This post is part of a series of posts summarising chapters of the Jehovah Witnesses' booklet, "What does the Bible really Teach?", and seeking to evaluate those chapters against Scripture somewhat briefly. Those posts were introduced at the Introduction, and a contents page will be added to that entry once this run of posts has finished.
Chapter 4: Who is Jesus Christ?
People often know lots about Jesus, but that’s not the same as knowing him. Knowing him is important, because knowing the truth about him can lead to everlasting life. He is also the best example we have of how to live.
The promised Messiah: The Bible foretold a Messiah, one who would be anointed which means “appointed by God to a special position”. The disciples of Jesus were convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, because he fitted the prophetic descriptions and because God announced at his baptism that his Spirit was to be poured out on him to anoint him as Messiah.
Where did Jesus come from? Before being born as a human, he lived as “a spirit creature in heaven” (41). “Jesus is Jehovah’s most precious Son – and for good reason. He is called ‘the firstborn of all creation,’ for he was God’s first creation. … This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God. Jesus is also the only one whom God used when He crated all other things.” (41) He is not equal to God, because he had a beginning. He lived with God for a long time before, by a miracle, was transferred to a human womb.
What kind of person was Jesus? The perfect reflection of God, he taught what God wanted him to teach. He did this everywhere, and had compassion on those whom he taught. Nowhere was this compassion more clearly seen than in his miracles of healing, done when “under the power of God’s spirit” (44)
Faithful to the end: He wasn’t always received, but he kept faithful till this rejection climaxed in his death. After his death, he rose and returned to heaven, to await kingly rule.
Evaluation
This is where things start to get interesting.
First of all, let's notice: The Old Testament did foretell a Messiah, and the New Testament writers did unequivocally identify Jesus with that promised Messiah. OK so far...
However, the New Testament also identifies Jesus with God himself. He is the Son of the Father (he isn't the Father), so there is a need to distinguish him from his Father. However, he is described as having God's attributes. For instance he is:
- All powerful: Notice how the miracles cause faith in him, rather than causing people to admire the divine spirit that rested on him. For example: John 2:11 and Mark 4:41.
- All knowing: See John 1:50.
- Deserving of worship: See John 20:28 - worship that he accepts quite willingly.
Colossians 1:15 does not describe him as the first amongst the other created things. In the context, 1:16ff is explanatory of verse 15 (it starts with "for"). So the "firstborn" statement means that he has the unique favour of the Father that a firstborn son would have had in those days. This is exercised in the way he is over all created things.
Finally, we need to add the 9 texts where Jesus is explicitly called God in the Bible. (This list is taken from Robert Reymond's New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, page 312):
It is important to realise that we don't believe Jesus to be divine on the basis of those 9 texts alone, as though they were some kind of proof-text. Rather, those 9 verses make most explicit what is plainly taught and implied throughout the Old and New Testaments. Reymond, for example, spends 101 pages of his book examining all the texts that speak of his deity, one at a time, to explain them carefully in their context.
Biblically, the arguments presented in this chapter of the Watchtower book are in big trouble. They are also in big trouble historically. It is startling how closely these arguments follow the contours of Arius in the 4th Century. J. N. D. Kelly outlines Arius's argument on pages 227-229 of his book, Early Christian Doctrines. There were 4 stages:
- "First, the Son must be a creature."
- "Secondly, as a creature the Son must have had a beginning."
- "Thirdly, the Son can have no communion with, and indeed no direct knowledge of, His Father."
- "Fourthly, the Son must be liable to change and even sin."
The document we know as the Nicene Creed was the outcome of the councils that met to consider Arius' teaching. The clear outcome is that Arius's teaching is not Christianity. It does not represent the teaching of Scripture. In the process of engaging with these arguments, Athanasius and others argued that only the divine God could save us. No mere creature could take another creature and reconcile him to God, no matter how elevated that creature might be.
The important thing about the councils of Nicea and Constantinople is that they were two of the four truly ecumenical councils. Never since those four has there been a truly representative council where all sections and all geographical regions of the church were present and involved. Councils do err, as the Book of Common Prayer cautions us. Nevertheless, it can truly be said that the outcomes of these councils were the mind of the whole church. The whole church ruled Arius's teaching to be a distortion of Christianity, and therefore not Christianity. It is historically surprising then to see those same arguments reproduced, virtually in the same form, as mainstream Christianity. That question was settled long ago.amazon=0849913179
Add new comment