Truth Magazine

By Jerry Crolius

Was Jesus Created?

The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ, from the beginning, was a creation of God – an angel of the highest order, Michael the Archangel. Jesus Christ, they teach, was actually Michael recreated in human form by God. Then, upon ascending into heaven as a recreated spirit being, Jesus Christ resumed his heavenly position as Michael.(1)

For “proof” that Jesus is Michael, the Witnesses use a series of Bible passages that supposedly connect Jesus and Michael in purpose and action: Jude 9, cf. 1 Thess. 4:16; Dan. 10:13, cf. Isa. 9:6; Dan. 12:1, cf. Matt. 24:3,21,30; Rev. 12:78, cf. 1 Jn. 3:8.(2) Maurice Barnett says, “The Witnesses simply quote the passages and assert that they are the same; it is all assumption.”(3)

It is certain that if Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel, then he is not Deity. However, if Jesus is not a created being, then he has always existed and, by definition, must be Deity. For proof that Jesus was not Michael the Archangel, consider Hebrews 1:5:

Unto which of the angels said he at any time, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?”

Moreover, Hebrews 1: 13 asks,

But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, “Sit thou on my right hand . . . ?”

As Barnett notes, “the rhetorical question asked here demands an answer of none.”(4) Ted Dencher, in offering Hebrews 1:5, notes that this clear refutation from Scripture “seems not to bother the Watchtower.(5) Let the writer of Hebrews 1:8 explain who Jesus is:

But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.”

Originally, this passage in Psalm 45:6 was written about Jehovah. The writer of Hebrews says it was about Jesus. Jesus is not an angel; he is Deity!

The Witnesses say that Jesus is the “only one whom God Himself created directly without the agency or cooperation of any creature.”(6) They argue that Jesus is referred to in the Bible as “the only-begotten Son of God” (Jn. 3:16), “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14), and “the firstborn of every creature” (Col. 1:15). Here is their explanation:

Thus he is ranked with God’s creatures, being first among them and also most beloved and most favored among them. He is not the author of the creation of God; but after God created him as his firstborn Son, then God used him as his working Partner in the creating of all the rest of creation.(7)

Seekers of truth will discover in the following paragraphs that, instead of using the Bible’s definitions, the Witnesses have provided their own definitions to the terms “only begotten,” “firstborn,” and “beginning.” We are interested only in Bible definitions derived from word usages, parallel passages, and contextual considerations. Let the Bible define what these terms mean. You will see that these terms have nothing to do with Jesus being a creation of God.

“Only Begotten Son”

John 3:16 describes Jesus as “the only begotten Son” which means, according to the Witnesses, that Jesus was born of God, i.e., created by God, and is therefore not eternal.(8) But “only begotten” is defined by Bauer’s Greek Lexicon as “unique (in kind) of something that is the only example of its category.”(9) Therefore, the term “only begotten” as applied to Jesus in John 1: 14,18 and John 3:16,18 is a statement of position, not origin.

Indeed, scholars are now in agreement that the idea of “begettal” is absent from the Greek word for “only begotten.” It was once thought that the Greek word monogenes was a combination of mono (only) and gennao (to beget), but now scholars agree it is actually a combination of mono and genos (class, kind). Although the NASB still has “only begotten” in the text of John 3:16, it supplies a footnote in the margin “unique, one of His kind. ” The NIV reflects the agreement among scholars in its translation of John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son. . .”

Thus, Maurice Barnett points out:

In Hebrews 11: 17, referring to Abraham, “yea he that had gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten son,” Isaac was not his only son, nor was he the eldest. Ishmael was born before Isaac. . . . Isaac, however, occupied the position of first-born, and claimed title to the Only Begotten because he was the one of promise and purpose. The same is true in regard to Jesus. He came uniquely by promise with the purpose of human redemption.(10)

Therefore, Jesus is the “only begotten Son,” not in the sense that he is the only being created by God himself, but in the sense that he is the one and only Son of God, unique in kind, purpose, and position. The Witnesses have nothing in this term to indicate that Jesus had a beginning and thus is not eternal.

“Firstborn Of Every Creature”

Colossians 1:15 speaks of Jesus as “the firstborn of every creature,” which the Witnesses say means that Jesus was the first and only spirit being created directly by God and that he was created before all other things.(11) However, Colossians 1:15-17 gives its own explanation of what “firstborn” means:

And he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created… And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

As Brumback notes,

It is not said that he is the first creature, but that he is the firstborn of every creature. It is not said that he was created before all things, but that he is before all things.(12)

If you have a New World Translation (the Witnesses’ official Bible), notice that the Witnesses insert “other” into the phrase “by him all things were created.” But there is no Greek word for “other” in this text. In fact, this addition to God’s Word is completely unjustified. The Witnesses add “other” into the text to emphasize their doctrine that Jesus was created first, before all other things.

Now consider the main thought of Colossians 1:15-18. Paul is stating that Jesus Christ is the pre-eminent one first above all things. He is the image of the invisible God; he is before all things; he created all things; in him all things hold together,- he is the head of the church. He is the firstborn of every creature not because he was created first, but because he is of a higher position than any creature; he is also the firstborn from the dead because he is of a higher position than any who will ever be resurrected.

The Witnesses should take note of the term “firstborn” as it is used elsewhere in the Bible as a statement of position, For example:

a. Firstborn of death – the most fatal, deadly disease (Job. 18:13).

b. Firstborn of the poor – pre-eminent in poverty (Isa. 14:30).

c. Israel myfirstborn – pre-eminent in purpose (Exod. 4:22).

d. Make him the firstborn – highest, etc. (Psa. 89:27).

e. Firstborn ones – all the saved in the church of Christ (Heb. 12:23).

f. Jesus thefirstborn among many brethren (Rom. 8:29).

g. Firstborn of the dead (Rev. 1:5).

In the case of Hebrews 12:23, the plural use of “firstborn” is significant because it illustrates that “pre-eminence of position” is the primary meaning of the word. If “first born” means “first created” as the Witnesses claim, then we have the impossible situation of all saved people being born first into the church. Which one was born first? However, when we understand the biblical definition of “first-born” we see the truth. All saints are in an exalted position because they are heirs of salvation, Thus they are called “the church of the first-born ones.” Again the Witnesses have nothing in this term to indicate that Jesus had a beginning and thus is not eternal.

Beginning of the Creation of God

Revelation 3:15 describes Jesus as “the beginning of the creation of God,” which the Witnesses say proves that Jesus had a beginning and is therefore not eternal.(13) However, the phrase refers to Jesus as the origin of God’s creation, not the first thing created. All things were made by Jesus, so ht is the beginning (origin) of God’s creation. This clear truth is presented in John 1:3-10 and Colossians 1:15-18. Jesus uses this phrase about himself in Revelation 3:14 to teach that he deserves glory and honor as the Creator. This is the only contextually and grammatically sound interpretation.

The scholarly support for this definition of arche is overwhelming, Thayer defines arche as used in Revelation 3:14 as “that by which anything begins to be, the origin, active cause.”(14)Arndt and Gingrich say that in Revelation 3:14 the meaning of arche is “the first cause.”(15) A.T. Robertson says that in Revelation 3:14 the meaning is “not the first of creatures, as the Arians held. . ., but the originating source of creation through whom God works.”(16) Once again the Witnesses have no basis to conclude that Jesus had a beginning and thus is not eternal.

Endnotes

1. Your Will Be Done on Earth (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) 316.

2. Make Sure Of All Things, (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), 1953, rev. ed., 288.

3. Barnett, Maurice, Jehovah’s Witnesses I: Sec. 11 of 2 vols., (privately published, n. d.) 18.

4. Ibid.

5. Dencher, Ted. The Watchtower Heresy versus the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press) 26.

6. Aid To Bible Understanding (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) 1254.

7. Let God Be True (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) 35.

8. Aid To Bible Understanding.

9. Bauer, Walter, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Trans. W, Arndt and F. Gingrich (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press) 527.

10. Barnett 16.

11. New World Bible Translation Committee, New World Translation of the Greek Scriptures (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, rev. ed. 1971) 589.

12. Brumback, Carl, God In Three Persons (Cleveland: Pathway Press) 117.

13. Barnett 15.

14. Thayer, Joseph Henry (ed. and trans.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, corrected edition (New York: American Book Company) 77.

15. Bauer, Walter 112.

16. Robertson, A.T., Word Pictures In The New Testament VI:321.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 8, pp. 232-233
April 16, 1992

By Stan Cox

In our last article, we discussed the first of three questions concerning the office and authority of elder. The question answered was, “Who are elders?” Remember that Charles Holt and other writers for The Examiner magazine believe that the term signifies any older Christian. They deny that the office of an elder exists. That discussion naturally leads us to the next question . . . What is the role of elders?

As I initially began preparation for my presentation at the “Truth and Freedom Forum,” I thought I would get a representative quote from The Examiner to contrast our positions concerning the role of elders. It became obvious that it would be impossible to so do. They don’t believe the work exists. They don’t accept that elders are anything other than older Christians, therefore they can’t delineate a specific role for them. Of course, the New Testament can, and it does. Let us quickly read some passages which define the role of the elder in the local congregation.

First, Acts 20:28-31, “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.” This is a record of Paul’s instructions to the elders of the church at Ephesus, as he met with them in Miletus. Here he tells them to shepherd the church of God. The extent of their authority in this matter is also indicated as he instructs them to take heed to all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers. They were also exhorted here to watch and protect the flock,

Another passage which is helpful in defining the elder’s role is 1 Peter 5. Begin in verse 1. “The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by constraint but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.” Once again the terms “shepherd” and “oversee” appear, as well as the instruction to be examples to the flock. Titus, chapter 1, beginning with verse 7, “For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision.” Of course, this is a list of qualifications, but contained in the list is at least a partial description of the elder’s work: To serve as a steward of God; To hold fast the faithful word as he has been taught. To exhort and convict those who contradict; the insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers. Titus 1:13 says to, “Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” Contained in the list of qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3, is the explanation that elders must be able to rule their own house well, and then he indicates the reason why in verse 5: “for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” So we can see here that God expects elders to “take care of the church of God.”

Finally, 1 Timothy 5:17. Here Paul states, “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.” This is another very simple statement. That elders are to rule. Those who rule well are even to be supported materially as they labor, which is another sore spot with Holt and his group. But again Paul is clear in his statement. God expects elders to rule in the local church.

The Examiner writers use misrepresentations, and untrue statements in an attempt to gain sympathy for their ungodly cause. Representative of this is the following quote from the January 1989 issue, this time from the pen of Dusty Owens. He falsely attacks godly men serving and doing the work of elders by saying the following:

“The majority of those called ‘elders’ are ‘apt’ not to teach instead of being able to teach the word. Most cannot ‘convict the gainsayer,’ as is required of them (Tit. 1:9). But, have no fear, they will take care of these little inadequacies by bringing in the professional preacher, who has been to one of ‘our schools’ and who is properly trained and is qualified for this kind of work. It matters not that God placed these responsibilities upon the shepherds, they will discharge them by proxy! They will hire someone to do their work for them while they busy themselves looking after things like bank accounts, church buildings and parking lots (and don’t forget the thermostats and door locks).”(1) This is what I mean when I say that these writers for The Examiner are vindictive and deceitful. What I have just quoted is simply not true. It does not describe the hundreds and hundreds of godly men that serve their God in this capacity. It is not representative of the position that I and brethren throughout the world take concerning the need for men to serve in the work of oversight. And to say the concept of the Lord’s church and the work of elders which I described leads to such practices is to say something totally false! Now once again, I don’t know Dusty Owens personally, and I do not know his motive or his heart, but one thing I do know is that when he states that most elders make up a “glorified finance committee,”(2) he is accusing godly men everywhere of something that is simply not so!

I have simply shown, from the scriptures cited, that God has given certain qualified, appointed men an important work to do. This work is in the realm of spiritual oversight and care for the local congregation. Holt and his followers deny this to be true. In our next article we will deal with the question, “Do elders have authority? “

Endnotes

1. The Work of Shepherding,” The Examiner, Vol. IV, No. 1 (January, 1989), p. 7.

2. Ibid.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 8, pp. 229-230
April 16, 1992

By Bobby Holmes and Ron Halbrook

The plight of the saints meeting in Sturgis, Mississippi has been described in two articles published during the summer of 1991. The deed for this small church’s building and property had been kept in the name of the larger Lee Blvd. church in nearby Starkville, a liberal church. The Sturgis church had earlier been placed under the oversight of Lee Blvd. but had learned the truth about the autonomy of the local church and requested that the deed to their property be turned over to them, in keeping with the Scriptures. Instead, Lee Blvd. offered to sell the Sturgis church their own property (!). Rather than go to law, Sturgis obtained the help of brother Thomas D. Keenum, Sr. (an elder and a lawyer) of Booneville in an effort to meet Lee Blvd. on middle ground by offering about half of the $35,000.00 which Lee Blvd. demanded. But while these negotiations were in process, the Lee Blvd. elders signed the Sturgis deed over to the Hwy. 82 church in Starkville. The Hwy. 82 church then offered to sell the Sturgis church their own property (N), but while Sturgis was in the process of raising the $17,000.00 agreed upon, Hwy. 82 sold the property to a denomination for $2,000.00 more (!!!).

The saints in Sturgis lost their property but not their faith in God. They have continued to meet and to worship the Lord in an abandoned service station and bus stop. In the meantime, the response of brethren all around the country to our previous appeals for help in getting a new meeting house for the Sturgis church has been most encouraging. About $20,000.00 has been given by individual Christians to the building Fund. Brother David Haley, an architect in Dallas, Texas, donated his efforts to prepare a set of building plans. Bobby Holmes visited the Sturgis brethren in October of 1991 and found them in good spirits. They approved the building plans. David McCarter of the Sturgis church and Bobby Holmes located an excellent piece of property which the owner was willing to sell for $2,400.00.

The Strugis brethren plan to press forward step by step with the help of God and faithful brethren. The land has been surveyed, a title search done, and other legal work completed to get a clear deed in the name of the church in Sturgis. Brother Keenum is donating his time and legal expertise to complete those steps. Brother Clark Buzbee, evangelist for the sound church in Starkville, has made himself available to help in every way he can. The foundation of the building along with the plumbing and septic tank will be contracted out; brother Buzbee will look after that phase of the work. Brother David McCarter and others at Sturgis will take care of such things as getting a water line from across the road onto the property, getting a culvert in place to allow access to the property, and getting the dozer work done.

As soon as possible, a week will be set aside this spring to construct the building with the help of volunteers who wish to contribute their talents, time, and abilities. By the time this report appears in print, or shortly thereafter, the week will have been selected. Those who are interested in participating should contact Bobby Holmes (214-227-1119 or 298-4466) or Ron Halbrook (409-345-3818 or 345-2501).

The Strugis brethren not only thank God for sustaining them in the midst of their trials but also wish to thank brethren far and wide for the prayers, moral support, and the money which have been offered on their behalf. By diligently shopping around on bids and estimates, and taking into account donated labor, it will be possible to complete the new Sturgis meeting house if another $5,000.00 can be raised. Please remember that these brethren are doing everything possible to help themselves and are not asking us to do anything which they can do for themselves. Though very poor financially, they are rich in faith and willing to suffer and make every sacrifice possible to obey the Lord. They have already demonstrated that godly and faithful character by the things which they have endured.

Those who wish to help financially in completing this effort, already so near to completion, may send donations to Sturgis Church of Christ Building Fund, P.O. Box 418, Booneville, Miss. 38829. Your contribution will be tax deductible. More importantly, it will be blessed by God and will result in many thanksgivings unto his throne in heaven.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 8, p. 234
April 16, 1992

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Since the fall of man in the garden, men and women have needed to be adequately and decently clothed. When Adam and Eve sinned they became conscious of their nakedness and were ashamed – a consciousness and sense of shame needed in a world invaded by sin. They tried to cloth themselves with aprons of fig leaves, but God clothed them more adequately and decently (Gen. 2:25-31). It is interesting that the sacred text does not say that the aprons clothed them, but rather the coats or tunics that God made for them.

I heard a brother say that if he could find some of the fruit that Adam and Eve ate, he would pass it out to the sisters by the bushel – so that they would open their eyes and know that they were naked (Gen. 3:7). I might add that many are still sewing together less than fig leaves and calling themselves clothed.

Adornment: Inside and Out

Misinterpretations of Peter’s teaching about outward adorning (1 Pet. 3:1-4) have led to several extremes. Some conclude that all outward adorning such as wearing gold, braiding the hair, and the like is forbidden. It should be obvious that this is not what Peter meant, or else one could wear no clothes because another example given of outward adorning is that of “putting on of apparel.” While some versions other than the King James and American Standard say fine apparel, fine is obviously an interpolation supplied by the translators and is so indicated by italics in the New King James.

This is one of those “not . . . but . . . ” passages where the “not” portion of the passage may indeed be important, but is not nearly as important as the “but” portion. (John 6:27 is another example of such a passage.) Having correctly understood that the inward adorning is far more important than any outward adorning, one must not conclude that outward adorning is of no importance. Whoever said that “clothes do not make the man” may have been right, but it is also true that clothes may be a reflection of the man (or woman). The way that we dress sends certain signals about ourselves. This is why godly women should dress as women professing godliness (1 Tim. 2: 10). They want to signal their true character before all.

One’s dress may reflect one’s socio-economic standing (Jas. 2:14). Since, among saints, no partiality should be shown based on this factor, we should not show favoritism toward one whose clothing may reflect either prosperity or poverty. However, the fact still remains that the way one dresses does say something about the person.

One’s dress may reflect one’s attitude toward an occasion. Joseph was about to appear before the Pharaoh, so he “shaved, changed his clothing, and came to Pharaoh” (Gen. 41:14). Queen Esther wanted an audience with the king, so she “put on her royal apparel” (Esth. 5:1). A wedding guest was expelled from a king’s wedding feast for his son for not wearing the wedding garment (which, I am told, was customarily supplied by the host, Matt. 22:11,12). All of this points to the fact that special occasions call for special attention being paid to one’s dress. How one dresses for the occasion reflects his attitude toward the occasion.

When we assemble around the Lord’s table to commemorate the great sacrifice of our Savior and to otherwise worship him, is this not a very special occasion? Is it a casual event? Yet, I sometimes see brethren who have good clothes, fitting for other special occasions, and who are careful to arrange their appearance for those occasions, attend the worship services looking like they had just come from or were heading to a hog-killing. Casual occasions may call for casual and unkept appearance, but publicly worshiping the Lord is no such occasion.

Dress and Character

One’s dress may reflect one’s personal character traits. For example, if one, with the means to do otherwise, habitually appears in public with unkept clothing, hair and general appearance; it is a pretty good indication of laziness and carelessness on his part.

Likewise, one may indicate either godliness or ungodliness by the way one dresses. Solomon speaks of seeing a young man devoid of understanding meeting a woman with the attire of a harlot (Prov. 7:6-9). Judah mistook Tamar for a harlot because of her outward appearance (Gen. 38:14,15). This did not justify Judah’s action, but it does show that one’s outward appearance can send out ungodly signals. How often have I heard it said of some sisters that they dress “like street walkers” and I find it hard to disagree. A person who professes godliness should dress as a person professing godliness (1 Tim. 2:10). If Christians are not the wrong kind of people and do not want to be identified as such, then they should not signal by the way that they dress that they are.

The way Christians dress should indicate a sense of modesty, propriety and moderation because these traits should be a part of their very character. Three significant Greek words, referring to a Christian’s character, are used relative to a Christian woman’s apparel in 1 Timothy 2:9: kosmios, aidos, and sophrosune. The way one dresses is indicative of whether or not the person possesses these characteristics. Kosmios (“modest”) means “orderly, well-arranged, decent, modest . . . of good behavior (1 Tim. 3:2, KJV)” (Vine). Adios (“propriety” – NKJ, “shamefacedness” – KJV, “shamefastness” – ASV, “decency” – NIV) is “that modesty which is ‘fast’ rooted in the character” (Vine). Sophrosune (“moderation” – NKJ, “sobreity” – KJV, ASV) is a “habitual inner self-government, with its constant rein on the passion and desires” (Vine).

Those professing godliness are to be governed by chastity or purity (Greek: hagnos – Phil. 4:8; 1 Tim. 5:22; Tit. 2:5; Jas. 3:17; 1 Pet. 3:2; 1 Jn. 3:3), rather than sensuality. They seek to conceal rather than shamefully (or shamelessly) reveal their nakedness (cf. Exod. 28:42; Rev. 3:18; 16:15). They should refrain from sexually provocative clothing or gestures (cf. Prov. 7:10,11,21-23). By doing this they can keep themselves pure and avoid being a stumbling block to others (cf. Matt. 5:28; 18:6-9).

What We Are Seeing

More and more Christians are dressing in a sexually provocative manner. In fact, Christians who have been taught that sexually provocative clothing is wrong and still want to wear such clothing to be “in style” are about the only ones who try to deny that such is provocative. Most people in the world freely admit that this is why they find such apparel appealing. Sex appeal is the name of the game with many of the fashion designers of this world.

Many wear clothing in public that barely stops short of complete nudity. The shame of their nakedness is revealed either by clothing that is too brief or too tight. I sometimes see sisters out in their yards, out shopping around recreational areas, at beaches and pools or at sporting events (both fans and participants) that expose at least as much flesh as they would in their underwear. I also see brothers at the same places in very short shorts without a shirt. If all of this is decent or modest apparel — pray tell what could be immodest or indecent and still be called apparel. Remember there is such a thing as “modest apparel,” necessarily implying the reality of “immodest apparel.” Others wear clothing, even to church services, that may not be as brief but is about as revealing. Skirts and dresses sometimes are so short they make it impossible for one to stand or sit in a decent manner and reveal as much or more flesh than the shorts mentioned above. Dresses, skirts, pants, and tops that are near skin tight and reveal the very form of private parts are all too frequently worn. Dresses and skirts, though they may be nearly to the ankles, are sometimes slit so as to reveal the entire leg with every step. Dresses very low cut at the top are not uncommon. A person who defends the design of such clothing as decent and non-sensual is either woefully naive or shamefully dishonest.

Brothers and sisters, we need to be careful about how we dress; but, more importantly, we need to constantly examine our hearts so as to develop and protect that basic sense of decency and shamefastness that should characterize Christians – then dress accordingly.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 8, pp. 227-228
April 16, 1992