 Peter 2:18; 3:1, 7 the literal word-for-word translation reads: “The house servants, be subject . . . In like manner, [the] wives, be . . . The husbands, continue dwelling.” in Colossians 3:18 to 4:1: “The wives . . . The husbands, . . . The children . . . The fathers . . . The slaves . . . The masters.”

However, we do not go along with such a suggestion.

Part 5

Back to John 1:1, 2

58. To what understanding regarding Jesus Christ does John bring us at the end of his first letter to Christians?

EVEN at the end of his first letter to Christians the apostle John brings us to the same understanding, namely, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that humans begotten of God are children of God with Jesus Christ. An American Translation presents the end of John’s letter as follows: “We know that no child of God commits sin, but that he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one cannot touch him. We know that we are children of God, while the whole world is in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us power to recognize him who is true; and we are in union with him who is true.” How? “Through his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. Dear children, keep away from idols.”—1 John 5:18-21, AT; RS.

59. How do various translations of John 1:1 read, but now what are we in position to determine?

⁵⁹ Since the One of whom Jesus Christ is the Son is “the true God and eternal life,” and since Jesus Christ is “he who was born of God” and who protects God’s other children, how are we to understand John 1:1, 2, of which there are differing translations? Many translations read: “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Others read: “And the Word (the Logos) was divine.” Another: “And the Word was god.” Others: “And the Word was a god.” Since we have examined so much of what John wrote about Jesus who was the Word made flesh, we are now in position to determine which of those several translations is correct. It means our salvation.

60. What comment did Count Leo Tolstoy make on John 1:1, 2, according to the common translation thereof?

⁶⁰ Take first that popular rendering by the Authorized Version or Douay Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” Here a few lines deserve to be quoted from the book The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, by Count Leo Tolstoy, as follows:

If it says that in the beginning was the comprehension, or word, and that the word was to God, or with God, or for God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God.a

Certainly the apostle John was not so unreasonable as to say that someone (“the Word”) was with some other individual (“God”) and at the same time was that other individual (“God”).

61. (a) Since John has proved Jesus Christ to be “the Son of God,” what may rightly be said of the Word? (b) In view of Revelation 19:13, what must John 1:1 mean, at most, regarding the Word?

⁶¹ John proves that the Word who was with God “was made flesh” and became Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ was “the Son of God.” So it would be proper to say that the Word was the Son of God. For anyone to say that the Word was God, “the only true God,” would be contrary to what the apostle John proves by the rest of his writings. In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his name is called The Word of God.” (AV; Dy) Note that his name is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. Hence John 1:1 must mean, at most, that the Word was of God.

62. What does the book entitled The Patristic Gospels say that the true reading of John 1:1 probably is?

⁶² At hand here we have a bookb entitled “The Patristic Gospels—An English Version of the holy Gospels as they existed in the Second Century,” by Roslyn D’Onston. The title page tells how this version was put together. In John 1:1 this version reads: “and the Word was God.” But it has this footnote: “The true reading here is, probably, of God. See Critical Note.”—Page 118.c

63. Why does the wording of John 1:1 in the Greek text make translators disagree as to what the Word was?

⁶³ Now why is it that translators disagree as to what the Word was—“God,” or, “god,” or, “a god”? It is because the Greek word for “God” is at the beginning of the statement although it belongs to the predicate, and it also does not have the definite article “the” in front of it. Below, to illustrate this, we give on the first set of lines the Greek text according to the fourth-century uncial manuscripts; and then on the second line, how the Greek text is pronounced in our language today; and on the third line a word-for-word English translation. Note Greek abbreviations for “God.”

ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ

EN ARKHEI ĒN HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOS

IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD

ΗΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ

ĒN PROS TON THN, KAI THS ĒN HO LOGOS.

WAS WITH THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD.

ΟΥΤΟΣ ΗΝ ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΝ

HOUTOS ĒN EN ARKHEI PROS TON THN.

THIS WAS IN BEGINNING WITH THE GOD.

64. What did Bishop Westcott, as quoted by Professor Moule, say that the word “God” without the definite article “the” in front of it described?

⁶⁴ Please note the omission of the definite article “THE” in front of the second “GOD.” On this omission Professor Moule asks: “Is the omission of the article in theós ēn ho lógos nothing more than a matter of idiom?” Then, in the next paragraph, Moule goes on to say:

On the other hand it needs to be recognized that the Fourth Evangelist [John] need not have chosen this word-order, and that his choice of it, though creating some ambiguity, may in itself be an indication of his meaning; and [Bishop] Westcott’s note (in loc.), although it may require the addition of some reference to idiom, does still, perhaps, represent the writer’s theological intention: ‘It is necessarily without the article (theós not ho theós) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say “the Word was ho theós”. No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. Compare the converse statement of the true humanity of Christ five 27 (hóti huiòs anthrópou estín . . . ).’d

65. In view of what Bishop Westcott has said, how have some translators rendered John 1:1, and what does this describe the Word as being?

⁶⁵ The late Bishop Westcott, coproducer of the famous Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures, speaks of the “true humanity of Christ” and yet he argues that Jesus Christ was not “true humanity” but a mixture, a so-called God-Man. However, note that the Bishop says that the omission of the definite article the before the Greek word theós makes the word theós like an adjective that “describes the nature of the Word” rather than identify his person. This fact accounts for it that some translators render it: “And the Word was divine.” That is not the same as saying that the Word was God and was identical with God. One grammarian would translate the passage: “And the Word was deity,” to bring out his view that the Word was not “all of God.”e According to trinitarians the Word was only a third of God, a coequal Second Person in a three-in-one God. However, our consideration of all that John has written has proved how false such a teaching is, a teaching that even the trinitarians themselves cannot understand or explain. The Word is the Son of God, not the Second Person of God.

66, 67. (a) How does Torrey’s translation print John 1:1? (b) How does The Emphatic Diaglott print it?

⁶⁶ The Four Gospels, by C. C. Torrey, shows the difference between theós with ho (the definite article) and theós without ho by printing his translation as follows: “And the Word was with God, and the Word was god.” (Second edition of 1947)

⁶⁷ The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, of 1864, shows the difference by printing its translation as follows: “And the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God.”

68. (a) What do translations printed in such ways indicate about the Word? (b) So what question now arises?

⁶⁸ Even translations printed in those ways indicate that the Word, in his prehuman existence in heaven with God, had a godly quality but was not God himself or a part of God. The Word was the Son of God. So the question arises, What would we call such a Son of God who first of all had this godly quality among the sons of God in heaven? We remember that Jesus Christ told the Jews that those human judges to whom or against whom God’s word came were called “gods” in Psalm 82:1-6.—John 10:34-36.

“THE SONS OF GOD”

69. What does Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar say regarding the expression “the sons of God” in the Hebrew Scriptures?

⁶⁹ The Hebrew Scriptures mention “the sons of God” (beneí ha-Elohím) in Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1 and Job 38:7. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, on page 418, paragraph 2, comments on those Bible verses and says the following:

There is another use of ben- [“son of”] or beneí [“sons of”] to denote membership of a guild or society (or of a tribe, or any definite class). Thus beneí Elohím [“sons of God”] or beneí ha-Elohím [“sons of The God”] Genesis 6:2, 4, Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 (compare also beneí Elím Psalms 29:1; 89:7) properly means not sons of god(s), but beings of the class of elohim or elim; . . .

And then this Grammar goes on to explain the Hebrew expression in 1 Kings 20:35 for “sons of the prophets” as meaning “persons belonging to the guild of prophets”; and the Hebrew expression in Nehemiah 3:8 for “son of the apothecaries” as meaning “one of the guild of apothecaries.”—See also Amos 7:14.

70. How does The Lexicon for the Old Testament Books by Koehler and Baumgartner show agreement with Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar?

⁷⁰ The Lexicon for the Old Testament Books, by Koehler and Baumgartner, agrees with Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. On page 134, column 1, lines 12, 13, edition of 1951, this Lexicon prints first the Hebrew expression and then its meaning in German and in English and says: “BENEI ELOHIM (individual) divine beings, gods.” And then on page 51, column 1, lines 2, 3, it says: “BENEI HA-ELOHIM the (single) gods Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7.”

71. In Psalm 8, what does David call the angels of heaven, and so how do various translations render Psalm 8:5?

⁷¹ In Psalm 8:4, 5 David speaks prophetically of how the Word of God became flesh and David calls the angels of heaven elohím or “gods,” using the same word that occurs in Psalm 82:1, 6. The Authorized or King James Version reads: “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; and hast crowned him with glory and honour.” Hebrews 2:6-9 applies those words to Jesus Christ, how in becoming flesh he “was made a little lower than the angels.” (AV) However, An American Translation renders Psalm 8:5 to read: “Yet thou hast made him but little lower than God.” The Book of Psalms, by S. T. Byington, translates it: “And you have made him little short of God.” Moffatt’s translation reads: “Yet thou hast made him little less than divine.”

72. How does the New World Translation render Psalm 8:5, and why is its rendering not a teaching of polytheism?

⁷² The New World Translation reads: “You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones.” Is this last translation a teaching of polytheism or the worship of many gods? Not at all! Why not? Because the Hebrew Scriptures actually contain these things and apply the title elohím or “gods” to men and to angels, and still those Hebrew Scriptures did not teach polytheism to the Jews.

73, 74. (a) What were once Satan the Devil and his demons, and what have they become to this world and its nations? (b) Why was it not polytheism that Paul was teaching in 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6?

⁷³ Do not forget that the Bible teaches that the spirit creature who transformed himself into Satan the Devil was originally one of those “sons of God” or one of those “godlike ones,” one of those elohím. Also the spirits that became demons under Satan were once numbered among those “godlike ones.” So it is no remarkable thing that the apostle Paul calls Satan “the god of this world,” or that he says that the pagan nations have made the spirit demons their gods and offer sacrifice to them.—2 Cor. 4:4; 1 Cor. 10:20, 21, AV.

⁷⁴ Paul said: “Though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many)”; but Paul was not teaching polytheism thereby. For he added: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1 Cor. 8:5, 6, AV) We worship the same God that the Lord Jesus Christ worships, and that is the “one God, the Father.” This worship we render to him through the Son of God, our “one Lord Jesus Christ.”

75. How does the New World Translation render John 1:1-3, and against what background does it do so?

⁷⁵ Against the background of the teachings of the apostle John, yes, of all the Scriptures of the Holy Bible, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures renders John 1:1-3 as follows: “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in [the] beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.”

76. (a) Because of being used to bring into existence all other creatures, what must the Word or Logos in heaven have been? (b) Like a spoken word, what is the Word, and what rank does he hold?

⁷⁶ Certainly the Word or Logos, whom God his Father used in bringing into existence all other creatures, was the chief or the firstborn among all the other angels whom the Hebrew Scriptures call elohím or “gods.” He is the “only begotten Son” because he is the only one whom God himself created directly without the agency or cooperation of any creature. (John 3:16, AV; AS; Dy) If the Word or Logos was not the first living creature whom God created, who, then, is God’s first created Son, and how has this first creation been honored and used as the first-made one of the family of God’s sons? We know of no one but the Word or Logos, “The Word of God.” Like a word that is produced by a speaker, the Word or Logos is God’s creation, God’s first creation. Since unjust judges on earth against whom God’s word of judgment came were Scripturally called “gods” (elohím), the Word or Logos whom God has appointed to be a just Judge and by whom God’s word has come to us is also Scripturally called “a god.” He is more mighty than human judges.

“THE WORD”

77. What does his title “The Word” mark him as being, and of what Abyssinian officer does it remind us?

⁷⁷ His very title “The Word” marks him as the Chief One among the sons of God. Here we are reminded of the Abyssinian Kal Hatzè, described by James Bruce in Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile in 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772 and 1773:f

There is an officer, named Kal Hatzè, who stands always upon steps at the side of the lattice-window, where there is a hole covered in the inside with a curtain of green taffeta; behind this curtain the king sits, and through this hole he sends what he has to say to the Board, who rise and receive the messenger standing. . . . Hitherto, while there were strangers in the room, he had spoken to us by an officer called Kal Hatzè, the voice or word of the king. . . . exhibitions of this kind, made by the king in public, at no period seem to have suited the genius of this people. Formerly, his face was never seen, nor any part of him, excepting sometimes his foot. He sits in a kind of balcony, with lattice windows and curtains before him. Even yet he covers his face on audiences or public occasions, and when in judgment. On cases of treason, he sits within his balcony, and speaks through a hole in the side of it, to an officer called Kal Hatzè, “the voice or word of the king,” by whom he sends his questions, or any thing else that occurs, to the judges, who are seated at the council-table.

78. What does it mean for the president of a republic to be called the tongue of a people?

⁷⁸ Somewhat suggestive of this is the article entitled “Indonesians’ Idol—Sukarno,” as appearing in the New York Times under date of September 12, 1961. Under his picture is the legend “Tongue of the Indonesian people,” and the article goes on to say:

. . . Almost without fail the speaker will add: “When I die, do not write in golden letters on my tomb: ‘Here lies His Excellency Doctor Engineer Sukarno, First President of the Republic of Indonesia.’ Just write: ‘Here lies Bung [Brother] Karno, Tongue of the Indonesian People.’”

In calling him “Tongue,” it means he speaks for the whole people.

79. (a) What like figure of speech does Exodus 4:16 use for Aaron? (b) By what statements to the Jews did Jesus show that he was God’s Word?

⁷⁹ The Bible, in Exodus 4:16, uses a like figure of speech, when God says to the prophet Moses concerning his brother Aaron: “And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.” (AV) As a spokesman for the godlike Moses, Aaron served as a mouth for him. Likewise with the Word or Logos, who became Jesus Christ. To show that he was God’s Word or spokesman, Jesus said to the Jews: “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” Explaining that he spoke for God, Jesus also said: “Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.”—John 7:16, 17; 12:50, AV.

80. In view of his being the Word of God, what can we now appreciate, as called to our attention by John 1:1, 18 and Joh 20:28?

⁸⁰ Since Jesus Christ as the Word of God occupies a position held by no other creation of God, we can appreciate why the apostle John wrote, in John 1:1: “And the Word was a god.” We can appreciate also John’s words in John 1:18, as recorded in the most ancient Greek manuscripts: “No man hath seen God at any time: an Only Begotten God, the One existing within the bosom of the Father, he hath interpreted him.” (Ro) Since he is “an Only Begotten God”g who has interpreted his heavenly Father to us, we can appreciate the proper force of the words of the apostle Thomas addressed to the resurrected Jesus Christ: “My Lord and my God.”—John 20:28.

81. Because of his being the Word of God, what was his chief purpose in becoming flesh and blood on earth?

⁸¹ Because Jesus Christ as “the Word of God” is the universal Spokesman for God his Father, the apostle John very fittingly presents Jesus Christ as God’s Chief Witness. The bearing of witness was the chief purpose of the Word or Logos in becoming flesh and dwelling among us creatures of blood and flesh. Standing before the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate when on trial for his life, the Word made flesh said: “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”—John 18:37, AV.

82. What, therefore, could the Word be properly called in Revelation 3:14 and Re 1:5?

⁸² In view of his record when he was on earth as God’s chief witness, the “Word of God” in heavenly glory could say, in Revelation 3:14: “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” (AV) Consequently the apostle John could pray for grace and peace to the Christian congregations from God and “from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.” (Rev. 1:4, 5, AV) He is the Chief of the Christian witnesses of Jehovah God.

83. (a) Hence, what do we do well in doing, and why? (b) By doing so, as John did, what will we also be?

⁸³ Since Jesus Christ is now the glorified “Word of God” in heaven, we do well to listen to what he says, for when he speaks it is as if Jehovah God himself were speaking. (Rev. 19:13) By listening to the voice of the glorified, living “Word of God” we prove that we are “of the truth.” By knowing his voice and listening and responding to his voice we prove that we are his “sheep.” (John 10:3, 4, 16, 27) If we hear his voice and open the door and let him in where we live, he will come in and have a spiritual supper with us. (Rev. 3:20) More than any other inspired Christian writer of the Bible the apostle John wrote of witnesses and of witnessing. If we, like John, listen to the voice of the royal “Word of God,” we too will be faithful witnesses, bearing witness to the truth that sets men free and that leads to life everlasting in God’s righteous new world. Finally, we say, Thanks to Jehovah God for using the apostle John to make known to us who the Word is.

[Footnotes]

The Greek word theoũ means “of God.”

After making partial quotations from the above book by James Bruce, Calmet’s Dictionary of The Holy Bible goes on to say:

“On the use of this officer, Mr. Bruce gives several striking instances: in particular, one on the trial of a rebel, when the king, by his Kal Hatzè, asked a question, by which his guilt was effectually demonstrated. It appears, then, that the king of Abyssinia makes inquiry, gives his opinion, and declares his will by a deputy, a go-between, a middle-man, called ‘his WORD.’ Assuming for a moment that this was a Jewish custom, we see to what the ancient Jewish paraphrasts referred by their term, ‘Word of JEHOVAH,’ instead of JEHOVAH himself; and the idea was familiar to their recollection, and to that of their readers: a no less necessary consideration than that of their own recollection. . . . Shall we not, hereafter, acquit the evangelists from adopting the mythological conceptions of Plato? Rather, did not Plato adopt eastern language? and is not the custom still retained in the East? See all accounts of an ambassador’s visit to the grand seignior; who never himself answers, but directs his vizier to speak for him. So in Europe, the king of France directs his keeper of the seals to speak in his name; and so the lord chancellor in England prorogues the parliament, expressing his majesty’s pleasure, and using his majesty’s name, though in his majesty’s presence.”—Quoted from page 935 of Calmet’s Dictionary of The Holy Bible, as published by the late Mr. Charles Taylor, American Edition. Revised, with large additions, by Edward Robinson. Boston: published by Crocker and Brewster, . . . New York: Jonathan Leavitt, 1832.

A royal officer similar to the Abyssinian Kal Hatzè described above was used as an illustration on pages 85, 86 of the book The Atonement Between God and Man written in 1897 by Chas. T. Russell; also in his Scenario entitled “The Photo-Drama of Creation,” 1914 edition, page 54, paragraph 3. The illustration was used in connection with John 1:1.

Courageous Ministers District Assemblies

“LET me say that I have heard a great many people say that they were very impressed with your delegates and the way in which your convention was conducted. . . . I am certain that I am speaking on behalf of the residents of Sheboygan when I say ‘Welcome back soon!’”—City official of Sheboygan, Wisconsin.

This is but one of many expressions made as a result of the three-day 1962 Courageous Ministers District Assemblies of Jehovah’s Witnesses reported to date from ninety cities—forty-nine in the United States, eleven in Canada, eight in the British Isles and the rest in eight other countries. Many more of these assemblies are yet to be held in various parts of the world.

“Courageous Ministers”—what an appropriate theme for these Christian assemblies! All men everywhere have need of courage in these crucial times. And these district assemblies, held June through August, were prepared for the very purpose of inspiring men of goodwill to courage.

Little wonder, then, that tens of thousands of people received Jehovah’s ministers gladly into their presence. In forty out of the forty-nine cities in the United States, Jehovah’s witnesses were holding district assemblies for the first time. This fact allowed for the message of God’s kingdom to be carried into these areas with an impact never before experienced. The great many assembly points made it easier for a larger number of the public to attend with little cost or inconvenience to themselves. And, too, it made it possible for many more with large families to attend an assembly who might have otherwise found it financially burdensome. All of this resulted in good publicity and a fine response from the public, and the attendance figures show this.

In West Palm Beach, Florida, for example, Sunday’s attendance figure of 5,288 represented a 58-percent increase over Saturday night’s attendance. In Southend, England, there was an amazing 70-percent increase, and in Jersey City, New Jersey, despite a thunderstorm, a 30-percent increase—all of which shows that a healthy number of the public turned out to hear the public address “Take Courage—God’s Kingdom Is at Hand!”

Further exciting facts are seen in the grand totals. For example, at the all-French assembly at Quebec City, Canada, conventioners were thrilled with an attendance of 2,103, and 63 were baptized! Just a few years ago a mere handful of Witnesses there were battling for their Christian lives, but now look what is happening! The overall figure for Canada is 44,711, a truly encouraging sign for future expansion. The British Isles enjoyed a total attendance of 51,587 for the public meeting. The Spanish assemblies held in New York city, San Antonio, Texas, as well as all-Spanish sessions at the Pomona, California, assembly, reported an attendance of 10,278. The total United States attendance figure was a surprising 312,734! And the grand total for the ninety assemblies to date is a remarkable 479,699! Perhaps even more thrilling is the fact that 9,029 persons at these ninety assemblies symbolized their dedication to Jehovah God by means of water baptism. What a blessing all of this!

They were outstanding assemblies all, but what made them so? Their great number (ninety) was an outstanding feature, true, but certainly not the most outstanding one. Their size also made them different, but not all of them could be considered “small.” For instance, Jersey City, New Jersey, had 22,229 in attendance; Oakland, California, 13,636, and Costa Mesa, California, had an attendance of 13,521.