The Quran claims to be a fully detailed scripture that clearly explains all things that it references:
[Say (O Muhammad)] “Shall I seek a judge other than Allah while it is He Who has sent down unto you the Book (The Qur’an), explained in detail.” Those unto whom We gave the Scripture [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] know that it is revealed from your Lord in truth. So be not you of those who doubt. S. 6:114 Hilali-Khan
This Quran could not possibly be authored by other than GOD. It confirms all previous messages, and provides a fully detailed scripture. It is infallible, for it comes from the Lord of the universe. S. 10:37 Khalifa
In their history verily there is a lesson for men of understanding. It is no invented story but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture) and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe. S. 12:111 Pickthall
One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring thee as a witness against these (thy people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims. S. 16:89 Y. Ali
A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail; – a Qur’an in Arabic, for people who understand; – S. 41:3 Y. Ali
Traditional Sunni Islam affirms that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah, and therefore is not comparable to the created speech of human beings:
33) The Qur’an is the word of Allah. It came down from Him as speech without it being possible to say how. He sent it down on His Messenger as revelation. The believers accept it, as absolute truth. They are certain that it is, in truth, the word of Allah. IT IS NOT CREATED, as is the speech of human beings, and anyone who hears it and claims that it is human speech has become an unbeliever. Allah warns him and censures him and threatens him with Fire when He says, Exalted is He:
I will drive into Saqar. [Muddaththir 74:26]
When Allah promises Saqar (Hell-fire) for whoever says:
This is not but the word of a human being. [Muddaththir 74:25]
We learn and ascertain that it is the Speech of the Creator of mankind, and it is nothing like the speech of mankind.
And Allah spoke with Moses with [direct] speech [Nisa’ 4:164]
And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not. [Tawbah 9:6]
The Prophet said: I seek refuge with the perfect words of Allah which neither the good person nor the corrupt can exceed. [Muwatta’]
34) Whosoever attributes to Allah a human characteristic has committed an act of disbelief. Whoever uses his insight will learn the lesson, will be deterred from making a statement as those of the disbelievers, and will know that He (Allah) with His characteristics is not like mankind. (Muhammad S. Adly, The Islamic Creed by Imam Tahawi [Adly Publications, Columbia, SC, first edition 2014], translated by Subhi Hindi, commentary by Imam Al-Albani and Shaykh Ibn Baz, pp. 20-21; bold and capital emphasis mine)
56) We do not argue about the Quran and we bear witness that it is the speech of the Lord of all the worlds which was sent down to the Trustworthy Spirit and taught to the chief of the Messengers, Muhammad. It is the speech of Allah, and no speech of any created being is comparable to it. We do not say that it was created and we do not go against the consensus of Muslims regarding it.
Which the trustworthy Ruh (Gabriel) has brought down Upon your heart (O Muhammad) that you may be (one) of the warners, In the plain Arabic language.
[Shuara 26:193-195] (Ibid., pp. 41-42; bold emphasis mine)
Herein lies the problem.
The Muslim scripture refers to so-called prophets and/or messengers that are unheard of, such as Hud, Salih and Uzair:
And unto (the tribe of) A’ad (We sent) their brother, Hud. He said: O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other God save Him. Will ye not ward off (evil)? S. 7:65 Pickthall
And to (the tribe of) Thamud (We sent) their brother Salih. He said: O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other God save Him. A wonder from your Lord hath come unto you. Lo! this is the camel of Allah, a token unto you; so let her feed in Allah’s earth, and touch her not with hurt lest painful torment seize you. S. 7:73 Pickthall
The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! S. 9:30 Y. Ali
The Quran also ascribes the wrong names or incorrect Arabic versions of the names of specific biblical characters.
For instance, Saul is named Talut:
Have you not considered the chiefs of the children of Israel after Musa, when they said to a prophet of theirs: Raise up for us a king, (that) we may fight in the way of Allah. He said: May it not be that you would not fight if fighting is ordained for you? They said: And what reason have we that we should not fight in the way of Allah, and we have indeed been compelled to abandon our homes and our children. But when fighting was ordained for them, they turned back, except a few of them, and Allah knows the unjust. And their prophet said to them: Surely Allah has raised Talut to be a king over you. They said: How can he hold kingship over us while we have a greater right to kingship than he, and he has not been granted an abundance of wealth? He said: Surely Allah has chosen him in preference to you, and He has increased him abundantly in knowledge and physique, and Allah grants His kingdom to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample giving, Knowing. And the prophet said to them: Surely the sign of His kingdom is, that there shall come to you the chest in which there is tranquillity from your Lord and residue of the relics of what the children of Musa and the children of Haroun have left, the angels bearing it; most surely there is a sign in this for those who believe. So when Talut departed with the forces, he said: Surely Allah will try you with a river; whoever then drinks from it, he is not of me, and whoever does not taste of it, he is surely of me, except he who takes with his hand as much of it as fills the hand; but with the exception of a few of them they drank from it. So when he had crossed it, he and those who believed with him, they said: We have today no power against Jalut and his forces. Those who were sure that they would meet their Lord said: How often has a small party vanquished a numerous host by Allah’s permission, and Allah is with the patient. And when they went out against Jalut and his forces they said: Our Lord, pour down upon us patience, and make our steps firm and assist us against the unbelieving people. So they put them to flight by Allah’s permission. And Dawood slew Jalut, and Allah gave him kingdom and wisdom, and taught him of what He pleased. And were it not for Allah’s repelling some men with others, the earth would certainly be in a state of disorder; but Allah is Gracious to the creatures. These are the communications of Allah: We recite them to you with truth; and most surely you are (one) of the apostles. S. 2:246-252 Shakir
John the Baptist is called Yahya:
There did Zakariya pray to his Lord, saying: “O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!” While he was standing in prayer in the chamber, the angels called unto him: “God doth give thee glad tidings of Yahya, witnessing the truth of a Word from God, and (be besides) noble, chaste, and a prophet, – of the (goodly) company of the righteous.” S. 3:38-39 Y. Ali
Jonah is wrongly called Yunus, Elijah is incorrectly named Elyas, while Jesus is said to be Isa. To add to this mass confusion the Quran refers to Idris, Al-Yasa and Zulkifl:
And mention in the Book Idris; he was a true man, a Prophet. We raised him up to a high place. S. 19:56-57 Arberry
And Ismail and Idris and Zulkifl; all were of the patient ones; And We caused them to enter into Our mercy, surely they were of the good ones. S. 21:85-86
And remember Ismail and Al-Yasha (al-Yasa) and Zulkifl; and they were all of the best. S. 38:48 Shakir
Surely We have revealed to you as We revealed to Nuh, and the prophets after him, and We revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoob and the tribes, and Isa and Ayub and Yunus and Haroun and Sulaiman and We gave to Dawood Psalms. And (We sent) apostles We have mentioned to you before and apostles we have not mentioned to you; and to Musa, Allah addressed His Word, speaking (to him): S. 4:163-164 Shakir
And this was Our argument which we gave to Ibrahim against his people; We exalt in dignity whom We please; surely your Lord is Wise, Knowing. And We gave to him Ishaq and Yaqoob; each did We guide, and Nuh did We guide before, and of his descendants, Dawood and Sulaiman and Ayub and Yusuf and Haroun; and thus do We reward those who do good (to others). And Zakariya and Yahya and Isa and Ilyas; every one was of the good; And Ismail and Al-Yasha (al-Yasa) and Yunus and Lut; and every one We made to excel (in) the worlds: And from among their fathers and their descendants and their brethren, and We chose them and guided them into the right way. This is Allah’s guidance, He guides thereby whom He pleases of His servants; and if they had set up others (with Him), certainly what they did would have become ineffectual for them. These are they to whom We gave the book and the wisdom and the prophecy; therefore if these disbelieve in it We have already entrusted with it a people who are not disbelievers in it. These are they whom Allah guided, therefore follow their guidance. Say: I do not ask you for any reward for it; it is nothing but a reminder to the nations. S. 6:83-90 Shakir
This convolution of biblical names didn’t go unnoticed by Jews and Christians who knew the Bible:
17. Confusion of Names
Question 29: We read in Sura al-An’am 6:84-86: “And We gave him Isaac and Jacob – each one We guided, and Noah We guided before; and of his seed David and Solomon, Job and Joseph, Moses and Aaron – even so We recompense the gooddoers – Zechariah and John, Jesus and Elias; each was of the righteous; Ishmael and Elisha, Jonah and Lot – each one We preferred above all beings.”
We ask: How can these names be arranged with such a disregard for chronological order, being so jumbled together that one cannot help getting confused when reading them? Why are David and Solomon mentioned before Job, Joseph, Moses and Aaron? Why are Zechariah, John and Jesus mentioned before Elias? Why is Ishmael mentioned after Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Zechariah, John, Jesus and Elias? Why are Elisha and Jonah mentioned before Lot?
The true chronological ordering of these men’s lives was known hundreds of years before the coming of the Qur’an. Abraham, his nephew Lot, his two grandsons Ishmael and Isaac, his great grandson Jacob and his great great grandson Joseph lived around 2000 B.C. Moses and Aaron lived around 1300 B.C. David and his son Solomon came after them. Elias (or Elijah) and his disciple Elisha lived during the era of the Kingdom of Israel (between 1004-926 B.C.). Jonah is the last Old Testament prophet mentioned in the Qur’anic verse, when, in fact, Zechariah, John the Baptist and Jesus followed him as prophets in the New Testament era. (‘Abdallah ‘Abd al-Fadi, Is the Qur’an Infallible? [Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503, Villach, Austria], pp. 50-51)
The following example is quite an embarrassment:
And verily Elyas was of the apostles; when he said to his people, ‘Will ye not fear? do ye call upon Baal and leave the best of Creators, God your Lord and the Lord of your fathers of yore?’ But they called him liar; verily, they shall surely be arraigned, save God’s sincere servants. And we, left for him amongst posterity, ‘Peace upon ELYASIN; verily, thus do we reward those who do well; verily, he was of our servants who believe!’ S. 37:123-132 Palmer
Here the Quran turns Elyas, which is supposed to be a personal name, into Elyasin as if a proper noun can be pluralized! This is another blunder that didn’t go unnoticed by Christian authors:
13. A Wrong Plural Ending
Question 118: We read in Sura al-Saffat 37:123-132: “Elias too was one of the Envoys…. Peace be upon Elias.”
The Arabic Qur’an has two spellings for Elias in this passage. The one in the beginning of the quotation is Ilyas, while the other is Ilyasin, as if it were plural! In fact, the author of the Qur’an was so fond of rhyme that he often sacrificed the rules of grammar for the sake of it. He said in Sura ai-Tin 95:1-3: “By the fig and the olive and the Mount Sinai and this land secure.” In Arabic, he changed the word for Sinai (sina’) to its plural form (sinin) for the same reason! (Al-Fadi, p. 180)
What makes this rather peculiar is that the Quran has adopted the Greek or Syriac forms of the names of the biblical prophets and figures, obviously because of the widespread influence of Syriac-speaking Christians. As the renowned Islamic scholar Alfred Guillaume noted in regards to the Quranic form of Ishmael’s name:
“… there is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca, and if there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the Old Semitic name Ishmael (which was not in its true Arabian form in Arabian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost. The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources.” (Guillaume, Islam [Penguin Books Inc., Baltimore, 1956], pp. 61-62; bold emphasis mine)
And here is what an infamous Muhammadan polemicist wrote in regards to the Quran’s calling Jesus ‘Isa:
From the foregoing discussion, we may establish the following positions: Firstly, the popular name Jesus that is used widely around the world today is thoroughly divorced from the son of Mary’s original name in his original language. In fact, it is derived from the Greek, Iesus, which itself is rather unsemitic. This is rightly pointed out by Parrinder who states, “The final ‘s’ of the Greek and European words for Jesus is quite unsemitic.” [10]…
Not surprisingly, the Muhammadan conveniently left out the context of Parrinder’s statement:
The classical Muslim commentator al-Baidawi dismissed fanciful efforts at providing an etymology for ‘Isa, such as one which would derive it from ‘ayasun, which means ‘white with a shade of red’. He said that it was an arabized form of Ishu, probably meaning the Syriac Yeshu’. Razi said that it was from Yasu’ and this is what the Syrians say. It is possible that the pronunciation of the Syriac word was varied by Nestorian Christians in southern Syria and Arabia. It seems that there was a monastery in southern Syria which as early as A.D. 571 bore the name ‘Isaniya, ‘of the followers of Jesus’.
The European Christian form of the name Jesus is derived, of course, from the Greek ‘Iesous in the Gospel, which was a translation of the Hebrew Yeshua, a shortened form of Yehoshua(Joshua). The meaning of the name is ‘God’s salvation’, or ‘he whose salvation is Yahweh’.4 The final ‘s’ of the Greek and European words for Jesus is quite unsemitic. The old Syriac Yeshu’ is preserved in the modern Arabic translation of the Gospel as Yasu’. It has been suggested that modern Christians in Arabic-speaking countries should use the name ‘h, as used by all the Muslims around them. But the new translation of the Arabic New Testament, prepared by Professor ‘Abd-al-Malik in Cairo, retains Yasu’ as the traditional and older form, and NO ARAB CHRISTIANS appear to use the form ‘Isa. (Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an [Oneword Publications, Oxford, England, Reprinted 1996], pp. 17-18; bold and capital emphasis mine)
As Parrinder correctly points out, no Arab Christian employs ‘Isa for Jesus since they refer to him as Yasu’, which is supposedly derived from Syriac Yeshu’. This again proves that the names which the Muslim scripture attributes to the prophets and personalities of the Holy Bible were either taken directly from the Greek or from the Syriac renderings of the Greek forms of these names.
Now the obvious problem with this is that the Quran is supposed to be the uncreated speech of Allah, a speech that existed before the creation of human beings and their respective languages. Therefore, how can such a speech contain words derived from Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Ethiopic etc., languages that only came into existence long after the creation of the heavens and the earth?
Are we really to believe that Allah’s perfect, uncreated speech is composed of terms, expressions etc., that are Greek, Syriac, Ethiopic etc., in origin? Does this mean that these languages are uncreated as well and were simply revealed to human beings at a given point in time? Or should we assume that only those particular Quranic words are uncreated and Allah therefore decided to inspire men to adopt these expressions into these respective languages in order to then move them to recognize these eternal phrases and terms once the Muslim scripture was sent down?
The foregoing merely reinforces the fact that the Quran is a satanic hoax foisted upon mankind to deceive them from believing in God’s true revelation of himself in the Person and work of Jesus Christ our Lord, with that revelation being recorded in the only inspired written Word of God, the Holy Bible.
So much for the Quran being the perfect, uncreated speech of an omniscient God!
In the book of numbers the Holy Spirit inspired a false prophet named Balaam to see and proclaim the coming of a Ruler from Jacob, whom Balaam described as a Star that arises and shall come forth out of Egypt:
“Balaam saw that it pleased the Lord to bless Israel; so he did not go in search of omens as he had done time and time again, but turned his face toward the desert. Balaam raised his eyes and saw Israel dwelling according to its tribes, and the spirit of God rested upon him. He took up his parable and said, ‘The word of Balaam the son of Beor and the word of the man with an open eye. The word of the one who hears God’s sayings, who sees the vision of the Almighty, fallen yet with open eyes. How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel! They extend like streams, like gardens by the river, like aloes which the Lord planted, like cedars by the water. Water will flow from his wells, and his seed shall have abundant water; his king shall be raised over Agag, and his kingship exalted. God, Who has brought them out of Egypt with the strength of His loftiness He shall consume the nations which are his adversaries, bare their bones and dip His arrows [into their blood]. He crouches and lies like a lion and like a lioness; who will dare rouse him? Those who bless you shall be blessed, and those who curse you shall be cursed.’… Balaam said to Balak, ‘But I even told the messengers you sent to me, saying, “If Balak gives me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot transgress the word of the Lord to do either good or evil on my own; only what the Lord speaks can I speak.” And now, I am going to my people. Come, I will advise you…what this people will do to your people at the end of days.’ He took up his parable and said, ‘The word of Balaam, son of Beor, the word of a man with an open eye. The word of the one who hears God’s sayings and perceives the thoughts of the Most High; who sees the vision of the Almighty, fallen yet with open eyes. I see it, but not now; I behold it, but not soon. A star has gone forth from Jacob, and a staff will arise from Israel which will crush the princes of Moab and uproot all the sons of Seth. Edom shall be possessed, and Seir shall become the possession of his enemies, and Israel shall triumph. A ruler shall come out of Jacob, and destroy the remnant of the city.” Numbers 24:1-9, 12-19 (The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentaryhttps://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9952/showrashi/true)
What makes this prophecy rather interesting is that there are other texts that apply similar, in fact identical, language to this future King who is said to arise out of Judah:
“Judah, [as for] you, your brothers will acknowledge you. Your hand will be at the nape of your enemies, [and] your father’s sons will prostrate themselves to you. A cub [and] a grown lion is Judah. From the prey, my son, you withdrew. He crouched, rested like a lion, and like a lion, who will rouse him? The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the student of the law from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him will be a gathering of peoples. He binds his foal to a vine, and to a tendril [he binds] his young donkey. [He launders] his garment with wine, and with the blood of grapes binds his raiment. [He is] red eyed from wine and white toothed from milk.” Genesis 49:8-10 (Ibid. https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8244#lt=primary)
“Give the king Your judgments, O God, And Your righteousness to the king’s Son. He will judge Your people with righteousness, And Your poor with justice. The mountains will bring peace to the people, And the little hills, by righteousness. He will bring justice to the poor of the people; He will save the children of the needy, And will break in pieces the oppressor. They shall fear You As long as the sun and moon endure, Throughout all generations… He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth. Those who dwell in the wilderness will bow before Him, And His enemies will lick the dust. The kings of Tarshish and of the isles Will bring presents; The kings of Sheba and Seba Will offer gifts. Yes, all kings shall fall down before Him; All nations shall serve Him… And He shall live; And the gold of Sheba will be given to Him; Prayer also will be made for Him continually, And daily He shall be praised… His name shall endure forever; His name shall continue as long as the sun. And men shall be blessed in Him; All nations shall call Him blessed.” Psalm 72:1-5, 8-11, 15, 17 New King James Version (NKJV)
Note how some of Judaism’s earliest and greatest rabbinic sources interpret these prophecies:
until Shiloh comes: [This refers to] the King Messiah, to whom the kingdom belongs (שֶׁלוֹ), and so did Onkelos render it: [until the Messiah comes, to whom the kingdom belongs]. According to the Midrash Aggadah, [“Shiloh” is a combination of] שַׁי לוֹ, a gift to him, as it is said: “they will bring a gift to him who is to be feared” (Ps. 76:12). – [From Gen. Rabbah ed. Theodore-Albeck p. 1210]
and to him will be a gathering of peoples: Heb. יִקְּהַת עַמִּים denoting a gathering of peoples, for the“yud” of (יִקְּהַת) is part of the root [and not a prefix], like“with your brightness (יִפְעָתֶ)” (Ezek. 28: 17), and sometimes [the “yud” is] omitted. Many letters are subject to this rule, and they are called defective roots, like the“nun” of נוֹגֵף (smite), נוֹשֵׁ (bite), and the “aleph” of “and my speech (אַחְוָתִי) in your ears” (Job 13:17); and [the “aleph”] of “the scream of (אִבְחַת) the sword” (Ezek. 21:20); and [the “aleph”] of“a jug (אָסוּ) of oil” (II Kings 4:2). This too, is [a noun meaning] a gathering of peoples, [meaning: a number of nations who unite to serve God and join under the banner of the King Messiah] as it is said: “to him shall the nations inquire” (Isa. 11:10). Similar to this is “The eye that mocks the father and despises the mother’s wrinkles (לְיִקְּהַת אֵם)” (Prov. 30:17), [i.e., meaning] the gathering of wrinkles in her face, due to her old age. And in the Talmud [we find]: “were sitting and gathering assemblies וּמַקְהו ֹאַקְהָתָא in the streets of Nehardea” [Pumbeditha] in Tractate Yebamtoh (110b). He (Jacob) could also have said: קְהִיּת עַמִּים [Since the“yud” of יִקְהַת is not a prefix denoting the third person masculine singular, but is a defective root, the form קְהִיּת עַמִּים would be just as appropriate.]- [From Gen. Rabbah 98:9] (The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentaryhttps://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8244/showrashi/true#v10; italicized emphasis mine)
binds: Heb. אֹסְרִי, equivalent to אוֹסֵר, as in the example:“He lifts (מְקִימִי) the pauper up from the dust” (Ps. 113:7) [instead of מֵקִים];“You, Who dwell (הַישְׁבִי) in heaven” (ibid. 123:1) [instead of הַישֵׁב]. Likewise,“his young donkey” (בְּנִי אִתֹנוֹ) [instead of בֶּן אִתֹנוֹ] follows this pattern. Onkelos, however, translated it [the verse] as referring to the King Messiah [i.e., the King Messiah will bind, etc.]. The vine represents Israel; עִירֹה means Jerusalem [interpreting עִירֹה as“his city,” from עִיר]. The tendril represents Israel, [referred to as such by the prophet:] “Yet I planted you a noble vine stock (שׁוֹרֵק)” (Jer. 2:21). בְּנִי אִתֹנוֹ [is translated by Onkelos as] They shall build his Temple [בְּנִי is derived from בנה, to build. אִתֹנוֹ is] an expression similar to “the entrance gate (שַׁעַר הָאִיתוֹן)” in the Book of Ezekiel (40:15). [The complete Targum reads as follows: He (the Messiah) shall bring Israel around to his city, the people shall build his Temple.] He (Onkelos) further translates it in another manner: the vine refers to the righteous, בְּנִי אִתֹנוֹ refers to those who uphold the Torah by teaching [others], from the idea [expressed by the verse]:“the riders of white donkeys (אֲתֹנֹת)” (Jud. 5:10). אסרי: כמו אוסר, דוגמתו (תהלים קיג ז) מקימי מעפר דל, (שם קכג א) היושבי בשמים, וכן בני אתונו כענין זה. ואונקלוס תרגם במלך המשיח. גפן הם ישראל, עירה זו ירושלים. שורקה אלו ישראל (ירמיה ב כא) ואנכי נטעתיך שורק:
[He launders]…with wine: [Onkelos renders:] “Fine purple shall be his (the Messiah’s) garment,” whose color resembles wine. [The complete Targum reads: Fine purple shall be his garment, his raiment fine wool, crimson and colorful clothing.] “And colorful clothing” is expressed by the word סוּתֹה, [a garment] a woman wears to entice [מְסִיתָה] a male to cast his eyes on her. Our Rabbis also explained it in the Talmud as a term denoting the enticement of drunkenness, in Tractate Kethuboth (11b): And if you say about the wine, that it does not intoxicate, the Torah states: סוּתֹה [which means enticement to drunkenness. The Rabbis, however, render the passage as follows: and with the blood of grapes that entices.]. (Ibid. https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8244/showrashi/true#v11; italicized emphasis mine)
A ruler shall come out of Jacob: There will be another ruler from Jacob.
and destroy the remnant of the city: Of the most prominent [city] of Edom, that is, Rome. He says this regarding the King Messiah, of whom it says, “and may he reign from sea to sea,” (Ps. 72:8), “and the house of Esau shall have no survivors” (Obad. 1:18). – [Mid. Aggadah] (Ibid. https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9952/showrashi/true#v19; italicized emphasis mine)
The following references are taken from The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch With The Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum From the Chaldee, by J. W. Etheridge, M.A. First Published 1862. All bold emphasis shall be mine.
How goodly were the tabernacles in which Jakob their father did pray; and the tabernacle of ordinance which you have made to My name, and your own tabernacles, O house of Israel! As torrents that prevail, so shall Israel overpower their adversaries; and as gardens planted by fountains of water, so shall be their cities, giving forth scribes and teachers of the law; and as the heavens which the Memra of the Lord spread forth for the dwelling of His Shekinah, so shall Israel live, and endure unto eternity, beautiful and renowned as cedars by the waters which grow up oil high. Their King will arise from among their children, and their Redeemer will be of them and among them; and He will gather their captives from the cities of their adversaries, and their children shall have rule among the peoples. And the kingdom of the King Meshiha shall be made great: stronger is He than Shaul who vanquished Agag the kill of the Amalkaab. Unto God who redeemed, and brought them out free from the land of Mizraim, belong power, and praise, and exaltation. The sons of Israel will prevail over their enemies, will divide their cities, slay their heroes, and disperse their residue. Behold, these people will dwell as a lion, and be as the strong lions. He who blesseth you, O Israel, shall be blessed, as Mosheh the prophet, the scribe of Israel; and he who curseth you will be accursed, as Bileam, the son of Beor… But Bileam said to Balak, Did I not tell thy messengers whom thou sentest to me, saying, If Balak would give me the fulness of his treasures of silver and gold, I have no power to transgress the decree of the Word of the Lord to do good or evil of my own will: what the Lord saith shall I not speak…
I shall see Him, but not now; I shall behold Him, but it is not near. When the mighty King of Jakob’s house shall reign, and the Meshiha, the Power‑sceptre of Israel, be anointed, He will slay the princes of the Moabaee, and bring to nothing all the children of Sheth, the armies of Gog who will do battle against Israel and all their carcases shall fall before Him. And the Edomaee will be utterly driven out, even the sons of Gabela from before Israel their foes, and Israel will be strengthened with their riches and possess them. And a prince of the house of Jakob will arise and destroy and consume the remnant that have escaped from Constantina the guilty city, and will lay waste and ruin the rebellious city, even Kaiserin the strong city of the Gentiles.
And he looked on the house of Amalek, and took up the parable of his prophecy, and said: The first of the nations who made war with the house of Israel were those of the house of Amalek; and they at last, in the days of the King Meshiha, with all the children of the east, will make war against Israel; but all of them together will have eternal destruction in their end…
And he took up the parable of his prophecy, and said, Woe to them who are alive at the time when the Word of the Lord shall be revealed, to give the good reward to the righteous, and to take vengeance on the wicked, to smite the nations and the kings, and bring these things upon them! And ships (lit., sails) armed for war will come forth with urreat armies from Lombarnia, and from the land of Italia,[4] conjoined with the legions that will come forth from Constantina, and will afflict the Athuraee, and bring into captivity all the sons of Eber;[5] nevertheless the end of these and of those is to fall by the hand of the King Meshiha, and be brought to everlasting destruction: [JERUSALEM. Woe to him who is alive when the Word of the Lord setteth Himself to give the good reward to the just, and to take vengeance on the wicked! And great hosts in Livernia will come from the great city, and will conjoin with them many legions of the Romaee, and subjugate Athuria, and afflict all the children beyond the river. Nevertheless the end of these and of those is to perish, and the destruction to be everlasting. And Bileam rose up and went to return to his place; and Balak also.] (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Numbers 22-25)
Bileam, the son of Beor, speaketh, The man who saw the Beautiful speaketh, He speaks who heard the Word from before God, And who knoweth knowledge from the Most High, Who saw the vision of the Almighty, prostrate when he saw. I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh. When a king shall arise out of Jakob, And the Meshiha be anointed from Israel, He will slay the princes of Moab, and reign over all the children of men; And Edom shall be an inheritance, And Seir a possession of his adversaries; But Israel shall prosper in riches. One will descend from the house of Jakob, Who will destroy him that escapeth from the city of the peoples. (Targum Onkelos, Numbers 22-25)
This next Jewish reference is taken from The Psalms Targum: An English Translation, by Edward M. Cook, Psalms 42-72:
Psalm 72
1. Composed by Solomon, uttered in prophecy. O God, give your just rulings to the King Messiah, and your righteousness to the son of King David. (Bold emphasis mine)
Lord Jesus willing, I will be posting further installments in the near future.
Jesus states emphatically that eternal life is this: Knowing the Father in an intimate way as well as His Son. Salvation depends on knowing both Father and Son. Jesus is the “way, the truth, and the life.” No one comes to the Father but through the Son, for it is the Son who “explains” the Father, the beloved and One and Only Son who is in the heart of the Father. The Son does everything the Father shows Him, is one with the Father, and assures us that when we have seen Him, we have seen the Father as well. The Son is God in every sense the Father is (1:1), does whatever the Father does (5:19); is to be honored equally with the Father (5:23), and is confessed at Lord and God (20:28).
It would be strange, indeed, if a secondary god, a created being, sent to reveal the Father, would equate knowing him with knowing the Father, in the context of salvation. Unless, of course, He was essentially equal with the one true God, who alone grants life eternal to those who believe in Him.
This Gospel is replete with assertions that life is in Christ: “In him was life, and that life was the light of men” (1:4). “The Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (3:15-16). “The water I give him will become in him [who drinks it] a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (4:14). See also 5:21, 26; 6:33, 54; 10:10; 11:25; 14:6. These words and others like them emphatically express the central purpose of Jesus: to glorify the Father by imparting life to men.
The second sentence (v. 3) defines the nature of eternal life. It is not described in chronological terms but by a relationship. Life is active involvement with environment; death is the cessation of involvement with the environment, whether it be physical or personal. The highest kind of life is involvement with the highest kind of environment. A worm is content to live in soil; we need not only the wider environment of earth, sea, and sky but also contact with other human beings. For the complete fulfillment of our being, we must know God. This, said Jesus, constitutes eternal life. Not only is it endless, since the knowledge of God would require an eternity to develop fully, but qualitatively it must exist in an eternal dimension. As Jesus said farther on in this prayer, eternal life would ultimately bring his disciples to a lasting association with him in his divine glory (v. 24) (EBC).
GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS
`ina ginwskwin se ton monon alhqinon qeon
hINA GINÔSKÔSIN SE TON MONON ALÊTHINON THEON
so that they should [get to] know you, The only true God
GINÔSKÔSIN
Should know (ginôskôsin). Present active subjunctive with hina (subject clause), “should keep on knowing” (RWP).
The word know (ginôskôsin) here in the present tense, is often used in the Septuagint and sometimes in the Greek New Testament to describe the intimacy of a sexual relationship (e.g., Gen 4:1, “lay”; Matt. 1:25, “had…union”). Thus a person who knows God has an intimate personal relationship with Him (BKC).
ALÊTHINOS
Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real (BAGD).
Opposed to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated, pretended (Thayer).
Pertaining to being real and not imaginary … ‘that they may know you, the only one who is really God’ (Louw & Nida).
OTHER VIEWS CONSIDERED
Jehovah’s Witnesses
This verse has become a favorite of Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who deny the Trinity. They claim that since Jesus says that the Father is the only true God, Jesus cannot also be the only true God.
Jehovah’s Witness Greg Stafford, for example, writes:
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Bible presents us with a monotheistic view of God, in that He is the only one who is God in the absolute (non-derived) sense. The Father is the only true God, as Jesus said. (Joh 17:3) The description “true God” is used only three times in the NT. In all three of these texts Jesus is distinguished from the true God. In John 17:3 he prays to the “only” true God….This is significant in that there is no clear indication of Jesus as this “true God” in the Bible, which would stand to reason in view of the restriction he himself places on this title in the NT (Stafford, pp. 119-120).
Trinitarians have often responded that if the Father is the only true God, and the Watchtower is correct in saying that Jesus is “a god,” then Jesus must be a false God, for anything that is not true, must be false. Greg Stafford cites such an argument presented by Ron Rhodes (Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah’s Witnesses, pp. 227-228). Stafford responds:
The Greek word translated “true” (alethinos) can have one of several meanings, depending on the context and usage of the author or speaker. According to BAGD [the Baur, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker lexicon], alethinos can mean: “genuine, real . . . Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real . . . true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its copies” (Stafford, op. cit., p. 121).
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses right? Is Jesus really saying that only one Person – the Father – is the true God? Are the Witnesses using sound exegetical principles in defining alethinos the way they do? Let’s examine this verse closely to find out.
The Only True God
Had Jesus said, “Only you, Father, are the true God,” He would, indeed, be proclaiming what the Watchtower says. However, that’s not precisely what Jesus said. He said to the Father, “you, the only true God.” The word “only” does not modify “Father,” but rather “God.” Does this fact change the meaning of the what Jesus is saying? Stafford reasons:
While in certain contexts the word “only” might not mean only in the absolute sense, there is no indication that we have such use here in John 17:3. Also, there is no example that I am aware of where the person who makes the assertion that another person is the “only” something, means to include him- or herself in the description. (IBID, p. 120).
But is there a subtle presupposition in this line of reasoning? I would submit there is: The presupposition is that the person in question is a unipersonal being. That is, human nature is such that there is a one-to-one correspondence between Person (or Identity, Consciousness, or Will) and Being (the essence or nature that makes a human, human); therefore, any example of a human person saying that that another person is the “only” something, indeed does not mean to include him- or herself in the description. But what if there is Biblical evidence of a Being that subsists in more that one person – a multi-personal being? If such a Being exists (and Trinitarians believe the Bible teaches that God is such a Being), it must be admitted that each Person of a multi-personal Being can be described as the “only” something, without necessarily excluding other Persons of that Being from that description. Put another way, Jesus includes the Father in the identity of the True God. However, if Jesus is the same Being as the Father, He does not logically exclude Himself from that category. Indeed, it is logically fallacious to claim that He does (1).
Witnesses who argue as Stafford does deny the possibility of a multipersonal God from the outset. They therefore place considerable emphasis on their preferred definition of “true,” for without it, they would be forced to concede that the Son is a false god. However, we may ask how it is that John 17:3 excludes Jesus from the category of “true” God, when Jude 4 does not exclude the Father from the category of Lord? Indeed, here, there is not even the qualifying adjective that provides the basis of the Witness interpretation of John 17:3. Matthew 19:17 presents Witnesses with a similar problem, for here Jesus says that there is only “One” who is good; Witnesses must interpret this to mean that Jesus in His humility is denying His own goodness (or, at least, is not “as good as God,” though this distinction is not to be found in the context). In practice, Witnesses acknowledge Jesus as “good,” and Jehovah as their Lord. Their exegetical methodology appears inconsistent and subject to their theology; whereas Trinitarians are consistent in holding that an exclusive title may be given to any member of the Trinity, without excluding other members from that category.
More importantly, Stafford and the WT cannot interpret verses like John 5:44, 1 Timothy 1:17, or Jude 25, in which we find the phrase “[the] only God,” without introducing the concept “God in a non-derived sense” – that is, that Jehovah is the “only God” in the sense that He is the only true or non-derived God. However, this sense is foreign to the contexts of these verses and requires Witnesses to bring other verse, such as John 17:3, into the discussion, which they interpret in ways conducive to their theology. As we shall see, John 17:3 does not really support the idea of a “non-derived” God, at least not in the view of most lexicographers. When Scripture makes a clear declaration that there is only one God, the burden lies with any who would argue otherwise.
Only if one assumes before hand that God is unipersonal can one conclude that John 17:3 proves that only the Father is true God. Notice how the quoted passage from Stafford, above, begins with the premise, “Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Bible presents us with a monotheistic view of God, in that He is the only one who is God in the absolute (non-derived) sense.” He would no doubt say that the WT derives this belief from the passages he cites; however, in each case – and particularly John 17:3 – only by assuming a unipersonal God can one conclude that the Father is the only Person who is that true God.
Thus, the Watchtower and its apologists are guilty of “begging the question” with regard to John 17:3, for only by first assuming that God is one Person, can they “prove” by this verse that Jesus calls the Father the only Person who is God.
Interestingly, Stafford accuses Trinitarians of this very fallacy: Trinitarians, he says, “import their ideas into the Bible, making it practically impossible for them to view theological or christological statements apart from Trinitarian concepts” (IBID, p. 129). In the case of John 17:3, I believe the opposite is actually the case. It is Jehovah’s Witnesses who import their Unitarian view of God, while Trinitarians draw no specific conclusions regarding God’s nature from this verse.
Let’s be clear: Trinitarians do not claim that John 17:3 “proves” the Trinity; we simply maintain that scripturally and logically, it does not deny it.
The Meaning of “True”
We may first note that in English, the word “true” may mean “real, in the sense of an archetype, as distinguished from a copy” or “true contrasted with false.” Alêthinos has the very much the same semantic range in Koine Greek, as BAGD makes clear (p. 37). The question is, which connotation does Jesus intend here? Extending the meaning of a word beyond that required by the context is not a sound exegetical practice. After all, the word “true” has within its semantic range the connotation of “straight,” but Jesus is not saying the Father is the only straight-line God!
Which connotation do the lexicons support for alêthinos in John 17:3? After all, Watchtower apologists have used BAGD and Thayer to support their view, haven’t they? BAGD recognizes the semantic range of alêthinos as containing “true in the sense of reality possessed only by an archetype, not its copies.” However, it references this shade of meaning for Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24, not in reference to John 17:3. When we consult the lexicon with regard John 17:3, BAGD is quite clear: “of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real.” Thus, BAGD recognizes the context of John 17:3 as requiring the “true contrasted with false” connotation.
Stafford notes: “While BAGD does not attribute the archetypal meaning to alethinos in John 17:3, we believe this sense best fits the use of ‘true’ in this and other passages” (IBID, p. 121). He then argues for this connotation in John 17:3 by citing John 1:9, John 6:32-33, Hebrews 8:5, and Hebrews 9:9 (sic; 9:24?). “In all these texts, alethinos is not contrasted with something ‘false,’ but is used to describe that which is the archetype as opposed to that which is a copy of the original” (IBID).
Stafford is quite right about the verses he cites, and interestingly, BAGD references these as well for the archetype connotation. This means that BAGD was fully aware that the verses in question supported the archetypal connotation, and yet believed the “true vs false” connotation applied to John 17:3. Stafford offers no reason why we should consider the archetype connotation in this verse; he merely asserts that Witnesses hold this view. Further, he considers BAGD authoritative with regard to the connotation of alêthinos he prefers, but does not tell us why he considers them unable to distinguish the proper connotation for John 17:3. It is possible, of course, that the authors got it right in the first case and wrong in the second, but without evidence to demonstrate why their authority should be questioned, we must conclude that Greek scholars who are capable of ascertaining the various connotations of a particular word must also be capable of determining specific usage in a given context.
We may wonder why the authors of BAGD chose the particular connotation they did in John 17:3. Let’s take a look at the context of the verses in discussion. In Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24, the writer is clearly referring to the “true Tabernacle” in heaven where Jesus is the High Priest, in contrast to the earthly (and less “real”) Tabernacle. However, in context, John 17:3 does not imply a contrast between Jesus and God. Instead, the context is Jesus’ concern that the disciples know the Father in an intimate way, that they may thus obtain eternal life. For who gives eternal life, but the true God (as contrasted with false gods)? Thus, context argues for the connotation of “the true God” who give eternal life, as opposed to “false gods,” who cannot.
If BAGD is reliable in both their understanding of the various connotation of alêthinos and their specific definition in John 17:3, we would expect that other authorities would corroborate it. Similarly, if BAGD got it wrong with regard to John 17:3, we would expect other authorities to disagree.
Grimm/Thayer defines alêthinos as “contrasts realities with their semblances” for Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24, but “opposed to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated, pretended” for John 17:3 (p. 27). So, Grimm/Thayer, too, recognizes the correct connotation of alêthinos in John 17:3 as “true contrasted with false.”
In his Expository Dictionary, Vine recognizes Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24 as requiring the meaning: “the spiritual, archetypal tabernacle,” but defines alêthinos in John 17:3 as: “‘very God,’ in distinction from all other gods, false gods” (p. 645).
Louw and Nida similarly recognize several connotations for alêthinos, including those discussed. They define alêthinos in John 17:3 as: “pertaining to being real and not imaginary … ‘that they may know you, the only one who is really God'” (p. 667).
Moulton and Milligan list a number of contemporary extra-biblical examples of alêthinos, including several by Christians in reference to God, and all carry the meaning ‘real’; ‘genuine’; ‘true, as opposed to false’ (p. 22).
Finally, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) does not specifically reference John 17:3 in its discussion of alêthinos, but says “As a divine attribute it has the sense of ‘reliable,’ ‘righteous,’ or ‘real,'” and cites 1 John 5:20, a verse Stafford relates to John 17:3 (IBID, p. 120). This meaning is contrasted with the archetype connotation: “In Heb 8:2 the heavenly tabernacle is ‘true’ in contrast to the earthly, and in Heb. 9:24 the human sanctuary is a copy of the true one, which is genuine as divine” (Abridged edition, p. 39).
So, we see that the standard lexical works specify the connotation of alêthinos in John 17:3 as “the only true God (as distinguished from all other gods, who are false).” This definition of alêthinos presents serious problems for Watchtower theology, for by saying “the only true God,” Jesus states quite clearly that any other who is termed “a god,” must be a false god.
Origen’s Understanding of the True God
Stafford cites Origen in support of his view that alêthinos in John 17:3 should be read with the archetype connotation:
In his Commentary on John he wrote:
God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Savior says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true God;” but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without the article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord [Jehovah], hath spoken and called the earth.” [Ps. 136:2] It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for they drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then is “The God,” and those who are formed after him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype [ANF 10, Book 2, p. 323. emphasis added].
Origen evidently understood that the reference to the Word as theos was not intended to make him equal to God the Father, for he wrote: “Nor must we omit to mention the Word, who is God after [hexes] the Father of all” (IBID, pp. 120-121).
Origen’s theology is complex, to say the least. Drawing conclusions from a few scattered passages does little justice to what Origen actually taught, and what his terminology meant to his contemporaries, as opposed to what it may be thought to signify today, looking back as it were through the lens of the Arian controversy which raged some hundred years after Origen died.
Stafford is correct that Origen does appear to apply the archetype connotation to alêthinos in his Commentary on John 1:1. But we may ask exactly what does Origen mean by this usage? Is it the same as that expressed by Stafford and the Watchtower? What may have led him to view the “true” God in an archetypal way? Finally, we must also consider whether Origen bases his view of alêthinos on grammar or on theology.
Let’s first consider what Origen means by the “true God.” It would be a mistake to read a post-Arian meaning into Origen’s use of autotheos or the distinction his draws between theos with the article and without. In terming the Father autotheos, Origen does not mean that the Father possesses a “true” divine nature, and the Son a “lesser” divine nature. Origen taught that the “begetting” of the Son by the Father cannot be compared to human begetting (First Principles 1:2:4), that the Son and Father share the same nature (Commentary on John 2:2:16; 2:10:76; 19:2:6;), and that there was never a time when the Son did not exist (Commentary on Romans 1:5; First Principles 1:2:9; 4:4:1 in both Rufinus’ Latin translation and Athanasius’ Greek). The begetting of the Son is a part of the Divine Being and is from all eternity (First Principles, 1:2:9; 4:41, again in both Rufinus and Athanasius) and is also continual (Homily on Jeremiah 9:4); the Father is the “source” of divinity, and the Son “attracts” that same divinity to Himself through his eternal contemplation of the Father (Commentary on John 2:2:18). (2)
It is true that for Origen, the Son’s Deity is derivative, and at times speaks of the Son as a “secondary God (Against Celsus 5:39; Commentary on John 6:39:202); but it is also true that Origen was strongly influenced by Middle Platonism in this regard, as numerous scholars have recognized:
“The parallel with Albinus, who believed in a supreme Father Who organized matter through a second God (Whom he, however, identified with the World Soul) is striking; as is the fact that both thinkers envisaged the generation of the Son as the result of His contemplation of the Father” (Kelly, p. 128).
“In a more limited field the impact of Platonism reveals itself in the thoroughgoing subordinationism which is is integral to Origen’s Trinitarian scheme. The Father, as we have seen, is alone autoqeos, so S. John, he points out, accurately describes the Son simple as qeos, not ó qeos” (Ibid., pp. 131 – 32).
“Thus, Origen understands that the Word is God by derivation….Here Origen is directly indebted to the Platonism of his day” (Rusch, p. 14)
“This distinction also has its origin in Philo (quod a deo somnia, Mangey 1.655 line 20), and it is again Origen who takes it up and imports it into Christian theology” (Prestige, p. 144).
Origen’s apologetic arguments against Gnosticism and Modalism, in which he sought forcefully to affirm the true Human nature of the Son and the distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit, and his use of Platonic concepts and language, have led some to conclude, as apparently has Stafford, that Origen taught that the Son was different in nature from the Father, truly a “second god” in the sense later argued by Arius. However, a careful reading of Origen leads one to conclude that while complex and couched in philosophical terminology, Origen taught the essential unity of Father and Son in categories not incompatible with later creedal statements. Indeed, this can be seen in the passage from the Commentary on John, which Stafford quotes, above.
Immediately preceding the quote provided by Stafford, we read:
Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other (Commentary on John 2:2:10-13).
Thus, the Son is distinct in person, but of one “essence” with the Father. For Origen, though he may speak at times of “a secondary God,” he is also quite comfortable speaking of Father, Son, and Spirit as One God. In his Dialog with Heraclides, Origen refers to Scripture in order to show in what sense two can be one:
Adam and Eve were two but one flesh (Gen. 2:24).
He (the just man) who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him (Cor. 6:17).
He introduces Christ himself as a witness because He said: “I and My Father are one.”
In the first example, the unity consisted of “flesh;” in the second of “spirit;” but in the third of “God.” Thus Origen states: “Our Lord and Savior is in His relation to the Father and God of the universe not one flesh, nor one spirit, but what is much higher than flesh and spirit, one God” (Dialog with Heraclides 2).
Thus, when Origen says that the “Word is God after the Father of all,” he is not teaching an inequality of nature or essence, as Stafford implies.
Immediately after Stafford’s quote, we find:
But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father (Commentary on John 2:2:18).
For Origen, then, while the other ‘gods’ are “images” of the true God, the Son is not in their category of being. He obtains His divine Nature by always being with the Father, while the other ‘gods’ are “formed” – that is created – and they derive their divinity from the Son. While some have argued that Origen refers to the Son as a created being in his reference to Colossians 1:15 (First Principles 1:2), this language should not be pressed, since Origen used the term KTISIS to refer to all the activities of God, including the eternal begetting of the Son, and therefore is not to be construed as signifying that the Son is a created being.
Contrary to what Arianism was to say, the eternity of this generation is clearly affirmed, for it is inconceivable that the Father ever existed without his Wisdom, his Reason, his Word, all expressions which, as we have seen, denote the Son. Nor did the Father begin to be Father, as if He had not been so before, since all change in God is inconceivable (Crouzel, pp. 186-187).
While Origen uses the term alêthinos in a manner similar to that suggested by Stafford, it is because he viewed God as the ‘source’ of Deity, while the Son eternally partakes of that same Deity. Origen’s use of middle Platonic thought and language led him to express the relationship of Father to Son in such terms. It must be emphasized the Origen’s use of alêthinos is theological, not lexical. Origen’s language and philosophical constructs are other than those used by later theologians to describe the Trinity (as they are from those preceding him), but his theology is not far distant from them, certainly not as far as it is from the theology later proposed by Arius and his followers. He taught plurality within the unity of the Godhead; He perceived the Godhead to be Father, Son, and Spirit, each of whom participated in creation and participate in salvation.
Conclusion
If God is unipersonal, this verse does not teach it. If a lesser “copy” of God is not a false god, the context of this verse does not demonstrate it. Jesus says that eternal life is an intimate personal knowledge of God (not “taking in knowledge about God,” as the Watchtower teaches), and of Jesus Christ, whom the Father has sent. Our hope for eternal life, then, resides in knowing both the Father and the Son in a personal way, and knowing them as they truly are: One God, One Lord, One Savior.
NOTES
1. In fact, the entire argument that Jesus cannot be the true God based on John 17:3 is an example of a logical fallacy known as “denying the antecedent.” To illustrate this point, let’s rephrase John 17:3b in the form of a logical proposition:
If one is the Father, one is the only true God.
“If one is the Father” is the antecedent of the proposition. “One is the only true God” is the consequent. In the terms of formal logic, it is not logically valid to deny the antecedent, and conclude that the consequent is also denied. For example, consider the following proposition:
If one is a man, one is mortal.
Now, consider the denial of the antecedent:
Fido is not a man, therefore Fido is not mortal.
Clearly, since (sadly for dog lovers) dogs do not live forever, denying the antecedent does not prove that the consequent must also be denied. Technically speaking, if one is a man, that is sufficient cause for the conclusion that one is mortal. However, if one is mortal, that is not a necessary cause that one is a man. There are numerous other mortal creatures, including man’s best friend.
From the standpoint of pure logic, then, it is not valid to argue that because Jesus is not the Father (denying the antecedent in our paraphrased proposition) He cannot be the only true God. Being the Father is sufficient cause for being the only true God; however, being the only true God is not a necessary cause for being the Father.
Some may object at this point that in our canine example, we do not have the restricted language of John 17:3b (“the only true God”). However, while placing “only” before the antecedent can have the effect of making the antecedent both sufficient and necessary, placing “only” before the consequent (as it is in John 17:3b) does not. That is, in logical terms, affirming that the Father is the true God is the same as affirming that He is the only true God. The antecedent, in either case, is sufficient, but not necessary.
2. Much has been made of the fact that large portions of Origen’s writing is preserved only in Latin translations by Rufinus and Jerome. Rufinus, in his preface to the Treatise of First Principles, states that he suppressed some passages on the Trinity which he judged to be inserted by heretics. Jehovah’s Witness apologists, when confronted by the quotations I have provided here often reply that we cannot be certain that they reflect Origen’s beliefs, but rather are interpolations by Rufinus. First, this objection cannot be raised with regard to the Commentary on the Gospel of John or the Homily 9 on Jeremiah, since we possess the Greek text of the books quoted. The passages quoted from First Principles exist both in Rufinus’ Latin and Athanasius’ Greek. There is no evidence that these two witnesses are related; therefore, we have two independent sources suggesting that these quotes accurately reflect Origen’s original words. As Henri Crouzel notes, Rufinus’ translation suffers primarily from omissions, often arising from a desire to abridge or avoid repetition: “Comparisons of the texts in the Philocalia [containing about 1/7 of the Greek text of First Principles] with Rufinus’ work yields on the whole a favorable result” (Crouzel, pp. 46-47). Any discrepancies between Rufinus’ Latin and Origen’s Greek would, then, seem to be in the area of omissions rather than interpolations, and the extent to which Rufinus altered the text has, perhaps, been exaggerated by some. Thus, we have several works, some preserved in Greek, others in Latin but corroborated by independent Greek witnesses, which demonstrate that Origen held the belief that the Son was of the same essence as the Father, co-eternal and uncreated.
Paul draws a contrast between false deities and the Father and Son. Whereas the pagan deities are false, there is to us “one God, the Father”, and “one Lord, Jesus Christ”.
He maintains a distinction of Personality between the Father and Son by assigning a different title of Deity to each, while at the same time distinguishing both from all creation [TA PANTA], each in a different way. Whereas the Father is portrayed as the source of all things, Jesus Christ, the Logos, operates in an intermediate role in both the original creation (John 1:3) as well as the new creation. Jesus said that, “no man comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6), thereby portraying himself as the intermediate agency of true Deity.
Hence, because the many “gods and lords” have no existence as true Deity, the eating of meats which had been sacrificed to idols will not adversely affect the Christian. However, not all Christians have the same knowledge, so some might be stumbled by the “tainted meat”, and those who have knowledge should put love first and never cause their brothers to stumble, it would be a sin to do so. (Ray Goldsmith)
A number of scholars and commentators have persuasively argued that in this verse, Paul is recasting the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) in Christian terms. The Shema is the great monotheistic declaration: “Hear O Israel! YHWH, our God, YHWH is one.” In the LXX, this becomes AKOUE ISRAÊL KURIOS hO THEOS hEMÔN KURIOS EIS ESTIN (“Hear Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one”).
YHWH becomes KURIOS (“Lord”) in the LXX. The similarity in language between this verse and 1 Corinthians 8:6 becomes apparent when we set them side by side in the Greek (Deuteronomy 6:4 is on the right; 1 Corinthians 8:6 on the left):
As Richard Bauckham notes:
Paul has reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema…but Paul has rearranged the words in such as way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the Shema speaks, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing not christological monotheism but outright ditheism (Bauckham, p. 38).
Paul has redefined the “God” of the Shema as “One God, the Father,” and the “Lord” of the Shema as “One Lord, Jesus Christ.” As the context is that of religious devotion (whether eating food sacrificed to idols was acceptable or not) and the distinction between pagan deities on the one hand, and God the Father and Jesus Christ on the other, Paul’s appeal to the Shema as a proclamation of how the God of Israel was unique is understandable. What was unprecedented was his inclusion of Jesus in the formula – again it must be stressed in the context of devotion – which could only mean that the Lord God (YHWH) was now to be perceived as including both the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Other scholars who have written on Paul’s reliance on the Shema in this verse include: F.F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians; D. R. de Lacey, “‘One Lord’ in Pauline Christology,” in H. H. Rowden, ed., Christ the Lord; J. D. G. Dunn, Christology (though Dunn draws a somewhat different conclusion); L. Hurtado, One God, One Lord and At the Origin of Christian Worship; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant and What St. Paul Really Said; D. A. Hagner, “Paul’s Christology and Jewish Monotheism” in M. Shuster and R. Muller ed., Perspectives on Christology; N. Richardson, Paul’s Language about God; B. Witherington, Jesus the Sage; P. Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 [unpublished D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford University]; W. A. Elwell, “The Deity of Christ in the Writings of Paul,” in Hawthorne, ed., Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation.
GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS
all hmin eiV qeos`o pathr, ex ou ta panta kai`hmeiV eiV auton, kai eiV kurioV IhsouV CristoV, di ou ta panta kai`hmeiV di autou
ALL ÊMIN EIS THEOS hO PATÊR, EX OU TA PANTA KAI hMEIS EIS AUTON, KAI EIS KURIOS IÊSOUS XRISTOS, DI OU TA PANTA KAI hMEIS DI AUTOU
But to us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things and we for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him.
ALLA: This conjunction sets up a strong contrast with the LEGOMENOI THEOI (so-called gods) of the preceding verse. Both the Father and Son form the compound subject (nominatives) as contrasted over against the false deities of paganism. Note the triple contrast Paul makes. First he contrasts the Father and Son against the “so-called gods” with LEGOMENOI and ALLA ÊMIN. Then he separates both the Father and Son from “all things [PANTA]” by priority of existence, but note the different prepositional relationship between the Father and “all things” (out of EK), and between the Lord Jesus and “all things (through DIA)”, thereby Paul maintains a personal distinction within the Godhead. (Ray Goldsmith)
For though there be (kai gar eiper eisi). Literally, ‘For even if indeed there are’ (a concessive clause, condition of the first class, assumed to be true for argument’s sake). Called gods (legomenoi theoi). So-called gods, reputed gods. Paul denied really the existence of these so-called gods and held that those who worshipped idols (non-entities) in reality worshipped demons or evil spirits, agents of Satan (1 Cor. 10:19-21). (RWP)
Jehovah’s Witnesses have often cited this passage to prove that Jesus can not be God. “Since the passage reads that for ‘us’ there is ‘one God, the Father’, and since Jesus is not the Father, he cannot be God”…so runs the reasoning. Yet such reasoning is superficial. Robert Bowman Jr., responds as follows:
1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes between ‘one God, the Father,’ and ‘one Lord, Jesus Christ.’ The JWs conclude from this verse that since the Father is the ‘one God,’ Jesus cannot be God. But by that reasoning, since Jesus is the ‘one Lord,’ The Father cannot be Lord! (Bowman, Trinity, p. 73).
In view of the above it is not surprising that Witnesses would look for a better way to present the argument. The object here is to save their case by finding a way to remain consistent while denying on the basis of this passage that Jesus can be God. So in what way can Witnesses believe that God the Father cannot be the one Lord? Greg Stafford responds:
First of all, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that since the Father is the ‘one God,’ that Jesus cannot be ‘God’ or ‘a god’ to some degree. Jehovah Witnesses do believe that the description of the Father as the ‘one God’ in this verse shows that Jesus cannot be the ‘one God.’ Simply put, the ‘one God’ is one person, the Father. Similarly, the Father cannot be the ‘one Lord’ of the Christian Congregation, for He had given His Son this position. Of course He can still be considered ‘Lord’in respect to His own sovereignty, but He has relinquished a particular Lordship to His Son, who will exercise this authority until death is no more (Ac 2:36; 1 Co 15:28) (Stafford, p. 200)
Mr. Stafford’s first point is neither here nor there, for Trinitarians do notaccuse the Watchtower of denying that Jesus can be “theos” to some degree, nor was this Bowman’s point. Mr. Stafford’s further point, however, that the one God is one person, the Father,” needs further consideration, for it appears to be based on a premise which remains unproven throughout his discussion.
Mr. Stafford’s reasoning takes for granted that the infinite God can be held hostage to a finite limitation. Thus he begins with the premise that one being equals only one person; he then applies this to his understanding of the passage, then draws the conclusion that since the Father is identified as the one God, only He could be that one God. Yet he realizes that he must find a way to allow Jesus Christ to be the one Lord without that being applicable to the Father or any other Person. Exclusivity on the one side demands the same on the other. At the same time he knows that Scripture reveals the Father as Lord too, both despotes and kyrios (concerning “Sovereign Lord [despotes]” see my discussion on “many gods and many lords,” below), so he adds a qualifier that does not appear in the text. Jesus is the one Lord of the Christian Congregation. He then goes on to deny that the Father is such, saying that the Father “relinquished” this to the Son. We will consider Greg’s qualifier shortly, but first we need to consider the beginning premise that the infinite God can be held hostage to the finite limitation that one being equals only one person.
When does “only” really mean “only”?
Jehovah’s Witnesses often appeal to the language in John 17:3 to justify this premise, where Jesus calls his Father the “only true God,” and at first glance it may appear that they have a point, but all is not what it seems. Similar language appears in the New World Translation at Jude 4, where Jesus Christ is said to be “our only Owner and Lord.” Here the same adjective “only” appears in the same grammatical position (attributive).
Yet immediately the Witnesses have a problem restricting the Owner and Lord to the one Person, Jesus Christ, for they know that Scripture elsewhere clearly identifies a Person other than Jesus as our “Owner and Lord”. How can Jesus be our only Owner and Lord if the Father is also our Owner and Lord? Or, how can the Father be our Owner and Lord if Jesusis our only Owner and Lord? When does “only” really mean “only?” The same logic they apply to John 17:3 would deny that any other person than Jesus Christ could be our “Owner and Lord” according to Jude 4 (NWT). Hence, Jude 4 has become a stumbling block to Jehovah’s Witnesses because they cannot apply the same exegetical principles to it that they require in John 17:3.
As noted above, Stafford adds a qualifying phrase to the one Lord in 1st Corinthians 8: “of the Christian Congregation,” and some Witnesses, seemingly influenced by Greg’s qualifier, have carried it over to the expression “our only Owner and Lord” in Jude 4 (such was the argument of “Student of the Bible,” an independent Witness apologists I debated on several occasions in a Trinity discussion forum on the Internet). This is apparently an attempt to navigate the obvious problem of explaining how more than one Person could be our “Owner and Lord,” when Jude 4 says plainly that one Person, Jesus Christ, is our only Owner and Lord. Thus Witnesses offer up the explanation by adding the qualifier, that Jesus is indeed “our only Owner and Lord of the Christian Congregation,” and therebydenying that the Father is the Owner and Lord of the Christian Congregation. Can this explanation survive the scrutiny of Scripture? Let’s consider a few examples from the NWT:
For all that, the solid foundation of God stays standing, having this seal: ‘Jehovah knows those who belong to him,’ and: Let everyone naming the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.’…If, therefore, anyone keeps clear of the latter ones, he will be a vessel for an honorable purpose, sanctified , useful to his owner, prepared for every good work….but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, along with those who call upon the Lord out of a clean heart (2nd Timothy 2:19-22 NWT, emphasis added).
And another:
…if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God’s congregation? (1st Timothy 3:5 NWT, emphasis added).
These verses pose an immediate problem for any Jehovah’s Witness who has adopted Mr. Stafford’s qualifier and has thus denied that the Father is the Owner and Lord of the Christian Congregation. The NWT translates kyrios as Jehovah, whom they claim is only the Father. So we see that the Father has not “relinquished” his Lordship or Ownership of the Christian Congregation. The congregation still belongs to him and it names the name of Jehovah. He is their Lord. It is called God’s congregation. What does the WT itself say about Jehovah and his congregation?
And, belonging to Jehovah as it does, it is appropriately referred to as ‘the congregation of God.’—Ac 20:28; Ga 1:13 (Insight Vol. #1, pages 497-498, emphasis added).
He is also appropriately described as ‘the true Lord’ (Isa 1:24) It is at his direction that people are gathered, or harvested, for life. So petitions for more workers to assist in the harvest must be made to him as the ‘Master[Lord] of the harvest.’ –Mt 9:37, 38; see NW appendix, pp. 1566-1568.” (Insight Vol. #2, page 265, emphasis added)
The Watchtower clearly teaches that the Congregation belongs to Jehovah. He is appropriately described as “the true Lord”. It’s at his direction that people are gathered and harvested for life, and petitions for more workers to assist must be made to him as the “Master [Lord] of the harvest”. Thus even the Watchtower Society agrees that the Father has not “relinquished” his Ownership and Lordship of the Christian Congregation!
In addition, one would guess that if Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Father has “relinquished” his Lordship and Ownership of the Christian Congregation, they should have no qualms about praying directly to Jesus as their only Owner and Lord. Yet note what Stafford says about prayer to Jesus:
When Jesus was on earth he left Christians a model of how to pray. In that model Jesus revealed the proper object of prayer,saying, ‘You must pray […proseuchomai], then, this way: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified” (Matt 6:9) (Stafford, pp. 585-586, emphasis added).
Now it is truly remarkable that according to Mr. Stafford the Father has “relinquished” his Lordship of the Christian Congregation, yet remains as the “proper object of prayer,” and the one to whom petitions “must be made,” as the Master [Lord] of the Harvest! Yet the problem only gets worse for Mr. Stafford’s argument. Note the following:
…and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (Matt. 16:18 NWT, emphasis added).
If it’s “God’s congregation,” and Jesus is not God, how can He call it “my congregation?” How can its members belong to Jehovah if Jesus is the only Owner? Yet if Jesus is the “only Owner and Lord,” and this requires exclusivity, as Mr. Stafford says at 1st Corinthians. 8:6, how can it be called “God’s congregation,” especially if we’re to believe that God has “relinquished” his Lordship and Ownership over it? Mr. Stafford’s apologetic, though an interesting attempt to deflect the implications of Paul’s language, does not harmonize with other Scriptures, nor even with Watchtower teaching.
The attempt to restrict the “one Lord” of 1st Corinthians. 8:6 to Christ’s role as mediator with regard to the Christian Congregation fails to carry conviction, for Christ has operated in the role of an intermediate, not only in regard to the new Creation, but also in regard to the original creation (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17). Yet because the Logos was the intermediary of the original creation did not mean that the Father “relinquished” his own Creatorship, did it? Of course not. In fact Jehovah Witnesses would argue that the Father was the only Creator.
The same problem crops up with regard to the judgment of all creation. We read in John 5:22 that “the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son.” So, by using Mr. Stafford’s reasoning should we conclude that the Father “relinquished” the judging to the Son and is therefore not the “Judge?” The answer should be exceedingly obvious, of course not! In fact we are even told that the reason all judging was committed to the Son is “in order that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” This clearly illustrates how superficial it is to assume that because Jesus is the “one Lord” in 1st Corinthians. 8:6 that the Father can’t likewise be the “one Lord.” He certainly can, just as he can be the Judge of all creation even though he had “relinquished” all judging to the Son. And Jesus says that the reason we must do so is, “so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” Thus, equal honor must be ascribed the titles “Lord” and “God” (another word for “title” is “honorific,” a title ascribing honor to someone). Mr. Stafford argues that “Lord” is a lesser title (see below), but even if is, we must ascribe equal honor to the one who bears it, and thus it must hold Him equal to God in our devotion.
Finally, in Matthew 28:18 Jesus said “all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.” Does this mean that the Father “relinquished” his own Authority in heaven and on earth because it had been given to Jesus? The answer should be obvious again: No he did not!
So, let’s review the evidence from the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own bible: First Jehovah knows those who belong to him, they name the name of Jehovah and call on the Lord. The Congregation is God’s, and the Watchtower says, belonging to Jehovah as it does, it’s appropriately referred to as such. And petitions for more workers to assist in the harvest must be made to the true Lord”, Jehovah, as the “Master [Lord] of the harvest. Jehovah is still the Judge, even though all judging has been “relinquished” to the Son. And furthermore, the Father remains as the proper object of prayer.
So, we see that Mr. Stafford’s apologetic offered for 1st Corinthians 8:6 has numerous problems. To say that the Father “can still be considered Lord with respect to his own Sovereignty” is a distinction without a difference, for what is Sovereignty if it does not include Ownership? The truth is that in perfect accord with God’s plan, Jesus was exalted and made Lord, for all authority had been given to him in heaven and on earth, not just over the Christian Congregation. But this did not mean that the Father relinquished his own Lordship or Ownership of God’s Congregation any more than he relinquished his Judgeship because he committed all judging to the Son! He still owns the Congregation and its members belong to him and call on his name.
Many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’
Mr. Stafford suggests an interesting relationship between the “gods many and lords many” of 1st Corinthians. 8:5. He points out that within paganism the lords were considered as secondary deities in relationship to the gods. He then points to the contrast with the Father and Jesus Christ, thus suggesting that Jesus should be regarded as a secondary and “lesser” deity as compared with the Father (see Stafford, p. 201).
We may first note that Mr. Stafford provides no evidence from first Century sources supporting his contention that “lord” was a title for secondary, intermediary deities in the Corinthian milieu. He does cite two scholars, Robert Grant and Frederick Godet, but citing scholars merely proves that these scholars held this view (which is itself a problematic assertion, as we shall see below), not that the view is correct. Why did the scholars hold this view? What evidence did they consider? Interestingly, neither Grant nor Godet provide primary evidence supporting “lord” as a title for a lesser deity. In fact, when considered in context, both scholars actually argue that the role of Christ in creation is contrasted with the role of the secondary deities, not their alleged inferior nature.
In the quote Mr. Stafford provides, Grant says, “the work of the Lord Christ is like that of the various demiurgic gods…” (Grant, p. 112, emphasis added). Grant argues, not always convincingly, that Paul is using language and categories of thought borrowed from Middle Platonism, but Grant emphasizes that these categories are not the source of Pauline theology or of later creeds: “We expect to find not the source of Christian theological statements but environments in which Christian statements might be acceptable because not unfamiliar” (IBID, p. 114). I am not entirely persuaded by Grant’s arguments, for while Paul was indeed the “apostle to the Gentiles,” he was also a “Pharisee of Pharisees,” and his language and theology is far more influenced by Jewish thought than pagan, as has been demonstrated by the majority of Pauline scholars writing today (see, for example, N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said; F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free; Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology; Ben Witherington III, The Paul Quest; J.D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle [I don’t agree with all of Dunn’s “new perspective” on Paul, but his work underlines Paul’s theological foundations in Judaism]).
Nevertheless, Grant stresses that when Paul contrasts Christ as the one Lord with the “mediating Demiurge,” this is in terms of role and not ontology:
From the Pauline epistles we can reconstruct something like the statements of the future creeds concerning the nature and mission of Christ. The hymn in Philippians 2:5-11… Galatians 4:4…. 2 Cor. 8:9. These statements use different metaphors to convey a basic notion of the divine condescension (IBID, pp. 164-165).
He further notes:
“The Nicene Creed…lays emphasis on the one God and the one Lord as in 1 Corinthians 8:6, but now not so much against polytheism as against various heresies” (IBID, p. 168, emphasis in original).
Godet writes that Paul and John: “both emphasize the subordination of the Son in the unity of the Divine life” (Godet, p. 418). He compares 1 Corinthians 8:5 with John 17:3 :
In the two passages, the personal distinction between God and Christ is strongly emphasized, though the community of nature between the two appears from this very distinction, and from all the rest of the books where these sayings are contained (IBID).
Thus, even as Mr. Stafford’s own authorities demonstrate, Paul does not say that the “many lords” of the pagans were secondary or lesser deities by nature relative to the supreme gods, nor does he teach that the one Lord is inferior by nature to the one God. The contrast is in terms of the Son’s mediatorial role, specifically in Creation. Trinitarians embrace the distinction of role and authority delineated in this passage, but not the distinction in ontological nature suggested – but not proven – by Mr. Stafford.
Nor, as we have seen, is the term “Lord” restricted to the ChristianCongregation. The terms “the one God and the one Lord” are used in a context of worship and honor. Why was all judgment “relinquished” to the Son? Jesus says in John. 5:23: “so that all may honor the Son just asthey honor the Father”. And as we’ve seen above, Jesus is not only identified as the one Lord in 1 Corinthians 8:6, but also as our “only Owner and Lord” in Jude 4. The word translated “Owner” is despotes, an old word for ‘absolute master’ (RWP, p.160). This is applied to God in Acts 4:24 and translated “Sovereign Lord” in the NWT. Some Witnesses may try to escape the problem in Jude 4 by pointing to the textual uncertainty, but the attempt is futile for the witness, for note what Mr. Stafford himself says about this passage:
This is not to say that such constructions cannot describe one person with two nouns, for, clearly, in the case of 1 Peter 1:11, 2:20, 3:18 and Jude 4, they do (Stafford, page 409, emphasis added).
So, Mr. Stafford agrees with the “anointed witnesses of Jehovah” who made up the NWT Translation Committee that “clearly” this passage describes one Person, Jesus Christ, with two nouns. And the Committee agreed with Dr. Bruce Metzger that despite many occasional variant readings, the wording of the text has strong manuscript support, (Metzger, p. 657).
Let’s return to Mr. Stafford’s argument. He says that gods were superior divine beings in paganism, while lords were lesser deities. He then argues that the contrast Paul is making is between the “gods” and one true God, the Father; and between the “lords” and the one true lesser, intermediary Lord, Jesus Christ. As I have demonstrated, Mr. Stafford has not established his point regarding the relative ontological distinction between “gods” and “lords” in Corinthian paganism. Moreover, there is evidence to the contrary Mr. Stafford does not address:
“The formula ho kyrios kai ho theos hemon (Rev. 4:11, cf. Jn. 20:28), our Lord and our God, is reminiscent of the title adopted by Domitian (cf. CL 4).” (NIDNTT, Vol. #2, page 514)
Here both terms are applied to the same false god (a deified ruler)!
The WT Society identifies the “many lords” as false deities:
LORD. The Greek and Hebrew words rendered ‘lord’ (or such related terms as ‘sir’, ‘owner’ ‘master’) are used with reference to Jehovah God (Eze 3:11), Jesus Christ (Mt 7:21), one of the elders seen by John in vision (Re 7:13, 14), angels (Ge 19:1,2; Da 12:8), men (1 Sa 25:24; Ac 16:16, 19:30), and false deities (1 Co 8:5)” (Insight Vol. #2, page 265, emphasis added).
So, to carry the analogy over to the Father and Son, we should regard them both as true deity (biblical monotheism) in full contrast to the false deities of the pagans. Mr. Stafford himself admits that both the Father and Son are contrasted against the false deities (gods and lords), yet he only wants to make the Father true Deity, and not Jesus. Can the reader see the inconsistency here? Further, even Trinitarians recognize that Christ is “lesser” in a positional sense in perfect accord with God’s arrangement!
But continuing to follow Mr. Stafford’s analogy, we may note that just as the Father is contrasted against the “gods many” and is therefore the “one God,” so Jesus is contrasted against the “lords many” and is therefore the “one Lord.” Yet again, just as the Father is contrasted against the “many false gods,” and is therefore the “one true God,” so likewise Jesus is contrasted against the “many false lords” (false deities, says the WT), and is therefore the “one true Lord.” But the Witnesses run into a snag at this point. Why? Because according to the WT Society, the “true Lord” is Jehovah! (Insight Vol. #2, page 265; WT Reference Bible, Appendix 1J, page 1569).
Right here is where the Witness position is revealed to be built on a foundation of sand, for they must reason that even though both the Father and Son were contrasted against the false deities of paganism, only the Father is to be regarded as true Deity. On one side of the contrast both the gods and lords are false deities, but on the other side, only the Father and not the Son can be regarded as true Deity, so they say. Thus the inconsistency stands out in bold relief. Whereas the Orthodox position remains consistent by recognizing that Paul contrasted boththe Father and Son against the false deities, so we rightly regard them both as true Deity in agreement with the contrast!
So we see the fallacy of the Witness assumption that the infinite God can be held hostage to the finite limitation that one being can only be one Person. To the contrary, biblical monotheism means that the one God is a plurality of Persons, as indicated even in the very first chapter of the Bible (Genesis 1:26-27…us make…our image”). Thus we have a plural maker who is God (cf., Hebrews 3:4: “the maker of all things is God”). And since Jehovah’s Witnesses will not deny the Holy Spirit’s participation in Genesis 1:26, we find the sameplural maker being presented as the single Authority in whose name believers should be baptized (Matthew 28:19).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear in 1st Corinthians 8:4-6 that both the Father and Son were placed in complete contrast to the false deities of paganism. It is also clear that we should “honor” the Son just as we honor the Father (John 5:23). Therefore both should be regarded as true Deity. And it is abundantly clear throughout Scripture that the Father did not relinquish his Lordship or Ownership of the Christian Congregation. Yet the Bible says that Jesus is also our only Owner and Lord, the one [true] Lord in contrast to the false deities of paganism. (Jude 4; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6)
Addendum: Jesus as mediator
Mr. Stafford cites Robert Bowman’s response to the WT’s brochure “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” (Stafford, 202)
“Bowman states: ‘1 Timothy 2:5 says that Jesus is the “one mediator
between God and men” (NWT), and from this statement the JW
booklet concludes that Jesus cannot be God, because “by definition
a mediator is someone separate from those who need mediation”
(p. 16). But by this reasoning Jesus cannot be a man, either; yet this
very text says that he is a man!”
Mr. Stafford then responds:
“A more complete quotation of 1 Timothy will prove illuminating:
‘For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the
man Christ Jesus’ (NIV, emphasis added).”
He then goes on to emphasize the positional distinction of the three parties, the one God, the one Mediator, and men, saying that this should lead us to see that “the proper conclusion is Jesus cannot be the ‘men’ (those for whom he mediates), but he was ‘a man’, nor can he be the ‘one God,’ but he can be and is ‘a god.” However, in putting the emphasis on positional distinction, Greg misses the true import of the passage.
The anarthrousanthropos (man) places a particular emphasis on the fact that he identifies with humanity. So since he identifies truly by nature with one side (men, humanity), it is only consistent that he also identifies truly by nature with the other side (God). After all, if he doesn’t need to be truly God to be a proper mediator, he doesn’t need to be truly human either. Yet why did he have to come to earth and spend 30 some years in a human body? Mr. Stafford does not deal with this question, but he should. The answer is so that he could truly sympathize with the human side and thus properly mediate for them knowing what it’s like to actually be human. Likewise, then, on the other side. Jesus was already truly God (not the Father), and as a result of his human experience he could then truly mediate for both sides, knowing what it’s like to be both. In other words, he could truly bridge the gap.
Mr. Stafford’s classification of Christ as “a god” and his attempt to correspond that with his being “a man” fails to make the grade. To be consistent, since Christ identifies truly by nature with the one side (men) as truly human, he should also identify truly by nature with the other side (God) as truly God. But Mr. Stafford’s apologetic stops short of this. He has Christ identifying truly by nature with the one side (men) but not the other (God).
At this point it should be noted that Greg places Paul’s reference to Christ’s being “a man” into the past tense “was a man”. His motivation for this seems obvious. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses he wishes to maintain the WT’s denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ. They teach that after the resurrection Jesus was no longer a man, but his human body was disposed of in some fashion by Jehovah. Hence, any implication that Christ is still a man after the resurrection (even a glorified one!) must be avoided. But the attempt to take this as only an historical reference is quite arbitrary and constitutes a violent removal of the term from its contextual setting.
For example, when Paul says “heis gar theos”, Greg agrees that this should be taken in the present tense (for there is one God), and when Paul further says “heis kai mesites” Greg agrees again that this should be taken in the present tense (there is also one Mediator), but when Paul goes on to identify this one Mediator as “anthropos Christos Iesous”, suddenly Greg departs from the status quo, and arbitrarily rips it from its present tense perspective as he takes the rest of the verse…taking it as only an historical reference to his earthly existence. But the time frame of Christ’s human existence makes little difference to the argument at hand. The bottom line is that Paul emphasizes that by becoming truly human, Christ identifies truly by nature with that side (men), having become truly human himself. Likewise, then on the other side. He had existed as truly God (not the Father) from all eternity, and as a result of his human experience he could then mediate for both sides, knowing firsthand what it’s like to be both!
Therefore Greg’s use of the indefinite article and a small case “g” (a god) reveals his inconsistency. Whereas “a man” would suggest that he was truly human, “a god” would deny that he was truly God. The mistake in the premise shows up in his conclusion. What is the premise? He takes for granted that the infinite God can be held hostage to the finite premise that one Being can only be a single Person, he applies this to the infinite God, and this leads him to classify Christ inconsistently as “a god”, thereby denying that he truly identifies with the one side as he does with the other. Thus we see how the Witness apologetic breaks down in inconsistency. WT theology can not allow Christ to identify truly by nature with both sides in order to bridge the gap between them. They end up with a bridge broken at the farther end. The Witness assumption that positional and personal distinction requires ontological inequality is manifestly erroneous.
The use of the term “one God” does not tell us that ultimately God is “one Person”, rather, as we’ve seen, the WT Society and Mr. Stafford take this for granted. The same context refers to “our Savior, God” two verses earlier (1st Timothy 2:3). This is interesting in light of the fact that as early as the first chapter of the Bible God is revealed to be a plurality of Persons [us make …our image]. Even the WT Society agrees that Genesis1:26 refers to a plurality of Persons, although they seem confused about the Speaker. Note:
“It was to this firstborn Son that Jehovah said: ‘Let us make man in our
image, according to our likeness’ (Gen 1:26).’ (Insight Vol. #1, page 527,
Vl. #2, page 52, emphasis added)
“Reasonably, in the majority of cases God spoke through the Word. He
likely did so in Eden, for on two of the three occasions where mention is
made of God’s speaking there the record specifically shows someone was
with him, undoubtedly his Son (Gen 1:26-30; 2:16, 17; 3:8-19, 22).”…
The Society does not say whether the Son spoke to himself, or the Father spoke to the Son through the Son (though apparently this is what they mean). Yet the passage makes it plain that man had a plural maker, and this plural maker is identified as God.
Consistent with this, the inspired Bible writer tells us that Jesus claimed equality of nature with God (John 5:18). This infuriated the Jews back then, for they did not believe him. It affects Jehovah’s Witnesses the same way today, for they deny that he even made the claim. Witnesses try to escape the force of John 5:18 by saying that John was merely setting forth the erroneous perception of the Jews. But a few verses later John reveals that all judging was committed to the Son so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father (John 5:22-23). This cannot be explained away as the erroneous perception of the Jews, for Jesus is speaking plainly. Hence, what he says in 5:23 backs up to the hilt what John says he claimed in 5:18 (equality with God). Note how the famous Bible translator Edgar Goodspeed rendered John 5:23:
“…so that all men may honor the Son just as much as they honor the Father.”
(emphasis added)
So we see that although they are Personally distinct, they are ontologically equal, and the one should be honored no less than the other.
Jesus as the “one Lord”
Mr. Stafford now returns to his discussion of 1st Cor. 8, saying:
“even if the distinction articulated above between the ‘many gods and
many lords’ of the pagans and the ‘one God’ and ‘one Lord’ of Christians
was not implied in the context, the argument given by Bowman would still
be untenable. The fact is that when kyrios is applied to Jesus in the New
Testament it has a much different connotation than when applied to the
Father. One reason for this, which we noted earlier, is because the Father
‘made’ Jesus ‘Lord’, and has ‘exalted him’ to his lofty position. (Ac 2:36;
Php 2:9) The Father is not Lord because of someone else. References to
Jesus as ‘Lord’ must be read with this understanding in mind.”(Stafford
203).
Yet as I’ve already shown, even were such a distinction implied in this context, the situation would still be untenable for the witnesses. Why? Because both the Father and Son were contrasted against the false deities. As shown earlier, the WT Society identifies the many lords as “false deities”, so, following Greg’s analogy, we should regard Christ as true Deity in agreement with the contrast, just as we would regard the Father as true Deity in agreement with the same contrast. But the WT’s theology will not allow the Witnesses to be consistent here.
Further, Mr. Stafford’s point about the term kyrios having a different connotation when applied to Jesus, and his further point about Jesus being “made Lord” by someone else, merely transforms the obvious into a discovery (for him). All sides agree that they are different Persons, and so it stands to reason that they would have different roles. One might argue that since only Jesus died on the cross that the Father was made Savior because of someone else. Yet even though only Jesus died on the cross, does this fact make the Father any less our Savior? Do we owe him any less honor because of it? In fact the Scripture makes it plain that God is our ONLY Savior:
“Turn to me and be saved, all YOU [at the] ends of the earth; for I am God
and there is no one else. 23 By my own self I have sworn—out of my own
mouth in righteousness the word has gone forth, so that it will not return—
that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear…”(Isaiah
45:22-23 NWT) emphasis added
The above could not be more clear. God is our only Savior and there is no one else. Yet the Witnesses step up to tell us that Christ is someone else, and he’s our Savior too! Note what God says: “to me every knee will bend down..”, yet we discover in Philippians 2:10 that the “me” includes Jesus whom the Witnesses say is another Savior…but as we’ve seen, God declared in plain language that there is no other. So no matter what the WT theology requires, we really don’t have another Savior in Jesus; rather theyare the oneand only Savior. Witnesses are afraid to admit this because they know it will lead to the conclusion that theyare also the one and only God.
But returning to Mr. Stafford’s point, because only Jesus died on the cross, does the term “Savior” have a different connotation when applied to him than when applied to the Father, different enough to justify honoring the Father any less than the Son, or the Son any less than the Father? Of course not! In fact we see how the Father is honored when the Son receives equal honor with him (Philippians 2:10-11).
Interestingly Mr. Stafford acknowledges that Jesus has complete authority over God’s people (Stafford, 204). He says:
“Indeed, he is ‘our only Owner and Lord’ (Jude 4; compare Joh 17:6)”.
But he fails to explain how the one Person, Jesus, could be our only Owner and Lord when the Scripture makes it plain that the Father did not relinquish his Ownership or Lordship but retains them, as already shown. Trinitarians have an easy answer for this; they are the one Owner and Lord just as they are the one Savior. A “simple reading” of Isaiah 45:22 makes is very clear that Jehovah is the only Savior “and there is no oneelse”, and Jehovah never lies. Therefore, as our Savior, we should honor Christ as Jehovah just as we would the Father! There are only two options available here. Either we regard Christ as another Savior who is someone else (WT option), or we take Jehovah as including the Son (Orthodox). In harmony with Isaiah 45:22 and many other passages, the latter option is clearly the most reasonable.
So yes they are distinct Persons with different roles, but the Bible teaches us that we should not use that as an excuse to honor or value the one any less than the other (John 5:23). They are ultimately the one God and Lord, our only Owner and Savior, the Jehovah who was alone in the doing of the things mentioned in Isaiah 44:24, and the plural maker called God in Genesis 1:26-27…so Paul places them in utter contrast to the false deities of paganism (1St Corinthians 8:4-6).
Answering Islam Blog 