Truth Magazine

By Jerry Crolius

Is Jesus Eternal?

If Jesus is eternal then he is God. Deity must by definition be eternal and all that is eternal must be Deity. We have seen that the Bible says nothing about Jesus having had a beginning, but does the Bible clearly set forth the doctrine that Jesus is eternal?

John 8:58

In John 8:58 Jesus boldly proclaimed that he was of timeless existence, i.e., eternal:

Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.

Jesus declared that Abraham had been born at some point in time, but that he himself had always existed. The Jews knew that Jesus was claiming eternal existence, i.e., Deity, so they took up stones to stone him, just as they would do later in John 10:33 when they said,

For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself out to be God.

The Witnesses have tried for years to avoid the force of John 8:58. In their New World Translation (1951 ed.) they declared that eimi, the Greek verb form for “I am,” was in the Greek imperfect indefinite tense, and thus translated it “I have been.”(1) There is no such tense in the Greek language! (They have since corrected their error of Greek grammar, but not their translation.) They say that Jesus was simply speaking of “his pre-human existence,” not in the eternal sense but in the sense that he was “alive before Abraham was born.”(2)

However, eimi (“I am”) is in the present tense, which in the Greek language indicates continuous action. Jesus said that before Abraham was born (aorist tense, i.e., one time event), I am (present tense, i.e., continuous action). If Jesus had merely wanted to say that he came into existence before Abraham, he could have said it quite plainly with the perfect tense (past event with a continuing result). But by using the present tense Jesus claimed that he was and is and always will be in existence – he is eternal. As Westcott notes, “. . . there is in the phrase the contrast between the created and the uncreated, and the temporal and the eternal.”(3)

This becomes even more apparent when the name “Jehovah” in Exodus 3:14 is understood.

And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.”

Jehovah, God’s self-assigned name of eternal existence, is translated in the LXX (Greek OT) as ego eimi ho on (“I am the one who is”). Therefore, considering the context and wording of John 8:58, Jesus’ description of himself as ego eimi is a claim of Deity. Even the Jews understood this, and attempted to stone him.

Revelation 22:13

Continued searching of the Scriptures shows that Jesus Christ categorically stated his eternal existence as Deity. He declared himself to be “the first and the last” (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13) and “the Alpha and the Omega” (Rev. 22:13), phrases which Jehovah used to describe himself in the Old Testament (Isa. 44:6; 48:12; 41:4) and in the New Testament (Rev. 1:8). Jesus describes himself with the same words and thus declares his timeless existence and Deity.

However, the Witnesses tell us that Revelation 22:13 is not spoken by Christ but by the Father.(4) Let the reader be the judge. Verse 12 says, “Behold I am coming quickly” and verse 20 says, “Amen. Come Lord Jesus.” Moreover, verse 16 says, “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify.” How can we believe the Witnesses when the Scriptures are so clear?

The Witnesses also tell us that only Revelation 1:17 and Revelation 2:8 are references to Christ being “the first and the last,” and that the meaning of the phrase in these passages is different from the meaning when used of Jehovah in Revelation 1:8. They say that when the phrase describes Christ it refers to the resurrection, Christ being the “firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18), but when it describes Jehovah it refers to timeless existence.(5) But there is no basis in Scripture for assigning these differences of meaning. Thus, the Witnesses have manipulated the Scriptures again to serve their own bias and doctrine.

John 1:1

John 1:1 is the definitive text in the biblical doctrine of the Deity of Jesus Christ:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This passage simply and forcibly declares that the eternal Word (Jesus) is Deity. Moreover, the next few verses in John I declare that Jesus created the world (only Deity has such power). But the Witnesses have translated John 1:1, “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god” (emp. mine,jc). They argue for their translation on the basis of John’s use and non-use of the Greek definite article.(6) They also argue that since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was ‘a god,’ or ‘divine.'”(7) But there are simple and basic problems with both of these arguments.

The Witnesses believe that the Word was a person of an inferior Divine quality. They reason that since the definite article “the” is missing before “God” in the phrase “and the Word was God,” they have the right to supply the indefinite article “a.” So the Word, they say, was “a god,” but not Almighty God (Jehovah). But the indefinite article “a” does not exist in the Koine Greek language, so the context and rules of grammar determine whether or not it should be supplied in English. It is not always to be supplied, and in many cases, it must not be. In the case of John 1:1, the indefinite article must not be supplied because such would violate the rules of Greek grammar, the immediate context, and the rest of the Bible’s teaching.

The Witnesses go to great lengths to argue that John 1:1 is speaking of the Word’s quality of Divinity, as though such a truth would prove that the translation must be “and the Word was a god.” They quote the Journal of Biblical Literature to show that expressions “with an anarthrous (no article) predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning”(8) Now this is a valid rule of Greek grammar (see Green’s Rule(9)), but the Witnesses gain nothing in arguing for their translation with it. If the Word has the quality of Divinity then he is God, not “a god.” The Old Testament tells us that Jehovah is the only true eternal Deity (see discussion below on Isa. 43:10). To say that the Word is Divine is to say that he is Deity, which is exactly what the verse says. John 1:1 can not be translated “and the Word was a god” because the Bible says there is no such thing as an inferior Deity. There is no Deity other than the one true Deity. In fact, the translation best in compliance with the rules of Greek grammar, the immediate context, and the rest of the teaching of the Bible is “and the Word was Divine.” Many translations simply and accurately say, “and the Word was God.”

The Witnesses try to explain away their conflict with the Bible’s plain statements of only one Deity. They point to passages that speak of angels, Satan, and imperfect men as “gods,” and reason that Jesus, who is higher than the angels, “can be and is ‘a god’.”(10) None of these passages even remotely hint at the concept of a Deity of a lower nature. These passages use the terms “gods” figuratively and accommodatively to refer to a given position of importance, not to a Divine Nature. Angels, Satan, and men do not have a “Divine Nature” and are not eternal (cf. Rom. 1:20; Acts 17:29), but in the eternal Word “all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (see below on Col. 2:9).

The Witnesses choose to ignore the plain Bible teaching that Jesus is the “Son of God” who called himself “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the first and the last”; he is the eternal “I AM” who never refused worship as God; he is the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” who gave up “the form of God” to pay the price for our sins. How can the Witnesses dare to explain away the apostle Thomas’ exclamation that Jesus was his Lord and his God (Jn. 20:28) by saying, “To Thomas, Jesus was like ‘a god.'”(11) What nonsense! Thomas had come to believe in Jesus as the Son of God, a Divine person, Deity in bodily form, and thus called him God without being corrected by Jesus. Indeed, through Jesus “God was manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16, NKJV).

Second, it is unnecessary to conclude that because the Word was with God the Word could not be God. The Witnesses assume that God (Deity) must be one person (see earlier discussion on this). They reason from an untrue premise and therefore reach an untrue conclusion. John 1:1 says that the Word was with Deity and was Divine. He was unified with, present with, and one with Deity, and was, in fact, Divine. Friend, you are with humanity and you are human. You are not the only person of the one humanity, but you are human. The Word is with Deity and he is Divine. He is not the only person of the one Deity, but he is Divine. Such is the simple force of John’s statement, and it is in complete harmony with the rest of the teaching of the New Testament.

Please consider also the following passages that teach that John 1:1 can not be translated, “and the Word was a god.”

Isaiah 43:10

We mentioned above the Bible teaching that Deity is defined in Jehovah God. There are not two deities, one the Almighty God and the other an inferior deity. All there is of Deity, all Divinity that exists, is defined in Jehovah God, as Jehovah says in Isaiah 43:10,

. . . before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me.

Jesus cannot be “a god” or “a deity” because there is no Deity other than Jehovah. Isaiah 43:10 says there cannot be two Deities. Be sure that the Witnesses, try as they might, cannot explain away the truth of Isaiah 43:10, even though, ironically, it is the text that they take their name “Jehovah’s Witnesses” from. We must accept that Jehovah is the old covenant name given to the Jews by the one eternal Deity, who in the new covenant is declared to be the three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19).

Colossians 2:9

Paul, with the purpose of elevating Jesus to his deserved position in the minds of men, declared in Colossians 2:9, “in him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” By using the word theotes (“Godhead” KJV), Paul allowed the strongest Greek word possible to emphasize that Jesus Christ fully possesses the nature, essence, and totality of Deity.(12) Interestingly, Paul used weaker forms of the same word to describe Deity in Acts 17:29 (theion) and Romans 1:20 (theiotes), which are also translated “Godhead” in the KJV but are best translated “divine nature” as in the NASB. But by using the abstract form of theos in Colossians 2:9, Paul made as strong a statement as he could have made to declare that Jesus is Deity, fully and in bodily form. (Remember Jesus had said in John 14:9, “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” and Paul had said of Jesus in Colossians 1:15, “He is the image of the invisible God.”)

Philippians 2:6-8

Philippians 2:6-8 closely rivals John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9 as definitive declarations that Jesus Christ is a person in the Godhead.

Who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself. .

Paul’s main point in Philippians 2:6-8 is that, even though Jesus had all the glory, rights, privileges and powers of Deity, he became a lowly, sacrificial servant of mankind. Therefore, Jesus shows us how to be sacrificial servants of our fellow man. Jesus humbly emptied himself of his glory as God (John 17:5), not his rights, privileges, and powers, in order to take upon himself flesh and blood so that all men might be saved. He did not cease to be Deity, but rather he ceased to exist in the glorious form of Deity in order to take on the lowly form of a servant.

However, the Witnesses say that Jesus never had equality with God. They say that Jesus was an inferior god who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.”(13) The Witnesses argue that Jesus only had the nature of God, that is, that he was deity but was not quite equal with Almighty God.

But the whole point of the passage is that Jesus was humble – not because he refrained from seizing what didn’t belong to him, but because he willingly gave up, for the sake of others, that which he himself possessed! (Moreover, in view of Isaiah 43:10, it is impossible for Jesus to have been “a deity.” There is no other Deity than Jehovah. Jesus is either a person of the one Deity or he isn’t any deity at all.)

Now what exactly did Jesus give up? The passage says that Jesus existed in the form of God, but gave up his equality with God. What does that mean? Did he give up his Deity? Did he cease to be God while he was in the flesh? No. Colossians 2:9 says,

“For in him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.”

Jesus was God manifested in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16). Jesus accepted worship as Deity while on earth (John 20:28); Jesus declared himself to be Deity while on earth (John 8:58). Moreover, Jesus’ sacrifice is efficacious only if it is the infinite God paying the price for the souls of all men.

John 17:5 declares what Jesus gave up when he became flesh – his glory:

And now glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.

Jesus gave up his equal glory with God in order to become a servant of man. He did not empty himself of Deity, he emptied himself of glory. He emptied himself of “the form of God” (his glorified existence in heaven) in order to take “the form of a servant” (his lowly existence on earth). When the Word became flesh he was Immanuel (“God With Us,” Matt. 1:23). Jesus could boldly say “I and the Father are one” (Jn. 10:30) and “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn. 14:9).

Conclusion

The subject of knowing how Jesus could be both God and man is difficult for the finite mind. We must seek only conclusive arguments and plain statements of Scripture which will clarify the meaning of those passages which are more difficult. And we certainly must not elevate our human wisdom above God’s Word so that we base our teachings on our own speculations.

All Jehovah’s Witnesses would do well, with their entire body of doctrine, to stand back and evaluate what they are being taught. Compared with the clearest of Bible teaching, the Witnesses’ doctrines are contradictory at best and blasphemous at worst.

The entire body of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine is the product of men who belong to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I appeal to all Jehovah’s Witnesses to renounce the teachings of men and accept only the clear teachings of the Bible.

Finally, let us who think we stand take heed lest we fall. Especially let us who are preachers of God’s Word approach the subject of the Deity of Christ with humility and reverence. Let us allow the Bible to speak for itself, and let us be silent in our own speculations.

Endnotes

1. New World Translation Of The Greek Scriptures (1951 edition) 312.

2. Should You Believe In The Trinity? 26.

3. Westcott, B. F., The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) 140.

4. Gruss, Edmond Charles, Apostles Of Denial. Rev. ed. (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1975) 126.

5. Ibid.

6. Should You Believe In The Trinity? 27.

7. Should You Believe In The Trinity? 27.

8. Should You Believe In The Trinity? 27.

9. Green, S., Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament (London: Religious Tract Society) 178.

10. Should You Believe In The Trinity? 27-28.

11. Should You Believe In The Trinity? 27.

12. B.B. Warfield, “Godhead,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950) 1270.

13. New World Translation Of The Greek Scriptures 589.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 9, pp. 268-270
May 7, 1992

By Rick Duggin

The boss evaluated the Born Loser’s speech by saying, “Oh, he presents a convincing argument . . . unhampered as he is by facts and information.”

I had to identify with the boss’s reaction recently while reading an article in Charles Holt’s paper, The Examiner. Calvin Warpula tried to prove that Colossians 4:16 provides authority for churches to send money to other churches for the purpose of preaching the gospel.

The Scriptures plainly prove that churches of the New Testament sent money to other churches in benevolent situations when they were unable to provide for their own (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8,9). The Scriptures also plainly prove that churches sent money to evangelists to support them in preaching the gospel (2 Cor. 11:8). But where is scriptural authority for one church to send money to another church to preach the gospel?

While we should always be ready to restudy any passage in order to guard against false conclusions, we must not assume that an article written by an educated man guarantees that his conclusions are scriptural. “Smart” men have caused many apostasies.

The purpose of our present article is (1) to present the consequences of Warpula’s contention, and (2) to express the truth taught by this passage. “And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea.”

(1) Warpula and others assume that, since a church may send Scriptures to another church, therefore a church may send money to another church with which it may purchase the Scriptures. The actual, but unstated, major premise of this argument is that a church may send money to anyone or anything to whom it may send Scriptures.

May a church send Scriptures to Muslim leaders, to communist officials, to Roman Catholic churches in order to teach them the truth? If so . . . would it be scriptural for churches to send money to Muslim leaders? May churches send money to communist officials? May churches send money to Roman Catholic churches to help them in purchasing Bibles? Will Warpula accept these consequences? Whatever proves too much proves nothing.

(2) Many claim that the epistles of the New Testament were merely private “love letters” whose authoritative pronouncements do not bind us. If this is true, then why was Paul so concerned about copying them and sharing them with others? Would it be mutually edifying for you and me to exchange personal letters?

Paul was concerned with spreading the word of God. Isn’t it interesting that he thought this could be accomplished by sharing these epistles?

Apparently he did not accept the modern theory that we should preach the man (Matthew-John) and forget the plan (N.T. epistles). In fact, when he spread such epistles, he was preaching Christ. “If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).

These epistles not only expressed the commandment of the Lord, but also applied to every other congregation of God, both then and now. “Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God . . . unto the church of God which is at Corinth ‘ even them that are sanctified in Christ, called to be saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours” (1 Cor. 1:1,2).

The same principle is found in other passages as well (Acts 15:23-29; 16:4; 2 Pet. 1:13,14; 3:16). This special treatment of the epistles led to the formation of the New Testament canon.

Don’t be deceived by convincing arguments . . . unhampered by facts and information. Anyone who is thus deceived will definitely be the loser.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 9, p. 278
May 7, 1992

By Dan King

My birthday is next week. Another year of life is now almost finished. I cannot refrain from reflecting a bit upon the passing of time, for it is at these milestones that we all tend to do so, even though the time meandered on like a lazy river the whole year and I never really seemed to notice. At the mile markers we pause, however, just long enough to reflect a while upon how quickly the days of our lives are speeding by, and if our hope is set upon eternity, to examine the life we have lived to see whether we are properly preparing ourselves for the “long home” of the soul.

No matter whether I like the results of my life as lived out in this last year or not, that chapter is now closed. Whatever triumphs or defeats, smiles or tears, they are now a part of past history. It is the same for us all. Someday, if God is willing, we shall be able to say the same for this new year that we are now (by the time you read this) experiencing. So are the days and years of our lives. We are either going somewhere and getting somewhere, or else we are headed nowhere and accomplishing nothing.

With that thought in mind, let me share with you a little story I heard a few years ago. It seems there was an old wise man who lived high on a mountain in a remote area. He had great wisdom and deep insight into life’s mysteries. It was said that he knew the answer to any question or problem. Two boys decided to trick the old man by giving him an impossible task. They caught a bird, brought it to the old man and asked, “What is in my hand, old man?” The sage answered, “You hold a bird in your hands.” “Is the bird alive or dead?” If the old man answered “Alive,” the boy would squeeze the bird to death; if the old man answered “Dead,” he would turn the bird loose and it would fly away. To the chagrin of the mischievous boys, he replied: “It is as you will.”

In a sense, the wise man’s reply is an appropriate commentary on the new year that stretches before me, and ultimately, every one of us. “It is as you will.” Of course, our hopes and dreams, our plans and schemes, are all ultimately subject to the Sovereign Will of Heaven, but God grants to us great latitude as free moral agents. Our time is our own in the sense that we may utilize it wisely and profitably or we may squander it recklessly.

In one of his plays, William Shakespeare has his character to lament: “I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.” Time is among those precious talents placed in our hands for profitable use. When the Judge comes back to make his accounting, will we have made the best use of what we have been given? Truly, “It is as you will.”

As the people of God, serving him in his eternal kingdom, “Let us not be weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 9, p. 267
May 7, 1992

By Steve Wallace

History tells us that Don Carlos Janes was one of the most zealous advocates for foreign missionary work of his day. We are told that he traveled 9,000 miles to visit various mission fields in the year 1919 alone and that he conducted a world tour in 1920. Earl West writes of him, “For thirty years mission work was his sole obsession.”(1) We commend and admire this brother’s missionary zeal. However, our feelings toward him are tempered by other facts about him. Brother Janes believed in the teachings of premillennialism. As Earl West further writes of the results of brother Janes’ work, “Clearly, then, premillennialism reached out to touch the vast mission fields over the world.”(2) This brief synopsis teaches us an ever present danger with reference to the current wave of missionary enthusiasm affecting many Christians today. With these things in mind, let us note some dangers of such compromise and some things supporting churches might do to guard against it.

The Fruit of Compromise in the Mission Field

1. The work the compromiser establishes will be adversely affected. If one is off on divorce and remarriage, soft on liberalism, a neo-Calvinist, a Charles Holt disciple, etc., it will have an effect on those whom he teaches. Because of the influence such a one wields, it is unlikely in the extreme that the church which results from his efforts will stand for anything other than what he teaches on a given subject. One needs only to consider the above mentioned and other false doctrines to figure what the consequences of such a person’s work would be. Some tell us of brethren who “believe a certain doctrine but do not teach it.” Think brethren! We need to realize that no honest person holds views that he does not teach. If someone wants to know how a brother feels about a certain situation involving divorce and remarriage, the forgiveness of sins committed in ignorance, the work of the church, etc., that brother will either tell (teach) them his convictions or cease to be an honest man.

2. The effects on brethren in supporting churches. Churches supporting such a man become unwilling accomplices to him in his work of perverting the truth. It hurts such churches when they learn the truth about what the unworthy worker believes and teaches. Some will no doubt sour on the idea of supporting preachers in foreign fields. (With the money some churches are presently sitting on “for safe keeping” we do not need anymore churches that are unwilling to support preachers in other places!) Others may be tempted to unscripturally meddle in the work of the next preacher whom they support. While such reactions are not justifiable, they can be the results of the work of such a compromiser.

Because of the things mentioned above, churches must not be haphazard in deciding whom to support. How should they decide on a man to support? Let us study some things that will help in making such decisions.

Some Ways to Guard Against Such Compromise

1. Missionary zeal is not the only measure by which a prospective worker should be judged. Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees, saying of them, “ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves” (Matt. 23:15). The Judaizers who infiltrated the churches of Galatia were likewise zealous (Gal. 4:17). When a perpetrator of error is zealous, the effects of his work are much worse than an otherwise sound brother who has become apathetic. When a man has a zeal for the Lord’s work in another land, we should try to ascertain that it is the Lord’s work that he will be doing.

2. Some standards (which may help in selecting a) worthy man.

a. He should love the souls of men. Jesus’ example on this point is so helpful. He was willing to go through so much just because he loved the souls of men (1 Jn. 3:16). Such love can be seen by the efforts that one has put forth to reach the lost and restore the erring. It will stand him in good stead when confronted with the challenges of work in a foreign place (Jn. 4:9-10).

b. He should be one who shows himself approved of God. Paul tells us how this is done: “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). If a man has put forth the effort to know the truth there will be brethren to whom he has “shown himself approved of God” who can testify to this fact.

c. He should be one who speaks his convictions in the face of adversity. Paul did this among brethren at Antioch in the face of mass hypocrisy (Gal. 2:14). This is a necessary trait of anyone who plans to do mission work. Paul shows us the truthfulness of the above point by his actions while he was all alone at Athens (Acts 17:16-17). When a man gets out on his own, far from home, in a strange environment, he will have to be able to speak his convictions to those around him.

d. He should be one who can stay in a foreign field. By “staying in a foreign field,” we do not mean that he never leaves the place again. We simply mean that he be able to stay for the time necessary to do the work there. John Mark became a point of contention between Paul and Barnabas because he “departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work” (Acts 15:39; cp. 13:13). Going is a whole lot easier than staying. One must count the cost of a given work, gird up the loins of his mind, and make sure he is prepared to give what time it takes. Wives of evangelists would do well to prepare themselves to make do in a foreign place. Among the U.S. military families the wives most often have problems with life in a foreign country. We must consider the time necessary to do successful mission work. Brethren who have spent years in mission fields testify that it sometimes takes years to establish a work in a given place. Out of consideration for all who would try or have tried to work in a foreign field it must be said that experience shows that it is easier for some in a strange environment than it is for others.

Conclusion

With the great open door to preach Christ finally open in eastern Europe and the former USSR, men need to be found who will go and spend the time necessary for churches to be planted and grounded. However, as we have tried to show herein, it is not just important that brethren go to foreign lands, but that men go who will teach “them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20).

Endnotes

1. The Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. IV:203.

2. Ibid. 204.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 9, pp. 276-277
May 7, 1992