I do not make much use of JW Library app these days, but it does have an excellent word search function and gives me offline access to a Greek interlinear. To get to these features one has to pass through the home page, and on this particular day, there was the grinning face of Jackson with a subtitle ‘I and the Father are one’. Rather mischievously I concluded that he had assumed the Rutherfordian mantle of being Christ on earth, so I felt that this one might be worth listening to. It was, not because I received any great revelations – I largely agree with his conclusions – but at a more fundamental level. The question that arose from within is this; is it actually possible to define, unequivocally and unambiguously, the nature of Jesus, the Father and their relationship, from and only from scripture?
Predictably, Jackson referred to Watchtower publications alone as his reference material. This is, of course, highly disingenuous. He also reverted to the finer points of Greek grammar to bolster his arguments, which is something that the average Bible reader is unable to do. Would the holy spirit really hide important doctrinal issues behind a layer of technicalities, in a way that only the privileged few would be able to understand? Is this not why Tyndale wanted the plough boy to read the Bible for himself, to release him from the power of the clergy?
Apparently, the word ‘one’ (hen) is in the neuter case which denotes oneness of purpose rather than oneness of being, which might have been suggested had it been in the masculine. This appears to have been taken from, or at least is in agreement with, the Ellicott commentary. He then moved on to John 1:1, its footnote that says ‘or divine’, and proceeded to discuss the Greek usage of articles, definite and indefinite. Again, how is it right that we can defend our beliefs only by reverting to a subject (Greek grammar) that none of us know anything about, other than what WTS want us to know? Was Tyndale’s work on behalf of the plough boy in vain such that he could read the words but not understand their message?
For the best part of two thousand years scholars, theologians and linguists have debated the nature of Jesus and his relationship with God the Father. The result is evident – disagreement, division, sectarianism, hatred, intolerance, war! There is absolutely nothing that I can write that will not add to this confusion, or resolve the issues at hand. But that does not prohibit me from thinking about the subject and drawing some possible conclusions. Is Jesus part of some three-in-one trinity, as taught by the Catholics, Protestants and others? Is he ‘a god’ as per Jehovah’s Witnesses and other Unitarian sects? Does ‘a god’ in NWT make the JWs polytheistic? Is this why they marginalise him, keeping his sacrifice central to salvation, and using him as a role-model, while focussing all worshipful attention on Jehovah? And many more questions besides!
Can scripture alone settle the question? The answer has to be ‘no’ otherwise it would have been settled long ago, the question would never have arisen. There are two points that most agree on:
1. Scripture contains language that supports both his divinity, and his subordination.
2. No single passage resolves the tension in a way that eliminates all alternative readings.
However, Scripture is completely unambiguous on the following:
1. Jesus is the Messiah, the one sent by God (Dan 9:25, 26; John 1:41)
2. Jesus is the Son of God in a unique sense (Matt 16:16; 1 John 4:9)
3. Jesus is our means of salvation (John 3:16)
4. Jesus is exalted above all creation (Php 2:9)
5. Jesus will return, and when he does ‘we shall see him as he is’ (Dan 12:1; 1 John 3:2)
If we have such unambiguous teachings about Jesus, why then do we make such a big deal about what is not revealed by God, even to the point of fighting? Some reasons that occur to me:
Fear is never far away. Fear of being wrong; fear of being different; fear of having our salvation threatened, our beliefs demolished.
Power. Religion is all about control and coercion, political alliances, money. Theology becomes a boundary between those who are ‘in’ and those who are ‘out’.
Identity. Belonging to the right group gives us an identity, a label that we can own, structure to our lives and confidence that we are not alone.
Certainty. We need to know. We are uncomfortable with ambiguity. We have a need to tie up the loose ends and have everything neatly packaged, complete with bow!
With such feelings floating around, conflict becomes inevitable. But what if we step back and accept that Scripture tells us everything we need to know, whilst not telling us everything we want to know? That until the day of Christ’s coming, there will always be some things that remain mysterious. Paul noted the truth of this. At 1 Cor 13:12 he speaks of a dim reflection as from a mirror and a time to come when we will see face to face. John notes that what we will be has not been revealed but that we will see Christ as he is (1 John 3:2). There are many other similar sentiments (see Rom 8:18-19, 2 Cor 3:18, Col 3:4, John 17:24, 2 Pet 1:4, Rev 22:4). This requires us to hold tightly to what is central to salvation – faith, love, hope, repentance; to not get upset by what is not clearly defined in Scripture; to allow others to hold different, yet sincere, beliefs; and trust that Jesus will make all things plain in God’s own due time. We know that we have everything we need to follow Jesus faithfully now, today. It may not be exhaustive, but our salvation is assured by faith in what has been revealed in scripture, and by faith that what has not been revealed is unnecessary for salvation; and that by faith full clarity will come when Christ reveals himself. Unity in the New Testament is grounded in love, humility, devotion to Christ and mutual respect for personal differences. Uniformity takes these qualities, neutralises them, homogenises them, and produces spiritual clones – or perhaps, slaves. Yet Paul assured Timothy that God’s will is that everyone be saved by knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Note that the Greek says pantas anthropous, lit. all men, and not as NWT has it ‘all [sorts of] men’. All sorts of animals went into the ark as representatives of their species; not all the animals entered. Humans are not animals. God’s will is that all people be saved; personal, ethnic, cultural or experiential differences do not change this. So who am I to deny anyone salvation simply on the grounds of differences of opinion on subjects that the scriptures do not define in every minute detail? To declare that I am right and they are wrong? Why are the Catholics so authorised? Or the Anglicans, the Baptists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or anyone else? Each of these groups are wrong in their insistence that they, and only they, are right, and that they alone are purveyors of truth. The pure outrage of James is palpable when he asks the question at 4:12:
There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and destroy. So who are you to judge your neighbour?
Does the foregoing therefore mean that we do not need to have any beliefs and opinions of our own, that we can put the feet up, lay back, and mentally doze off? Not at all! Peter tells us that we must ‘always be prepared to give a defence to everyone who asks you the reason for your hope’ (1 Pet 3:15). If salvation comes through faith in Jesus, then we must build that faith, we must have some beliefs of our own that we can defend before ‘everyone’ who asks. We cannot do this if we do not know what we believe, or why we believe what we think we believe. Neither can we defend our beliefs if they are actually someone else’s beliefs; that we believe only what our religious leaders tell us to believe. If we are asked a difficult question that challenges our beliefs, or that is contrary to the official doctrine of our religion, it might seem to be the wisest course to stick our fingers in our ears and run away, shouting ‘I can’t hear you!’. But Peter says we must defend before ‘everyone who asks’ our hope for the future, our beliefs, our faith, our relationship with God and Jesus. However, he does qualify this in that we must do so with gentleness and respect, that we keep a clean conscience by maintaining good behaviour. This is not about winning arguments; proving that I am right and you are wrong. That will, quite feasibly, lead to fights, and a slave of the Lord does not need to fight (2 Tim 2:24). He needs to be gentle, able to teach and patient. These are beautiful qualities for all of us to cultivate.
Returning to the title of this piece, how would you explain John 10:30 – ‘I and the Father are one’? What passages would you use to support Jesus’s divinity? And those that support his subordination? List them all out. Meditate on them. Think about who Jesus is, why he came to earth, and what faith in him means. Are you living a penitent life? Have you been baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? Is the latter a proper noun? And when you have come to a conclusion, prepare to defend that belief, gently and respectfully.
Back