The Jehovah Witnesses have a unique bible translation differing in many aspects from the typical Christian Bible. It is called the "New World Translation" (NWT) and by many accounts has been translated in such a way as to remove typical references to the Divinity of Jesus Christ (among other things). This allows for their claim that Jesus was a "holy man" but not Divine as is typical Christian belief. However, in the process of translation, one narrative in their Bible reads, essentially, word-for-word as does the typical Christian Bible. This is the well known narrative of "The Doubting Thomas".
This article analyses the narrative in some detail and shows that their interpretation of the position of Jesus is inconsistent with the teachings of their own Bible, the NWT. Because of general interest in the topic among both non-believers and Christians, the following is being published.
The following letter is being posted on the Web since it should be of
interest to anyone who has questions about the divinity of Jesus. It should
be of particular interest to Jews, Mormons, Muslims*, or anyone who believes
Jesus to be simply a "holy man", "prophet", anointed one by God, etc.,
but lacking any feature of Divinity. It was given by paper copy (11
pages) to the visiting Witnesses about the first week of December, 2003.
Published 1/15/04
Letter to Jehovah's Witnesses
Preface
This writing is a result of a number of interesting discussions between the author and visiting Jehovah's Witnesses which has been held, sporadically, over a several year period. Many topics involving differences in beliefs have been discussed and eventually have focused around the question of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is my understanding that Witnesses believe that Jesus is a holy man but is not Divine. This one difference in belief, that Jesus is not divine, being the lynch-pin belief of the major Christian religions, is a main conflict in beliefs and is the major topic of this writing. Other, inclusive conflicts also exist and also will be addressed.
For clarity, these conflicts will be enumerated and numbered. These three conflicts exist between the Witnesses and the majority of Christian denominations, and seem to exist within their own Bible, the New World Translation (NWT):
1. Jesus is not Divine; He a creation of God, but
not God.
2. While on earth He is fully, and only, man.
While in heaven, He is Michael the Archangel.
3. He rose from the dead in a spiritual, not bodily,
form.
It is my opinion that the above beliefs are inconsistent with at least one Biblical narrative known as the episode of "The Doubting Thomas", in the Gospel of John. The episode is used in this discussion because of its clarity and simplicity of the account and also because there is virtually no difference between translations of the Witnesses' Bible (NWT) and any other of the major Christian bibles. In the presentation of this episode, the discussion will be limited to the ~150 words which are in essential agreement (John 20:24 - 29, - see below), which should eliminate discussion of proper translation. An attempt at brevity will be made, but in light of the importance of the issue, much space is required.
Also, there is no attempt to enter a discussion
on the "Trinity" issue, although some comments are made in the closing
which could be used in that discussion.
Disclaimer
References and Definitions
If this proposition is true, then it must be concluded that the New Testament as used by the Christian Church is false, and that the Old Testament, which predicts the coming of a Messiah, is either false or the Appointed Time has not yet come. And of course, if the Old Testament is also false, this fact would call into question the very existence of a Creator, or God.
This position leaves mankind with virtually no basis for any belief system save for some variant of Darwin's Theory of evolution, a self deceptive tautology and absolutely misleading IMO. Thus the consequences of this discussion are of major importance not only to the two parties in this discussion, but to virtually all of mankind.
On the other hand, based on the analysis presented below, the episode of The Doubting Thomas presents proof that Jesus really rose from the dead, body and soul, and was Divine. Since it conflicts with the beliefs of the Witnesses in several respects, these arguments are presented.
[Note that arguments abound about this episode, most of them involving the meaning of the original Greek, in particular the two words "ho theos" {as in your reference sheets}. IMO, these arguments are simply "tilting windmills", since the meaning of the phrase, "My Lord and My God" – which this is all about – is clearly evident from the context of the passage alone, as below.]
Analysis of the episode
Physical verification of the wounds
The usual - and shallowest - representation of
the incident is a focus on these words of Jesus "..… blessed are those
who have not seen and yet believed". It should occur to anyone who
has an interest in the Bible that if this is the only lesson being taught
then the presentation is a poor use of valuable space. There are
many instances in the Bible where this caveat is either spoken or implied;
even common sense dictates that the proposition is necessary for all Christians.
As so often happens, the common or simple explanation is very incomplete.
If one starts with the story at the beginning, we find that Jesus has appeared to the Apostles, less Thomas, on the 3rd day after His death by crucifixion. They are doubtlessly overjoyed and accept the person before them as the risen Jesus, based on their statements to Thomas "We have seen the Lord"! Thomas' reaction is probably somewhat surprising when he replies "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
This reaction is "doubting" to say the very least: it is a complete denial of the individual and collective veracity of all the Apostles. Much more, it is a denial of Thomas' own ability to find the truth of the matter through visual sense alone. But not only for the nail marks, Thomas must put his hand into the side wound before he will believe. For some reason, Thomas must have "physical-sense" contact in order to believe. In short, he will not believe his own eyes.
The reasons may range from the fact that Thomas was badly fooled at some time in the past, (there were many charlatans and magicians at that time) to the possibility that Thomas understood the full significance of the Resurrection, and wanted to provide positive evidence for the record. As the soldier's lance in the side of Jesus proves His death on the Cross, the Biblical record of this episode proves the wounds were real wounds in the flesh of Jesus.
Two items should be noted from this portion of the narrative. John mentions the 'putting of the fingers and hand into the side' not once but twice; once by Thomas, the other by Jesus. The other item, seemingly never recognized by the casual reader, is that Jesus does not "invite", or "permit" Thomas to make the investigation. Thomas is in fact "told" to do so by Jesus. Thomas, doing as he was told, laid the basis for his spontaneous exclamation and ultimately the proof of Jesus' resurrection.
This situation results in conflict # 3 as listed above, that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.
Thomas' reply
We both agree that the reply of Thomas is "My
Lord and my God". Further, we both believe that the reply is an "exclamation".
I will take this one step farther and contend that the situation is such
that the reply must be considered a "spontaneous exclamation". This
is a legal term conferring special privilege on the words, among which
is complete credibility of the statement (in the eyes of the giver), the
lack of planning in its preparation, and the requirement to accept it as
testimony without the burden of it being "hearsay".
If one puts oneself in the place of Thomas, who has, to all intents and purposes, challenged the integrity and veracity of the person who he steadfastly followed for three years, and before His crucifixion (at least) believed to be the Messiah, the momentousness of the situation becomes evident. As a devout Jew this must have been the most earthshaking occasion of his entire life. Here he was, doubting face to face, whether or not (at least to his mind) this man was God. (If you are of another religion than Christianity, such as Muslim or Jewish, substitute the word Allah, Yaweh, or Jehovah for the name God in the above sketch and you will understand the position of Thomas and the Apostles). So it must be concluded that the reply of Thomas was not a surprise exclamation equivalent to "Holy Smokes", "My Gosh" (as your references suggest) or similar remark, but rather a comprehensive response in keeping with the encounter. Also, since it is an exclamation using the names of God, it would be either prayerful or blasphemous, and if the latter, would have evoked a completely different response from Jesus than that given. (See Jesus' reply below).
Thus the reply of Thomas must be accepted as a complete response only to the situation undergoing scrutiny - whether or not this was the crucified Jesus - (because it was the only utterance). Also, the response is factual, not hearsay or a paraphrase, as presented by the assumed writer, John. Further, because of the construction of the scenario, we must accept the exclamation as the belief of not only Thomas, but also of all the Apostles. So in effect, we have all the Apostles, the men who knew Jesus best, in unity with Thomas agreeing that the risen Jesus represents "My Lord and my God".
Your position (as Witnesses) on this (from your references) is that Thomas meant "a god" as opposed to "THE God". (Note that the Greek actually uses "ho theos", literally "THE God"; but a discussion of the Greek is well beyond the scope of this writing, and in fact completely unnecessary, as above. But the question must be asked "What would be the point in Thomas' acknowledging Jesus to be simply "a" god"? If all Thomas meant by the expression was that the position of Jesus was as an acknowledged prophet and miracle worker, he had always been, at the very least, a "lord and god" to the Apostles. In fact, Simon Peter, being the leader of the Apostles, was also a "lord and god" as was Jesus, in your use of the phrase.
Therefore the reply would contain no information not continuously available to all the Apostles. In fact it can be argued that calling Him "lord and god" does not even identify Him as Jesus. An accurate response then would have been something like "Yes, you are the risen Jesus", not an expression that he was "Lord and God"; quite a difference. So if Thomas' response intended only to acknowledge a secular "lord and god" it would therefore have been meaningless.
Thus when the situation is put in context, covering the most important fact in the Bible - the resurrection of Jesus from the dead - it can be seen that the reply is only fitting to the Divinity of Jesus. A simple "lord and god", as above, acknowledgement is trivial to say the least. The argument presented here is that when you take the entire situation in context, the meaning is either "Lord and God", or it is meaningless. [You may ask "What is meaningless rhetoric doing in the Bible, an inspired writing"?]
Just as important, it should be recognized that his reply was in fact a prayer of adoration combined with supplication for his disbelief. This type of answer would only be appropriate to "THE" God, not "a" god, as your references suggest.
Other characteristics of the reply
Most importantly in this discussion with Witnesses
(or any other group that does not believe in the divinity of Jesus), Thomas'
reply acknowledges that the character of Jesus is two (2) distinct
entities. His response addresses both of these entities.
One is Lord, the other is God. In the quoted passage, our Bibles agree
on this point.
As your references note, the term "lord and god" was common in that day and was most often used in reference to an emperor who had declared himself to be not only earthly "lord" but also spiritually "god"; again, 2 entities. Thomas and all the Apostles surely knew this. There can be no question that the intent of Thomas was to acknowledge his beliefs in the two entities as a direct consequence of his investigation of the wounds. (Again, all the Apostles must have agreed with Thomas).
Your contention that this reply was a "specialized" interpretation of the phrase fails to address the two entities. From other sources it appears that your belief is that while Jesus is 2 entities, he is only 1 entity at a time: fully man while on earth, and Archangel Michael while in heaven, as above.
But the exclamation of Thomas refers to two entities. Thus your belief is not consistent with the reply of Thomas. However, note that through the teaching of the Apostles, the Church has maintained since its beginning that Jesus is two beings, God and Man. There is not a scintilla of evidence that any of the Apostles or other disciples ever taught anything other than this particular concept, thus the reply is in complete agreement with Church teachings and at odds with the Witnesses understanding. (see "history" below for additional comments.)
This results in conflict #2, indicating that Jesus is both Man and God, at the same time.
Jesus' reply to Thomas
In his reply, Jesus is familiar with the fact
that the term "my lord and my god" was routinely applied to emperors, as
above. But his reply to Thomas affirms the correctness of the application
of the expression, including the two entities, and he also accepts the
prayer without comment except as to the faith of Thomas. Only God
could do this; in fact, if Jesus was not God, he would have no business
expecting [religious] "faith" from anyone. If Thomas' reply had only
meant "lord and god" as your references claim, there would be no need for
any "faith" to be involved. So we have the fact that Thomas could
only mean "Lord and "God" in his exclamation, and that Jesus accepted it
is as "Lord and God".
This entire reply, generally thought of as a "rebuke" to Thomas, in fact seals the claim of Divinity by Jesus. Thomas obviously agrees with it, because he offers no objection to the reply of Jesus. This conclusion therefore creates Conflict #1 above, i.e., that Jesus is not Divine.
Jesus thus confirms Thomas' opinion and of course the opinion of the rest of the Apostles. Whatever your understanding of Jesus, it is impossible to believe that he was not fully aware of what the Apostles believed and were teaching about his nature, nor is it logical to assume that they did not get their direction of teaching from Him.
Within 50 days (Pentecost Sunday) the Apostles begin preaching this belief to the entire world, and the Christian Churches continue to do so to this day without an iota of change. Thus the belief that Jesus was both full God and full Man had to originate from Jesus himself. His reply to Thomas was a "green light" (if one was needed) for the Apostles to spread this gospel throughout the world for all time. There was not one bit of doubt or dissension among them as a result of this momentous confrontation.
The proof of history
For but one example, at what might be called the
first "synod of Bishops" in 51 A. D. (the Council of Jerusalem) the matter
of the divinity of Jesus or His dual nature, which the Apostles had been
teaching for ~20 years, was never even discussed. If
there had been any question whatsoever over the divinity of Jesus or any
question as to His humanity, this Council, occurring some 20 years after
the Ascension, would have been a hotbed of discussion about the topic,
noting that this was a major contention of those who put Him to death.
It can be seen that through omission of this topic, perfect agreement existed
among all the Apostles on this issue. Contrary claims are a distortion
of both the Biblical record and history itself.
But there is nothing unusual about this process of distortion. In fact it is well known that a tactic in common use by those who would change history is to use time to their advantage. As an example, anyone who was mature at the time of the Kennedy assassination (1962) and recalls the nearly minute by minute reporting of some of the events, understands that in order to distort history, such as the many later books on the subject have done, the passage of time is crucial. The principals have to be disinterested (or gone) and most of the evidence not readily available (or lost), before contrary claims about an incident can be raised.
Such is the case with the claims about the non-divinity/humanity of Jesus. It wasn't until around the year 100 A. D. (when the apostles were dead) that these claims began to be made, and not until the year ~ 400 A.D. until they had to be refuted by the Church, with the proclamation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore they were taught without exception for some 350 years, at which time they were confirmed as Doctrine. (Note that by this time there were some 1800 bishops (read apostles) who were involved with the Church.
Had they been made at the time of the Council of Jerusalem, they would have been dismissed immediately by the Apostles themselves. Note also that thousands of Christians died of martyrdom rather than deny this fact only a few years after the Resurrection during the reign of Domitian, an emperor who considered and enforced the idea that he himself was "lord and god". Millions have died of persecution since then to this current day because of this same belief.
Conclusion
Since there is virtually universal agreement within the Christian church that the most important aspect of the life of Jesus was His Resurrection from the dead, this aspect of His life has been examined in detail, using Bible sources. It is my opinion as well as that of many others, that this particular Biblical reference, and the manner in which it was put into effect, therefore supersedes all other references in the Bible to the dual nature of Jesus. It appears that no other passage in the New Testament addresses this issue head-on, or states so clearly this dual nature of Jesus and his divinity as God. All other references quoted by you and many others have meanings which do not directly address this issue. Thus these passages have to be interpreted in the light of the proclamation of Thomas, rather than the other way around.
It cannot be denied that there are many passages in the Bible which discuss matters which can be interpreted, when taken alone, to imply a different nature of Jesus. However this clear confrontation between Jesus and Thomas over the immediate issue, his true nature, leaves us with results that are, or should be, crystal clear as to the nature of Jesus. Jesus is two entities, Man and God. There is no other way to read this.
The entire scenario is so straightforward and unambiguous that anyone reading it must come to one of two conclusions:
1. Jesus was really Man
and God, or
2. He was the greatest charlatan of all time.
There is no middle ground.
As a result of this one episode in the Bible, only atheists now have a logical right to disagree as to the divinity of Jesus; (they have their own problems because of their abiding belief in Naturalism, which belief to them is as strong as or stronger than Christian belief in the Bible.) Witnesses, Jews, Muslims and others who believe that Jesus was just "a holy man" or perhaps a prophet sent from God (Jehovah) should study this episode keeping in mind the possibility that Jesus either intentionally misrepresented himself to all the Apostles and others who believe in Him, or was in fact, both Lord and God as Thomas spoke. (Muslims are included because of their strong belief in Mary and John the Baptist who were intimately connected with Jesus and thus his works).
Summary and recapitulation
The most direct and clear presentation of the two
(2) entities of Jesus, both God and Man is the Bible episode usually referred
to as the story of "The Doubting Thomas".
The Apostle Thomas and all the Apostles agree
that the exclamation "My Lord and My God", meaning "THE Lord and THE God
" is a phrase which fully describes the nature of the risen Jesus as both
human and Divine.
Jesus accepts this description without reservation
as to the question which had been raised by Thomas.
All the Apostles, without exception, taught throughout
their lifetimes that Jesus was "True God and True Man". This was unquestionably
the teaching of Jesus and has been carried on by the Christian church through
to the present day.
The meaning given the phrase "Lord and God" by
the references which you furnished, (i.e.. "lord and god"), is inconsistent
with the teaching of the NWT bible; thus while our Bibles are in agreement
on this passage, it appears that your beliefs are not in agreement with
your Bible.
Addenda
While neither of these two topics in the addenda is necessary to the above discussion, they are being discussed because an understanding of them is part of the overall picture in the understanding of much of the above discussion, and indeed understanding of the entire Bible.
Biblical reference to "Son of God"
There are many Biblical references to Jesus as
the "Son of God". The vast majority of Christians recognize this
phrase as meaning "some part of God, composed of Three Persons".
The term is normally recognized as being used in the Bible as an analogy
to a father-son relationship similar the that which exists on earth.
Generally the analogic portion is taken to mean that Jesus is fully God,
in the same sense that a son of a father is fully human, possessing all
the characteristics of the father.
Because we know virtually nothing whatsoever as to the nature of God, eternity, heaven and other spiritual aspects, this analogy is sufficient for our needs. In fact, it is believed that in eternity, Time does not even exist; what are we to make even of this concept? (This type of explanation is often used in human existence: if a child of 2 or 3 years of age asks "where does the sun go at night?", the answer is usually something like "behind the clouds, trees, hills " etc. This reply contains the pertinent information necessary - "the sun is behind something and out of sight" - but no more. No one would think of explaining the physical details of the universe to one so incapable of understanding).
This is likewise true of the term "Son of God". We are completely incapable of understanding the true nature of the relationship, knowing nothing of the basic nature of God. But the term contains the information as above, that Jesus is fully God, by virtue of being His Son. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Jesus is not Divine.
The problem arises among many belief systems, including
the Witnesses, when the term is taken to mean the exact
explanation of the relationship. Thus the
term "father", "son" or other term is not taken in the context in which
it is used (or can be deduced) but rather taken in a way which distorts
the entire meaning of many passages in the Bible. If this relationship
is carried to such extreme, there comes a time in life where the Son may
well have to take care of the Father, as in infirmity; who is superior
then? Obviously the description is used only as a simple analogy
or is allegorical, as is so much of the Bible.
The Trinity
Much the same condition exists with the use of
the word "Trinity". Once again, we know virtually nothing of the
nature of God, but it is evident that, taken in context with the
whole Bible, there is some type of complexity about that Nature
which is best explained by considering three distinct Persons comprising
one God.
Similarly, it is quite evident that even mankind's nature consists of more than one entity, the nature of which is currently unknown. In fact, there are those who consider that even man may be composed of three natures such as body, mind and spirit or some other makeup. Consideration should be given to the fact that much is unknown even about our surroundings, much less those of eternal nature, and while some concepts are simple, others are well beyond our ability to understand.
How much more possible is it that the Creator is many times more complex than we, the created? However, if you start with the assumption that the Bible fully explains all things religious to humanity (as the Father-Son relationship) and then note that it does not even mention the Trinity, you are forced to the conclusion that the Trinity is non-existent. This position rejects any room for faith in the matter, and instead relies on the superiority of man's "reason" to find the truth of the matter.
Your references, in an attempt to diminish the idea of the Trinity, also mention that the "roots" of it are pagan. But where did the pagans get the idea? It is instructive to take a look at various aspects of the Universe when attempting to answer this question. Let us note some of the "trinitarianess" of the Universe:
As to the failure to mention the Trinity in the Bible, it should be apparent that the wisdom of Jesus is evident here, Him realizing the complexity of the subject and the fallen nature of man's ability, more like that of a child, to understand the concept.
John 20:24 - 29 New
International Version (NIV)
"Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve,
was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples
told him, "We have seen the Lord"! But he said to them, "Unless I
see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were,
and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." A week later
his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them.
Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said,
"Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here;
see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting
and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed
are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
*Muslims should be particularly interested in this thesis because of the reverence they pay not only to Jesus, but also to Mary and John the Baptist: if Jesus falsely claimed His Divinity, this would call into question the validity of both Mary and John.
Bob Williams
November 1, 2003
bobwllms@glis.net
