Do We have to have Evidence for Our Belief in God to be Rational?

IS BELIEF IN GOD IRRATIONAL IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICENT EVIDENCE? The above question is not whether belief in God is true or false, but it is a question of whether it is rational to believe in the existence of God in the absence of sufficient evidence. There is a significant difference between the two. Following the information provided by a weather channel over the radio, one may believe a proposition that “It will rain tonight.” Even though adequate and convincing evidence were provided by the weather channel, it may or may not rain. One’s belief in this proposition would be considered true only if it rains. Whether or not it rains, however, one would be considered to have believed in the above proposition justifiably or rationally since one had sufficient evidence for the proposition that “It will rain tonight.” In this particular case, the evidence supplied by the weather channel justified the belief as rational. Evidence and reasons may or may not lead to a true belief but they justify the rationality of a belief according to this single instance. However, is evidence necessary to justify belief in God? What if there isn’t convincing and sufficient evidence at all? Some philosophers believe that supporting evidence is necessary for belief in God to be rational. This philosophical position is termed as “evidentialism”. Dr. Daniel M. Mittage, in his article on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defined evidentialism as a theory of epistemology that states a “Person S is justified in believing proposition p at time t if and only if S’s evidence for p at t supports believing p.” Therefore, according to evidentialism, even belief in God is irrational unless there are supporting arguments for it. As a result, the theist has to back his belief with substantial evidence to be a rational believer. Evidentialists themselves do not agree on the rationality of belief in God even though they agree on the necessity of evidence for rationality. Arguing that there is not sufficient evidence for the existence of God, some evidentialists concluded that belief in the existence of God is irrational. This group of evidentialists is called “antitheist evidentialists”. The others, on the other side however believe that there is sufficient evidence to justify the rationality of belief in God. They are called “theistic evidentialists”. These theistic evidentialists, therefore, without depending on special revelation (i.e., the Bible) attempt to argue the existence of God from the existence of the world and natural laws. The fact that evidence justifies reasonableness of a belief is not deniable. However, as will be discussed later in this paper, not all reasonable beliefs are substantiated with evidence. Likewise, sufficient evidence for God’s existence (if there are) justify belief in God. However, not everyone believes in the presence of evidence that prove the existence of God. If, in fact there had been sufficient evidence for the belief under discussion, the rationality of faith would be palpable and no further discussion would have been necessary. However, not everyone believes there is sufficient evidence or proof for the existence of God. In that case, does it mean a believer who has difficulty in finding adequate evidence for God’s existence should abandon his faith assuming that faith in God is irrational? Is there sufficient evidence for God’s existence that is accepted by all people everywhere in the first place? What if there is none? The purpose of this paper is to argue the rationality of belief in God even in the absence of compelling evidence. This is not to say there is no evidence at all for God’s existence. However, the point of the paper is that the theistic evidence available is not convincing to everyone and that belief in God does not have to be supported by evidence to be rational. This philosophical position that belief in God is rational without sufficient evidence is termed as Reformed Epistemology. This paper has three sections. In the first section the case of both antitheistic and theistic evidentialists is examined. In the second section, the root of evidentialism and its failure is discussed. Finally in the third section the position of Reformed Epistemology is discussed and defended. I. Antitheistic and Theistic Evidentialists A. Antitheistic Evidentialism Throughout history, the existence of God is denied by atheists for different reasons. Some like A. J. Ayer, for example, reject the proposition that “God exists” on the basis that the truth of such proposition cannot be verified. Others like, J. L. Mackie, denied the existence of God on the basis that the presence of evil in the world is contradictory to the theistic claim that God is both good and omnipotent. The reason for their denial of the existence of God in the case of the atheistic evidentislists, however, is lack of sufficient evidence. They believe it is irrational to hold such belief. Famous philosophers in history like John Lock (1632-1704), David Hume (1711-1776), William Kingon Clifford (1845-1879), Burtrand Russell (1823-1970), Antony Flew (1923-2010) , J. L. Mackie (1917-1981) and Michael Scriven (1928 – Present) claimed that belief in God doesn’t have enough evidence, and therefore it is irrational. The English mathematician and Philosopher W. K. Clifford, in his Ethics of Belief, concluded that it is ethically wrong to hold any belief for anyone anywhere at any moment without evidence. Antony Flew, in his Presumption of Atheism, stated that until theism is proved with “onus of proofs” negative atheism should be assumed. Michael Scriven on the other hand concluded positive denial of God’s existence (unlike Antony Flew) is the only legitimate alternative in the absence of sufficient evidence for God’s existence. These atheists do not only claim the irrationality of belief in God, but also argue that there is no sufficient evidence that support theistic belief. The atheistic evidentialists point is clear from the above conclusion. Dr Kelly Clark wraps up their point in two sentences. 1) It is irrational to believe in God without sufficient evidence, and 2) There are no convincing and compelling evidence for the proposition that there is God. The conclusion is, therefore, belief in God is irrational. B. Theistic Evidentialism In response to the antitheist evidentialists’ conclusion that theism is irrational, theistic evidentialists on the other hand attempt to give different proofs for the existence of God. This effort is called Natural Theology. Natural Theology is “an attempt to discover arguments that will prove or otherwise provide warrant for belief in God without appealing to special revelation, i.e., the Bible.” It assumes that man, only by using his reasoning ability, can learn certain truths about God from the created world. According to this view, the existence and attributes of God can be proven from certain facts about nature, human character, history and so on without inferring to the supernatural revelation. However, it is not only difficult to prove God’s existence on such basis but also it is problematic. Many reasons can be given as to why it is inappropriate to find warrant for the rationality of belief in God based on evidence given by the Natural theology. However, mentioning only four of them suffices for the purpose of this paper. The first problem can be seen from the divine notion that people of every nation, every language and every tribe have or what John Calvin calls “senses divinitates.” In fact, many people are unaware of the arguments of natural theology, yet they find themselves believing that there is God. As Calvin stated it, the conviction that there is a God “is not a doctrine that must first be learned in school, but one of which each of us is master from his mother’s womb and which nature itself permits no one to forget.” Therefore, it would be inappropriate to revert back and attempt to decide the rationality of a naturally gained truth. Second, there are no much scriptural supports to the attempts of natural theology. The scripture simply starts from God assuming His existence is obvious or is basic belief. As the Dutch Reformed Theologian of the late 19th century Herman Bavinack pointed out, the scripture simply orders people to believe that God is the creator of everything when they encounter with the world (Is. 40:26). Rather than arguing for God’s existence, Gen. 1:1 for instance, straightly asserts the creation of the universe by God, assuming His existence. Whether the examination of nature leads people to belief in God or not, it does not matter; but God does exist and He is the creator according to Gen. 1:1. On the other hand, the scripture teaches the fall of man because of sin. Though there is universal divine notion and tendency to believe in God everywhere, man’s ability or tendency is suppressed by sin. His reasoning ability is malfunctioning that he is incapable of knowing God just by reason alone without the intervention of God Himself. Therefore, starting from nature in attempt to prove God’s existence is not the appropriate starting point. One should start from God. The third problem of natural theology concerns the basis of Christian belief. Christians should not base their belief on the arguments of natural theology at all. The major problem in this case is that what was once used as a good argument to support a belief can be dropped later on in light of new discoveries or objections. In this kind of situation, the theist has to tirelessly search for new evidence and arguments like a criminal suspect who tries to prove his innocence. Alvin Plantinga pointed this point jokingly saying “If my belief in God is based on arguments, if then I am to be properly rational … I shall have to keep checking the philosophical journals to see whether, say, Antony Flew has finally come up with a good objection to my favorite argument.” While having the truth, it is not fitting for a believer in God to be tossed back and forth to secure the rationality of his faith. The fourth problem of natural theology is its failure to achieve its purpose. The typical effort of natural theology is to indicate the rationality of belief in God inferring from “statements that all rational creatures are obliged to accept (like: some things are in motion, some things act toward ends or purposively, it is possible for some of the things that exist not to exist).” The problem, however is that, these statements “all rational creatures are obliged to accept” do not bring all rational creatures to the same conclusion. This point can be demonstrated based on “one of the oldest and most popular and intelligible” arguments of the natural theology – the teleological argument. Teleological argument argues that God is the intelligent designer of the universe presuming that the universe is intentionally and purposefully designed. This argument suggests that there is a definite correspondence between the universe and intelligently designed human products like a watch. A watch is a carefully designed device. It has purpose, its constituents are constructed and placed in an orderly manner, and every detail of the watch has particular function. This purposeful design proves that the watch, indeed, has a designer. In the same way, the presence of purpose, order and regularity in the universe proves that the universe was carefully and purposefully designed by an intelligent designer. According to teleological argument, God is that intelligent designer. There are different versions of teleological arguments developed throughout history. The Internet Encyclopedia Philosophy however lists three of the basic and common preemieses of the different arguments. Teleological arguments “typically consist of (1) a premise that asserts that the material universe exhibits some empirical property F; (2) a premise (or sub-argument) that asserts (or concludes) that F is persuasive evidence of intelligent design or purpose; and (3) a premise (or sub-argument) that asserts (or concludes) that the best or most probable explanation for the fact that the material universe exhibits F is that there exists an intelligent designer who intentionally brought it about that the material universe exists and exhibits F.” After believing in the existence and attributes of God, one may appreciate God’s intelligence and his power by studying the created world. However, this argument is not sufficient enough to lead everyone to belief in God. Regardless of the fame and popularity given to this argument, it is not capable of convincing every rational person. Alvin Plantinga, in his God, Freedom and Evil notes the one thing teleological argument may but weakly be able to prove. It may be able to give a “smidgin evidence” for the premise that “the universe was designed.” Here it is important to notice Plantinga’s carful word choice -“smidgin”. This evidence is not abundant enough to be convincing. As a result the very idea that the universe was designed may not be accepted by all. A Bible believer, just by looking at the order in the universe, may easily conclude that the universe is intentionally designed. However, for evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, the world is not intentionally and purposefully designed. Nature itself is responsible for the “apparent” design in the universe. Therefore, teleological argument does not provide adequate evidence for the premise that the universe was designed. Plantinga in the same book gives five other propositions this arguments fails to provide successful evidence for. 1) This argument does not prove that the universe was designed only by one person. There is no proof that the world was not designed by a “committee of deities of some sort.” In this case, let alone the universe, even a small watch found in a “heath” cannot be proven to be designed by a single designer. 2) The argument does not prove that the universe was created out of nothing. 3) It does not prove that the creator of the world (if created) and the designer are the same person. 4) It does not prove the creator (if there is) of the universe has all the attributes of God and 5) It does not prove the creator is a spirit independent of physical materials. Natural theology does not by itself lead to the true God of the Bible. As Nash said, “if we reject special revelation and attempt to reason our way from what we know about the world to the existence of a supposed First Cause, the most reason can establish still leaves us a long way from the one, eternal, infinite, loving, holy, and personal God of the Bible.” What is being said above is not natural theology is useless altogether. It is useless as far as justifying the rationality of belief in God. However, its arguments perfectly go in line with the teachings of the Bible. It confirms what the Bible teaches. If it is true that God is the creator of everything, then the believer should be able to find evidences or arguments that support the truth. Natural theology confirms what the Bible teaches, and in that sense, arguments from natural theology presents good evidence that support the Bible. II. Problems of Evidentialism As discussed in the above section, both antitheistic as well as theistic evidentialism are not useful to show the rationality of belief in God. Antitheistic evidentialism concludes that faith in God is irrational and ethically wrong. Theistic evidentialism, on the other hand, attempts but fails to institute the rationality of belief in the existence of God. In either way, evidentialism is not helpful. Now it is appropriate to investigate why evidentialism is wrong. First, evidentialism fails to differentiate between beliefs that require evidence for rationality and those that do not. A prosecutor, for example, needs physical, circumstantial and scientific evidence to believe that a person is the criminal of a certain crime and prosecute him. However, the prosecutor would be accused of being irrational if he imprisons a person off the street with no evidence. Some beliefs, like this one, are “evidence-essential.” Nevertheless, not all beliefs are evidence-requiring. One does not need to have evidence or proof to believe that one had gone to bed last night. Evidentialism however fails to differentiate between different kinds of beliefs. It “is crucially flawed, because it assumes a faulty analogy when it construes belief in God along the line of belief in a scientific hypothesis.” Second, evidentialism requires believers to debate their case according to the rules set by the evidentialists. The evidentialism requires evidence to be produced before the believer’s belief in God’s existence is considered rational. It is inappropriate for theists to start their case from the grounds of the evidentialism while in truth the theist should start from God and his existence. In addition, as discussed above, proving God’s existence on the basis of natural theology is not always successful. Therefore it is not only unwise to stand on the evidentialist’s side and prove the rationality of faith, it is also wrong. Third evidentialism is false because it is rooted on the principles of classical foundationalism. Foundationalism is a view that attempts to set rules on how one’s knowledge or justified beliefs should be properly structured. According to foundationalism, there is a legitimate way of arriving at a rationally acceptable belief. Just like a house is built on solid foundations, intellectual and rational knowledge should have a solid foundation, which is a set of beliefs or knowledge not inferred from other previously held beliefs. These foundational beliefs are called basic beliefs. Non-foundational or non-basic beliefs, however, should be inferred from basic beliefs to be legitimate or justified. “The foundationalist's thesis in short is that all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief.” Otherwise, a belief or knowledge is illegitimate and irrational. Now the question would be what makes a belief basic or foundational. According to classical foundationalism only beliefs that are evident to the senses, self evident and incorrigible are the foundational or basic belief. Beliefs that are evident to the sense are beliefs “whose truth and falsity depends upon human experience.” These beliefs are formed as a result of one’s sense experience. Upon looking at bank robber walking into a bank with his gun on his hand, a customer may refrain from walking into the building. In this situation the customer would not sit in the car and contemplate on how he arrived at his belief that a gunman walked into the bank building. This kind of belief, obtained immediately as a result of sensory experience, is evident to the senses. Self evident beliefs are beliefs that one determines the truthfulness or falsity of a statement upon understanding the meanings of the statement. In other words, these beliefs are either true or false by definition. For instance, the statement that the sum of total angles of a rectangle is 360 degrees is true by the very definition of a rectangle that is a four-sided polygon where every angle is a right angle or 90 degree. Incorrigible beliefs are statements that cannot be wrong, “even though they fail short of logical necessity.” Statements like I seem to see a mountain or it seems to me that there is a cat on top of the roof cannot be wrong. What the person saw may or may not be what he thought he saw. But the person is not wrong for believing what he has seen is what he thought he saw. All these three kinds of beliefs (i.e., beliefs that are evident to the sense, self evident and incorrigible) are noninferential and are held on the basis of no other beliefs, and they do not need backing with evidence or reason. They are the justified, reasonable, foundational or basic beliefs. The classical foundationalists position that knowledge and beliefs should be founded on a solid foundation is good and helpful. Identifying which beliefs are basic and which are inferential or non basic is also good. However, the problem arises when classical foundationalism limits the basic or foundational belief only to propositions that are evident to the senses, self evident and incorrigible. First, not all noninferential beliefs are evident to the senses, self evident and incorrigible. One’s memory knowledge, for example, that one had preached in a church two days ago is not either self evident, evident to the senses and incorrigible nor is it inferable from previously held beliefs. Classical foundationalism fails to consider other basic beliefs as the foundationals. Second, classical foundationalism fails to measure up to its own requirement of rationality. According to classical foundationalism measurement of rationality, a belief p is rational only on two conditions – 1) if p is self evident, evident to the senses or incorrigible or 2) if p is inferable from a set of basic beliefs listed in 1. However, this proposition of the classical foundationalism itself does not meet any of the two conditions of rationality. It is neither basic nor it is inferable from the foundationals given by foundationalism. Therefore, Plantinga concludes that classical foundationalism is “self referentially incoherent and must therefore be rejected.” III. Reformed Epistemology So far it is discussed that evidentialism is not a plausible approach in discussing the rationality of belief in God. Antitheistic evidentialism denies the rationality of belief in God. Theistic evidentialism fails to show the rationality of belief in God based on the evidentialists rule. Evidentialism not only fails to show the rationality of belief in God, but it also fails its own test of rationality. Now what is left for a believer in God to show the rationality of his faith? Is belief in God rational in the absence of evidence? One finds the right answer from the proposition of the Reformed Epistemology that belief in God is properly basic and therefore, is rational even without evidence. Like evidentialism, reformed epistemology is also rooted in foundationalism. But unlike classical foundationalism, the foundational beliefs accepted by Reformed Epistemology are broader than beliefs that are evident to the senses, self evident and incorrigible. As indicated above, the basic beliefs limited by classical foundationalism are not the only basic beliefs. Memory beliefs like I did not sleep the whole night last night, beliefs about the past one acquires upon reading a book or hearing from instructor like George Washington was the first president of America, belief in other minds like there are other persons in the world other than me etc. are basic beliefs. One acquires these beliefs without inferring to previously held beliefs or without inferring to any other basic beliefs. These types of beliefs not only are basic because they are not inferable from other belief, but also these beliefs are accepted as rational beliefs without evidence. Basic beliefs have grounds or conditions that justify their. All basic beliefs mentioned in the above passages have grounds or conditions that lead a person to holding those basic beliefs. A person who acquired knowledge about George Washington being the first president of America reading a history book may not have evidence for the truth and rationality of his newly acquired belief. But it is not groundless. His experience of trusting other history books and other related conditions, justify his belief. In the same way, Reformed Epistemology justifies the rationality of belief in God by showing that 1) belief in God is properly basic, and 2) it is not groundless belief. In his book God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God printed first in 1967, Alvin Plantinga compares belief in God with belief in other minds. Upon meeting a man on a road, one immediately believes that the man one met on the road is in fact a human being and that he has personality. Though one may not be able to see how the other person thinks, feels and knows, one’s experience of encountering with other persons enables one to belief that the other person is indeed a person. In the same way a believer in God does not see God Himself and how He acts, but upon encountering the created world, he believes in the existence of God who created the world. It is noteworthy to read Herman Bavinack’s words in this regard. “Of the existence of self, or the world round about us, of logical and moral laws, etc., we are deeply convinced because of the indelible impressions which all these things make upon our consciousness that we need no arguments or demonstration. Spontaneously, altogether involuntarily: without any constraint or coercion, we accept that existence. Now the same is true in regard to the existence of God. The so called proofs are by no means the final grounds of our most conviction that God exists. The certainty is established by faith; that is by spontaneous testimony which forces itself upon us from every side.” Showing the analogy between forming beliefs in God and other minds, Plantinga concludes “if my belief in other minds is rational, so is my belief in God. But obviously the former is rational; so, therefore, is the latter.” However, this belief in God is not groundless. Alvin Plantinga uses John Calvin’s “senses divinitates” to point out that belief in God is not groundless. History and experience show that people of every generation, location, tribe and language have divine notion in them. People find themselves believing in the existence of a God who created the world. People are created with a tendency to give credit to God for the creation of the world. Conclusion Belief in the existence of God is not irrational regardless of evidence for the belief. However, many devoted atheists attempted to make it seem irrational and an ethically wrong belief to hold based on the evidentialist theory of rationality. While surrendering to the evidentialism theory of rationality is a danger, the real threat to theistic belief is failing to know that belief in God is properly basic. The Bible starts assuming belief in God is basic (Gen 1:1). It teaches that people are created with the tendency to know and believe in God (Rom 1:19). Therefore everyone has divine notion in him. Once the truth that belief in God is basic is dropped, the theist has no option but to look for evidence to justify his faith as if he does not know his faith is rational. However, belief in God is basic and therefore rational. A believer does not the obligation of producing evidence for the rationality of his belief. If he finds good arguments that support his belief, that is exceptional. If not, as Plantinga once wrote, he “is entirely right, rational, reasonable, and proper to believe in God without any evidence or argument at all.”   BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Alston, William P. Perceiving God. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. Bavinck, Herman. The Doctrine of God. Trans. William Hendericksen. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1951. Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion. ed. John T. Macneill,... Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster press, 1960. Clark, Kelly James. Return to Reason, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Co., 1990. Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. New York: Norton, 1986. Engen, J. Van. “Natural Theology.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1984. Flew, Anthony. The Presumption of Atheism. London: Pemberton, 1976. Helm, Paul. ed. Faith and Reason. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Himma, Kenneth Einar. “Design Arguments for the Existence of God.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1984. Hoover, A. J. “God, Arguments for the Existence of.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1984. Mackie, J. L. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1982. Nash, Ronald H. Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith. Grand Rapids, Academie Books, 1988. Plantinga, Alvin C., and Nicholas Wolterstorff. Faith and rationali : reason and belief in God. Notre Dame, Ind: Univ of Notre Dame Pr, 1983. Plantinga, Alvin C. and Tooley, Michael. Knowledge of God. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008. Plantinga, Alvin C. God and Other Minds. New York: Cornell Univ Pr, 1967. Plantinga, Alvin C. God, Freedom and Evil. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974. Plantinga, Alvin C. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Scriven, Michael. Primary Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Taliaferro, Charles. Contemporary Philosophy of Religion. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1998. Articles Anderson, James N. "If knowledge then God: the Epistemological Theistic Arguments of Alvin Plantinga and Cornelius Van Til." Calvin Theological Journal 40, no. 1 (April 1, 2005): 49-75. Apczynski, John V. "Belief in God, Proper Basicality, and Rationality." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 60, no. 2 (June 1, 1992): 301-312. Baker, Deane-Peter. "Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology: What's the Question?." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 57, no. 2 (April 1, 2005): 77-103. Bishop, John, and Imran Aijaz. "‘How to Answer the de jure Question about Christian Belief’." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 56, no. 2/3 (October 2004): 109-129. Colwell, Jason. "The Historical Argument for the Christian Faith: a Response to Alvin Plantinga."International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 53, no. 3 (June 1, 2003): 147-161. Cullity, Garrett. "IN Search of the Foundations of Rationality." Philosophical Books 44, no. 1 (January 2003): 4. Fumerton, Richard, "Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/justep-foundational/ (accessed May 1, 2011). Mittag, Daniel M. “Evidentialism.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2004) http://www.iep.utm.edu/ (accessed May 1, 2011). Plantinga, Alvin C. "Is belief in God properly basic." In Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology, 133-141. New York: Oxford Univ. Pr, 1992. Poston, Ted. “Foundationalism,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010), http://www.iep.utm.edu/found-ep/ (accessed May 1, 2011). Tilley, Terrence W. "Reformed Epistemology and Religious Fundamentalism: How Basic are Our Basic Beliefs?" Modern Theology 6, no. 3 (April 1, 1990): 237-257. Stackhouse, John Gordon. 2001. "Mind over Skepticism: Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has Defeated Two of the Greatest Challenges to the Christian Faith." Christianity Today 45, no. 8: 74-76. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. "Herman Bavinck--Proto Reformed Epistemologist." Calvin Theological Journal 45, no. 1 (April 1, 2010): 133-146.

Why the Old Testament Apocrypha Books Should Not Be in the Bible

Different religions under the umbrella of Christianity have a Bible as the basis for their beliefs; however there is difference between the numbers of books they include in their Bible. Protestants and Evangelicals believe that there are only 39 books in the Old Testament while the Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox churches accept more books than the Protestants. The real problem is not whether there should be more books in the Old Testament than the 39 books accepted by the Protestants; but the question is whether the additional books beyond the accepted 39 books in Old Testament of the Protestant Bible are inspired and whether their doctrine is acceptable. Obviously if the additional books are not inspired they should not be in the Bible at all. Protestants and Evangelicals believe that these additional books not only luck divine inspiration but also mislead readers to false and ungodly doctrines. Therefore it is necessary for believers to know which books of the Bible are inspired and should be in the Bible and which should not be. There paper, henceforth, addresses the issue of Canonization and why the additional books called Apocrypha should not be in the Bible. To do so first the meaning and history of canonization will be discussed. Then what Apocryphal books are and why they should not be included in the Bible will be discussed.

The Meaning of Canon

The word “canon” is derived from the Greek word kanon) which means a ruler, a rod or a measuring stick. “Kanon”, as Carolyn Ratcliffe explains in her book Postexilic Biblical Literature,
was a straight rod or reed with same mark that formed a standard or norm by which things are measured, judged or evaluated. Each kanon had the same mark with the same distance between the marks, much like the contemporary yard stick or ruler. Therefore, the word ‘canon’ carries this concept of standard.
In Christianity the word canon refers to the list of authoritative books inspired by God. Those books in the canon are believed to be divinely inspired books and collectively called Canon because it serves as a measuring stick or standard for believers both for their belief and conduct. The Canonical books are divided into the Old Testament and New Testament canon. Though the Canonization of the New Testament has its own history and challenges, in this paper only the Old Testament Canon will be the center of the discussion.

The History of the Canonization of the Old Testament

The Old Testament discusses God’s salvation through the people of Israel, and the Jews divided the Old Testament in to three parts –the Torah which contains the five books of the law, the prophets which they divide into the former prophets (i.e. Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 kings) and the latter prophets (i.e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the twelve minor prophets) and the Writings which contain the rest of the books in the Old Testament. Since the Jews count some of the books like 1 and 2 Samuel as well as the twelve minor prophets as one book, the Hebrew Old Testament does not contain 39 books as the protestant Old Testament does. However, the books in the Old Testament both in the Hebrew and the Protestant Bible are the same.
The Old Testament Canon was not given by God over night; however the process took hundreds of years to be finalized into the present form. Though it is difficult to know how the Old Testament compiled in the form we have it now, there are two major theories as to how the Old Testament was canonized. Some believe in what Ratcliffe calls it “Tri-fold Theory of Canonization,” while others believe in what is called “Two-fold Theory of Canonization.”
According to the first one, the three parts of the Old Testament (i.e. the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings) were added to the Canon at three different times. The Torah was compiled and accepted as the canon by 400 BC after the Jews return from Babylon exile. The Prophets were compiled and added to the Canon by 200 BC, and the remaining part, which is the Writings, was canonized before the advent of Christ and confirmed by the counsel of Jamnia in the 90 AD.
The second theory concludes that the Torah was canonized sometime after the Jews return from the exile, and the other parts, i.e. the prophets and the writings were canonized sometime before coming of Christ.
Even though no one can be sure about how the canonization process took place, it was clear even in the New Testament that the Old Testament had three divisions as discussed above. Jesus indicated in his speech that the Old Testament is divided into the Law the Prophets and the Psalms which is the first book of the Writings section in Luke 24:44.

Why the Apocrypha should be rejected.

When it comes to the number of the books of the Old Testament, the Catholic as well as the Orthodox churches have more books than what the Hebrew Old Testament book contains. Those books that are accepted as the canonical books but not found in the Hebrew or the protestant Bible are called Apocrypha. Now the question would be what are the apocrypha books and why can’t we add them in the canon.
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology gives a hint what apocrypha is and what the apocrypha books are.
The word apocrypha is from the Greek ta apokrypha (the hidden things), although there is no strict sense in which these are hidden. Some thirteen books comprise the OT Apocrypha: 1-2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Rest of Ester, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also titled the wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach), Baruch, and Letter of Jeremiah, Additions to Daniel, Prayer of Menasses, and 1-2 Meccabees.
Whether these books are inspired and should be included in the canon has been confusing to many and has been a center of debate from the first few centuries of the church history. As a result some like Catholic Church believe they are inspired, and should be included in the Bible while the evangelicals and Protestants refuse to do so.
Those who believe in the inspiration of the Apocrypha believe in them because the Apocrypha was contained in the LXX i.e. the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament in the mid third Century before Christ, and the New Testament authors used the LXX as they quote from the Old Testament. The other major reason is that there can be found a lot of allusions and reflections between the New Testament and the Apocrypha books, and therefore they suggest that the New Testament writers depended on Apocrypha as they write their New Testament books. Other reasons can be referred as to why some accepted them as inspired books but they are not as strong as these two. For the purpose of this paper’s sake, however, only these two reasons will be enough.
We believe, because of the invalidly of the above reasons and for other strong evidences, Apocrypha books should be rejected as inspired documents of the Old Testament. First, it is true that the Apocryphal books were contained in the LXX translation of the Hebrew Old Testament; however, no one knows whether the original LXX had Apocryphal books in it. In fact, when the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek the first time in the middle of the third century before Christ, it was only the Pentateuch that was translated, and the latter books of the Bible were added later. The earlier LXX book that contains the Apocrypha is from the fourth century. May be the LXX books the New Testament authors used did not have Apocrypha, or even if it did no writer of New Testament has quoted from it since it is not inspired.
It is true that many parallel vocabularies, sentences and even paragraph could be found between the apocrypha books and some New Testament books. For example one can find a lot of similarities between the words of Paul in Rom 1:18 -32 in the New Testament and Wis 13-14 to the point one concludes that Paul had been dependant on the book of Wisdom of Solomon in the Apocrypha. However, all the supposedly similar words and paragraph does not necessarily show the dependence of the New Testament writers on the Apocrypha writers. Instead, these kinds of similarities can be found because of the motif both authors use and incorporate as they write their works.
In addition to the above, no New Testament writer has quoted a verse even from one single book in the apocrypha. Many quotations are made in the New Testament from the Torah. The New Testament writers quoted both from the prophets and the writings in confirming the authority of the Torah, the prophets and the writings. However, when it comes to the Apocrypha no reference is made in the New Testament that supports its inspiration.
The biggest problem with Apocrypha is that these books not only contradict with the teachings of the other books of the Bible but also they lead believers to immorality. Doctrine wise, these books teach the acceptance of prayer and offerings for dead people, and it also supports the doctrine of Purgatory. Character wise these books justify suicide, theft, lying, cruelty to slaves and salvation by giving money to poor. Therefore these books are not only misleading but also dangerous if accepted as authoritative books.
Therefore even though different beliefs teach that there are different amount of authoritative books in the Old Testament, the correct authoritative books of the Old Testament are the ones listed down in the Hebrew Old Testament or the Protestant Old Testament. Any book other than this is should not be accepted.

Bibliography

Dentan, Robert C. The Apocrypha, Bridge of the Testaments. New York: The Seabury Press, 1964.

Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible, Revised and Expanded. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Harrington, Daniel J. “The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today.” In The Canon Debet, ed. Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, 196 – 110. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002.

Ratcliff, Carolyn. Postesilic Biblical Litrature. San Antonio: Wayland Baptist University,2007.

Thiem, R. B. Canocity. Houston: R. B. Thiem, Jr., Ministries, 1973.

Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Acadamics, 2001, s.v. “The Old Testament Apocrypha” by D. H. Wallace

The Deity of Jesus: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses

THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST

AN ANSWER TO JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

Introduction

The person and work of Jesus Christ, according to the Bible is the center of the gospel, salvation, Christianity and the Church. Therefore, the whole point of Christianity, whether it be the Christian doctrine, life, hope or character, is determined by who Jesus is and by what he does. Quoting the writing of James Danny, William Evans in his book The Great Doctrines of the Bible Writes:

From the beginning to the end, in all its various phrase and aspects and elements, the Christian faith and life is determined by the person and work of Christ. It owes its life and character at every point to Him. Its convictions are convictions about Him. Its hopes are hopes which he had inspired and which it is for him to fulfill. Its ideas are born of His teaching and His life. Its strength is the strength of His Spirit.[1]

Therefore, failing to know and believe the true being of Jesus Christ, the Lord is a serious danger. Without Him the whole universe is dead and chaos, the gospel is dead and powerless, the Christian belief and life are pointless, and the church is meaningless. Those who fail to hold the true Jesus of the Bible like Jehovah’s Witnesses are in a serious danger, and their faith is without Biblical support, because the Jesus they claim to follow is totally different from the one presented in the Bible.

The Relationship between Jehovah’s Witnesses and Arius

Jehovah’s Witnesses are commonly believed to be Arians. Therefore it is will be good to see how similar and different the two are. Are Jehovah’s Witnesses truly Arians?

The answer is both yes and no. Just as the Witnesses have a lot in common with Arius with regard to the person of Jesus, they also have a lot of difference on this same doctrine.  Arius of Alexandria, in the fourth century denied the full deity of Jesus Christ, and taught that Jesus had a beginning. He claimed that Jesus was the first creation of God. A council was called before Arius’ teaching could divide the church in 325 AD, and Arius was deposed. The Witnesses also believe this same heresy and therefore they are Arians with this regard.  Homer Duncan in his book Heart to Heart Talks with Jehovah’s Witnesses shows the relationship between Arius’ doctrine and the Witnesses teaching.

In recent years (beginning with C. T. Russell, 1870-1916) THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY of Brooklyn, New York, has been successful in reviving the Arian heresy… the WATCHTOWER teaches that since Jesus is a creature of God, he is not eternal and, therefore, is not equal with God.[2]

In this regard, the Witnesses are Arians.

However, the Witnesses and Arius of Alexandria are not completely similar nor are the Witnesses a continuation of the Arian heresy. Kim Lawrence James in his Thesis on the Witnesses’ doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ compares and contracts the belief of both the Witnesses and Arius throughout the thesis. Some of the differences can be easily identified from the thesis. For example both believe that Jesus was the first creation of God. However, Arius believes the Holy Spirit was a person and that He is the first creation of Jesus while Witnesses believe that Holy Spirit is the active power of God.[3] Both the Witnesses and Arius believe in the humanity of Jesus while he was on the earth. However, Arius believed that Jesus had to work towards his perfection as far as sinfulness is concerned, while the Witnesses believed that Jesus was perfect and that he was sinless.[4] In addition Arius believed that Jesus did not posses “human reasoning faculty” while the Witnesses believed every part of Jesus was human including his “reasoning faculty” while he was on earth.[5] Both the Witnesses and Arius believed that Jesus was rewarded with immortality by God. However, Arius believed Jesus was rewarded while on earth, while the witnesses believed that the reward taken place after the resurrection.[6] Therefore, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are Arians in some points and they are not in other points. In any ways, both of them openly deny the full deity of Jesus Christ.

According to the Witnesses doctrine Jesus Christ passed through different changes as far as His personality is concerned, but He was never a deity at any point. In their doctrine Jesus was first created by God the almighty and became an archangel; later he was born of virgin Marry and became a human being. After His death, His body was deposed by God and only His spirit resurrected from death. Now Jesus is the archangel Michael again and living as a spirit. In 1914, Jesus had returned to the world, and he is gradually taking full control of the whole world. The purpose of this paper is not only to show the false fullness of this doctrine, but to point the deity of Jesus at every point of the stages.

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Doctrine on the Person of Christ

Jesus Before His Incarnation

Anthony Hoekemia in his book Jehovah’s Witnesses states three points about the Witnesses’ belief on the state of Jesus before His coming to earth as a man. 1. He was the first creature of Jehovah. 2. He was an angel, and 3. He was some type of god.[7] According to the Witnesses therefore, Jesus was some type of god created by the almighty God to be an angel. He is not the almighty God Himself, but He is just a mighty and smaller God.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus is a created being. As Irvine Robertson, the author of What the Cults Believe points out, the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in three stages of creation. Jesus was created first as the only begotten son and in such a way God became the Father. Next to Jesus, the angels were created, and finally the heavens and the earth were created.[8] Therefore, according to the Witnesses, except for God Himself everything and being (including Jesus Christ) is a creation.

To back their doctrine with some biblical verses, the Witnesses quote Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 as their major support. For them both of these verses indicate the creation of Jesus before anything else because in Col 1:15 the Bible calls Jesus as the “firstborn over all creation,” and again in Rev 3:14 Jesus addresses Himself as “the beginning of the creation of God.”

These false teachers, in addition to the above doctrine, they identify Jesus as an angel. However, according to them, He is not a lay angel. As Hoekemia points out, “… during his pre-human state, the son was really an angle. Previous to the son’s coming to the earth as man He was not known as Jesus Christ, but as [the archangel] Michael.”[9] Since Jesus is an angel, the only difference between Jesus and the other angles is that of a degree, not of a kind.[10]

The verses they quote to prove their doctrine are really shallow and illogical. For them the angel Michael is Jesus because in Daniel 12:1 Michael is said to be a ruler of God’s people as the end the tribulation period. Since Jesus will reign at the end of the great tribulation, Michael and Jesus are the same. The NIV translates Daniel 12: 1 as “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses translate “will rise” as “began to reign as King”.[11] Since no one else other than Jesus will reign at the end of the great tribulation Jesus and Michael must be the same person.

According to this cult, not only is Jesus a creation and an angel, but also he is some type of God. Since the Bible clearly states the fact of Jesus’ Divinity, the Witnesses have to come up with some kind of explanation to save their doctrine from contradiction. In his book The Kingdom of Cults, Walter R. Martin shows the explanation they made base on John 1:1. The first verse of the Gospel of John has three sentences. (i.e “In the beginning was the word.”, “and the word was with God” and “and the word was God”). The word God is mentioned twice in this verse, i.e. in the second and the third sentences. In the original text (i.e. the Greek New Testament), the first one has a definite article. Therefore, the verse reads like “and the word was with [the] God.”  However the third sentence has neither a definite nor an indefinite article. (In fact the Greek language does not have an indefinite article). The omission of the definite article, according to them, shows the difference between the first one and the second. Therefore, the third phrase should be translated like “and the word was a god.”[12]  The logical conclusion is that Jesus must be a lesser God since there is only one almighty God.

Jesus During His Incarnation

Jehovah’s Witnesses have their own teaching about the being of Jesus during his humanity. Like that of the Evangelicals, they believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.[13] However, it was the angle Michael who was conceived in the womb of Mary.[14] One thing that should be noticed here is that the whole being of the archangel Michael was not conceived since Jesus completely stopped being a spirit when He became a man. What was transferred into the womb of Mary was not the spirit of the angle but “the life, personality and life pattern of the angel”.[15] Their conclusion is, thus, the archangel Michael was born of a virgin at the incarnation as the Lord Jesus Christ.

The archangel, according to them, had only one nature when he became a baby boy – Jesus Christ at the incarnation. Therefore, the Evangelicals doctrine that Jesus was/is both Deity and human at the same time is totally unacceptable to them. He was not God-man when he was on the earth and after. He was man and man alone instead. In fact as Hoekemia says, they think that “he stopped being a spirit person [when he was born of Marry] and became a man – nothing more than a man.”[16]

Jesus at and after His Resurrection

In addition to the above, the witnesses err in their doctrine regarding the being of Jesus Christ at the time of His resurrection and the manner of His second coming.  As to the resurrection of Jesus, they openly deny the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Quoting from one of the Witnesses’ books, Let God Be True, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, the authors of The Deceivers put the whole philosophy of Jesus’ resurrection as a spirit being in a simple way, “so the king Jesus was to put to death in the flesh and was raised an invisible spirit creature.”[17] Hoekemia on the other hand records the reason behind this belief of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. According to the Witnesses, Jesus had to sacrifice His physical body permanently to atone the sin of Adam, and therefore, there is no room for the resurrection of His physical body. Thus God raised Him as a spirit[18].

Since they deny the resurrection of Jesus’ physical body, Robert Morey, one of the famous Christian apologists, in his online presentation concludes, “the Jesus of Jehovah’s Witnesses is dead. He is not worthy of our love and he cannot save us.”[19] Indeed as Vincent Mccan, one of the literature contributors for the website of Spotlight Ministry said the body of Jesus was “dissolved into its constituent elements or atoms.”[20] The sad thing is that the Witnesses themselves are not very sure about this doctrine they themselves made. As quoted by McDowell and Stewart, Russell, the founder of this cult had written, “whether it was dissolved into gasses or whether it is still preserved somewhere as a grad memorial of God’s love, of Christ’s obedience, and of our redemption, no one knows.”[21] It seems that the Witnesses have a logical reason for their belief in the disappearance of the Lord’s body. P. E. Hewitte mentions the reason in his book of Russellism Exposed based on the writings of Russell and Rutherford, the fathers of the Witnesses. It “would have been insurmountable obstacle to the faith of the disciples”[22] if the Lord’s body had remained in the tomb. The truth that Jesus had appeared in a physical body to the disciples after the resurrection cannot be held against this doctrine according to the Witnesses because the physical body that had appeared the disciples was “a merely materialized flesh and blood to be seen and believed.”[23] This “merely materialized body didn’t stay with Jesus or go out of doors, but simply disappeared or dissolved into some elements from which he [Jesus] created them few moments before.”[24] Being amazed at this unbiblical Jesus of the witnesses and their doctrine McCann writes, it is:

Incredible that the Jehovah’s Witnesses arrived at these conclusions, especially when one considers the massive amount of Biblical evidence to show that Jesus was raised in His actual body … it is equally incredible that Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot point to a single scripture that supports their belief that Jehovah God disposed of Jesus’ body in some way.[25]

This dangerous doctrine of Jesus’ resurrection led the Witnesses even to another dangerous doctrine. For them Jesus Christ is no more a human being. He is or was the archangel Michael again instead. As Hoekemia said they think “the life which Christ enjoys is not human life, the life of a divine person with a human nature, but the angelic life – life as a spirit creature called Michael.”[26] So there is no “real continuity” between the human state of Jesus and His post-resurrection state, for he is not a human being anymore after his resurrection.[27]

Jesus and His Second Coming

At the second coming the being and state of Jesus won’t be changed according to the Witnesses’ Doctrine and therefore His coming will not be physical. In the doctrine they hold up, the very meaning of Christ’s return is perverted. For them

“… the ‘return’ or ‘second presence’ of Jesus Christ simply means that Christ, who had been sitting at the Father’s right hand in heaven since his accession, now ascends the throne of his kingdom at the Father’s right hand in heaven. The ‘return’ of Christ … exclusively heavenly transaction consisting merely in Christ’s exchanging an ordinary seat at the father’s right hand for a throne”.[28]

Therefore, Jesus will not come leaving the heaven at his second coming. In fact, as Walter R. Martin in his book, The Kingdome of Cults, Clarifies it, there is no way for Jesus to return physically since He had not physical body after His return.[29] “His coming will be quietly … and entirely unknown to the world … He will come invisibly … and will be revealed gradually … His church cannot see him with the natural eye … however, his coming in understood by the faithful …”[30]

According to the Witnesses the coming of Jesus is not a hope to occur in the future, but it has already occurred. As Kevin Quick pointed out, it is believed that Jesus returned to the earth in 1914, and his manner of coming was “secret” and “invisible.”[31] Before 1914, the Witnesses expected a visible return of the Lord. However, since Jesus did not visibly come on the year as they prophesized, they made up this explanation about the second coming of the Lord.[32] Now the coming can be recognized and seen only “through ‘the spiritual eyes’ of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization.”[33]

The logical conclusion of the above paragraph is that the coming of the Lord is not a hope to be looked for by Christians. The Lord has already returned. He is ruling the whole world in His spirit, and everything is being submitted gradually. There is nothing to wait and hope for in the future as long as the Second Advent is concerned.[34] Therefore the Evangelicals belief of the second coming of Jesus is none other than false prophecy.

As it is clearly pointed out above, the Jesus of Jehovah’s Witnesses is totally unbiblical. He was not a God before His “pre-humanity” – but a lesser god created to be an angel Michael. He was born of a virgin indeed as the deceivers claim, but never had two natures – the nature of God and man. He was man and man alone instead. The Witnesses again believe that He was crucified to pay the wage of the sinners, and His spirit was raised up from death. But His physical body was either disposed or hidden by God. His coming is believed and accepted in their doctrine, but it is not a Christian hope any more. He has already come secretly.

Biblical Teaching on the Person of Jesus Christ

As pointed out above, the Jehovah’s Witnesses believed in a Jesus that is not deity but the archangel Michael, who became a mere man on earth, whose physical body deposed after his death. During his resurrection, only his spirit resurrected and Jesus became the archangel Michael one more again. Since he is a spirit, there is no such thing as physical second coming of Jesus. In fact, the second coming has already occurred in spirit. Now, the false fullness of this doctrine will be discussed in the next few pages.

Jesus before His Incarnation

With regard to his personhood before the incarnation of Jesus, the Witnesses teach that Jesus was a created being to be a lesser god, and He is identified as Archangel Michael. However, the Bible does not present Jesus as a created being but as the God who created everything.

First, Col 1:15 does not teach the creation of Jesus by God before the creation of the universe. It is true that the verse teach that Jesus is the “first born before all creation,” but “first born” does not mean first created. As Kim Lawrence James pointed out the Greek word used for first born (prwtotokos) can indicate either “priority” or “primacy of position.” Therefore, according to James, interpreting the verse as meaning that Jesus was the first to be created is not the only option.[35] However, the context reveals the primacy of Jesus is the only possible interpretation. What the text is teaching in that passage is the supremacy of Jesus over all creation because He brought forth all the creation into existence.

Jesus is identified with the angle Michael in the Witnesses’ doctrine, and the major verse they have is Dan 12:1. For them, Dan 12:1 teaches that Michael will be ruling at the end, and therefore he must be Jesus since no one else is supposed to rule other than Jesus. However, the only thing Dan 12:1 is saying is that the angel Michael will stand up to aid God’s people at the end of the world. It does not teach that Michael will rule.[36] In fact, as Kim James pointed out Michael is inferior to another powerful angel because in Dan 11:1 another angel stood by Michael to strengthen him.[37]

Again, in the Witnesses doctrine, Jesus is said to be a mighty god but not the Almighty God, and they find their biblical support in John 1:1. However, John 1:1 was a strong support for the deity of Christ. The Witnesses argument on this verse is that the third line of John 1:1 should be translated “and the word was a god” because the Greek text lucks definite article before the noun God.

First, it is impossible for the author of the Gospel of John to insert an article in front of God in the third line of John 1:1. The third line of the Greek text reads kai qeos hn o logos. In this Greek text the presence of a definite article (o) in front of (logos) indicates that logos is the subject of the sentence. Since hn is an intransitive verb, it cannot take a direct object but a predicate noun, and in this case the predicate noun is qeos. Now if there was a definite noun in front of qeos it would be impossible to tell which one is the subject and which one is the predicate noun. The grammar would not allow the insertion of a definite article in this situation or it would be a bad grammar. Walter Martin and Norman Klann in their book Jehovah of the Watchtower conclude that translating this text as “and the word was a god” “is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek since THEOS is the predicate nominative of was in the third sentence clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, Word (LOGOS).”[38]

Second, there are many occasions in the New Testament passages where qeos without definite article rendered as God even in the New World Translation which is the Witnesses’ translation of the Bible. In this translation of the Bible the Witnesses contradict their own rule elsewhere in the New Testament.  Matt 5:9, 6:24, Luke 1:35, 78; John 1:6 … are a few examples where qeos without a definite article is rendered as God. After noticing this inconsistency Walter Martin and Norman Klann expose the truth behind the Witnesses translation. “The truth of the matter is this, that Jehovah’s Witnesses use and remove the articular emphasis whenever and wherever it suits their fancy regardless of grammatical laws to the contrary.”[39]

John 1:1 is a very strong verse that teaches the deity of Jesus Christ. Not only does it directly claim His deity, but it also shows that Jesus was with God from eternity past. The verses next to it also tell that He is not a creature, but the creator and originator of everything. Therefore before the incarnation Jesus was God.

Jesus during His Incarnation

During the incarnation, the Witnesses teach that Jesus became a perfect man. He lived as a man not as a God- man. It is true that Jesu lived as a perfect man while on earth, but the point of this paper is to prove that He was deity at the same time while He was on earth. In John 1:1 after claiming the deity of Jesus Christ, in that same chapter John tells that Jesus became a man (v. 14). Jesus did not cease to be a deity when He became a man but the Scripture tells that He was both man and God at the same time Col 1:19. In addition, Jesus Himself claimed to be one with God while He was on the earth (John 10:30).

Jesus after His Resurrection and His Second Coming

The Witnesses teaching on the person of Jesus after His resurrection is that Jesus’ body was deposed and His spirit was raised during the event of the resurrection. He became an angel one more again, and He returned as to the world as a spirit in 1914.

There are many reasons why Jesus remained deity after His resurrection and He will be the same forever. First, the Bible teaches that the Jesus of yesterday and today remains the same forever (Heb 13:8). Second, immutability is one of the essences of deity. If Jesus was deity before the incarnation, He is to remain deity forever. God cannot change. The resurrection and the coming back of Jesus do not change the nature of Jesus.

Conclusion: Jesus is Deity

The teaching of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is really confusing to a lot of people who do not know the Christian doctrine very well. Not only do they rob Jesus of His deity, but they give Him different nature and status at different stages. However, the Bible consistently teaches the deity of Jesus from eternity to eternity.

First, the Bible claims that Jesus is God. John 1:1 and Heb 1:8 directly call Jesus God, and God is always God. Second, the works Jesus did and His characters show that Jesus is God. He healed people, He raised dead people from death, and He forgave the sins of people. In addition, He used to know what people taught in their heart, He promised to be in the midst of people who gather together in his name. In short He is immutable, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Jesus is in fact deity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Duncan, Homer. Heart to Heart Talks with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Lubbock, TX: Missionary            Crusader Inc., 1972.

Evans, William. The Great Doctrines of the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Graham, Holt H. “Jehovah’s Witnesses”, Merit Student Encyclopedia, 1987 ed.

Gruss, Edmond C. We Left Jehovah’s Witnesses. Nutley, NJ. Presbyterian and reformed                            Publishing Company, 1975.

Hewitt, P. E. Russelism Exposed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949.

Hoekemia, Anthony A. Jehovah’s Witnesses. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans      Publishing company, 1972.

James, Kim Lawrence. “The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Doctrine of the Person of Christ.”  PH. D.        thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968.

Martin, Walter R. The kingdom of Cults. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1974.

Martin, Walter R. & Klann, Norman. Jehovah of the Watchtower: A Through Expose of the                       Important Anti-Biblical Teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses. New York, NY: Biblical    Truth Publishing Society, Inc., 1953.

McDowell, John & Stewart, Don. Understanding Cults. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life             Publishers, Inc., 1982.

McDowell, John & Stewart, Don. The Deceivers. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers,                     1984.

Robertson, Irvine. What the Cults Believe. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.

Schnell, William J. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Errors Exposed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book             House, 1976.

Wellborn, Charles T. Religion in America. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co, 1975.

Articles

MaCGregor, Lorri. “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Second Coming of Christ.” [on-line]. Accessed               7 Apr 2010. Available from http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP2W1001.pdf; Internet.

McCann, Vincent. “The Resurrection of Jesus: Raised Bodily or as a Spirit Creature?” [on-line].   Accessed 7 Apr 2010. Available from http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/jwjesusres.htm; Internet.

Morey, Robert. “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Resurrection of Jesus.” [on-line]. Accessed 7 Apr. 2010. Available from http://www.jude3.net/JWRES.HTM.

Quick, Kevin. “The Resurrection of Jesus: Raised Bodily or as a Spirit Creature?” [on-line].                      Accessed 7 April 2010. Available from     http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/jwjesusres.htm; Internet.

---

[1] William Evans, The Great Doctrines of the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 53.

[2] Homer Duncan, Heart to Heart Talks with Jehovah’s Witnesses (Lubbock: Missionary Crusader, 1972), 37.

[3] Kim Lawrence James, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Doctrine of the Person of Christ” (PH. D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968), 18.

[4] Ibid., 36.

[5] Ibid., 29.

[6] Ibid., 54.

[7] Antony Hoekemia, Jehovah’s Witnesses (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), 61-62.

[8] Irvine Robertson, What the Cults Believe (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), 61-62.

[9] Hoekemia, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 61.

[10] Ibid., 61.

[11]James, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Doctrine of the Person of Christ” 24.

[12] Walter R. Martin, The Kingdom of Cults (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship Inc., 1974), 75-77.

[13] Hoekemia, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 62.

[14] Ibid., 61-63.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] John McDowell and Don Stewart, The Deceivers (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, INC., 1982), 110.

[18]Hoekemia, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 65.

[19] Robert Morey, “Jehovah’s Witnesses and The Resurrection of Jesus” [on-line]; accessed 7 April 2010; available from http://www.jude3.net/JWRES.HTM; Internet.

[20] Vincent McCann, “The Resurrection of Jesus: Raised Bodily or as a Spirit Creature?” [on-line]; accessed 7 April 2010; available from http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/jwjesusres.htm; Internet.

[21] John McDowell and Don Stewart, The Deceivers, 110.

[22] P. E. Hewitt, Russelism Exposed (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1941), 25.

[23] John McDowell and Don Stewart, The Deceivers, 111.

[24] P. E. Hewitt, Russelism Exposed (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1941), 25.

[25] Vincent McCann, “The Resurrection of Jesus: Raised Bodily or as a Spirit Creature?” 

[26] Hoekemia, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 66.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid., 91

[29] Walter R. Martin , The Kingdom of Cults, 87.

[30] P. E. Hewitt, Russelism Exposed, 28.

[31] Kevin Quick, “The Return of Christ” [on-line] accessed 7 April 2010; available from http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/return.html; Internet.

[32] Lorri McGregore, “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Second Coming of Christ” [on-line]; accessed 7 April 2010; available from http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP2W1001.pdf; Internet.

[33] Kevin Quick, “The Return of Christ”.

[34] Hoekemia, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 91.

[35] James, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Doctrine of the Person of Christ” 13.

[36] Ibid., 25.

[37] Ibid., 25-26.

[38] Walter R. Martin and Norman H. Klann, Jehovah of the Watchtower (New York: Biblical Truth Publishing Society, Inc., 1953), 49.

[39] Ibid., 51.