Thursday, 12 December 2013
On "the only true God"
Find article here
Who is the "True God"?
John 4:24 tells us we must worship God in truth (aletheia in the Greek text). There can be no doubt what "truth" means here. It can be properly contrasted here with "falsity." If we are not worshiping God correctly (in truth), then we are worshiping him falsely. There are only two choices here. This is confirmed by John 17:3 and 2 Thess. 1:8, 9 where we are told that it means eternal life to us to know the true God and Jesus Christ, and, conversely, it means eternal destruction to not know God and obey Jesus. Obviously, if we "know" God and Christ falsely, we cannot worship them in truth. We must know them accurately!
But what about the word "true" [alethinos (contrasted with aletheia, 'truth')] in NT Greek? If something is true, does that mean all other things in that same category are necessarily false? Some trinitarians insist that this is so when the term "the true God" is used in Scripture. In other words they are insisting that if he is the true God, anyone else called 'a god' would necessarily be a false god! (And, therefore, Jesus cannot be called "a god" in scripture as JWs have translated.)
Well, alethinos "is unquestionably used sometimes in the Gospel and First Epistle [of John] to signify that a thing truly corresponds to the idea of the name given to it" - p. 819, Vol. 4, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, Hendrickson Publishers, 1988 printing.
And respected NT Greek expert W. E. Vine tells us that alethinos
"denotes true in the sense of real, ideal, genuine; it is used (a) of God, John 7:28 ...; 17:3; I Thess. 1:9;...." - p. 1170, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Nelson Publ., 1983 printing.
Therefore, if we should see, for example, someone being called the 'true prophet,' that should mean that the person so described is truly a prophet. In either case this certainly does not have to mean that all other prophets must be false! Even if it was said that this one was the "only true Prophet," we would probably consider him the only prophet in the highest sense of the word, but that still would not make all other prophets of God false prophets!
Or, since the Proverb quoted at 2 Peter 2:22 is "the true (alethous) Proverb," does that really mean that all other Proverbs must be false?
And at Heb. 8:2 we see Jesus as "a minister in the sanctuary [in heaven], and in the true (alethinos - Young's; Vine) tabernacle" - NASB. Here again, although the heavenly "tabernacle" is the "true tabernacle," that does not mean that the earthly tabernacle was a false tabernacle. As W. E. Vine puts it when discussing Heb. 8:2,
"not that the wilderness Tabernacle was false, but that it was a weak and earthly copy of the Heavenly [cf. Heb. 9:24]." - p. 1171, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.
Therefore, the heavenly tabernacle was the only true Tabernacle. There could be other, earthly, tabernacles which were still not false tabernacles. Or as Heb. 9:24 puts it:
"For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands [the earthly tabernacle], a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself" - NASB.
No, just because the heavenly tabernacle is the true one, does not make holy tabernacles on earth false tabernacles. They were merely tabernacles in a lesser sense of the word - "in the image of" the only true Tabernacle (in heaven)!
“Christ proclaims Himself [‘the bread the true’ - 'the true bread'] (John vi. 32), not suggesting thereby that the bread which Moses gave was not also ‘bread of heaven’ (Ps. cv. 40), but only that it was such in a secondary inferior degree; it was not food in the highest sense, inasmuch as it did not nourish up unto eternal life those that ate it (John vi. 49). He is [‘the vine the true’ - 'the true vine'] (John xv. I), not thereby denying that Israel also was God's vine (Ps. lxxx. 8; Jer. 21), but affirming that none except Himself realized this name, and all which this name implied, to the full (Hos. x. I; Deut. xxxii. 32)” - p. 29, Trench’s Synonyms of the New Testament. [Thanks to 'Reality.']
Perhaps the best illustration of this would be the use of the term "Christ" (or 'Messiah' in Hebrew) ["christos, christou, christw, and christon in the original Greek]. As far as Christians are concerned there is only one "true Christ," our Savior, Jesus! We know that the Bible has also warned us about "false christs."
However, less well-known is the fact that God himself appointed King Saul (1 Sam. 24:7, christos) and King David (2 Sam. 23:1, christon), among many others, as His christ. "Christ" (or "Messiah" in Hebrew) simply means "anointed" or "anointed one," and those who properly bear that title are those who have been chosen by God for a special assignment. This included the high priests, prophets, and righteous kings of Israel. They all had the title "Christ" or "Christ of God" in the ancient Greek of the Septuagint Bible. Why, even the foreign king, Cyrus, was called the christ (christw) of God (Is. 45:1, Septuagint) because God chose him for a special assignment!
So, even though we would say that Jesus is the only true Christ and that there have been many false Christs who have arisen, it still would not be proper to insist that any person other than Jesus who is called "christ" or "a christ" must be a false christ! We would then be saying that King David, Moses, and innumerable others chosen by God to do his will were false christs!
What we are saying, then, is that Jesus is the only true Christ in that he is the only person who is God's anointed in the highest sense of the word! And all others called "christ" are either false christs or faithful servants of God in a lesser sense of the word (as compared to Jesus himself)!
So, for God to say that he is the true (alethinos) God does not demand that all others called 'god' or 'gods' are false gods as a few trinitarian apologists imply. The inspired scriptures when speaking of faithful angels, prophets, God-appointed judges, kings, and magistrates clearly calls them "gods" on occasion (see the BOWGOD and DEF studies). These are called "gods" in the sense of faithful servants of God, representing the true God.[1]
Of course "God" [theos] (the "Most High God" - Luke 8:28; Ps. 82:6; Luke 6:35[2] - and the "God of gods" - Deut. 10:17; Ps. 136:2) was distinguished from "a god" [theos] by the use of the definite article ("the") in the original languages - see the DEF and THEOS studies. (Also remember that capital letters were not used to distinguish things in the original manuscripts of the Bible as they are in modern English Bibles: God, Christ, etc.)
But let's examine the scriptural uses of the "true God" more closely.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible shows only 5 places where this is used in the entire Bible: (1) 2 Chron. 15:3; (2) Jer. 10:10; (3) 1 Thess. 1:9; (4) 1 John 5:20; and (5) John 17:3. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jehovah the God of the Bible is one person only (as his singular, masculine, personal name, "Jehovah" clearly shows): the Father in heaven. So does the term "the only true God" ever refer to the Son or the Holy Spirit or a 'multiple-person' God? Or do the JW's teach the truth about the knowledge of God that means our very eternal lives (Jn 17:3; 2 Thess. 1:8, 9)?
Here, then are all the uses of "the true God" to be found in the entire Holy Scriptures (according to Strong's; Young's; and the New American Standard Concordances):
(1) ---2 Chron. 15:3, 4 says:
"Now for a long season Israel was without the true (alethinos - Sept.) God, and without a teaching priest, and without law: but when in their distress they turned unto Jehovah, the God of Israel, and sought him, he was found of them." - American Standard Version (ASV).
(2) ---Jeremiah 10:10 says:
"But Jehovah is the true God; he is the living God, and an everlasting king..." - ASV. (This passage is not in the Septuagint.)
These two scriptures (the only two in the OT to use 'the true God' according to Young's; the New American Standard; and Strong's concordances) clearly identify the true God as Jehovah. And the only person to be identified as Jehovah in the entire OT is the Father alone! (Is. 63:16; 64:8, ASV; Deut. 32:6, ASV; Ps. 2:7 and 89:26, 27 {compare Heb. 1:5}.)
And, in fact, it is also clearly shown that the Messiah is not Jehovah! (Psalm 110:1, ASV {compare Acts 2:33-36 and Eph. 1:17, 20}; Micah 5:4, ASV; Psalm 2:1, 2, ASV {compare Acts 4:25-27}; Psalm 2:7, ASV {compare Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5}; Is. 53:6, 10, ASV {most Christian churches recognize that all of Is. 53 refers to the Messiah}.)
But what about the New Testament? Is "the true [real] God" ever clearly identified here (in contradiction to the OT) as the Son? As the Holy Spirit? As a "multiple-person" God?
(3) ---1 Thess. 1:9, 10 -
"They tell how you [the Thessalonian congregation] turned to God from idols to serve the living and true [alethinos] God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead - Jesus..." - NIV.
Well, here again the true God is clearly the Father alone as context demands (and who has been identified as Jehovah alone above). And the Son, Jesus, is clearly differentiated from that 'true God"!
So what about the only two remaining references in the NT: 1 John 5:20 and John 17:3?
The only hope for the trinitarian argument that the "true God is Jesus" is found at 1 John 5:20.
(4) ---1 Jn 5:20 -
"We are in him that is true [alethinos], even in his Son, Jesus Christ. This [outos] is the true [alethinos] God, and eternal life." - KJV.
Some trinitarians actually insist that the word "this" (outos) here refers to Jesus. In other words, "[Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life." For example, Robert M. Bowman in his Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John states that at 1 Jn 5:20 Jesus is called 'the true God and eternal life' "indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament." - p. 41, Baker Book House, 1991 printing. I understand why some trinitarians are so desperate in their search for non-existent scriptural "evidence" that they have to make it up, but this is incredibly poor!
It is obvious that grammatically the word "this" (outos) could be referring to either the Father or Jesus in this particular scripture (see the footnote for 1 John 5:20 in the very trinitarian NIV Study Bible). But the fact that the true God (or "the true One") has just been identified as the Father of Jesus (1 Jn 5:20, TEV and GNB; and the footnote in the NIV Study Bible[3]) makes it highly probable that "this is the true God" refers to the Father, not Jesus. The highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris sums up his 13-page analysis of this scripture as follows:
"Although it is certainly possible that outos refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to 'the true one,' God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, outos = God [Father], is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter."[4] - p. 253, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.
Notice how this trinitarian scholar actually admits that the probability is that the Father (not Jesus) is being called the true God here. He even tells us (and cites examples in his footnotes) that New Testament grammarians and commentators (most of them trinitarian, of course) agree!
So this single "proof" that the "true God" is a title for anyone other than the Father alone is not proof at all. The grammar alone merely makes it a possibility. The immediate context makes it highly improbable since (as in all other uses of the term) the true God (or the true one) was just identified as the Father ("We are in the one who is true as we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and this is eternal life." - NJB; and "We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God - in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life." - TEV. "And we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us understanding so that we can know the true God. And now we live in fellowship with the true God because we live in fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the only true God, and he is eternal life." - New Living Translation).
So the immediate context alone makes it probable that the true God is the Father in this scripture also. As we have seen, if we include the context of all the uses of the 'true God,' it is certain that He is the Father alone (whose personal name is Jehovah - Ps. 83:18, Ex. 3:15).
To clinch John's intended meaning at 1 John 5:20, let's look at his only other use of the term: John 17:1, 3, where, again (as in 1 Jn 5:20), he mentions Father, Son, and eternal life.
(5) ---At John 17:1, 3 Jesus prays to the Father:
"Father, .... this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." - New International Version (NIV).
Here the Father alone is not only very clearly identified as the only true [alethinos] God, but Jesus Christ is again pointedly and specifically excluded from that identification ("AND Jesus Christ whom you [the only true God] have sent")!
Notice how this popular trinitarian Bible has rendered John 17:1, 3 - "Father,....This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." - New English Bible (NEB).
So, the title "the true God" does not have to mean that there are no others who may be called "gods" or "a god" in a subordinate but righteous sense. It is, however, an exclusive title for God, the Most High, only true God, Jehovah. And clearly it refers exclusively to the Father! No one else is the God or the True God! (Compare Ps. 86:10; 2 Kings 19:19; Is. 37:16.)
Therefore, the argument by certain trinitarian "guides" that the term 'true God' must mean that all others called 'gods' in the Scriptures are false gods is clearly false itself. Those who use it have not examined it with anything that could be called proper scholarship. They are either terribly misinformed (the fault of their spiritual "guides") or, in the case of the trinitarian authors, lecturers, and ministers who are aware of methods of proper research, Bible language grammar, etc., terribly dishonest ("deliberately-blind guides")! How does this fit with the command that we must worship God in truth (aletheia)- Jn 4:24? Or the warning that when the knowingly blind (false religious leaders) lead the blind (the ones following those leaders with blind faith) both will fall into the pit? Shouldn't we ALL carefully and diligently examine all sides of any essential, life-saving Bible teaching?
Who is the "True God"?
John 4:24 tells us we must worship God in truth (aletheia in the Greek text). There can be no doubt what "truth" means here. It can be properly contrasted here with "falsity." If we are not worshiping God correctly (in truth), then we are worshiping him falsely. There are only two choices here. This is confirmed by John 17:3 and 2 Thess. 1:8, 9 where we are told that it means eternal life to us to know the true God and Jesus Christ, and, conversely, it means eternal destruction to not know God and obey Jesus. Obviously, if we "know" God and Christ falsely, we cannot worship them in truth. We must know them accurately!
But what about the word "true" [alethinos (contrasted with aletheia, 'truth')] in NT Greek? If something is true, does that mean all other things in that same category are necessarily false? Some trinitarians insist that this is so when the term "the true God" is used in Scripture. In other words they are insisting that if he is the true God, anyone else called 'a god' would necessarily be a false god! (And, therefore, Jesus cannot be called "a god" in scripture as JWs have translated.)
Well, alethinos "is unquestionably used sometimes in the Gospel and First Epistle [of John] to signify that a thing truly corresponds to the idea of the name given to it" - p. 819, Vol. 4, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, Hendrickson Publishers, 1988 printing.
And respected NT Greek expert W. E. Vine tells us that alethinos
"denotes true in the sense of real, ideal, genuine; it is used (a) of God, John 7:28 ...; 17:3; I Thess. 1:9;...." - p. 1170, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Nelson Publ., 1983 printing.
Therefore, if we should see, for example, someone being called the 'true prophet,' that should mean that the person so described is truly a prophet. In either case this certainly does not have to mean that all other prophets must be false! Even if it was said that this one was the "only true Prophet," we would probably consider him the only prophet in the highest sense of the word, but that still would not make all other prophets of God false prophets!
Or, since the Proverb quoted at 2 Peter 2:22 is "the true (alethous) Proverb," does that really mean that all other Proverbs must be false?
And at Heb. 8:2 we see Jesus as "a minister in the sanctuary [in heaven], and in the true (alethinos - Young's; Vine) tabernacle" - NASB. Here again, although the heavenly "tabernacle" is the "true tabernacle," that does not mean that the earthly tabernacle was a false tabernacle. As W. E. Vine puts it when discussing Heb. 8:2,
"not that the wilderness Tabernacle was false, but that it was a weak and earthly copy of the Heavenly [cf. Heb. 9:24]." - p. 1171, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.
Therefore, the heavenly tabernacle was the only true Tabernacle. There could be other, earthly, tabernacles which were still not false tabernacles. Or as Heb. 9:24 puts it:
"For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands [the earthly tabernacle], a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself" - NASB.
No, just because the heavenly tabernacle is the true one, does not make holy tabernacles on earth false tabernacles. They were merely tabernacles in a lesser sense of the word - "in the image of" the only true Tabernacle (in heaven)!
“Christ proclaims Himself [‘the bread the true’ - 'the true bread'] (John vi. 32), not suggesting thereby that the bread which Moses gave was not also ‘bread of heaven’ (Ps. cv. 40), but only that it was such in a secondary inferior degree; it was not food in the highest sense, inasmuch as it did not nourish up unto eternal life those that ate it (John vi. 49). He is [‘the vine the true’ - 'the true vine'] (John xv. I), not thereby denying that Israel also was God's vine (Ps. lxxx. 8; Jer. 21), but affirming that none except Himself realized this name, and all which this name implied, to the full (Hos. x. I; Deut. xxxii. 32)” - p. 29, Trench’s Synonyms of the New Testament. [Thanks to 'Reality.']
Perhaps the best illustration of this would be the use of the term "Christ" (or 'Messiah' in Hebrew) ["christos, christou, christw, and christon in the original Greek]. As far as Christians are concerned there is only one "true Christ," our Savior, Jesus! We know that the Bible has also warned us about "false christs."
However, less well-known is the fact that God himself appointed King Saul (1 Sam. 24:7, christos) and King David (2 Sam. 23:1, christon), among many others, as His christ. "Christ" (or "Messiah" in Hebrew) simply means "anointed" or "anointed one," and those who properly bear that title are those who have been chosen by God for a special assignment. This included the high priests, prophets, and righteous kings of Israel. They all had the title "Christ" or "Christ of God" in the ancient Greek of the Septuagint Bible. Why, even the foreign king, Cyrus, was called the christ (christw) of God (Is. 45:1, Septuagint) because God chose him for a special assignment!
So, even though we would say that Jesus is the only true Christ and that there have been many false Christs who have arisen, it still would not be proper to insist that any person other than Jesus who is called "christ" or "a christ" must be a false christ! We would then be saying that King David, Moses, and innumerable others chosen by God to do his will were false christs!
What we are saying, then, is that Jesus is the only true Christ in that he is the only person who is God's anointed in the highest sense of the word! And all others called "christ" are either false christs or faithful servants of God in a lesser sense of the word (as compared to Jesus himself)!
So, for God to say that he is the true (alethinos) God does not demand that all others called 'god' or 'gods' are false gods as a few trinitarian apologists imply. The inspired scriptures when speaking of faithful angels, prophets, God-appointed judges, kings, and magistrates clearly calls them "gods" on occasion (see the BOWGOD and DEF studies). These are called "gods" in the sense of faithful servants of God, representing the true God.[1]
Of course "God" [theos] (the "Most High God" - Luke 8:28; Ps. 82:6; Luke 6:35[2] - and the "God of gods" - Deut. 10:17; Ps. 136:2) was distinguished from "a god" [theos] by the use of the definite article ("the") in the original languages - see the DEF and THEOS studies. (Also remember that capital letters were not used to distinguish things in the original manuscripts of the Bible as they are in modern English Bibles: God, Christ, etc.)
But let's examine the scriptural uses of the "true God" more closely.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible shows only 5 places where this is used in the entire Bible: (1) 2 Chron. 15:3; (2) Jer. 10:10; (3) 1 Thess. 1:9; (4) 1 John 5:20; and (5) John 17:3. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jehovah the God of the Bible is one person only (as his singular, masculine, personal name, "Jehovah" clearly shows): the Father in heaven. So does the term "the only true God" ever refer to the Son or the Holy Spirit or a 'multiple-person' God? Or do the JW's teach the truth about the knowledge of God that means our very eternal lives (Jn 17:3; 2 Thess. 1:8, 9)?
Here, then are all the uses of "the true God" to be found in the entire Holy Scriptures (according to Strong's; Young's; and the New American Standard Concordances):
(1) ---2 Chron. 15:3, 4 says:
"Now for a long season Israel was without the true (alethinos - Sept.) God, and without a teaching priest, and without law: but when in their distress they turned unto Jehovah, the God of Israel, and sought him, he was found of them." - American Standard Version (ASV).
(2) ---Jeremiah 10:10 says:
"But Jehovah is the true God; he is the living God, and an everlasting king..." - ASV. (This passage is not in the Septuagint.)
These two scriptures (the only two in the OT to use 'the true God' according to Young's; the New American Standard; and Strong's concordances) clearly identify the true God as Jehovah. And the only person to be identified as Jehovah in the entire OT is the Father alone! (Is. 63:16; 64:8, ASV; Deut. 32:6, ASV; Ps. 2:7 and 89:26, 27 {compare Heb. 1:5}.)
And, in fact, it is also clearly shown that the Messiah is not Jehovah! (Psalm 110:1, ASV {compare Acts 2:33-36 and Eph. 1:17, 20}; Micah 5:4, ASV; Psalm 2:1, 2, ASV {compare Acts 4:25-27}; Psalm 2:7, ASV {compare Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5}; Is. 53:6, 10, ASV {most Christian churches recognize that all of Is. 53 refers to the Messiah}.)
But what about the New Testament? Is "the true [real] God" ever clearly identified here (in contradiction to the OT) as the Son? As the Holy Spirit? As a "multiple-person" God?
(3) ---1 Thess. 1:9, 10 -
"They tell how you [the Thessalonian congregation] turned to God from idols to serve the living and true [alethinos] God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead - Jesus..." - NIV.
Well, here again the true God is clearly the Father alone as context demands (and who has been identified as Jehovah alone above). And the Son, Jesus, is clearly differentiated from that 'true God"!
So what about the only two remaining references in the NT: 1 John 5:20 and John 17:3?
The only hope for the trinitarian argument that the "true God is Jesus" is found at 1 John 5:20.
(4) ---1 Jn 5:20 -
"We are in him that is true [alethinos], even in his Son, Jesus Christ. This [outos] is the true [alethinos] God, and eternal life." - KJV.
Some trinitarians actually insist that the word "this" (outos) here refers to Jesus. In other words, "[Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life." For example, Robert M. Bowman in his Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John states that at 1 Jn 5:20 Jesus is called 'the true God and eternal life' "indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament." - p. 41, Baker Book House, 1991 printing. I understand why some trinitarians are so desperate in their search for non-existent scriptural "evidence" that they have to make it up, but this is incredibly poor!
It is obvious that grammatically the word "this" (outos) could be referring to either the Father or Jesus in this particular scripture (see the footnote for 1 John 5:20 in the very trinitarian NIV Study Bible). But the fact that the true God (or "the true One") has just been identified as the Father of Jesus (1 Jn 5:20, TEV and GNB; and the footnote in the NIV Study Bible[3]) makes it highly probable that "this is the true God" refers to the Father, not Jesus. The highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris sums up his 13-page analysis of this scripture as follows:
"Although it is certainly possible that outos refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to 'the true one,' God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, outos = God [Father], is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter."[4] - p. 253, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.
Notice how this trinitarian scholar actually admits that the probability is that the Father (not Jesus) is being called the true God here. He even tells us (and cites examples in his footnotes) that New Testament grammarians and commentators (most of them trinitarian, of course) agree!
So this single "proof" that the "true God" is a title for anyone other than the Father alone is not proof at all. The grammar alone merely makes it a possibility. The immediate context makes it highly improbable since (as in all other uses of the term) the true God (or the true one) was just identified as the Father ("We are in the one who is true as we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and this is eternal life." - NJB; and "We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God - in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life." - TEV. "And we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us understanding so that we can know the true God. And now we live in fellowship with the true God because we live in fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the only true God, and he is eternal life." - New Living Translation).
So the immediate context alone makes it probable that the true God is the Father in this scripture also. As we have seen, if we include the context of all the uses of the 'true God,' it is certain that He is the Father alone (whose personal name is Jehovah - Ps. 83:18, Ex. 3:15).
To clinch John's intended meaning at 1 John 5:20, let's look at his only other use of the term: John 17:1, 3, where, again (as in 1 Jn 5:20), he mentions Father, Son, and eternal life.
(5) ---At John 17:1, 3 Jesus prays to the Father:
"Father, .... this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." - New International Version (NIV).
Here the Father alone is not only very clearly identified as the only true [alethinos] God, but Jesus Christ is again pointedly and specifically excluded from that identification ("AND Jesus Christ whom you [the only true God] have sent")!
Notice how this popular trinitarian Bible has rendered John 17:1, 3 - "Father,....This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." - New English Bible (NEB).
So, the title "the true God" does not have to mean that there are no others who may be called "gods" or "a god" in a subordinate but righteous sense. It is, however, an exclusive title for God, the Most High, only true God, Jehovah. And clearly it refers exclusively to the Father! No one else is the God or the True God! (Compare Ps. 86:10; 2 Kings 19:19; Is. 37:16.)
Therefore, the argument by certain trinitarian "guides" that the term 'true God' must mean that all others called 'gods' in the Scriptures are false gods is clearly false itself. Those who use it have not examined it with anything that could be called proper scholarship. They are either terribly misinformed (the fault of their spiritual "guides") or, in the case of the trinitarian authors, lecturers, and ministers who are aware of methods of proper research, Bible language grammar, etc., terribly dishonest ("deliberately-blind guides")! How does this fit with the command that we must worship God in truth (aletheia)- Jn 4:24? Or the warning that when the knowingly blind (false religious leaders) lead the blind (the ones following those leaders with blind faith) both will fall into the pit? Shouldn't we ALL carefully and diligently examine all sides of any essential, life-saving Bible teaching?
The Watchtower Society's Commentary on Paul's epistle to the Romans.
A reproduction of the Watchtower Society's article
ROMANS, LETTER TO THE
ROMANS, LETTER TO THE
A book of the Christian Greek Scriptures written by the apostle Paul to Christians in Rome. Paul’s writership has never been seriously challenged, and the book’s authenticity as a part of the sacred canon has been almost universally acknowledged by Bible scholars, with the exception of some who could not fit it in with their own doctrinal beliefs. Actually, the letter is in full harmony with the rest of the inspired Scriptures. In fact, Paul quotes copiously from the Hebrew Scriptures and makes numerous other references to them, so that the letter can be said to be most solidly based on the Hebrew Scriptures and the teachings of Christ.
Time and Place of Writing. The letter was written about 56 C.E., from Corinth. Tertius was evidently Paul’s secretary, writing at Paul’s dictation. (Ro 16:22) Phoebe, who lived at Cenchreae, the seaport town of Corinth about 11 km (7 mi) away, was possibly the carrier of the letter. (Ro 16:1) Paul had not yet been to Rome, as is evident from his remarks in chapter 1, verses 9 to 15. The evidence also points to the fact that Peter had never been there.—See PETER, LETTERS OF.
Establishment of the Congregation at Rome. The congregation may have been established by some of the Jews and proselytes from Rome who had visited Jerusalem on Pentecost 33 C.E., had witnessed the miraculous outpouring of holy spirit, and had heard the speech of Peter and the other Christians gathered there. (Ac 2) Or others who converted to Christianity later on may have taken the good news about the Christ to Rome, for, since this great city was the center of the Roman Empire, many moved there in time, and many were the travelers and businessmen visiting there. Paul sends respectful greetings to Andronicus and Junias, his ‘relatives and fellow captives,’ who were “men of note among the apostles,” and who had been in the service of Christ longer than Paul had. These men may well have had a share in establishing the Christian congregation in Rome. (Ro 16:7) At the time Paul wrote, the congregation had evidently been in existence for some time and was vigorous enough that its faith was being talked about throughout the whole world.—Ro 1:8.
Purpose of the Letter. It becomes clear in reading the letter that it was written to a Christian congregation composed of both Jews and Gentiles. There were many Jews in Rome at the time; they returned after the death of Emperor Claudius, who had banished them sometime earlier. Although Paul had not been in Rome to experience personally the problems the congregation faced, he may have been informed of the congregation’s condition and affairs by his good friends and fellow workers Priscilla and Aquila, and possibly by others Paul had met. His greetings in chapter 16 indicate that he knew a good many of the members of the congregation personally.
In Paul’s letters he attacked specific problems and dealt with matters he considered most vital to those to whom he wrote. As to Jewish opposition, Paul had already written to the Galatian congregations in refutation, but that letter dealt more specifically with efforts made by Jews who professed Christianity but were “Judaizers,” insisting that Gentile converts be circumcised and otherwise be required to observe certain regulations of the Mosaic Law. In the Roman congregation there did not seem to be such a concerted effort in this direction, but there were apparently jealousies and feelings of superiority on the part of both Jews and Gentiles.
The letter, therefore, was not merely a general letter written to the Roman congregation with no specific aim toward them, as some suppose, but it evidently dealt with the things they needed under the circumstances. The Roman congregation would be able to grasp the full meaning and force of the apostle’s counsel, for they were doubtless wrestling with the very questions he answered. It is obvious that his purpose was to settle the differences in viewpoint between Jewish and Gentile Christians and to bring them toward complete unity as one man in Christ Jesus. However, in writing as he did, Paul illuminates and enriches our minds in the knowledge of God, and he exalts the righteousness and undeserved kindness of God and the position of Christ toward the Christian congregation and all mankind.
Earnestness and Warmth of Feeling. Commenting on the authenticity of the letter to the Romans, Dr. William Paley, English Bible scholar, said: “In a real St. Paul writing to real converts, it is what anxiety to bring them over to his persuasion would naturally produce; but there is an earnestness and a personality, if I may so call it, in the manner, which a cold forgery, I apprehend, would neither have conceived nor supported.”—Horae Paulinae, 1790, p. 50.
Paul very straightforwardly and directly outlined the position of the Jews and showed that Jews and Gentiles are on the same level before God. This required him to say some things that might have been considered an occasion for offense by Jews. But Paul’s love for his countrymen and his warmth of feeling for them was shown in the delicateness with which he handled these matters. When he said things that might sound derogatory of the Law, or of the Jews, he tactfully followed up with a softening statement.
For example, when he said: “He is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision that which is on the outside upon the flesh,” he added: “What, then, is the superiority of the Jew, or what is the benefit of the circumcision? A great deal in every way. First of all, because they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.” (Ro 2:28; 3:1, 2) After saying: “A man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law,” he quickly continued: “Do we, then, abolish law by means of our faith? Never may that happen! On the contrary, we establish law.” (3:28, 31) Following his statement: “But now we have been discharged from the Law,” he asked: “Is the Law sin? Never may that become so! Really I would not have come to know sin if it had not been for the Law.” (7:6, 7) And in chapter 9, verses 1 to 3, he made the strongest possible expression of affection for his fleshly brothers the Jews: “I am telling the truth in Christ; I am not lying, since my conscience bears witness with me in holy spirit, that I have great grief and unceasing pain in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were separated as the cursed one from the Christ in behalf of my brothers, my relatives according to the flesh.”—Compare also Ro 9:30-32 with 10:1, 2; and 10:20, 21 with 11:1-4.
By a study of the book we find, therefore, that it is not a desultory, or aimless, discussion but that it is a discourse with a purpose and a theme, and that no one part can be fully understood without a study of the entire book and a knowledge of its purpose. Paul stresses the undeserved kindness of God through Christ, and he emphasizes that it is only by this undeserved kindness on God’s part, coupled with faith on the part of the believer, that men are declared righteous; he notes that neither Jew nor Gentile has any basis for boasting or for lifting himself above the other. He strictly warns the Gentile Christians that they should not become lofty-minded because they profited from the Jews’ failure to accept Christ, since the Jews’ fall allowed Gentiles to have the opportunity of membership in Christ’s “body.” He says: “See, therefore, God’s kindness and severity. Toward those who fell there is severity, but toward you there is God’s kindness, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise, you also will be lopped off.”—Ro 11:22.
[Box on page 820]
HIGHLIGHTS OF ROMANS
A letter explaining that righteousness comes, not as a result of ancestry or through works of the Mosaic Law, but through faith in Jesus Christ and as a result of God’s undeserved kindness
Written about 56 C.E., some 20 years after the first Gentiles became Christians
Righteousness is through faith in Christ and as a result of God’s undeserved kindness (1:1–11:36)
Faith is essential for salvation; the scripture says, “The righteous one—by means of faith he will live”
The Jews, although highly favored by God, have not been able to attain to righteousness by means of the Law
Jews as well as non-Jews are under sin; “there is not a righteous man, not even one”
By God’s undeserved kindness both Jews and non-Jews can be declared righteous as a free gift through faith, just as Abraham was counted righteous as a result of faith—even before he was circumcised
Men inherit sin and death from one man, Adam; through one man, Jesus, many sinners are declared righteous
This does not give a license to sin; any remaining slaves to sin are not slaves of righteousness
Those formerly under the Law are “made dead to the Law” through Christ’s body; they must walk in harmony with the spirit, putting sinful practices of the body to death
The Law served the purpose of making sins manifest; only through Christ, though, is there salvation from sin
God calls those who come to be in union with Christ and declares them righteous; His spirit bears witness that they are His sons
Fleshly Israel received the promises but most of them try to attain righteousness by the Law, hence, only a remnant of them are saved; a public declaration of faith in Christ is necessary for salvation
The illustration of the olive tree shows how, because of the lack of faith of fleshly Israel, non-Israelites were grafted in so that the true Israel might be saved
Attitude regarding superior authorities, self, other persons (12:1–15:13)
Present your body as an acceptable sacrifice to God, make your mind over, use your gifts in God’s service, be loving and aglow with the spirit, endure, and keep conquering the evil with the good
Be in subjection to the superior authorities
Love one another; walk decently, not planning ahead for fleshly desires
Do not judge others in matters of conscience, nor abuse your Christian freedom and so stumble those with weak consciences
Be guided by Christ’s example in not pleasing self; be willing to bear others’ weaknesses, doing what is good for their upbuilding
Paul’s loving interest in the congregation at Rome (15:14–16:27)
Paul’s reason for writing is to fulfill his commission as an apostle to the Gentiles and in order that these Gentiles might be an acceptable offering to God
No longer having territory where the good news had not already been proclaimed, Paul wants to fulfill his longing to visit Rome and from there to go to Spain, after first traveling to Jerusalem with a contribution from the brothers in Macedonia and Achaia for the holy ones
Paul greets numerous believers by name, encouraging the brothers to avoid those causing divisions and also to be wise regarding what is good
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)