What goes for Jesus: does it go for the Archangel Michael or not?

 

I have said in an earlier post why in some ways I have admiration for those who call themselves one of  Jehovah’s witnesses. So this time, rather than repeat myself, I'll get straight to the problem.

When I have listened to witnesses talk about their belief that Jesus is actually the Archangel Michael - that is what Jehovah's witnesses believe - I find it leaves problems unsolved.

The following problem is particularly key. Jesus is in a very exalted position in Christian scripture. If the Kingdom Halls' beliefs are correct, it should be possible to replace the word ‘Jesus’ with the word ‘Angel’ in scripture verses, without doing damage to the sense of it. You may never have thought of trying it. But it's a good way to test this. 

Let’s test it then as an exercise just for this one post only. I’ll try substituting the word ‘Angel’ for ‘Jesus’ or for ‘Christ’ in a series of New Testament verses about Jesus below. See how it sounds to you. Especially if you are a believer, how does this strike your spiritual sensibilities?

 

To start with, ‘the body of Christ’ in Ephesians 4:12 would be ‘the body of the Angel.’ You get the idea now. This would be what you get: "to knit God's holy people together for the work of service to build up the body of THE ANGEL". My question: how does this unusual statement strike you? And why believe you are the body of an angel?

 

And Ephesians 5:30-32? - "we are parts of the ANGEL's body... the two become one flesh. This mystery has great significance, but I am applying it to the ANGEL and the church". My question: why would you want to be one flesh with an angel?

 

Or Philippians 2? - “at the name of THE ANGEL every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that THE ANGEL is Lord”. My question to believers: do you bow to angels? (Have you read Revelation?)

 

Or Ephesians 5:19-20? - “sing and make melody in your heart to THE ANGEL”.  My question: why ever practice such devotions to an angel?

 

Or 1 Peter 3:15? - "sanctify THE ANGEL as Lord in your hearts". My question: why practice such devotions to an angel? Surely that is ill-judged religion.

 

How about Revelation 5:13? - "to the ANGEL be praise and honour and glory and power, for ever and ever!" My question: why ever practice such vocal devotion and adoration to an angel?

 

Or 2 Thessalonians 1:12 - ‘That the name of THE ANGEL may be glorified in you’. My question: Who should such honour really be given to?

 

Or how about God's purposes, revealed in John 5:23? - "that all may honour the ANGEL just as they honour the Father." My question: why give to an angel honour on a par to the God the Father? How is that ever true religion?

 

Or Galatians 3:29? - "simply by being the ANGEL's, you are the progeny of Abraham". My question: do you agree that this is out of place, bizarre, and inappropriate?

 

Or Matthew 28:19? - "baptise them in the name of the Father and of the ANGEL and of the Holy Spirit". My question: would you ever baptise people in the name of an angel?

 

Or Colossians 3:16? - "whatever you say or do, let it be in the name of THE ANGEL". My question: why ever put an angel at the centre of your religious practices?

 

Or 1 Peter 2:3 - 'ye have tasted, that the ANGEL is sweet'. My question: why would you ever taste an angel?

 

Or Philippians 3:8? - "For THE ANGEL's sake, I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain THE ANGEL". My question: why would anyone ever do that for an angel?

Or Romans 16:7? - "my kinsmen and fellow-prisoners, who were in THE ANGEL before me". That would be bizarre.

Or Colossians 1:15? - "THE ANGEL is the image of the unseen God". That would be incorrect theology by any stretch of the imagination.

Or Romans 14:18? - "It is the person who serves THE ANGEL in these things that will be approved by God". That would be deeply questionable.

How about, ‘there is one mediator between God and man, the ANGEL Jesus Christ’. These are precisely the sorts of things the New Testament does not say.

How about Acts 7:59? – “And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: “Oh ANGEL, receive my spirit.”” Pretty bad, isn’t it?

 

My question then: why would anyone ever want to practice a religion revolving like this around an angel? It is surely misplaced to even think it.

Endnote

As shocked as I may feel about all this, one has to understand that Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe that they represent one greater than Jesus. 

They therefore believe that in their hierarchy, they represent a higher position by proxy, whereas Jesus represents a lower position, They literally describe Jesus as "inferior." 

That is, they think they represent someone superior (Jehovah). (Jehovah "superior," Jesus "inferior." That's their mantra.) 

This helps to explain why some Jehovah's Witnesses are keen to say that Jehovah is Almighty and Jesus is not. They don't consider themselves to be representatives of the "inferior" Jesus. They consider themselves to be representatives of Jesus' superior. This makes me feel quite queasy. 

As though they think that their Michael-Jesus is on one side of the equation whilst they are on the better side of the equation. 

It may well make them insensitive to how shocking it sounds to orthodox Christians. But when the Jehovah's Witnesses relegate Jesus to being an angel (archangel) and "inferior," all of this is going on in the minds of their organisation. However, ordinary JW members have probably never felt free to do the kind of analysis I have done above. 

(If you were to wonder how that reconciles with representing the "body of Christ", it doesn't have to, for Jehovah's Witnesses generally, as they reserve "body of Christ" for their "144,000." Which means they don't have to think through being the body of Christ.) 

 

The Jehovah's Witnesses 'two gods' conundrum

 

I’ve long been fascinated by a conundrum in the beliefs of those who say they are one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’ve never seen a satisfactory solution to my question.

It will reveal the problem of believing in two gods, following two gods, adoring two gods, singing to two gods, and being saved by two gods. This is not normal Christianity.

Now I just want to say that I admire them in some tangible respects. If they were my next-door neighbours, I would feel confident that I had honest well-behaved neighbours whom I could trust. And I actually admire how they try not to be swept to and fro by the ever-changing culture of the fast-changing modern world, even if I don’t necessarily agree on their stances sometimes. And insofar as there is a genuine appetite for reading the Bible, I admire that too. Indeed, there is inevitably common ground with the mainstream of Bible-reading Christians, even if the narrative they tell themselves as a group is that this is not so. Even if they tell themselves that they stand in opposition to mainstream Christianity. I always like to acknowledge common ground.

 

Recognising there's a problem

This conundrum, though. It’s a belief and practice thing. 

In their NWT translation, their John 1:1 says "with God... was a god." In total, how many gods does one count there? 

I know my readers are very capable to answer this. If a version says "with God... was a god," how many gods do you count in total? 

A total of two gods, clearly. It should be easy for anyone to give the total in a single word.

Their version of the whole verse reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god." So to reframe the question: according to that, how many gods in total in the beginning? It has to be two. There would surely be no satisfactory way to argue for translating the verse that way and then deny that the count is, obviously two.

Some of form of avoiding saying 'two' will typically arise though. A Jehovah's Witness will respond that these are gods in different senses. But as a matter of simple addition, it's a statement of some kind of two gods, and that's what their John's Gospel begins with. It's an emphatic beginning to his Gospel, so the way it's translated matters. Two gods in complete harmony, perhaps, but two gods to be counted in that translation. 

That is, they believe Jesus is rightfully called a god, in some sense, and in a different sense from God the Father. Sometimes they will qualify them as a 'mighty god' and 'almighty God' but that reinforces that their John 1:1 has a total of two gods.

I rather hoped for some frankness in conversation over this, when I have discussed it, and one time, an answer was given back to me rather cleverly, thus:

 "One God.

  One god."

Spot the different case 'G' and 'g'? Clearly willing to delineate a difference, but not willing to use the word 'two.' We need to understand why. I could have waited all day and the plain answer "two gods" wasn't going to be given back to me. That there's a problem with the answer should already be becoming apparent. Further enquiry saw something of a smokescreen appear.

Smokescreen of gods

I was given a standard Jehovah's Witness reply: that the word 'god' or 'gods' is applied to various beings in the Bible, be it angels, kings and rulers, even Satan, and, indeed, God. Words all clumped together as if that were enough to throw me off my line of questioning. It's not enough. There are various categories of biblical so-called '#gods,' but Jehovah's Witnesses, fairly conventionally, don't believe that any of them is like YHWH God in his divinity. In principle anyway,  

Clumping all that together under the category 'gods' is therefore just obscuring their cosmology behind a cloud of words. And here's the thing: depending who is the subject - Jesus or some - called gods - these identities mean incomparably different things for different 'gods' to Jehovah's Witnesses. Through one of them, and only one of them, they believe creation was made: Jesus. And basically, they believe he was pre-existent before the creation of the cosmos. They believe he is a pre-existent divine heavenly being, unlike ordinary men or anything else. An incomparably different meaning from the other categories of 'gods' so trying to explain away that you can count two gods in their version of John 1:1 doesn't work. 

They believe both of them are unique, pre-existent, divine, heavenly beings with supernatural power on the cosmic universe-creating level. And they don't believe anyone or anything else is in that complex category. It is ticking so many boxes on the 'god-like characteristics indicator' that it is really unpersuasive to try to disqualify this from being a two-god system, e.g. by invoking some broader banner of 'gods' (such as men and angels). The significance of Jesus being called theos in John 1:1 is of a totally different kind of order.

There are only two gods they exercise faith in, only two gods they are following, only two gods they give adoration to, only two gods in heaven they sing to, only two gods they are being saved by. Mentioning other 'gods' may throw up clouds of smoke but we can still see what lies behind.

They are still left with two unique gods, despite the smokescreen. And that comes of splitting Jesus and the Father apart into two completely separate beings like two private individuals, which is the effect of saying "with God... was a god." 

Regardless how many contrasting categories of gods there may be, their John 1:1 is evidently a two god beginning, a two god creation, etc. Two unique, pre-existent, divine, heavenly beings prior to anything else. Two at the beginning, two at creation. Two contrasting gods of different kinds who are the two unique pre-existent divine heavenly beings, both supernaturally able on a cosmic universe-creating level. Unlike anything else that might bear the title 'gods.'

Sometimes, they will go just about as far as saying that Jesus is 'mighty god' and God the Father is 'almighty God.' That is still a total of two gods. If you call them different things, it is still two gods. That is, it's effectively exercising faith in both an almighty god and a mighty god. So, with their two gods of John 1:1 ("with God... was a god") whom they call Almighty God and mighty god respectively, it's two GODS to exercise faith in, two GODS to follow, two GODS to honour, two GODS to be saved by. It's very unlikely that John meant to start his gospel with two gods.

I have tried walking through this with Jehovah's Witnesses, and despite everything above, was given the stubborn answer on one occasion: "God’s anointed messiah was/is called god, as were other human beings, because they were sent by God and represented God on earth." So, feeling like this was just going round in circles, I simply answered that that's not a persuasive description of their faith, because I know they don't believe Jesus was 'a man' in the beginning and at creation, because they actually believe he was a divine heavenly being at that time. Given that they believe that in the beginning he was the pre-existent divine heavenly being through whom creation was made, referring to other 'gods' is a moot point. It's a two god creation with a higher heavenly being and a lower one. There are precedents for this kind of religion, as I will mention.

Let's move on to practical effects.

Following two gods

If you disconnect Jesus from the Father and split then apart into two separate beings, what practical implications does this have for worship? Let's turn to that now.

Well it means being believers in a second god (to deal with John 1:12). So that means believing in two gods.

Jehovah's Witnesses sing a song of praise to a heavenly Jesus \('Hail, Creation's Firstborn!') who they believe was their unique pre-existent  second divine heavenly being, with supernatural power on a cosmic universe-creating level. I'd love to see how a secular anthropologist could be persuaded that this is not a two god religion. That is, if these are split into two separate heavenly beings, that's the problem. Some Witnesses have said to me that "with God... was a god" is not two gods, but that's totally implausible. They have also referred to the same as 'Almighty God' and 'mighty god' and still said that's not two gods, but that's totally implausible.

As well as all this, do Jehovah’s witnesses today follow and bow the knee to two gods in some sense? I’m not even particularly asking if they worship them both. Just whether they today follow and bow the knee to two gods. 

Another of Jehovah’s Witnesses once wrote to me that he follows ‘one true God Jehovah the creator’, and that he follows ‘a created god, in essence, a lesser god, Jesus.’

Sadly, we lost contact many years ago. But clearly, he meant, in a carefully worded statement that he follows two gods, a greater and a lesser god, as he sees it. I admire him for his honesty. He said he worships only the former, not the latter, but he follows both gods. Now, this will sound odd to a mainstream Christian to whom the idea of this being two separate gods is very unorthodox. As I say, I asked how many gods he follows, and he gave me a frank answer - two. That’s a Jehovah’s witnesses position.

Let’s consider this.

 

Bowing the knee in adoration

Jehovah’s witnesses clarify what they mean about Jesus being ‘a lesser god’ typically by saying Jesus is an ‘angel,’ specifically the Archangel Michael, extending the idea of an ‘angel’ being in some sense ‘divine,’ a god. The words divine and god to have a rather wide semantic range. We can all acknowledge that as common ground. 

Sometimes they spread the net by referring to human 'gods,' using a pretty rare biblical phrase. But they especially have in mind that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. (In another post, I ask what happens if you consider that Jesus is the Archangel Michael.)

So it helps to look at scripture.

"To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb

be praise and honour and glory and power,

for ever and ever!"

(Revelation 5:13)

This passage of Scripture pictures bowing the knee to Jesus the lamb in adoration. (Effectively bowing the knee to two 'gods' in their view.)

Whether one chooses to call it worship or not (there are different Greek words for different kinds of religious reverence if you want to be picky), here’s the thing. Whether one chooses to call it worship or not, this scripture pictures a true Christian practice of bowing the knee in adoration to Jesus. We could illustrate the same from other scriptures.

It is clear, and the man who was writing to me didn’t dispute this, it is acceptable to Jehovah’s Witnesses to give the following adoration to an angel.

""To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb

be praise and honour and glory and power,

for ever and ever!"

(Revelation 5:13)

It ought to strike any Christian as problematic to bow the knee in vocal adoration to an angel. That is, this problematic meaning: “to the angel be praise and honour and glory and power, for ever and ever." It’s just not Christian.

Jehovah’s witnesses deny ‘worshipping’ Jesus in the deepest religious sense. They tend to refer to this bowing the knee by the English word ‘obeisance’. (Translating the Greek word proskuneo.) That is, all the same, still surely problematic. Consider. What would the angel who objected to receiving obeisance in Rev 19:9 and 22:9 have said, if he saw a believer offering this adoration to an angel, saying effectively "to the angel be praise and honour and glory and power, for ever and ever" ? The angel in Rev 19:9 and 22:9 was forbidding of giving him adoration or bowing the knee to him. This really is a problem. I find it difficult to understand how any Christian would think it acceptable to offer such vocal adoration as seen for Jesus in Rev 5:13 to an angel. But that’s a Jehovah’s witnesses position.

 

Two saviours

This compounds difficulties elsewhere. I could demonstrate this with many texts but here is just one.

 

OT - ‘I, even I, am the Lord [Yahweh]; and beside me there is no saviour.’ (KJV Isaiah 43:11)

NT – ‘the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (KJV 2 Peter 3:18)

 

According to Isaiah there is no saviour but Yahweh. By calling the saviour Jesus, and making Yahweh and Jesus into two separate gods, then Jehovah’s witnesses do believe in two saviours. To be clear: you can't make out they are two gods and not two saviours - that would be sophistry. No matter how much these would be 'two gods' in harmony. Their belief in two separate gods gets them into problems like this: two separate saviours. I could illustrate the same mess with many other texts.

So this all means believing in two gods, following two gods, adoring two gods, honouring two gods, singing to two gods, and being saved by two gods. This is not normal Christianity.

Polytheism

Now bravely, the man writing to me denied that his belief in a higher god and a lesser god, following and adoring both as two saviours, adds up to polytheism. But denying that doesn't wash. Not only is it polytheism but curiously it fits Plato's ancient Greek pagan model of two gods especially well. Plato believed in a higher god of all goodness and a lesser god involved with physical creation. The philosopher Plato would approve. But would Jesus?

 

Isaiah’s Yahweh: ‘there is no God beside me’

The right thing to do next is to look at a longer Bible passage.

The Kingdom Hall view is effectively that the is one higher creator saviour God, and one lesser sub-creator sub-saviour sub-god.

Isaiah chapters 43-44 have a one-God polemic. He has a worldview in which there is only one God and all other gods are false gods. Isaiah never uses the word 'god' of angels. Given the 'one God' message which Isaiah is shouting from the roof-tops, that is unsurprising; it would have undermined Isaiah’s impact if he had started adding footnotes about other scriptural uses of the word 'god'.

Isaiah conveys his clear distinction between the one true God and man-made false gods. It is in this context that Isaiah's fiercely monotheistic statements are found: there is only one God, one creator, one saviour. That is what Isaiah is trumpeting.

Those from Kingdom Halls read Isaiah through the lens of other books in such a way that it really undercuts Isaiah’s polemic. They want to prise open Isaiah's 'one-God' polemic to squeeze in other biblical books' inferior angelic 'gods.’ But that's not the way to read Isiah. 

Reading other books, we can accommodate that Yahweh is uniquely pre-eminent over angelic 'gods'. This is something Isaiah could have said, but it would have struck an awkward note with his 'one God' polemic. And we should not overwrite other books onto Isaiah so as to say that God did sub-contract creation and salvation. Isaiah doesn't say that. If we try to make Isaiah say that there is an angelic 'god' beside him, that’s a problem because Isaiah says there isn’t any god beside him.

Isaiah does not have 'angelic gods'; and his one-God polemic has to be heard in its own terms: Isaiah's stark one God, one creator, one saviour picture. Isaiah does not provide any system for including an angel at the centre of his picture of one God, one creator, one saviour. It is quite incongruous with Isaiah's picture to try to say there is one creator plus one sub-creator, and one saviour plus one sub-saviour. To try to posit that sort of picture is just not taking Isaiah seriously. 

That leaves the Christian question of how Jesus fits into Isaiah's one God, one creator, one saviour picture. We can't fit Jesus into Isaiah as a sub-contractor. That is ripping the heart out of Isaiah's message. And that is where I have to nail my colours to the mast as a mainstream Christian. Isaiah does not leave room to posit an angelic 'god' beside him in creation and salvation. Jesus must be something else if he is to fit into Isaiah's one-God picture of one creator and one saviour. And to the Trinitarian the mainstream fit works: Jesus in some sense embodies Yahweh.

Hebrews 1 and Psalm 102

The biblical emphasis on Jesus as co-creator is profound. In Hebrews 1:10, God the Father essentially calls Jesus 'Jehovah' and spells out that Jesus was his hands-on creator of the universe. I'll show how this is so when you cross-check the Old and New Testaments.

We know it's God speaking, because Hebrews 1:6 tells us so. In Hebrews 1:10, God the Father says this to Jesus: “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." If God says it, Jesus did it. God said to Jesus, the heavens are the work of your hands. 

And here's the second thing. Hebrews 1:10-12 here contains a quotation from Psalm 102:21-27. When you cross-check, you see this: that the 'Jehovah' of Psalm 102 is the Lord Jesus of Hebrews 1:10. That is, if you cross-check this with the Old Testament, you will see that it means: God said to Jehovah, the heavens are the work of your hands. Jesus is Jehovah-Jesus. Let's see the quote.

In Hebrews 1:10, it's God the Father quoted as speaking to Jesus like this: 

'He also says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."

 That is, "He" (God the Father) called Jesus "Lord." 

So what, you may say? Well, now compare Hebrews 1:10-12 with Psalm 102:21-27. It is clear that the latter passage is about the psalmist's God, and it's explicit that the psalmist's God is Jehovah. 

In the psalm, "you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands" is addressed to Jehovah.

In Hebrew 1:10, "you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands" is addressed to Jesus - by the voice of God the Father!

Read around it in Hebrews 1:10-12 and Psalm 102:21-27. You'll see a whole load of things are addressed to Jehovah-Jesus.

And so...

I could say more but will leave it there for a moment. I just don’t see a solution to the conundrum facing Jehovah’s Witnesses with their two-gods belief and practice.

As a final note, one has to understand that Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe that they represent one greater than Jesus. They think Jesus is on one side whilst they are on the better side. That is, they think they represent someone superior (Jehovah) which places them over above the side of someone they call "inferior," that is, Jesus. This may well make them insensitive to how shocking it sounds to orthodox Christians when the Jehovah's Witnesses relegate Jesus to being "a god." However, most of their members have probably never felt free to do the kind of analysis I have done above.

When an Old Testament verse about Yahweh becomes a New Testament verse about Jesus

There are many astonishing instances where Hebrew Scripture verses about YHWH are turned into verses about Jesus in the Christian Scriptures. 

A small sample of examples follows. (And I’ve gone for a bunch of out of copyright translations for these six examples.) To give this a purpose, here I answer whether all application of texts about YHWH to the person of Jesus can be explained away as examples of an agent carrying out a task for a principal. Of course, there are situations where Jesus does act as his Father's agent to do something, as the 'agent' for the 'principal.' But that doesn't explain the extraordinary scriptures here.

So below, you'll see a Hebrew Scripture that is about the biblical God Yahweh (YHWH), where Christian Scripture then does that extraordinary thing, and says it's about Jesus.

Where I use the word 'ontology' below, I mean that Jesus is somehow identified with the very being of YHWH. 

 Here's the sample:

“for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me [YHWH].” (KJV Isaiah 49:23)

“For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him [Jesus] shall not be ashamed.” (KJV Rom. 10:11)

Interesting to note that Paul is not saying that Jesus is fulfilling an agency task. Paul is specifically stating that the scripture about YHWH is about Jesus. This is very clear indeed.

 

NEXT

“But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord [YHWH]…” (KJV Jeremiah 9:24)

“That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord [Jesus].” (KJV 1Cor 1:31)

“But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord [Jesus].” (KJV 2 Cor 10:17)

Again, if of interest, Paul is not saying that Jesus is fulfilling an agency task. Paul is specifically saying that the scripture (“as it is written”) is actually about Jesus, where in the Hebrew text it says it is about YHWH.

 

NEXT

‘neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord [YHWH] of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.’ (KJV Isaiah 8:12-13)

‘and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord... yet with meekness and fear’ (ASV 1 Peter 3:14-15)

This too is not about an agency task, but rather tends towards ritual meaning and ontological sameness, being about one towards whom the believer's heart is sanctified.

 

NEXT:

‘The table of the Lord [YHWH] is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.’ (KJV Malachi 1:7,12)

‘ye are not able of the table of the Lord [Jesus] to partake, and of the table of demons.’ (YLT 1 Corinthians 10:17,21)

This matching ritual presence of YHWH and Jesus would of course need a better explanation than agency, and tends towards ontology.

 

NEXT

‘O taste and see that the Lord [YHWH] is good’ (KJV Psalm 34:8)

‘ye have tasted, that the Lord [Jesus] is sweet’ (Wycliffe 1 Peter 2:3)

Again, if I may make the same point, this is not about an agency task. It needs another explanation. It is devotional material. The weight of applying to Jesus this and similar material about YHWH tends towards ontology.

 

NEXT

‘those seven; they are the eyes of the Lord [YHWH], which run to and fro through the whole earth.’ (KJV Zechariah 4:10)

‘a Lamb [Jesus] as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.’ (KJV Revelation 5:6)

There is something profoundly ontological in a shared way about YHWH and Jesus both being described as having seven eyes.

I could go on, but the point is made in these six examples. Not all of the application of texts about YHWH to the person of Jesus can be explained away as examples of an agent carrying out a task for a principal.

Here's a different kind of example. In Hebrews 1:10, God the Father essentially calls Jesus 'YHWH' (if you cross-check the Old and New Testaments). God the Father says this to Jesus: “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." If God says it, Jesus did it. God said to Jesus, the heavens are the work of your hands. Jesus wasn't just an agent. God the Father gives Jesus the credit for creation. They are co-creators.

And here's the second thing. Hebrews 1:10-12 contains a citation from Psalm 102:25-27. When you cross-check, you see it's deliberate that the 'YHWH' of Psalm 102 is the 'Lord' of Hebrews 1:10. So, if you cross-check this with the Old Testament, you will see that it plainly means this: God the Father said to YHWH, the heavens are the work of your hands. Jesus is Jehovah-Jesus, or Yahweh-Jesus. 

Since it's God the Father who calls Jesus 'Yahweh,' this naming can't be explained away as Jesus being an agent. 

The obvious conclusion is that the New Testament authors are perfectly happy for us to conclude that in some way, Jesus is the embodiment of YHWH, Jesus is Yahweh in some real sense. 

 

The person of the Holy Spirit: personal pronouns and neuter gender?

The Holy Spirit and words in the neuter

Something I deal with briefly in my book on the Trinity is a rather strange objection to the Christian belief that the Holy Spirit is personal (to the point of being referred to as a person). I make the point in the book that God doesn't have an impersonal side. So what's the issue here?

This objection runs like this: "The word for 'spirit' in Greek - the word 'pneuma' - is neuter, it's not masculine or feminine, it's neuter, like an 'it,' and therefore the Holy Spirit cannot be a person."

As objections go, that is not a very good one. In New Testament Greek, there are lots of instances where words for human beings are in the neuter gender. (Greek is one of those languages where words have genders.) So neuter doesn't automatically mean non-person. Here are some Greek neuter nouns used for people, and where you can find them in the New Testament:

- gunaicharion = small woman (in 2 Timothy 3:6 referring to women old enough to be burdened with sins and led away by passions)

- brephos = baby (in Luke 1:41 - referring to John the Baptist; see also Luke 2:12 for brephos referring to Jesus; and 1 Peter 2:2 for brephos as an analogy for new Christians who are presumably adults)

- teknon = child (in Mark 2:5 applied to someone old enough to need forgiveness of his sins; and see similar in Galatians 4:19 referring to believers)

- teknion = little child (referring to the disciples in John 13:33; and used for believers in 1 John frequently)

- paidarion = small child (referring to the child with loaves and fishes in John 6:9)

- paidion = little child (referring to the disciples in John 21:5; to those sanctified as brothers in Christ in Hebrews 2:13) (also used to refer to Jesus, e.g. "the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favour of God was upon him [him = auto = neuter pronoun]" in Luke 2:40)

The pattern there is that those words all refer to people who are small in size. That's why these words are called diminutives. (Diminutives are not exclusive to people. For instance, in later Greek, deltidion is a shorter piece of writing or a small book. And kunidion is a small dog or puppy. And ostarion is a small piece of bone. I could give more examples but you get that idea. So that was diminutives.)

So, those are all neuter nouns used for people. And Jesus and John the Baptist, like the Holy Spirit, are referred to with neuter nouns. That's why, for example, in Luke 2:40, Jesus is referred to with the neuter pronoun 'auto,' having been referred to as 'paidion' (neuter noun), no doubt because he was small. This is where it says Jesus grew in wisdom. In a more figurative sense, at the last supper and after the resurrection. Jesus addresses his adult disciples with neuter nouns in John 13:33 (teknia) and John 21:5 (paidia), language reinforcing a teacher-pipil dynamic rather than size!

All of this blows out of the water the mistaken idea that a neuter noun can't refer to a person.

So the word for 'spirit' being a neuter word is neither here nor there. It can be added to many neuter words where a personal meaning is attached. It's quite obvious in these instances that gender is a grammatical matter rather than a sexing matter. This is more than enough to caution against rushing to conclusions. 

So from the neuter gender, you could try to argue that the Holy Spirit is of unknown gender if you like, but you can't argue from it that the Holy Spirit is impersonal. Basically, the word pneuma existed before the church, was neuter in gender, and nothing could be done about that. It was literally the word for spirit. The likes of Paul could not very well change the national language of Greece, so neuter it was. (Whereas the word for spirit is feminine in Hebrew. Hebrew only has two genders. But Greek does not assume greater importance than Hebrew just because it has the extra grammatical gender.) 

The evidence doesn't stop there. There's more on people being referred to with words in the neuter grammatical gender. Neuter adjectives and participles refer to people here too:

- ta mora = the foolish ones (1 Cor 1:27-28)

- ta asthene = the weak (ditto)

- ta ischura = the strong

- to elatton = 'the lesser one' (Hebrews 7:7)

- ta loipa = 'the remnant', may also be a reference to people (Rev 3:2)

These are not all diminutives, not based on the size of the people.

So, those are all neuter words used for people. So the idea that you can treat the neuter Greek word for 'spirit' as proof that the Holy Spirit is impersonal is baseless. One wonders why anyone would persist with this weak line of argument at all when there are obvious contra-indicators, which I come to below under 'The Holy Spirit speaks!' If someone wanted to hold the balance of argument in favour of an impersonal, non-personal, spirit, it would have to be on other grounds, rather than on grammatical gender. (And it wouldn't do to look to the Hebrew Scriptures for grammatical support for the idea, because there the corresponding word for spirit - ruach - is grammatically of the feminine gender!)

Personal pronouns and the Holy Spirit

The most obvious use of personal pronouns for the Holy Spirit is in the words 'me' and 'I', as spoken by the Holy Spirit in Acts 13. (See 'The Holy Spirit speaks!' at the bottom of this post.) But what else is going on?

Well, believe it or not, I've seen another objection to the personhood of the Holy Spirit, that the KJV translation says things such as "the Holy Spirit which..." and "the Holy Spirit that..." The objection runs like this: the KJV treats the spirit as a thing. not a person, saying 'which' and 'that' with it. 

But that objection is not well-informed. The words 'that' and 'which' are part of the antiquated English grammar that the KJV uses in relation to persons. Famously: "Our Father which art in heaven." One could also point to the personal use of 'which' in Genesis 13:5 or Galatians 6:1; and 'that' in Romans 3:12. 

I've also seen hot debate about the use of the English personal pronoun 'whom' in John 15:26: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, WHOM the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things" (NASB). Believe it or not, I've seen an objection that this is making the Holy Spirit a person by the back door, with a cunning use of a personal pronoun with a neuter noun. However, compare a similar use by translators of a personal pronoun with a neuter word making perfect sense: "Behold! I and the children WHOM God has given me" (Hebrews 2:13, NASB) There is nothing wrong with this. 

The rather frustrating thing about this kind of discussion about pronouns is that it can obscure the subject at hand, the subject being what Jesus is telling us about the work of the Holy Spirit, not about mere pronouns. Indeed, what I'm talking about in this post is not whether the Holy Spirit is gendered, but whether the Holy Spirit is personal.

We can say more on John 15:26, but again with the caution that the purpose of the passage is about something much more amazing than pronouns. There, the word 'counsellor' (Greek 'parakletos') is a masculine noun, and the translators are justified, if they so which, in capturing that gender if it makes sense. The Greek pronoun 'ekeinos' is correspondingly masculine with 'counsellor.' Therefore eikenos can be translated ‘he,’ permitting the 'counsellor' to be a 'he.' This is not unreasonable. It shouldn't be ruled out on theological grounds just because we're talking about the Holy Spirit and some unorthodox groups ascribe a non-person status to the Holy Spirit. That sort of artificial theological rule shouldn't be allowed to automatically turn a 'counsellor' into an 'it.'

'Counsellor' and 'Spirit' are both important nouns here, referring to one and the same person. The less important thing is that they happen to have different grammatical genders. The more important thing is Jesus' revelation that the Spirit is a comforter, a counsellor, like himself. He is giving important information to improve his disciples' understanding of the interpersonal qualities of the Spirit. He is not trying to regress their understanding of the Spirit into a vague force, he is trying to progress their understanding of the Spirit as being a counsellor. If our two nouns give the translator a choice, and one grammatical gender - masculine or neuter - has to take precedence over the other for a translation, how do you decide which one has priority? 'He' or 'it'? Given how Jesus is improving their understanding of the interpersonal Spirit, this is much better conveyed by letting the more personal-sounding noun take precedence. That is, the gender of comforter (masculine) is more informative than the gender of spirit (neuter) in relation to Jesus' message. It would be strange, at the exact moment where Jesus is revealing how interpersonal the Spirit is, to insist on a more impersonal-sounding word to convey the moment. He is trying to advance our understanding of the Holy Spirit, not set it back.

A translator could render eikenos as 'that one' but not making such good English. And English translators should aim at good English as far as is reasonable. This choice of English affects how the rest of the sentence is translated. I don’t expect good translators to flit between ‘he’ (counsellor) and ‘it’ (Spirit) when speaking of the same subject in the same sentence. The genders of the words are functions of a language with gender specific nouns and pronouns. This has to make readable sense in translation in English. The sentence subject, ‘counsellor’, is busy, and both ‘teaches’ and ‘reminds’. It’s all very personal sounding stuff. Taken together the translator has enough to make a judgment that the text merits retaining the masculine sense provided by the masculine ‘counsellor’ here. And so harmonising the grammar of the sentence in English makes sense, rather than flitting between 'he' and 'it.' Remember that in Greek gender is a thing of the grammatical form of a word, not the sex of a thing represented by that word. Thus, in John 15:26: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, WHOM the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things" (NASB). Whether a translator thinks a personal pronoun is or isn't the better choice, the main thing to remember is that the passage does not exist to teach pronouns! It exists to tell us about the counsellor.

 

So that's enough for that. We should want to be filled with the Holy Spirit. The real question as far as I can see, when I see 'anti-personal' straws being clutched, is why are some people so eager for the Holy Spirit not to be personal? It seems rather odd. The Holy Spirit is intrinsic to God, and God doesn't have an impersonal side. A question to those who disagree: do you think the Spirit of the Father is impersonal, that the Father has an impersonal side, and the Father wants you to be filled with something impersonal? (More on that in my book as I say.)

Personification

The evidence is strong. But people can be rather fixed in their views. So... against the evidence, I've heard this objection: 'When the holy spirit does or says something, that is just poetic personification, not an actual person.' That theory needs more unpicking. 

Let me explain what we mean by 'personification' for those who may be unfamiliar with the term. An example will help. Let's say I write: "The little girl on her birthday got on the ferry boat. It danced out of the harbour, skipping on the waves and tooting merrily."

Boats don't really dance and skip or do anything 'merrily'. There is personification going on here of an impersonal boat. What does it stand in for? The things attributed to the boat actually stand in for the happy emotions of the little girl on her birthday. What does it mean? The meaning is simply that the girl is excited. (But the poetry helps give this simple meaning more vitality.)

It's hard to see how mention of the Holy Spirit is an example of mere 'personification' in the following verse (and there are many such verses), This is where the Holy Spirit intercedes in Romans 8:26: 'In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.'

There, the Holy Spirit 'pleads' for us, or 'intercedes' for us. In an unforced reading, the Holy Spirit is plainly personal to be doing this.

Can any claim that this is merely 'personification' of the Holy Spirit be sustained? The requirement upon such a claim is to demonstrate persuasively what reality such 'personification' meaningfully stands in for. That's a hard test for the theory to pass.

Similarly, in Acts 13:2, the Holy Spirit says: "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” The Holy Spirit, the one saying 'me' and 'I,' is making a statement about what he really does in the real world. A person speaks like that. Again, you can't abandon that merely by tossing in the word 'personification,' without explaining what reality such 'personification' meaningfully stands in for. Another hard test for the theory to pass.

Can a force be a person?

Another (!) objection to the personhood of the Holy Spirit is rather trite. It goes like this: 'the Bible describes the holy spirit as power which is a force, so it is not a person.' Needless to say, one could make the same empty argument against the personhood of the Father and the Son. For instance:

Jesus is:

 

True Light (John 1:9)

Power of God (1 Cor. 1:24)

Rock (1 Cor. 10:4)

True Bread (John 6:32)

Gate (John 10:9)

Capstone (Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7)

 

God is:

 

Light (Psalm 27:1)

A Consuming Fire (Hebrews 12:29)

Fortress (Psalm 91:2)

Shield (Psalm 18:30)

Cornerstone (Psalm 118:22)

My Cup (Psalm 16:5)

Is that grounds to claim that the Father is not a person, or Jesus is not a person. Simply not. So the argument is groundless, and the complaints against the Holy Spirit's personhood become even weaker, and one wonders what the purpose of them is. 

Articles and the anarthrous Holy Spirit

Yes, there's more. Another objection to the personhood of the Holy Spirit I've seen goes like this: 'Translators themselves struggle: in John 20:22, there is no Greek article (thus, it's anarthrous) in front of 'holy spirit' so it should be translated as 'a holy spirit,' and translators are wrong to add 'the,' making 'the Holy Spirit.'

Again, that objection is a bit poor. The grammar of John 20:22 in regard to ‘holy spirit’ works the same way as the grammar of John 1:18 in regard to ‘god’.  In Greek, neither has the definite article, and neither is treated as an indefinite noun. In English idiom, they are ‘God’ and ‘the Holy Spirit’. The translations flow accordingly. Translators typically add ‘the’ for the benefit of the English reader: ‘receive the Holy Spirit’. This aids understanding. John 20:22 like Acts 2 shows us the same Holy Spirit being poured out into the church through Jesus, and that is compelling. It's not just any old holy spirit - it's that Holy Spirit, the one in that story. It is perfectly reasonable for translators to draw this out in the translation of John 20:22 for the reader as 'the Holy Spirit'. 

Other spirits and the Holy Spirit

Some groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses have argued that neuter words are for impersonal things in Greek. But notably, there are other beings called spirits which are in the neuter gender. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit had to be in an inanimate/impersonal force, so would those other spirits. For example, the 'unclean spirit' of Mark 1:26 is of course referred to with the neuter word pneuma. This is where groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses become obviously inconsistent, as these call such beings 'spirit creatures.' In other words, Jehovah's Witnesses don't apply the supposed grammatical principle to evil spirits (neuter), only to the Holy Spirit (neuter). The inconsistency is surely problematic.

The Holy Spirit speaks!

The fact is that there are parts of the Bible that don't even make sense unless we accept the Holy Spirit is personal. In Acts 8:29, the Spirit sending Philip over to the chariot uses these words: "Approach and join this chariot.". A person speaks like that. The identity of the Spirit is confirmed in 8:39 as the Spirit of the Lord.

In Acts 10:19, The Spirit speaks to Peter with these words: "Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them." A person speaks like that.

 

In that quote, the Holy Spirit used the personal pronoun 'I' to refer to himself. 

As mentioned already, in the next quote, the Holy Spirit refers to himself with two personal pronouns, 'me' and 'I'. It's in Acts 13:2: "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 

The Holy Spirit there is making a statement about what he really does in the real world. A person speaks like that. If these are not the words of a person, then the book of Acts is highly misleading at these points!

One could add how Hebrews 3:7-9 has the Holy Spirit as the user of personal pronouns found in Psalm 95: 

'So, as the Holy Spirit says:  '... your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years.' (The quote is from Psalm 95:7-11 where YHWH is the one specified as speaking, so Hebrews is equating the Holy Spirit with YHWH.)

There are a few places where the Holy Spirit is said to be the one speaking YHWH's words in the OT, such as Acts 28:25 referring back to Isaiah 6:9-10; and Hebrews 10:15-17 referring back to Jeremiah 31:33-34. 

The Holy Spirit dwells in a temple!

This post has been about pronouns and gender. But there are other reasons for recognising the Holy Spirit as personal too. Not least, we have compelling evidence where Paul speaks of a temple of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has a temple. An impersonal force does not have a temple. A god has a temple. A temple is a god's house on earth. That's what a temple is for. The Holy Spirit has a temple, and dwells in it as God of that temple. If anyone thinks the Holy Spirit is impersonal, this is the strongest of contra-indicators.

This article has backed up my assertion that God does not have an impersonal side. In Scripture the Holy Spirit is demonstrably not impersonal. .The arguments for the Spirit being non-personal are nothing like as strong as the contra-indicators. The amount of slings and arrows aimed at the personhood of the Holy Spirit by some religious objectors is slightly bizarre. 

What kind of temptations did Jesus experience?

In Christian belief, Jesus could be tested. But he could not be enticed into sin, because nothing in him was susceptible to that. He could not be tempted in the way of anyone else by their own lusts. He could only be tested but not enticed. Here's the thing for this post: in English, it used to be the case that the ideas of both enticed and tested could be expressed along with the same English word 'tempted.' And Bible translation can become a bit traditional - some translators can be a bit slow to change things to keep up with how language develops. So over the centuries, Christians who were reading that Jesus was 'tempted' have got into confusion about what kind of tempting this is, thinking it means Jesus was being enticed when it means he was being tested. Let's do a short bible study to see what I mean. 

The eagle-eyed among you - depending what translation you read - may have noticed that the Letter of James has the two different uses of the English word 'tempt' in verses 1:2 with 1:13-14. Here, that old English word 'tempt' lends to the confusion. That is, as said, it had a wider range of meaning including 'to test' and to be tempted in the sense of being 'enticed' which helped to make 'tempt' a useful word for English Bible translation, even if it's become a bit confusing to us now. It uses the Greek word epeirasan (in various forms) which had more or less the same range of meanings, so 'tempt' could be used with the idea of trials and the idea of enticements which are two quite different ideas!

In James 1:2, the Greek word peirasmois is translated as 'temptations' in the old KJV but as 'trials' in the modern NRSV in the same place. (And peirasmon is used in James 1:12 in the same way, saying that one who has been in trials has been tested.)

The old KJV puts James 1:12-14 like this: 

"12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation [peirasmon]: for when he is tried [Greek word dokimos], he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. 13 Let no man say when he is tempted [Greek word peirazomenos], I am tempted [peirazomai] of God: for God cannot be tempted [apeirastos] with evil, neither tempteth [peirazei] he any man: 14 But every man is tempted [Greek word peirazetai] when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed [Greek word deleazomenos]."

Here is a link to KJV chapter 1 with original spellings. 

Meanwhile, the NRSV here stops using trials (verse 2) and starts using temptations like the KJV (verses 12-14), so the NRSV says:

"12 Blessed is anyone who endures temptation. Such a one has stood the test and will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. 13 No one, when tempted, should say, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one. 14 But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it."

So, unlike the consistent KJV, the NRSV translating the same root word for epeirasan has switched from saying 'trials' (v.2) to 'temptations' (v. 12-14). Confused? Well, again, in the days of the KJV translators (and in the Grrek),  'tempt' could be used with the idea of trials and the idea of enticements. The NRSV is trying to tease that apart by using the different words 'trials' and 'temptations.'

Unfortunately, when tempt lost the meaning of 'to test' in the English language, confusion did ensue, especially for those still reading the old KJV Bible. For instance, the KJV of Psalm 106:14 reads that Israel had “tempted God in the desert”. This is pretty much what James means in one place! Israel tested God's patience. God can be tested by any of us, and that is why people have to be told not to tempt God by the Bible. If it couldn't be done, then there would be no need to instruct us to desist from tempting God in the first place. You can see why something here has needed clearing up. 

Some writers snip James' message that 'God cannot be tempted' out of context. We're putting it back into context. This is what the Letter of James says when he means 'enticed':

 

"Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted [Greek word peirazetai] when he is carried away and enticed [Greek word deleazomenos] by his own lust." James 1:13ff

James is making a distinction between one who can't possibly be "carried away and enticed by his own lust" and one who can. God is never carried away and enticed by his own lust, so James' argument, because God doesn't do lust. So God isn't tempted in that way. 

Jesus too is never carried away and enticed by his own lust, because Jesus doesn't do lust. 

On the basis that God could not be tempted (in the sense that goes with enticed), so too Jesus could not be tempted (enticed). And that's in the framework of James' working definition of temptation. What James says for God clearly goes for Jesus there: such lusts could not be attributed to either God the Father or Jesus, so neither could be enticed according to how James uses the word 'tempt' here. 

 

That then is where we arrive, when we follow the evidence of the Bible texts wherever they lead.

 

Jesus said in John 5:19, “The son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father doing.” So we must be circumspect in making the Son radically different from the Father in regard to temptation, because the Son could do only what he saw the Father do. The Son is inextricably bound in with the life of the Father.

 

What about the temptations of Jesus in the gospels? Satan may have been wasting his own time testing one who had no inner lust for power. But it was part of Jesus' redemptive purpose that he go through testing like us. But he could do only what he saw the Father doing. We must be clear about Jesus "who knew no sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Indeed "in him there is no sin." (1 John 3:3-5).

 

The Book of Hebrews operates that other working definition of 'tempt' which has nothing to do with being "carried away and enticed by his own lust." Hebrews says Jesus "in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). We know that Jesus could not be led astray "by his own lust." Hebrews is applying the word tempt to one who had no inner lust to entice him - unlike any of us. Clearly, Hebrews' definition of 'tempt' must mean temptations that have nothing to do with an inner lust, another kind of 'temptations' that are common to Jesus and us: that is, 'trials.' That is, here we have the meaning "to test." What Jesus experienced was every kind of testing, not enticement.

 

Jesus could be tempted in the sense of 'trials', the sense of the word used by Hebrews, in the sense in which God himself is tempted, according to the Bible, tested by his wayward subjects. Thus:

 

"Moses said to them, ‘Why do you contend with me? Why do you tempt the LORD?’" Exodus 17:2"

 

Clearly, Moses was operating a meaning of 'tempt' different from 'enticed.' This is about being tested.

 

Now. if Jesus was tested by the promptings of his flesh, this is still not being 'enticed' if there was no lust to carry him along. Only by taking on flesh can God experience the test of handling the promptings of the flesh. He has passed the test victoriously because the promptings of the flesh did not get mixed up with the catalyst of lust.

 

Summary: Jesus could not be enticed, because nothing in him was susceptible to that. He could only be tested - as with God the Father. Jesus had as much choice to sin as God the Father.