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
Wednesday 11 December 2013
On Healing.
The restoring of health to the sick; the making sound, or whole, that which is broken or injured; the curing of various diseases and defects; the returning of a person to the general state of well-being. The Hebrew verb ra·phaʼ′ and the Greek verb i·a′o·mai are the principal words in the Bible that describe such healing in both a literal and a figurative sense. The Greek verb the·ra·peu′o is rendered ‘cure.’ (Mt 4:23, 24) Sometimes the healing was a gradual matter; at other times it was instantaneous.
Among the blessings Jehovah bestowed on all mankind is the regenerative power of their physical organisms, the ability of the body to heal itself when wounded or diseased. A physician may recommend certain measures to speed recovery, but in reality it is the God-given recuperative powers within the body that accomplish the healing. Hence, the psalmist David acknowledged that though he was born imperfect, his Creator was able to sustain him during illness and heal all his maladies. (Ps 51:5; 41:1-3; 103:2-4) Jehovah restored the bodily health of afflicted Job (Job 42:10) and God also provided physical healing for his people Israel.—Ex 15:26.
Of Jehovah it is written that he both wounds and heals, and he does this literally and figuratively. Hence, with him there is a time to wound and a time to heal. (De 32:39; compare Ec 3:1, 3.) Unfaithful Jehoram, king of Judah, for example, was punished by Jehovah with a physical disorder of the intestines for which there was no healing. (2Ch 21:16, 18, 19) Moses recognized that it was Jehovah who had stricken Miriam with leprosy; hence, he pleaded with the only One who could cure her, saying: “O God, please! Heal her, please!” (Nu 12:10, 13) In the matter of childbearing, Jehovah healed King Abimelech, his wife, and his slave girls after the crisis had passed involving Sarah and the seed of promise.—Ge 20:17, 18.
In the Bible, spiritual rather than physical breakdown, and spiritual healing in turn, are subjects of particular significance. Attention is called to the responsibility of natural Israel’s leaders in these matters. “From the prophet even to the priest, each one [was] acting falsely” in Jeremiah’s day, they at the same time making a pretense of healing the breakdown of God’s people, claiming that all was well. (Jer 6:13, 14; 8:11) In this they were very much like Job’s comforters, “physicians of no value.”—Job 13:4.
In a few instances inanimate objects were healed, in the sense of being made whole again, like the torn-down altar Elijah mended. (1Ki 18:30) Also, the prophet Elisha healed the waters near Jericho so that they no longer caused miscarriages. (2Ki 2:19-22) Jeremiah, however, shattered the potter’s flask so completely that it was beyond repair, that is, beyond healing, and thus furnished a fine illustration. “In the same way,” Jehovah declared, “I shall break this people and this city as someone breaks the vessel of the potter so that it is no more able to be repaired [a form of ra·phaʼ′; literally, healed].”—Jer 19:11; compare 2Ch 36:15-17.
Jesus and His Fellow Healers. Jesus Christ recognized that “teaching . . . and preaching the good news of the kingdom” was of first importance in his ministry and that “curing every sort of disease and every sort of infirmity among the people” was secondary. That is why he felt pity for the crowds primarily “because they were skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd.”—Mt 4:23; 9:35, 36; Lu 9:11.
This Great Teacher also showed compassion on the multitudes that followed him because they hoped that he would heal their physical ailments. (Mt 12:15; 14:14; 19:2; Lu 5:15) His miraculous healing work served as a visible sign to his generation and gave added evidence of his Messiahship, as prophesied. (Mt 8:16, 17) It also foreshadowed the healing blessings that will be extended to mankind under God’s Kingdom rule. (Re 21:3, 4) In a very real sense Jesus healed and restored the health of many persons—the lame, the maimed, the blind, the dumb (Mt 15:30, 31), the epileptic, the paralytic (Mt 4:24), a woman suffering from a hemorrhage (Mr 5:25-29), one with a withered hand (Mr 3:3-5), a man with dropsy (Lu 14:2-4), and on many occasions those who were demon possessed were released from their Satanic enslavement and bondage.—Mt 12:22; 15:22-28; 17:15, 18; Mr 1:34; Lu 6:18; 8:26-36; 9:38-42; Ac 10:37, 38.
Jesus’ manner of curing people took various forms at different times. “Get up, pick up your cot and walk,” is all that Jesus said on one occasion, and a sick man near the pool of Bethzatha was cured. (Joh 5:2-9) In another instance, Jesus just spoke the word and the ailing one, though a distance away, was healed. (Mt 8:5-13) At other times he personally laid his hand on the sick one (Mt 8:14, 15) or touched a wound and healed it. (Lu 22:50, 51) Several diseased persons simply touched Jesus or even the fringe of his garment and were healed. (Mt 14:36; Mr 6:56; Lu 6:19; 8:43-47) And it made no difference that the persons had been afflicted with the disease for many years.—Mt 9:20-22; Lu 13:11-13; Joh 5:5-9.
Some persons opposed Jesus, not appreciating the wonderful healing work he was doing. The religious leaders were greatly angered when Jesus healed persons on the Sabbath. (Mt 12:9-14; Lu 14:1-6; Joh 5:10-16) On one such occasion Jesus silenced opponents by saying: “Hypocrites, does not each one of you on the sabbath untie his bull or his ass from the stall and lead it away to give it drink? Was it not due, then, for this woman who is a daughter of Abraham, and whom Satan held bound, look! eighteen years, to be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?”—Lu 13:10-17.
It was not the application of Jesus’ own power, knowledge, or wisdom that healed the sick. Neither was hypnotherapy, psychotherapy, or any similar method used. Rather, it was the spirit and power of Jehovah that effected such healing. (Lu 5:17; 9:43) Not all, however, were grateful enough to give God the glory for these cures. (Lu 17:12-18) Today, not everyone recognizes the everlasting healing benefits made available through the ransom sacrifice of Christ.—1Pe 2:24.
Jesus delegated this divine power of healing to others who were closely associated with him in his ministry. When the 12 apostles were sent out, and later the 70 disciples, they were empowered to cure the sick. (Mt 10:5, 8; Lu 10:1, 8, 9) After Pentecost of 33 C.E., certain ones, including Peter, John, Philip, and Paul, were given this divine power to heal completely. (Ac 3:1-16; 4:14; 5:15, 16; 8:6, 7; 9:32-34; 28:8, 9) After Christianity became firmly rooted, and with the passing of the apostles off the scene, such “gifts of healings” also passed away.—1Co 12:8, 9, 28, 30; 13:8, 13.
It was important that the one performing the cure have full faith and confidence in Jehovah and acknowledge, as Jesus did, that the curing was accomplished by God’s power. (Mt 17:14-20; Joh 5:19) It was not necessary, however, for the afflicted ones to have faith before being cured. (Joh 5:5-9, 13) Many, though, did have strong faith.—Mt 8:5-13; 15:28; Mr 5:34; Lu 7:1-10; 17:19; Ac 14:8-10; see FAITH.
Miraculous healing was to be a “sign” of divine backing. (Ac 4:22, 29, 30) Those who refused to recognize and acknowledge this sign were spiritually blind and deaf. (Isa 6:10; Joh 12:37-41) For the reason, then, that divine healings were to serve as a sign to unbelievers, they were not ordinarily performed in behalf of those who were already spirit-begotten Christians. So when Timothy had stomach trouble, instead of performing a miraculous cure, Paul recommended that he take a little wine for his ailment.—1Ti 5:23.
Spiritual Healing. On the other hand, true spiritual healing comes from Jehovah to repentant ones. It means a return to his favor and the enjoyment of his blessings once again. (Isa 19:22; 57:17-19; Jer 33:6) Such healing has the effect of strengthening the weak hands and wobbly knees, opening blind eyes, restoring hearing to the deaf, healing the lame, and giving speech to the dumb, in a spiritual way. (Isa 35:3-6) But those incorrigible in their apostasy never experience a healing, or restoration to good health and prosperity spiritually. (2Ch 36:15-17; Isa 6:10; Jer 30:12, 13; Ac 28:24-28) Similarly, there was to be no healing for Egypt, her Pharaoh, and for the “king of Assyria.”—Jer 46:11; Eze 30:21; Na 3:18, 19.
The Scriptures prescribe the remedy for persons who are spiritually sick.—Heb 12:12, 13; Jas 5:14-16; Re 3:18.
On speaking in tongues.
Definition: A special ability given through the holy spirit to some disciples in the early Christian congregation that enabled them to preach or otherwise glorify God in a language other than their own.
Does the Bible say that all who would have God’s spirit would “speak in tongues”?
1 Cor. 12:13, 30: “Truly by one spirit we were all baptized into one body . . . Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they?” (Also 1 Corinthians 14:26)
1 Cor. 14:5: “Now I would like for all of you to speak in tongues, but I prefer that you prophesy. Indeed, he that prophesies is greater than he that speaks in tongues, unless, in fact, he translates, that the congregation may receive upbuilding.”
Does ecstatic speech in a language that a person never learned prove that he has holy spirit?
Can the ability to “speak in tongues” come from a source other than the true God?
1 John 4:1: “Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression [“every spirit,” KJ, RS], but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God.” (See also Matthew 7:21-23; 2 Corinthians 11:14, 15.)
Among those ‘speaking in tongues’ today are Pentecostals and Baptists, also Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. Jesus said that the holy spirit would ‘guide his disciples into all the truth.’ (John 16:13) Do the members of each of these religions believe that the others who also “speak in tongues” have been guided into “all the truth”? How could that be, since they are not all in agreement? What spirit is making it possible for them to “speak in tongues”?
A joint statement by the Fountain Trust and the Church of England Evangelical Council admitted: “We are also aware that a similar phenomenon can occur under occult/demonic influence.” (Gospel and Spirit, April 1977, published by the Fountain Trust and the Church of England Evangelical Council, p. 12) The book Religious Movements in Contemporary America (edited by Irving I. Zaretsky and Mark P. Leone, quoting L. P. Gerlach) reports that in Haiti ‘speaking in tongues’ is characteristic of both Pentecostal and Voodoo religions.—(Princeton, N.J.; 1974), p. 693; see also 2 Thessalonians 2:9, 10.
Is the ‘speaking in tongues’ that is done today the same as that done by first-century Christians?
In the first century, the miraculous gifts of the spirit, including the ability to “speak in tongues,” verified that God’s favor had shifted from the Jewish system of worship to the newly established Christian congregation. (Heb. 2:2-4) Since that objective was accomplished in the first century, is it necessary to prove the same thing again and again in our day?
In the first century, the ability to “speak in tongues” gave impetus to the international work of witnessing that Jesus had commissioned his followers to do. (Acts 1:8; 2:1-11; Matt. 28:19) Is that how those who “speak in tongues” use that ability today?
In the first century, the Bible shows, congregations were to limit the ‘speaking in tongues’ to two or three persons who might do that at any given meeting; they were to do it “each in turn,” and if there was no interpreter present they were to keep silent. (1 Cor. 14:27, 28, RS) Is that what is being done today?
Might the holy spirit be directing charismatics into practices that reach beyond what is found in the Scriptures?
2 Tim. 3:16, 17: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (If someone claims to have an inspired message that conflicts with revelations made by God’s spirit through Jesus and his apostles, could it possibly be from the same source?)
Gal. 1:8: “Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond [“at variance with,” NE] what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed.”
Does the way of life of members of organizations that look with favor on ‘speaking in tongues’ give evidence that they have God’s spirit?
As a group do they outstandingly manifest such fruits of the spirit as mildness and self-control? Are these qualities readily evident to persons who attend their meetings for worship?—Gal. 5:22, 23.
Are they truly “no part of the world”? Because of this do they give full devotion to the Kingdom of God or are they involved in the world’s political affairs? Have they remained clean of bloodguilt during wartime? As a group do they have a fine reputation because of avoiding the world’s immoral conduct?—John 17:16; Isa. 2:4; 1 Thess. 4:3-8.
Are true Christians today identified by the ability to “speak in tongues”?
John 13:35: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”
1 Cor. 13:1, 8: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a sounding piece of brass or a clashing cymbal. Love never fails. But whether there are gifts of prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there are tongues, they will cease.”
Jesus said that holy spirit would come upon his followers and that they would be witnesses of him to the most distant part of the earth. (Acts 1:8) He instructed them to “make disciples of people of all the nations.” (Matt. 28:19) He also foretold that ‘this good news of the kingdom would be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all nations.’ (Matt. 24:14) Who today, both as a group and individually, are doing this work? In harmony with what Jesus said, should we not look for this as an evidence that a group has holy spirit?
Is ‘speaking in tongues’ to continue until that which is “perfect” comes?
At 1 Corinthians 13:8 reference is made to several miraculous gifts—prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. 1Co 13 Verse 9 again refers to two of these gifts—knowledge and prophecy—saying: “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.” (KJ) Or, as RS reads: “For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect.” Then 1Co 13 verse 10 states: “But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” (KJ) The word “perfect” is translated from the Greek te′lei·on, which conveys the thought of being full grown, complete, or perfect. Ro, By, and NW here render it “complete.” Notice that it is not the gift of tongues that is said to be “imperfect,” “in part,” or partial. That is said of “prophecy” and “knowledge.” In other words, even with those miraculous gifts, the early Christians had only an imperfect or partial understanding of God’s purpose. But when the prophecies would come to fulfillment, when God’s purpose would be accomplished, then “that which is perfect,” or complete, would come. So, this is obviously not discussing how long the ‘gift of tongues’ would continue.
However, the Bible does indicate how long the ‘gift of tongues’ would be a part of Christian experience. According to the record, this gift and the other gifts of the spirit were always conveyed to persons by the laying on of hands of the apostles of Jesus Christ or in their presence. (Acts 2:4, 14, 17; 10:44-46; 19:6; see also Acts 8:14-18.) Thus, after their death and when the individuals who in that way had received the gifts died, the miraculous gifts resulting from the operation of God’s spirit must have come to their end. Such a view agrees with the purpose of those gifts as stated at Hebrews 2:2-4.
Does not Mark 16:17, 18 (KJ) show that the ability to “speak with new tongues” would be a sign identifying believers?
It should be noted that these verses refer not only to ‘speaking with new tongues’ but also to handling serpents and drinking deadly poison. Are all who “speak in tongues” also encouraging these practices?
For comments on the reasons why these verses are not accepted by all Bible scholars, see pages 158, 159, under the heading “Healing.”
The Watchtower Society's commentary on the book of acts.
This is the title by which one of the Bible books has been called since the second century C.E. It covers primarily the activity of Peter and Paul, rather than that of all the apostles in general; and it provides us with a most reliable and comprehensive history of the spectacular beginning and rapid development of the Christian organization, first among the Jews and then among the Samaritans and the Gentile nations.
The overriding theme of the entire Bible, Jehovah’s Kingdom, dominates the book (Ac 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:31), and we are constantly reminded of how the apostles bore “thorough witness” concerning Christ and that Kingdom and fully accomplished their ministry. (2:40; 5:42; 8:25; 10:42; 20:21, 24; 23:11; 26:22; 28:23) The book also provides a superb historical background against which to view the inspired letters of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
The Writer. The opening words of Acts refer to the Gospel of Luke as “the first account.” And since both accounts are addressed to the same individual, Theophilus, we know that Luke, though not signing his name, was the writer of Acts. (Lu 1:3; Ac 1:1) Both accounts have a similar style and wording. The Muratorian Fragment of the late second century C.E. also attributes the writership to Luke. Ecclesiastical writings of the second century C.E. by Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian of Carthage, when quoting from Acts, cite Luke as the writer.
When and Where Written. The book covers a period of approximately 28 years, from Jesus’ ascension in 33 C.E. to the end of the second year of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome about 61 C.E. During this period four Roman emperors ruled in succession: Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. Since it relates events through the second year of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, it could not have been completed earlier. Had the account been written later, it is reasonable to expect that Luke would have provided more information about Paul; if written after the year 64 C.E., mention surely would have been made of Nero’s violent persecution that began then; and if written after 70 C.E., as some contend, we would expect to find Jerusalem’s destruction recorded.
The writer Luke accompanied Paul much of the time during his travels, including the perilous voyage to Rome, which is apparent from his use of the first-person plural pronouns “we,” “our,” and “us” in Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-37; 28:1-16. Paul, in his letters written from Rome, mentions that Luke was also there. (Col 4:14; Phm 24) It was, therefore, in Rome that the writing of the book of Acts was completed.
As already observed, Luke himself was an eyewitness to much of what he wrote, and in his travels he contacted fellow Christians who either participated in or observed certain events described. For example, John Mark could tell him of Peter’s miraculous prison release (Ac 12:12), while the events described in chapters 6 and 8 could have been learned from the missionary Philip. And Paul, of course, as an eyewitness, was able to supply many details of events that happened when Luke was not with him.
Authenticity. The accuracy of the book of Acts has been verified over the years by a number of archaeological discoveries. For example, Acts 13:7 says that Sergius Paulus was the proconsul of Cyprus. Now it is known that shortly before Paul visited Cyprus it was ruled by a propraetor, or legate, but an inscription found in Cyprus proves that the island did come under the direct rule of the Roman Senate in the person of a provincial governor called a proconsul. Similarly in Greece, during the rule of Augustus Caesar, Achaia was a province under the direct rule of the Roman Senate, but when Tiberius was emperor it was ruled directly by him. Later, under Emperor Claudius, it again became a senatorial province, according to Tacitus. A fragment of a rescript from Claudius to the Delphians of Greece has been discovered, which refers to Gallio’s proconsulship. Therefore, Acts 18:12 is correct in speaking of Gallio as the “proconsul” when Paul was there in Corinth, the capital of Achaia. (See GALLIO.) Also, an inscription on an archway in Thessalonica (fragments of which are preserved in the British Museum) shows that Acts 17:8 is correct in speaking of “the city rulers” (“politarchs,” governors of the citizens), even though this title is not found in classical literature.
To this day in Athens the Areopagus, or Mars’ Hill, where Paul preached, stands as a silent witness to the truthfulness of Acts. (Ac 17:19) Medical terms and expressions found in Acts are in agreement with the Greek medical writers of that time. Modes of travel used in the Middle East in the first century were essentially as described in Acts: overland, by walking, horseback, or horse-drawn chariots (23:24, 31, 32; 8:27-38); overseas, by cargo ships. (21:1-3; 27:1-5) Those ancient vessels did not have a single rudder but were controlled by two large oars, hence accurately spoken of in the plural number. (27:40) The description of Paul’s voyage by ship to Rome (27:1-44) as to the time taken, the distance traveled, and the places visited is acknowledged by modern seamen familiar with the region as completely reliable and trustworthy.
Acts of Apostles was accepted without question as inspired Scripture and canonical by Scripture catalogers from the second through the fourth centuries C.E. Portions of the book, along with fragments of the four Gospels, are found in the Chester Beatty No. 1 papyrus manuscript (P45) of the third century C.E. The Michigan No. 1571 manuscript (P38) of the third or fourth century contains portions of chapters 18 and 19, and a fourth-century manuscript, Aegyptus No. 8683 (P8), contains parts of chapters 4 through 6. The book of Acts was quoted from by Polycarp of Smyrna about 115 C.E., by Ignatius of Antioch about 110 C.E., and by Clement of Rome perhaps as early as 95 C.E. Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine of the fourth century all confirm the earlier listings that included Acts.
[Box on page 43]
HIGHLIGHTS OF ACTS
The beginning of the Christian congregation and a record of its zealous public witnessing in the face of fierce opposition
Time covered: 33 to c. 61 C.E.
Before ascending to heaven, Jesus commissions followers to be witnesses of him as Jehovah’s Messiah (1:1-26)
After receiving holy spirit, disciples boldly witness in many languages (2:1–5:42)
Jews in Jerusalem from many lands are given witness in their own languages; about 3,000 baptized
Peter and John are arrested and taken before Sanhedrin; fearlessly declare they will not stop witnessing
Filled with holy spirit, all the disciples speak the word of God boldly; multitudes become believers
Apostles are arrested; an angel releases them; brought before the Sanhedrin, they declare: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men”
Persecution results in expansion of the witness (6:1–9:43)
Stephen is seized, gives fearless witness, dies a martyr
Persecution scatters all but apostles; witness given in Samaria; Ethiopian eunuch baptized
Jesus appears to the persecutor Saul; Saul is converted, baptized, begins zealous ministry
Under divine direction the witness reaches uncircumcised Gentiles (10:1–12:25)
Peter preaches to Cornelius, his family, and his friends; these believe, receive holy spirit, and are baptized
Apostle’s report of this prompts further expansion among nations
Paul’s evangelizing tours (13:1–21:26)
First tour: To Cyprus, Asia Minor. Paul and Barnabas boldly witness publicly and in synagogues; thrown out of Antioch; mobbed in Iconium; first treated like gods in Lystra, then Paul is stoned
Circumcision issue decided by governing body at Jerusalem; Paul and Barnabas assigned to inform brothers that circumcision is not required but that believers must abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, and from fornication
Second tour: Back through Asia Minor, into Macedonia and Greece. Imprisoned in Philippi, but jailer and his family get baptized; Jews stir up trouble in Thessalonica and Beroea; in Athens, Paul preaches in synagogue, in the marketplace, then on the Areopagus; 18-month ministry in Corinth
Third tour: Asia Minor, Greece. Fruitful Ephesian ministry, then uproar by silversmiths; apostle admonishes elders
Paul is arrested, witnesses to officials, is taken to Rome (21:27–28:31)
After mobbing in Jerusalem, Paul before Sanhedrin
As prisoner, Paul gives fearless witness before Felix, Festus, and King Herod Agrippa II, also on boat en route to Rome
A prisoner in Rome, Paul continues to find ways to preach about Christ and the Kingdom
On apostleship.
The Greek word a·po′sto·los is derived from the common verb a·po·stel′lo, meaning simply “send forth (or off).” (Mt 10:5; Mr 11:3) Its basic sense is clearly illustrated in Jesus’ statement: “A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth [a·po′sto·los] greater than the one that sent him.” (Joh 13:16) In this sense the word also applies to Christ Jesus as “the apostle and high priest whom we confess.” (Heb 3:1; compare Mt 10:40; 15:24; Lu 4:18, 43; 9:48; 10:16; Joh 3:17; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21-25; 20:21.) Jesus was sent forth by God as his appointed and commissioned representative.
The term is principally applied, however, to those disciples whom Jesus personally selected as a body of 12 appointed representatives. The names of the original 12 selected are given at Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19, and Luke 6:13-16. One of the original 12, Judas Iscariot, proved to be a traitor, thereby fulfilling earlier prophecies. (Ps 41:9; 109:8) The remaining 11 faithful apostles are again listed at Acts 1:13.
Some of the apostles had been disciples of John the Baptizer before becoming Jesus’ disciples. (Joh 1:35-42) Eleven of them were evidently Galileans (Ac 2:7), Judas Iscariot being considered the sole Judean. They were from the working class; four were definitely fishermen by trade; one had been a tax collector. (Mt 4:18-21; 9:9-13) At least two of them appear to have been cousins of Jesus (James and John, the sons of Zebedee). They were men who were viewed by the religious leaders as “unlettered and ordinary,” indicating that their education was elementary and not from the schools of higher learning. A number of them, including Peter (Cephas), were married men.—Ac 4:13; 1Co 9:5.
Of the 12, Peter, James, and John seem to have enjoyed the closest relationship with Jesus. They alone witnessed the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter (Mr 5:35-43) and the transfiguration of Jesus (Mt 17:1, 2), and they accompanied him farther into the garden of Gethsemane than the other apostles on the night of his arrest. (Mr 14:32, 33) A special affinity appears to have existed between Jesus and John, and John is accepted as being the one referred to as “the disciple whom Jesus used to love.”—Joh 21:20-24; 13:23.
Selection and Early Ministry. The 12 were selected out of a larger group of disciples and were designated “apostles” by Jesus, “that they might continue with him and that he might send them out [a·po·stel′lei] to preach and to have authority to expel the demons.” (Mr 3:13-15) Thereafter they did “continue with him” in very close association during the remainder of his earthly ministry, receiving extensive personal instruction and ministerial training. (Mt 10:1-42; Lu 8:1) Since they continued to be Jesus’ pupils, they were still called “disciples,” particularly in accounts of events prior to Pentecost. (Mt 11:1; 14:26; 20:17; Joh 20:2) Thereafter they are consistently called “apostles.” At the time of their appointment, Jesus gave them miraculous powers to heal, as well as to expel demons, and they used these powers to some extent during Jesus’ ministry. (Mr 3:14, 15; 6:13; Mt 10:1-8; Lu 9:6; compare Mt 17:16.) This activity, however, is shown to be always subordinate to their principal work of preaching. Though forming an inner circle of followers, their instruction and training included no mysterious rituals or ceremonies.
Human Weaknesses. Though greatly favored as apostles of God’s Son, they manifested normal human failings and weaknesses. Peter was inclined to be rash and impetuous (Mt 16:22, 23; Joh 21:7, 8); Thomas was slow to be convinced (Joh 20:24, 25); James and John manifested youthful impatience (Lu 9:49, 54). They quarreled over the issue of their future greatness in the earthly kingdom that they expected Jesus to establish. (Mt 20:20-28; Mr 10:35-45; compare Ac 1:6; Lu 24:21.) They acknowledged their need for greater faith. (Lu 17:5; compare Mt 17:20.) Despite their years of intimate association with Jesus and though knowing him to be the Messiah, they all abandoned him at the time of his arrest (Mt 26:56); the matter of his burial was handled by others. The apostles were slow at first to accept the testimony of the women who first saw Jesus after his resurrection. (Lu 24:10, 11) Because of fear they met behind locked doors. (Joh 20:19, 26) The resurrected Jesus gave them further enlightenment, and following his ascension to heaven on the 40th day from his resurrection, they manifested great joy and “were continually in the temple blessing God.”—Lu 24:44-53.
Activity in Christian Congregation. The outpouring of God’s spirit upon them at Pentecost greatly strengthened the apostles. The first five chapters of the Acts of Apostles testify to the great fearlessness of the apostles and their boldness in declaring the good news and the resurrection of Jesus in spite of jailing, beatings, and threats of death from their rulers. During those early days after Pentecost, the dynamic leadership of the apostles, under the power of the holy spirit, resulted in amazing expansion in the Christian congregation. (Ac 2:41; 4:4) Their ministry was at first concentrated in Jerusalem, then extended to Samaria, and in time, throughout the known world.—Ac 5:42; 6:7; 8:5-17, 25; 1:8.
Their primary function as apostles was to be witnesses as to Jesus’ fulfillment of Jehovah God’s purposes and prophecies, particularly of his resurrection and exaltation, and to do a discipling work among all nations; and this commission was emphasized to them by Jesus just before his ascension to heaven. (Mt 28:19, 20; Ac 1:8, 22; 2:32-36; 3:15-26) Their testimony concerning the resurrection was that of eyewitnesses.—Ac 13:30-34.
Miraculous powers. Additionally, to fortify their testimony, the apostles continued to exercise the miraculous powers previously granted them by Jesus, and also other gifts of the spirit received from Pentecost forward. (Ac 5:12; 9:36-40; see GIFTS FROM GOD [Gifts of the Spirit].) While others, too, received such miraculous gifts of the spirit, the account shows that such was the case only when one or more of the apostles were present, or by the laying on of the hands of the apostles. Paul, though not one of the 12, also served in this way as an apostle personally appointed by Jesus Christ. (Ac 2:1, 4, 14; 8:14-18; 10:44; 19:6) Thus the power to transmit such gifts was unique with these apostles. Such miraculous gifts would therefore pass away with the passing away of these apostles and of those who had received these gifts through the apostles (1Co 13:2, 8-11), and thus we read that these powers were “missing in the 2nd-century church, the writers of those days speaking of them as a thing in the past—in the apostolic age, in fact.”—The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, 1980, Vol. 1, p. 79.
Administrative position. In the formation, organization, and subsequent direction of the Christian congregation, the apostles occupied a primary position. (1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11) Although they were joined by others of the “older men” in such supervision, they formed a principal part of the governing body of the expanding Christian congregation, and this body was recognized by the early Christians everywhere as the channel of communication used by God to render decisions and direct the affairs of the congregation throughout the earth. (Ac 2:42; 8:14-17; 11:22; 15:1, 2, 6-31; 16:4, 5) This was possible for these men only because of the fulfillment of the promises about guidance by God’s holy spirit. (Joh 15:26, 27) Such help enabled them to recall Jesus’ instructions and teachings, to clarify points of doctrine, and to be progressively guided “into all the truth” revealed through them at that apostolic period. (Joh 14:26; 16:13-15; compare Joh 2:22; 12:16.) They made appointments to positions of service within the congregation and also designated areas in which certain ones would engage in missionary activity.—Ac 6:2, 3; Ga 2:8, 9.
The apostles, therefore, served as a foundation, resting on Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone, for the building up of the “holy temple for Jehovah.” (Eph 2:20-22; 1Pe 2:4-6) There is no evidence of the primacy of any one apostle in the established Christian congregation. (See PETER.) Peter and John appear to have been especially prominent at Pentecost and immediately thereafter, with Peter acting as the principal spokesman. (Ac 2:14, 37, 38; 3:1, 4, 11; 4:1, 13, 19; 5:3, 8, 15, 29) However, in the decisions made at that time neither of these appears to have had a superiority over the others of the governing body, and when news arrived of the baptisms taking place in Samaria, the apostles in Jerusalem “dispatched [a·pe′stei·lan] Peter and John to them,” so that these two served, in effect, as apostles of the apostles. (Ac 6:2-6; 8:14, 15) Following the death of the apostle James, the disciple of the same name, James the half brother of Jesus, appears to have presided in the governing body. Paul speaks of this James and also Peter (Cephas) and John as “the ones who seemed to be pillars.” (Ac 12:1, 2, 16, 17; Ga 1:18, 19; 2:9, 11-14) It was James who announced the final decision on the important issue of circumcision as involving the Gentile believers, at which meeting Peter and Paul both presented testimony.—Ac 15:1, 2, 6-21.
Who replaced Judas Iscariot as a twelfth apostle?
Because of the defection of Judas Iscariot, who died unfaithful, there were only 11 apostles remaining, and during the 40 days from Jesus’ resurrection until his ascension to heaven he made no appointment of a replacement. Sometime during the ten days between Jesus’ ascension and the day of Pentecost it was viewed as necessary that another be selected to fill the vacancy left by Judas, not simply on the basis of his death but, rather, on the basis of his wicked defection, as the Scriptures quoted by Peter indicate. (Ac 1:15-22; Ps 69:25; 109:8; compare Re 3:11.) Thus, by contrast, when the faithful apostle James was put to death, there is no record of any concern to appoint anyone to succeed him in his position of apostle.—Ac 12:2.
It is evident from Peter’s statements that it was then considered that any individual filling the position of an apostle of Jesus Christ must have the qualifications of having been personally conversant with him, having been an eyewitness of his works, his miracles, and particularly his resurrection. In view of this it can be seen that any apostolic succession would in course of time become an impossibility, unless there were divine action to supply these requirements in each individual case. At that particular time before Pentecost, however, there were men meeting these requirements, and two were put forth as suitable for replacing unfaithful Judas. Doubtless having in mind Proverbs 16:33, lots were cast, and Matthias was selected and was thereafter “reckoned along with the eleven apostles.” (Ac 1:23-26) He is thus included among “the twelve” who settled the problem concerning the Greek-speaking disciples (Ac 6:1, 2), and evidently Paul includes him in referring to “the twelve” when speaking of Jesus’ postresurrection appearances at 1 Corinthians 15:4-8. Thus, when Pentecost arrived, there were 12 apostolic foundations on which the spiritual Israel then formed could rest.
Congregational Apostleships. Matthias was not a mere apostle of the Jerusalem congregation, any more than the remaining 11 apostles were. His case is different from that of the Levite Joseph Barnabas who became an apostle of the congregation of Antioch, Syria. (Ac 13:1-4; 14:4, 14; 1Co 9:4-6) Other men also are referred to as “apostles of congregations” in the sense that they were sent forth by such congregations to represent them. (2Co 8:23) And, in writing to the Philippians, Paul speaks of Epaphroditus as “your envoy [a·po′sto·lon] and private servant for my need.” (Php 2:25) The apostleship of these men was clearly not by virtue of any apostolic succession, nor did they form part of “the twelve” as did Matthias.
The correct understanding of the wider application of the term “apostle” can help to clear away any apparent discrepancy between Acts 9:26, 27 and Galatians 1:17-19, when applied to the same occasion. The first account states that Paul, on arriving in Jerusalem, was led “to the apostles” by Barnabas. In the account in Galatians, however, Paul states that he visited with Peter and adds: “But I saw no one else of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” James (not the original apostle James the son of Zebedee nor James the son of Alphaeus, but the half brother of Jesus) was evidently viewed as an “apostle” in the wider sense, namely, as “one sent forth” by the Jerusalem congregation. This would allow for the Acts account to use the title in the plural in saying that Paul was led “to the apostles” (that is, Peter and James).—Compare 1Co 15:5-7; Ga 2:9.
The Selection of Paul. Probably about the year 34 C.E., Saul of Tarsus was converted and is later referred to as Paul. He did become a true apostle of Jesus Christ and was the direct choice of the resurrected and ascended Jesus Christ. (Ac 9:1-22; 22:6-21; 26:12-23; 13:9) He argued on behalf of his apostleship and presented as his qualification the fact that he had seen the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, that he had performed miracles, and that he had served as a channel for imparting the holy spirit to baptized believers. (1Co 9:1, 2; 15:9, 10; 2Co 12:12; 2Ti 1:1, 11; Ro 1:1; 11:13; Ac 19:5, 6) Since the apostle James (the brother of John) was not killed until about the year 44 C.E., “the twelve” were yet alive at the time of Paul’s becoming an apostle. He nowhere includes himself among such “twelve,” while at the same time he acknowledges no inferiority in his apostleship compared with that of such ones.—Ga 2:6-9.
Matthias’ and Paul’s apostleships were both valid for the purpose for which those men were “sent forth,” yet when the apostle John saw the vision of the heavenly New Jerusalem in the Revelation (given about 96 C.E.) he saw only 12 foundation stones and on them inscribed “the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Re 21:14) The testimony of the Holy Scriptures is clear that the apostle Paul was never referred to as one of “the twelve.” Therefore, it logically follows that one of “the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” inscribed on the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem is that of Matthias and not that of Paul. This means that the vision of the apostle John reflects the situation that existed at the start of the Christian congregation on the day of Pentecost in the year 33 C.E.—See PAUL.
End of the Apostolic Period. Though the Bible does not relate the death of the 12 apostles, aside from that of James, the evidence available indicates that they maintained their faithfulness until death and therefore needed no replacement. Concerning history in the following centuries, the observation is made that “whenever it [the term “apostle”] is applied to individuals in later Christian literature, the use of the term is metaphorical. The church has never had apostles in the N[ew] T[estament] sense since the first century.”—The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1962, Vol. 1, p. 172.
During their lifetime the apostles’ presence served as a restraint upon the influences of apostasy, holding back the forces of false worship within the Christian congregation. It is evidently to this “restraint” that the apostle Paul referred at 2 Thessalonians 2:7: “True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work; but only till he who is right now acting as a restraint gets to be out of the way.” (Compare Mt 13:24, 25; Ac 20:29, 30.) This apostolic influence, including the authority and powers unique with them, continued until the death of John about 100 C.E. (1Jo 2:26; 3Jo 9, 10) The rapid influx of apostasy and false doctrine and practices after the death of the apostles shows that any pretended apostolic successors had none of the restraining influence of the apostles.
The reference to Andronicus and Junias at Romans 16:7 as “men of note among the apostles” indicates, not that they were apostles, but, rather, that they were held in high repute by the apostles. That some made false pretenses of being “apostles of Christ” is shown at 2 Corinthians 11:5, 13; 12:11, 12; Revelation 2:2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)