Board index ‹ Jehovah's Witness

[Slik fiji]

Whats with the hate against Jehovah's Witnesses?

Jehovah's Witnesses are correct on the doctrine that Jesus is an angel.

Mainstream scholarship says so.

https://ehrmanblog.org/christ-as-an-angel-in-paul-for-members/
https://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-view-of-jesus-as-an-angel-for-members/
https://ehrmanblog.org/christ-as-an-angel-in-paul-2/

[jimwalton]

First response: There's no hate against Jehovah's Witnesses. We just don't agree with their theology.

Second response: Just because Bart Ehrman says so doesn't mean it's "mainstream scholarship."

Third response: Hebrews 1 is firm that Jesus is not an angel.

• Heb. 1.2, 5, 14: Jesus is the Son, not a messenger (i.e., angel; Heb. 1.7). Jesus is the definitive revelation of God by God Himself.
• 1.2: Jesus is appointed heir of all things, not true of any angel. The Son is the rightful owner of all things (cf. Ps. 2.8).
• 1.2, 10: Jesus was the agent of creation (also Jn. 1.3; Col. 1.16). That is not true of any angel.
• 1.3: Jesus is the very visible glory of God, not true of any angel
• 1.3, 11-12: Jesus shares God's nature, not true of any angel.
• 1.3, 8, 13: Jesus shares God's sovereignty and omnipotence in sustaining the universe.
• 1.3: Though Jesus shares God's essence, He is a different person from God.
• 1.4: Jesus has always been essentially and eternally superior to the angels, but in his crucifixion and resurrection He proved what we real from eternity. He is no angel.
• 1.6: Jesus is deserving of the worship due to God, not true of any angel.

Your comment about "mainstream scholarship says so" just doesn't wash. It simply is not true.

[Silk Fiji]

Anyone who reads Paul understands Jesus is an angel.

Paul teaches God handed over all his duties and powers to Jesus, who is the top angel (Galatians 4:14).

Jesus is the power of God and the wisdom of God, but not himself God (1 Cor. 1.24), only the image of God (literally, ‘God’s icon’, 2 Cor. 4.4; though compare 1 Cor. 11.7, where the same is said of ordinary men, but there only through their unity with Christ); he was made by God (1 Cor. 1.30). He sits at the right hand of God and pleads with God on our behalf (Rom. 8.34). All things were made by God, but through the agency of Christ (1 Cor. 8.4-6). Christ is given the form of a god, but refuses to seize that opportunity to make himself equal to God, but submits to incarnation and death instead, for which obedience God grants him supreme authority (Phil. 2.5-11). And Christ will in the end deliver the kingdom to God, who only gave Christ the authority to rule and wage war on God’s behalf; and in the end Christ will give that authority back to God (1 Cor. 15.24-28).

Thus in our earliest sources Jesus was always distinguished as a different entity from God, and as his subordinate. Even in Colossians he is the image of God, not God himself; in fact, he is ‘the firstborn of all creation’ (and thus a created being), and ‘God dwelled within him’, in the same sense as was imagined for Jewish prophets, priests and kings (Col. 1.15-19). Thus in Rom. 1.4 (and all of Hebrews 1) Jesus is only appointed the ‘Son of God’. This was precisely how the phrase ‘Son of God’ and the concepts of divine ‘incarnation’ and ‘indwelling’ were then understood by the Jews. This was therefore not a radical idea but entirely in accord with popular Jewish theology. This would still make Jesus a god in common pagan parlance, but not in the usual vocabulary of Jews, who would sooner call such a divine being an archangel or celestial ‘lord'.

[jimwalton]

> Gal. 4.14

You have apparently missed the double "as" that separates the two praises: "as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself." There is nothing her that implies Christ was present with them in the form of an angel. That's a distortion of the text.

He is not implying that Jesus was/is an angel. He is giving several options. Option 1: they treated Paul as if he were an angel. Option 2: they treated Paul as if he were Jesus Christ himself. When Matthew 25.31-46 says "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mind you did for me," it is not claiming that Jesus was sick and in prison (25.35-40). Nor is Paul claiming Jesus is an angel. Read 1 Samuel 29.9 "I know that you have been pleasing in my eyes as an angel of God." Achish is not saying David is an angel. Also look at 2 Sam. 14.17 & 20; 19.27. Read Zech. 12.8. Paul is not claiming that Jesus is an angel.

Look at the context. Paul had some kind of illness (Gal. 4.13). He appreciated that they didn't treat him with contempt or scorn (v. 14), but instead treated him like an angel, or as they would have treated Jesus Christ himself. Notice that the Greek does NOT say, "you received me as if I were an angel of God, Jesus Christ." What it says is "you received me as if I were an angel of God, as Christ Jesus." The word "as" appears twice, separating the two references.

The word "as" (ὡς) appears once before angel, and again before Christ. Therefore "Christ Jesus" is not an explanation of who the angel is, but a separate category of possibilities of how they were treating him.

> 1 Cor. 1.24

You can't just cherry pick texts that you want and ignore the rest of the NT. But even the ones you pick don't show what you are trying to sustain. Paul doesn't put the deity of Christ in every sentence when he speaks of Christ; that would get quite cumbersome. Instead, Paul makes the point that he is trying to make. Some places he's quite solid about the deity of Christ; here, that is not his point. What he is talking about here is that Christ is the power of God for salvation. With his death on the cross he conquered sin and death, and grants us the gift of new life. Though he also has the power of God in creation, in performing wonders and miracles, and in judging the world at the end of time. The focus here is on his power to save.

> he was made by God: 1 Cor. 1.30

This is wrong. The verse reads: "It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption." This verse says NOTHING about Jesus being made by God. It speaks instead of the incarnation, the cross, and the resurrection—Paul's point in this chapter.

> Christ is given the form of a god, but refuses to seize that opportunity to make himself equal to God, but submits to incarnation and death instead, for which obedience God grants him supreme authority (Phil. 2.5-11)

You're not being careful enough. The text doesn't say that Jesus was made in the form of God or that he was given the form of God. Instead, it says ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ: Who, being in very nature God..." Jesus was God in His very nature, and was always God in His very nature.

> 1 Cor. 15.24-28

Yes, Philippians 2.9-11 says God will hand the kingdom over the Jesus; 1 Cor. 15.24 says Jesus will hand the kingdom over to God. It's how the Trinity works. They exalt each other. This verse (15.24), however, is probably talking about the resurrection (which the whole chapter has been about). His death on the cross and resurrection destroyed all dominion, authority, and power, and in his ascension he handed over his kingdom to the Father. At the same time, Philippians 2.9-11 tells us that God will exalt Jesus above every name, and, of course, Jesus will receive that to the glory of God the Father.

> Thus in our earliest sources Jesus was always distinguished as a different entity from God

This is just blatantly wrong.

> Even in Colossians he is the image of God, not God himself

The image (εἰκὼν) is more than likeness. Full deity is ascribed to jesus by this term. The Greek word *omoioma* expresses mere resemblance. If Paul had used that here, you could claim Jesus was not God himself. But the term Paul used is εἰκὼν: He is the very nature and essence of God.

> ‘the firstborn of all creation’ (and thus a created being)

Wrong again. The "firstborn of all creation" means he preceded creation. It doesn't mean he was the first created being or imply that he had some kind of origin in time. "Firstborn" points to eternal preexistence." Christ could not have been the first of created beings, because that very idea is contradicted by the very next verse (Col. 1.16).

> Romans 1.4: Jesus is only appointed the ‘Son of God’.

The problem is your reductionistic term, "only." Jesus was the Son of God in his pre-incarnate state (2 Cor. 8.9; Phil. 2.6), and still so after his incarnation (Rom. 1.3). IT was his resurrection of the dead that definitely marked Jesus off as God's Son, giving historical evidence of His claims. The resurrection confirmed Him to be what he was all along.

> This was precisely how the phrase ‘Son of God’ and the concepts of divine ‘incarnation’ and ‘indwelling’ were then understood by the Jews.

Jewish theology saw "Son of God" in different ways. In one sense, it was the Messiah of Ps. 2.7. Paul uses this title "Son of God" 10 times in Romans as (1) a recognition of Jesus's humanity, (2) a recognition of Jesus's deity and as Messiah, (3) as a recognition fo Jesus's sovereign Lordship as God.