John 2:18 - 22

Did Christ Raise Himself From the Grave?

A Trinitarian Defense

The following verses would seem to answer this question in the affirmative:

Joh 2:18 (ESV) So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?”

Joh 2:19 (ESV) Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Joh 2:20 (ESV) The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”

Joh 2:21 (ESV) But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

Joh 2:22 (ESV) When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

This would suggest that Jesus raised Himself from the grave. But Rom 6:4, says the Father raised Him:

Rom 6:4 (ESV) We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.  See also Act 2:22-23 and Gal 1:1.

To clarify, Trinitarians agree completely with the verses teach the Father raised Jesus, but we don't believe it was the Father alone who raised Him, as the Greek text makes clear.

In fact, the WT publication Reasoning From the Scriptures quotes AT Robertson in reference to this passage:

"He did not not mean that he would raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent" (Reasoning, p. 424, italics added).  No Trinitarian would say otherwise.

Some knowledgeable Jehovah’s Witnesses (and others that deny the Deity of Christ) resolve this apparent conflict by saying that Jesus had such confidence that the Father would raise Him from the dead, that He could speak as if He raised Himself.

In support of this claim, they may cite Eze 43:3:

Eze 43:3 (ESV) And the vision I saw was just like the vision that I had seen when he came to destroy the city, and just like the vision that I had seen by the Chebar canal. And I fell on my face.

The pertinent part verse reads “when I came to destroy the city” in the KJV and most older Bibles. Newer Bibles favor the reading “when he came.”

The reason newer Bibles favor this reading is because:

• 1) the Hebrew text is uncertain at this point (one letter difference between 1st and 3rd person pronoun, and two letters are similar in appearance).
• 2) it makes the most sense with the surrounding context (see chapters 1, 5, and 10).
• 3) it is supported by several Hebrew MSS and one Greek translation.
• 4) the Aramaic Targum reads: “When I prophesied to destroy the city.”

Other attempts to explain away this clear passage of Scripture similarly fail.

John 5 and Christ "as Agent"

Several New Testament scholars - most notably A.E. Harvey ("Christ as Agent" and Jesus and the Constraints of History) and James Frank McGrath (John's Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology) have written that key christological verses in John's Gospel - particularly in Chapter 5 - may be explained not in terms of Jesus' ontological equality with His Father (as has been understood by the Early Church Fathers and orthodox commentators and scholars ever since) but in terms of the Jewish legal concept of "Agency." Not surprisingly, a number of anti-Trinitarian apologists have taken up this argument in an effort to undermine the Biblical evidence for Christ's Deity.

Here is a typical example:

"Even if the texts were saying that they were to honor Jesus"as much" as they honor the Father, it wouldn't be problematic to the JW view, nor would it assist trinitarianism. Jesus' relationship to the Father is developed by John according to the paradigm of 'agency', and this paradigm is summed up by the phrase, "the agent is equated with the principal," or "the agent is as the principal." Jesus' role as the "Word" (= God's spokesman) was to representatively reveal God to us. Thus, within the parameters set by the Father, the principal, Jesus was legally equal with God. To honor an agent is to honor the principal he represents, and to dishonor an agent is to dishonor the principal he represents. So when Christ performs functions that are ultimately the prerogatives of God himself, he is due the same honor that would be given to God himself.

The reason this doesn't present a problem is because, according to the agency paradigm, it is ultimately the principal who is the true recipient of the honor that is given to his representative. It is Jehovah's office and authority we honor when we honor his Son"
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evangelicals_and_jws/message/33970).

It must be said at the outset that this argument has a lot of merit. Trinitarians agree that Jesus is - in Harvey's words - God's "Agent par-excellence." He does represent the Father to the world. He is the direct "agent" of creation, salvation, resurrection, and eternal life.

The question is: How far can one press the idea of agency? Can one argue - as my Witness friend has, above - that agency completely eliminates the possibility that the Son of God is ontologically equal with God the Father? If Jesus is the agent "par-excellence" because He is God's Son, then can all of the references to Jesus as God (both direct and indirect) be explained away?

I've given this topic a lot of thought and research. I hope to write a formal article on this topic in the future. In this blog entry, I'll attempt to give a brief summary of my findings and preliminary conclusions. In short, I believe that while "agency" may be a helpful category to explain how easily some Jews were able to accommodate Jesus into their monotheism, it goes well beyond the available evidence to suggest that Jesus was simply God's Agent, to the exclusion of His essential Deity.

For further research, I'd suggest the following sources:

Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity
Larry Hurtado, One God and One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism.
Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament.
Darrell Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge Against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65.

Is "Agency" Biblical?
It has been asserted - both by Harvey and McGrath (and a handful of others) - that the Jews of Jesus' day would readily have understood Jesus calling God "his own Father" and "making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18) in terms of agency. But the evidence they offer is usually in terms of extra-Biblical texts - many of them dating later than the NT. For example, the key concept, highlighted by the Witness apologist quoted above, is: "The agent is equated with the principal." While we can certainly find texts that indicate that God's agents represent Him (Luke 20:13), communicating His prophecies and commandments, and even "stand-in" for Him in very specific circumstances (e.g., Moses was "made like God" to Pharaoh, Exodus 7:1), there are no examples of agents (other than Jesus) who are said to be equal to God.

McGrath also points to Exodus 23:21 and several extra-Biblical texts to demonstrate that principal agents of God could bear His name. Each of these texts are very similar in the wording they use:

Exo 23:21 - Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.

Apocalypse of Abraham 10:3 - And when I was still face down on the earth, I heard the voice of the Holy One, saying, “Go, Yahoel, the namesake of the mediation of my ineffable name, sanctify this man and strengthen him from his trembling!”

Apocalypse of Abraham 10:8 - I am Yahoel named by him who shakes those which are with me on the seventh vault, on the firmament. I am a power in the midst of the Ineffable who put together his names in me.

3 Enoch 12:5 - He [the Holy One]… called me, 'The lesser YHVH' in the presence of his whole household in the height, as it is written, 'My name is in him.'"

The lone Biblical text does not say that anyone called the angel YHWH, or that God wanted Him to be so addressed. There is no hint that the angel is God's "principal agent," or co-regent. Instead, God says that the Israelites must obey the angel as if he were God, "since my Name is in him." The focus is on obedience; God placing His name in the angel need mean nothing more than He placed His authority in this particular circumstance in him. This text simply cannot be regarded as supporting the exaggerated view of agency advocated by McGrath and anti-trinitarian apologists.

The Apocalypse of Abraham is dated slightly after the NT period (80 - 100 AD). It refers to the angel Yahoel as the "namesake" of God, in whom God "put together his names." This language is so similar to the Exodus text, that it most likely is derivative of it. Later Jewish mysticism read much into such texts, but there is little evidence that the author of the Apocalypse regarded the angel Yahoel as the principal agent of God. He was granted God's authority in a specific situation, like the angel in Exodus.

3 Enoch dates from the later half of the 3rd Century AD. Jewish Merkabah mystics also made use of this text, and it probably contributed to the so-called Two Powers Heresy (see Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism and James McGrath and Jerry Treux "'Two Powers' and Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism"). However, as McGrath and Truex argue, this 'heresy' probably developed over time. The fact that Paul and the other NT authors saw no reason to address it in relationship to their exalted view of Christ argues strongly that it did not exist in their day (contra McGrath and Truex, who argue that it did, but was not regarded as heretical until much later).

James McGrath also points to Philo's concept of the Logos as a "second God" as supporting the common idea that God has a principal agent, and he finds this idea also present in the NT. He writes: "For example, it is widely recognized that John’s concept of the Logos has similarities with Philo’s ("Two Powers"). But McGrath seems to be over-reaching, both in his sweeping statement about Philo's and John's Logos being "similar" (many NT scholars would sharply disagree), and most importantly in regarding Philo's language as supportive of personal agency. As Larry Hurtado cogently argues:

"In Philo, as in Greek philosophical tradition, the Logos was solely an important logical category posited to deal with an intellectual problem. By contrast Justin's view [which was, I would argue, influenced by John's Gospel] was obviously shaped by the fact that he was applying the term to a real figure who had appeared in history and was reverenced in Christian worship under his own name along with God the Father" (Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, p. 644, emphasis in original).

In summary, while the notion of God sending agents into the world is surely Biblical, there is no evidence supporting the idea that the agent was to be understood as being equal to God. This leads us, then, to an examination of John 5.

Equal with God
John 5:18 - For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Anti-trinitarians argue that Jesus calling God His "own Father" and "making himself equal with God" can be accommodated under the rubric of agency. As we have seen, there is no Biblical evidence that such can be the case. However, if the Jews in Jesus' day can be shown to have understood equality with God to be purely functional (to the exclusion of ontology), we might agree that while prior agents were never equated with God, Jesus as the agent par-excellence could be so equated.

I must stress is that the phrase "equal with God" is not spoken by the Jews; it is John's explanatory statement. God knew the minds of the Jews, and God inspired John to explain what the Jews meant when they accused Jesus of claiming God as his own Father, i.e., "making Himself equal with God." "Making Himself equal with God," is appositional to "saying God is his own Father." This view is commonplace among commentators and grammarians, including the McGrath and Harvey. McGrath goes so far as to creatively retranslate John 5:18 to avoid what he acknowledges is the consensus view and the negative implications of that view for his position (McGrath, Jesus and the Constraints of History, p. 88).

The Jews sought to kill Jesus for what they perceived to be blasphemy. While it is possible that the Jews would have thought someone claiming to be God's agent who really wasn't was blasphemous, there is little evidence to support this idea. For example, nowhere in Darrell Bock's extensive study (see above) does he suggest that 'blasphemy' can be so tightly defined. Nor is there evidence that words or actions against God's agent were considered blasphemous because the offender failed to honor the agent just as he honored God. In fact, his examples are all verbal insults hurled against God's people or their leaders, which were perceived as attacks against God Himself, not refusal to give even unequal honor.

On the contrary, regarding oneself as ontologically equal with God was regarded as blasphemy of the highest order, as we shall see.

Since Harvey and McGrath are comfortable leaving the Bible to establish what they think represents common Jewish thinking in NT times, I will do so as well. In 2 Maccabees 9:12 we read the following cry of remorse from a cursed Antiochus:

"And when he could not endure his own stench, he uttered these words: "It is right to be subject to God, and no mortal should think that he is equal to God."

That Antiochus did not merely regard himself as God's principal agent is clear from the context:

"He who had just been thinking that he could command the waves of the sea, in his superhuman arrogance, and imagining that he could weigh the high mountains in a balance" (2 Maccabees, 9:8). Antiochus was claiming divine power and authority, tantamount to ontological equality with God. And in verse 28, he is called "blasphemer."

The explicit reference to divinity, here, is ISOQEOS (which the classical Greek lexicon LSJ renders: "equal to the gods"). I've consulted several standard translations of 2 Maccabees with these results:

RSV: "Equal to God"
Bartlett: "Equal to him [God]"
Tedesche: "God's equal"

The verbal similarity to John 5 is obvious, and has been recognized by Hurtado, Bock, Meeks, and Harvey. Indeed, in Jesus and the Constraints of History (page 170), Harvey cites the Jews' accusations in John 5:18 and says that claiming equality with God was "blasphemous." But on page 171, he references 2 Maccabees 9:12! He actually agrees that the Jews understood Jesus to be claiming ontological equality. He believes Jesus answers the Jews by claiming merely to be God's agent, but he acknowledges the very point I have been raising. I'm not sure how Harvey can, on the one hand, agree that "equal with God" connotes ontological equality and is John's explanation of what "claiming God as his own Father" means in John 5, and on the other, claim that 'Son of God' was not blasphemous. It would seem a contradiction in his argument.

In the Decalogue 61, Philo calls "impious" those who would honor a creature equally with God, comparing them to those would would honor a viceroy equally with a King. This statement not only supports the idea that equality with God could include ontology, but also that agency does not require even functional equality in the way Harvey and McGrath argue.

Conclusion
In evaluating the "Christ as Agent" claims of scholars and anti-Trinitarian apologists, we must first determine if there is any basis in history for someone claiming to be God's agent, and being accused of blasphemy the way those claiming ontological equality with God were. We can speculate that such would have been the case, but the fact is that no prior agents of God ever claimed what Jesus was claiming. None ever claimed to work on the Sabbath just as their own Father was working (John 5:17); none claimed that God showed them everything He does (John 5:20); none claimed to do everything the Father showed them, and in the same manner (John 5:19); none claimed that believers must honor the 'agent' just as they honor the Father, and not to honor the 'agent' was not honoring God Himself (John 5:23). These are stupendous claims! Even Harvey says that Jesus is the agent par-excellence, the Son of the Sender. The reason a Son was the perfect envoy in the Jewish culture, was not only because the son was loved by the father, but because the son was the perfect representation of his father (Hebrews 1:3), his own son and heir - ontologically equal with his father (e.g., Colossians 2:9), but under the Father's authority.

As Harvey asks, "how far can we take this idea of agency?" How far, indeed?

John 8:58 in the Sahidic Coptic Translation

Recently, Jehovah's Witness apologists have put a great deal of effort into promoting the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c, because they see it as an important early NT witness that supports the New World Translation's "the Word was a god." I have responded to their claims here.

I have said that we really cannot draw firm conclusions about how the Coptic translators understood John's Christology until we have examined other important Christological texts in the fourth Gospel. I have previously blogged on John 1:18 here, where I demonstrate that the Witnesses cannot point to this verse as supporting the NWT's translation, or its understanding of Christ.

I will now focus on another Christologically significant text: John 8:58. In the NWT, this verse reads: "Before Abraham was born, I have been." The Sahidic Coptic translation reads:

empate abraHam Swpe anok TSoop

Horner translates this: "Before Abraham became, I, I am being."

Horner understands 'anok' as being emphatic (Plumley, Section 46) - "I, I....", which follows the Greek text. The Coptic noun 'Soop' ('Swpe') is defined in Crum's Coptic Lexicon as, "Be, exist." The ti ("T") prefix signifies present tense.

So, right off the bat we see a dramatic disconnect between the Sahidic and the NWT. Witnesses - and others - who follow McKay in understanding EGO EIMI in this verse as a Greek Present of Past Action (PPA) find no support from the Sahidic translators.

Furthermore, the usual pattern for copulative sentences in Sahidic Coptic is to use the copulative pronoun 'pe.' If the Sahidic translators had understood EGO EIMI to be a copulative sentence with an implied predicate ("I am he"), they most likely would have used 'anok pe,' as for example they did in John 8:24.

Instead, the translators used the existential Soop. This choice - which was apparently not followed by the Bohairic translators a century or so later - cannot be without significance. It may be that the translators wished to echo Exodus 3:14, which in the Sahidic reads:

anok pe petSoop'...Je petSoop' pe ntaFtnno oyt' Sarwtn

"I am He who is...This is He who is who has sent me to you."

Exodus 3:14 in Sahidic is a fairly literal translation of the LXX: "EGO EIMI hO WN." The Greek 'hO WN' ("the one who is") = Sahidic 'petSoop' (Soop, prefixed by the definite article 'p' and the relative pronoun 'et,' ["who"]). This is the same word used by the translators at John 8:58, albeit with a different prefix.

Whether the Sahidic translators understood a connection with Exodus 3:14 or not, it is clear that they did not understand 'EGO EIMI' to be either a PPA or a copulative. They translated it as an existential present, in agreement with an overwhelming number of Greek scholars and commentators down through the ages, signifying the eternal existence of the Son.

Thus, while Witnesses may use the Sahidic translation to support the NWT's version of John 1:1c (at least to some extent), it does not appear that they can do so with 8:58. Further, if Coptic scholars are correct, and the Sahidic indefinite article in 1:1c can denote a qualitative meaning ("The Word had the same nature as God") or an indefinite one, the more verses we find in which the Deity of Christ is upheld (as it is in 1:18 and 8:58), the more likely the qualitative meaning becomes.

Biblical Agency and Exodus 3

From a prominent Unitarian Website:

I know it appears to our western minds that the one in the bush who says, “I am what I am” is Jehovah Himself. However, Stephen in Acts 7:30 identifies the speaker as “an angel.” And in verse 35 Stephen again speaks of “the angel who appeared to him [Moses] in the thorn bush.”

Thus we have the inspired interpretation of these OT passages from one who was filled with the Holy Spirit and with wisdom and faith. His understanding was that the Being who confronted Moses was not Jehovah Himself, nor the Son of God existing before his birth.

The same is true of Moses’ experience on Mount Sinai. Stephen says it was “the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai” (v. 38). Yet again, when we read the Old Testament account the impression given is quite clearly that God Himself was the speaker. Hebrews confirms the presence of a divine agency when it states categorically that Israel received the Law through “angels” (Heb. 2:2).

These are classic instances of the principle of Jewish “agency.” When God commissions and sends a subordinate to speak and act for Himself, the subordinate is treated as though he is in fact God Himself. To oppose the “sent one,” God’s commissioner, is truly to oppose God Himself.

There is, indeed, a biblical tradition of 'agency.' It is, perhaps, most clearly seen in the parable of the evil vine-growers (Mark 12:1-9). The "beloved son" sent by the father is the father's agent par-excellance: "The will respect my son." Why will they respect the son? Because he is not only his father's agent (as were the servants sent before him), but also his son, his heir in all his estate, deserving of honor equal to his father.

It is important to note that the evil vine-growers recognize the son: "This is the heir!" In indisputable examples of Biblical agents, whether they are OT prophets, NT apostles, or angels, the agents are recognized as agents; they are never confused with God. The prophets never once called themselves "God." The inspired text never describes them as God (unless the two passages described above are the lone exceptions). The apostles carefully avoided any confusion on this point (Acts 10:25-26), as did angels (Rev 19:10, 22:9).

Now, let's turn to the passages discussed on the Unitarian website:

"I know it appears to our western minds that the one in the bush who says, “I am what I am” is Jehovah Himself. However, Stephen in Acts 7:30 identifies the speaker as 'an angel.'"

The reason our western minds understand the speaker to be God, is because the text explicitly identifies the speaker as God, "God called to him from the midst of the bush" (Ex 3:4). The speaker identifies himself by saying, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Yes, the figure in the bush is earlier described as the "Angel of the LORD," but the speaker is described as God. In fact, in this entire passage, it is God who is said to be speaking, not the angel.

But what of Acts 7:30? Careful examination reveals that here, too, the figure in the bush is identified as "an angel," but the speaker is God: "The voice of the Lord" (v. 31). Exodus 3 does not portray the angel as speaking on the Father's behalf, and neither does Acts 7:30. Both passages confirm that God was speaking, in close association with (or perhaps equated with) the Angel of the LORD.

The Unitarian website continues:

"The same is true of Moses’ experience on Mount Sinai. Stephen says it was 'the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai' (v. 38)....categorically Israel received the Law through 'angels' (Heb. 2:2)."

As the website admits, "when we read the Old Testament account the impression given is quite clearly that God Himself was the speaker." Yes, indeed! The account does not merely "give the impression," it states without amibiguity that God was the speaker, that he "passed before" Moses, and that the Tablets were inscribed with his "finger."

Hebrews 2:2 simply acknowledges that formerly, God spoke His word through angels. In that sense, He used angels as agents or intermediaries. But it is not logical to conclude that He also did not speak directly Himself, particularly when the sacred text so teaches.

In short, Biblical Agency does not preclude God from acting and speaking on His own behalf. It also does not preclude the Angel (Hebrew ma'lak: "Messenger") of the LORD from being at once distinguised from God, and yet God Himself.

Going back to the parable of the evil vine-growers, the agent par excellance is the son. This parable is meant to picture the sending of the Son of God into the world, and the world's violent rejection of Him. The Son of God is the agent par excellance of His Father. This does not mean that He was simply a man, or perhaps an angel. Such beings, indeed, could be called the Father's agents, but there are no clear cases in Scripture where such agents are described as God.

Indeed, if agents can be described as God, can identify themselves as God, can be stand-ins for God, there is simply no way to determine when God is speaking anywhere in the Bible, and when it is an agent. The Gnostics and Neo-Platonists invented a series of intermediaries through whom their god had to act in the 'lower' world of material things. But that is not the God of the Bible, for whom the the physical universe (as He originally created it) was "very good," and who lovingly and sovereignly intervenes in human history, causing "all things to work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose."

Worship and the Son of Man in Daniel 7

It is often argued that Jesus is not depicted anywhere in Scripture as receiving "worship" in the same sense that God is worshipped. I have written about the Father and Son together receiving true worship in Rev 5:13 here.

Daniel 7:14 offers additional evidence that Messiah would receive true worship. Here, the Aramaic word 'pelach' is rendered latreuo in the oldest versions of the LXX, a Greek term none deny refers to the sacred service (= "worship") offered to God alone.

Some have tried to avoid the implications of the Messiah receiving true worship by suggesting that the title "Son of Man" refers to humanity collectively. I will offer five reasons why I think Daniel 7:14 refers specifically to Messiah, and thus offers another testimony that Jesus is worthy of the praise, honor, and worship reserved for God alone.

1. Whenever the title "Son of Man" is used in the OT to represent humanity collectively, it always occurs in the formula "man...son of man" (Nm 23:19; Jb 25:6, 35:8; Ps 8:14, 80:17, 144:3; Is 51:12, 56:2; Jer 50:40). There are two "exceptions" - Jer 49:18, 49:33. But here, "no one" serves the function of "man" (cf., Jer 50:40, in which the wording is nearly identical, except "no man" replaces "no one"). Outside of this formula, the title belongs to a specific person (who, perhaps, is representative of the race). The NT usage, of course, is entirely Messianic.

2. While modern Jewish commentators deny the Messianic import of this passage, this was not the case with the earliest Jewish exegetes. The Babylonian Talmud associates this passage with Messiah (Sanhedrin 96b-97a, 98a, etc.). A fragment in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q246) quotes this verse and calls the messianic figure "Son of God," "Son of the Most High," and "a great god of gods," which indicates that the Qumran community looked for a divine messiah of some sort, and believed Dan 7:13ff referred to Him. The Midrash Numbers (13:14) says that Dan 7:14 refers to "King Messiah." I'm unaware of any earlier testimonies of the rabbis.

3. The early church fathers who commented on Dan 7 all associated it with Jesus. Not one understood it as mankind collectively (cf., Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho, 31; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:20:11; Tertullian, Against Marcion, 3:7, 4:10, etc.; Hippolytus, Christ and AntiChrist, 2:26; etc.).

4. Modern Jewish interpreters prefer the translation "their kingdom ... serve them" in verse 27 (JPS). This translation also occurs in the RSV and NRSV. This translation reinforces their view that the Son of Man refers to mankind. The problem is that now 'pelach/latreu' is given to men - when Jesus said we should latreu God alone (Mt 4:10; Lk 4:8).

5. There is only one occasion in the OT where the Son of Man is said to "come on the clouds," and that's here. Whenever one is said to come on or with clouds in the OT, that "one" is God (cf., Ex 19:9; Lev 16:2; Isa 19:1; Jer 4:13). When the High Priest asks Jesus if He is the Messiah, Jesus answers:

"You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." (Mt 26:64, cf., Mk 14:62).

So, Jesus specifically identifies Himself as Messiah - the Son of Man who sits at the right hand of power (Ps 110) and is coming in the clouds (Dan 7:14). He makes the same association in Mt 24:30 (Mk 13:26). It is a real stretch to think that Jesus is not quoting Dan 7:14 here - every Bible I'm aware of cross-references these verses; every commentator I'm aware of notes the association. Jesus refers to Himself 84 times as 'the Son of Man;' thus, it is certainly a Messianic title arising from the OT - and Dan 7, which teaches that the Son of Man receives an everlasting kingdom from the Father - is in perfect harmony with what we know about Jesus as King Messiah elsewhere in Scripture - thus, it really is pressing Scripture to the breaking point to deny that the Son of Man here is Messiah. And I doubt anyone would contest this association, if the word 'pelach' were not used.

Eight Reasons I am Not One of Jehovah's Witnesses

(The following are taken from the disassociation letter of Rick and Laverne Townshend, June 22, 1984)

Follow the accompanying links for more information.

1. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is guilty of continued presumptuous prophetic speculation, beginning with its founder and continuing to the present. Without exception these prophesies have failed to come true. The Society in turn has denied responsibility for these false prophesies. (link)

2. They have tampered with the sacred scriptures in the translation of their New World Translation to conform these with their particular doctrines. To give credence to their version they have gone so far as to misquote noted Greek scholars such as Dr. Robertson, Drs. Dana and Mantey. They have used a bible translated by an admitted spiritist to give support to their translation and doctrines after having exposed this translator some six years before the printing of their bible. (link) (link)

3. They have a pattern of ever-continuing doctrinal and policy changes that often make full three hundred and sixty degree circles. Their new light has gone from being new light to darkness and back to new light many times over. (link)

4. They have a unity that is the result the threat of expulsion from the Society as well as their friends and family. This is true even when the Society and its representatives are unable to refute the bible based arguments of such persons. (link)

5. They have presumptuously interjected themselves into the chain of salvation in violation of Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:5 where it is clearly stated there is only one mediator between God and men. (link)

6. They have forced the unchristian act of shunning family members who do not agree with the Watchtower hierarchy. (link)

7. They have endeavored to take away from Christians the God-given right to investigate the truth using God's Word the Bible without the influence of the Watchtower literature and the right to express their Bible-based opinions freely. (link)

8. The Watchtower Society is personally responsible for the death and sufferings of thousands of individuals because of their inconsistent application of their own doctrines in various parts of the world; as an example Malawi and Mexico. The same has resulted due to the interferences of the Society in the health care of its adherents in such areas as transplants and inoculations. (link) (link)

Hoskyns and Coptic John 1:1

A blogger calling himself "Memra" has posted a number of blogs defending the NWT's "a god" translation by way of the Coptic Sahidic Translation. I have responded to most of his arguments here.

However, I have just returned from the local Seminary library where I looked up the following scholarly citation in one of Memra's blogs:

"In The Fourth Gospel, the late Edwyn Clement Hoskyns, Bart., D.D. (St. Andrews), Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, writes concerning John 1:1: 'It is impossible to reproduce in English this contrast [between hO QEOS and QEOS]. The Coptic version alone has been able to reproduce the meaning of the original Greek.'"

The first thing I noted was that the "contrast" Hoskyns is speaking of is between "the God" and the anarthrous "God." He uses English terms, not Greek, and capitalizes "God" both times. Further, he says it is "impossible" in English to reproduce this contrast, and the Coptic version alone has been able to do so. This fact should be the first clue that Hoskyns may not be saying what Memra hopes he is, for surely Hoskyns is aware that if the Greek THEOS actually meant "a god" in John 1:1c, it would be simple to convey this sense in English!

Memra goes on:

"Why would Hoskyns state that "the Coptic version (of John 1:1) alone has been able to reproduce the meaning of the original Greek"? No doubt because he appreciated the precision of this ancient version that possessed both definite and indefinite articles in its grammatical structure, unlike the contemporaneous versions in Latin and Syriac. The Coptic version was and is able to clearly distinguish the nuance of meaning between the Word as a divine being and the divine Being the Word was with."

What Memra isn't telling us is that previously on this page (p. 141), Hoskyns clearly says of the Word, "He who was God became flesh." Thus, whatever appreciation Hoskyns has for the "precision of this ancient version," it clearly cannot be a distinction between the Word as "a divine being" and "the divine Being" he was with.

I will repeat Memra's question: Why would Hoskyns say that the Coptic version alone represents the actual meaning of the Greek? Clearly, Hoskyns cannot be referring to an indefinite usage in the Coptic; he must, therefore, be referring to qualitative usage. It will be remembered that Hoskyns was writing in 1947. While a number of Greek scholars at that time and before understood THEOS in John 1:1c to mean that the Word had the same nature as God, it would remain until Harner's landmark study on qualitative nouns to fully describe its semantic nuance.

John 1:18 in the Sahidic Coptic Translation

"God the only Son"

This is how George Horner translates 'pnoute pShre nouwt' in the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:18. A literal translation would be: "the God the Son only." The nouns "God" and "Son" are in apposition, both preceded by the definite article.

I have written about this translation and its relationship to John 1:1c here. Basically, I argue that if we have an ambiguous situation in John 1:1c, where it is possible to render 'noute' as either an indefinite or qualitative noun, John 1:18 lends strong support for the latter, in that the Coptic translators would hardly have called the Word "a god" in 1:1c and "the God" just 18 verses later. It is far more likely that they understood 'noute' in 1:1c to signify that the Word had the quality of God.

Jehovah's Witness apologist Solomon Landers has posted several responses to my argument on the Internet. I will briefly interact with them here.

First, Solomon suggests there are text-critical reasons why the Coptic translators included the definite article. On B-Greek, Solomon said that the translators likely were working from a Greek MS like P75 which reads HO MONOGENHS QEOS hO WN KTL. On Rob Bowman's Evangelicals and JWs board, Solomon argued that the translators had two MSS in front of them, one reading hO MONOGENHS hUIOS and the other reading MONOGENHS QEOS and simply conflated the two into a combined reading.

I would first note that J. Warren Wells, in his hypothetical Greek text on the Sahidica website, believes the correct source to be MONOGENHS QEOS. Coptic scholar P.J. Williams agreed with this conclusion in private email to me. Second, the Greek word MONOGENHS contains the idea of "son" or "child" within its meaning (i.e., "only child" or "one and only Son" - cf., Paul R. McReynolds, "John 1:18 in Textual Variation and Translation," in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger, Epp and Fee, eds, 1981, Oxford: Clarendon Press; Gerard Pendrick, "MONOGENHS," NTS, 41). Third, a number of Greek scholars have argued that MONOGENHS QEOS should be understood as two nouns in apposition: "The only one/son, God" (e.g., Burton, du Plessis, de Kruijf, Finegan, Theobald, Fennema, Beasley-Murray, Carson, McReynolds, BAGD, Westcott, R.E. Brown, William Loader, Feuillet, Lagrange, Cullmann, Lindars, E.A. Abbott, Barnard, Rahner, J.A.T. Robinson, W.F. Howard, and the translators of the NIV and ESV). It is true that George Horner suggested that the Sahidic reflects a conflated text, but he did not have the benefit of more recent linguistic studies that demonstrate that there is no need to do so, if MONOGENHS contains "only son" within its semantic range (c.f. John 1:14 NWT). It is significant that in all three NT examples of MONOGENHS used absolutely (Luke 9:38, John 1:14, and Hebrew 11:17), and where this is virtually no possibility of a conflated text, the Sahidic translators included a form of 'Shere,' ("son" or "child").

But even if we grant Solomon his textual speculations (either version), this really amounts to a red herring when it comes to translation and exegesis. The Coptic translators - regardless of the MSS they were working from - called the Son "pnoute" ("the God") in John 1:18, and they would hardly have done so, had they understood Him to be "a god" in the sense Solomon and other JWs want.

Next, Solomon notes that 'noute' with the definite article need not refer to the true God, citing Acts 7:43. He states categorically: "the grammatical rule is simply that if it ['noute'] does refer to GOD, it must have the definite article." But, he says, if it does have the definite article, it need not refer to the true God. This is special pleading. Acts 7:43 places 'pnoute' in apposition to a personal name - it literally names a god other than the true God; it would be begging the question to say the same is true in John 1:18. Indeed, the overwhelming use of 'noute' with the definite article in the Sahidic NT refers to the true God (well over 900 examples). There are also several cases where 'noute' without the definite article also refers to the true God (Romans 1:21, 30, 15:9; Revelation 16:7).

In an article found here, Solomon quotes me as asking "Is it reasonable that the Coptic translators understood the Word to be a god at John 1:1 and then refer to him as the God, or God, at John 1:18?"

He responds:

"That is a logical question, but the logic is backwards. Since John 1:1 is the introduction of the Gospel, the more logical question is 'Is it reasonable that the Coptic translators understood the Word to be God at John 1:18 after referring to him as 'a god' at John 1:1c?' No."

Solomon begs the question. Coptic scholars tell us the use of the indefinite article with 'noute' in John 1:1c is either indefinite or qualitative. There are two possibilities - either one or the other - and the translator must decide on the basis of context which one best represents the original intention of the Coptic scribes. Thus, it is not logically defensible to assume that it is indefinite and then argue on that basis that it must govern the translation of John 1:18. My position, of course, is that John 1:18 is part of the immediate context, is not ambiguous, and thus lends strong support to 'noute' in John 1:1c being qualitative.

Solomon continues:

"Although the Coptic translators use the definite article at John 1:18 in identifying the Word, this use is demonstrative and anaphoric, referring back to the individual , 'the one who' is previously identified as 'a god' in the introduction. Thus, John 1:18 identifies the Word specifically not as 'God,' but as 'the god' previously mentioned who was 'with' ... God. This god, who has an intimate association with his Father, is contrasted with his Father, the God no one has ever seen."

Of course "the God" in 1:18 refers back to the Word in John 1:1, but it is - again - begging the question to assume that the Word was "a god."

Solomon cites "a modern translation" as follows:

"'No one has ever seen God at all. The god who is the only Son in the bosom of his Father is the one who has explained him,'as found at http://copticjohn.com"

He neglects to tell his readers that this "modern translation" is his own.

[NOTE: I see that Landers has now refined his translation somewhat, perhaps in response to this blog. When I originally posted this, his translation on the CopticJohn blog read exactly as I have stated, above.]

More importantly, Solomon misuses a gloss used to help identify nouns in apposition ("who is"). Apposition in Coptic is identical to apposition in Greek and English (cf., Layton, Coptic Grammar, Section 149). Wallace's Greek Grammar defines "apposition" as follows:

"Simple apposition...the appositive does not name a specific example that falls within the category named by the noun to which it is related. Rather, it simply gives a different designation that either clarifies who is the one named or shows a different relation to the rest of the clause than the first noun by itself could display. Both words thus have the same referent, though they describe it in different terms" (GGBB, p. 96).

Let's look at Solomon's translation: "the god who is the only Son." The gloss "who is" does not occur in the original Coptic. But it can be added for clarity between to nouns is apposition (c.f., GGBB, p. 95, where he suggests the gloss to help clarify the genitive of apposition). For example, "The man, the plumber, is talking to me." 'Man' and 'plumber' are nouns in apposition. They both refer to the same person. We could rephrase as follows: "The man, who is the plumber, is talking to me." Both nouns, standing on their own, refer to the same man.

You will notice the presence of the comma before "who is." The comma indictes that the "who" clause is a non-restrictive relative clause. A non-restrictive relative clause functions identically to nouns in simple apposition. It provides additional information about the head noun. The head noun and the subject of the relative clause independently refer to the same person.

But in English usage, there is a significant change in meaning if the comma is removed: "The man who is the plumber is talking to me." In this case, the relative clause ("who is...") becomes restrictive. A restrictive clause helps identify the head noun. We are no longer merely adding information about the same referent; we are restricting the referent to "the plumber." Indeed, we can only fully indentify the referent by including the restrictive clause. This situation, obviously, does not yield the same meaning as a non-restrictive clause.

See here for more information on restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses.

The important point is that the gloss "who is" for nouns in apposition can only be non-restrictive - that is, can only be used with a comma - to properly reflect the sense of nouns in apposition. Using the gloss without the comma - as a restrictive clause - is not conveying the same meaning as two nouns in apposition.

Solomon's translation lacks a comma. He is using the gloss as a restrictive clause, which does not accurately reflect the meaning of the appositional construction 'pnoute pShre nouwt.' What his translation does reflect is Solomon's theological convictions that "the God" and "the only Son" cannot refer to the same referent, even though that's what the grammar of John 1:18 in Sahidic Coptic implies.

A similar appositional construction occurs 11 times in the Sahidic NT: "pnoute peiwt" ("God the Father"), and while we may paraphrase this as "the God, who is the Father," we cannot do so with: "the god who is the Father."

I have asked several Coptic scholars if they would translate 'pnoute pShre nouwt' any differently than Horner, and none have said that they would. If we use the "who is" gloss properly, and if we translate 'pnoute' as it is in 900+ examples in the Coptic NT, we get the correct sense: "God, who is the only Son..."

A final point: The Sahidic translation (not just in John 1:18, but also 1:14 and Hebrews 11:17) supports most Greek scholars who understand the Greek MONOGENHS to mean "only" or "only Son," as opposed to "only-begotten," the rendering in the NWT, and thus dogmatically supported by JW apologists. It has been suggested by some JW apologists that Sahidic lacked a term for "only-begotten," but if this were the case, the Sahidic translators could simply have translitered MONOGENHS, as they did with many other Greek terms for which there was no Coptic equivalent (e.g., SARX). This is precisely what the Bohairic translators did a hundred or so years later, after which time MONOGENHS had become 'fixed' as a theological term. Also, Sahidic contains words meaning both "only" (see Crum for "mise," and "ouwt") and "begotten" (see Crum for "mate," "meeue," and "Jpo"), so it seems there were several ways for the translators to have expressed the idea of "only-begotten," had they understood MONOGENHS to have such a meaning.

In conclusion, then, the translation of Coptic John 1:18 in English is most probably "God, the only Son." And this translation suggests that the Sahidic translators understood the Son to be fully divine, and this was the sense they were conveying in their translation of John 1:1c. I suspect this conclusion will be further supported as investigation into other Christologically significant verses in Sahidic translations of John's writings continues.

John 8:58 in the Peshitta - "I was" or "I am?"

"Before Abraham existed, I was!"

Thus read both the Lamsa and Murdock English translations of John 8:58 from the Syriac New Testament (the Peshitta). Paul Younan also translated it this way, but when asked if it could also be translated "I am," he replied:

Yes, John 8:47 [8:58] can also mean "I AM". It's just a different way of saying it than what is used in 8:13 [8:24]. The second word, Yty0 comes from the Aramaic root ty0, which means "is, are."

Here is the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon entry:

)yt V1 passim there is, are
2 Syr + some . . . others
LS2 16
LS2 v: )iyt

So you see, the Aramaic root "ith" encapsulates the same linguistic sense that a copula does... the only difference is that it's actually spelled out in another word rather than implied as a shortened form of the Independent Pronoun.

George Kiraz's Analytical Lexicon of the Syriac New Testament also defines )yt as "is, are." Syriac scholar P.J. Williams in private email told me that he would translate the last clause in John 8:58 in the Peshita as "I am." This is also how J.W. Etheridge translated it (The Peschito Syriac New Testament: Translated into English, 1846).

While some anti-Trinitarian apologists on the Internet have offered Murdock and Lamsa as translations denying that ego eimi should be translated as "I am" in John 8:58, it appears that the underlying Aramaic may actually support the traditional translation after all.

Did John Calvin Really Teach that Jesus was the Archangel Michael?

An internet article called "Jesus is NOT God" argues that Jesus Christ is equated to the Archangel Michael in various places in Scripture. I was surprised to learn that apparently the Reformer John Calvin was among those who believed this. And here I thought Calvin was a staunch Trinitarian!

Here's the quote from Calvin from the article:

"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this (Michael) to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - John Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL,trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.

Calvin's comment regarding "Michael" and Christ come only in reference to Daniel 12:1. It is significant that in this passage (and previously in chapter 10), Michael is not explicitly called an "angel," but rather the "mighty prince." If we consider Calvin's comments in context, it is clear that he is NOT saying the ANGEL Michael is Christ:

"Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people....The angel...calls Michael the mighty prince. As if he had said, Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect people" (Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 12:1, Lecture 65).

Most non-Trinitarians who quote this passage leave out the first 5 or 6 words, and thus make it appear that Calvin believes that the Angel Michael is Christ. However, the first clause, and the telltale "but" signal that this is not the case. Calvin believes that Michael, in the book of Daniel, is not necessarily the archangel (though he admits this possibility), and if not, Michael prefigures Christ in His role as Head of the church. Calvin implies a strict dichotomy: If Michael is an Angel, he's not Christ; if not an angel, Christ makes the most sense, given the context.

Elsewhere in his commentary on Daniel, Calvin says that the identification of Michael is open to question. In another work, he warns against too much speculation about angels in general, and specifically of trying to "ascertain gradations of honor" among them (Institutes, I, xiv, 8). He admits that some angels, including Michael, may seem to be placed in positions over their peers, but Calvin enjoins us to refrain from drawing any conclusions from this. His commentary on Jude 9 identifies "Michael the Archangel" as one of many angels ready to do service to God, not as the pre-Incarnate Son. His commentary on Hebrews makes it clear that Calvin views Scripture teaching that Christ is "above the angels" (Commentary on Hebrews 1:6).

So, the most one might say is that Calvin identifies Michael "the mighty prince" in Daniel 12:1 as Christ. Of course, if you convinced Calvin that this Michael was actually the archangel, he would abandon his identification of Daniel's Michael with Christ.

It is sloppy scholarship (at the very least) to imply that the Biblical evidence elicited Calvin's support of an archangel christology.

John 1:1 in the Sahidic Coptic Translation

Several Jehovah's Witness apologists have claimed that the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1 fully supports the rendering of the New World Translation (NWT): "and the Word was a god."

I have written on this topic here.

Recently, Witness apologist Solomon Landers and an anonymous blogger calling himself "Memra" have created several blogs and websites touting the Sahidic Coptic translation. One would think that two apologists (assuming Memra is not Solomon) would only need to bring up two sites, but perhaps they are trying to create the impression of 'buzz' on the Internet.

In any event, both apologists have attempted to respond to my comments. I have no doubt that others may soon jump on board, as Witnesses see the Sahidic translation - a translation dating back to at least the 3rd Century - as vindication of the NWT in a big way.

Solomon and I exchanged several posts on Robert Bowman's Evangelicals and JWs discussion board, the transcripts of which appear in the Mars Hill section of my website. But, in an attempt to shore up their side of the argument, Memra has gone beyond what Solomon posted to me on Rob's board. While I don't think his additional points warrant a response on my website, I will post some quick thoughts here.

Memra writes:

"Recently, certain Trinitarian apologists have quoted Yale University's Dr. Bentley Layton in an attempt to deny that a correct translation of Coptic John 1:1c is 'the Word was a god.'

But they show that they are not really listening to what he said."

He goes on to argue that Layton's comments actually support "a god" as the proper translation.

First, let's review what Layton says and see who is not listening. Here's what Layton's Coptic Grammar says:

"Indefinite Article
one specimen of the lexical class of ... ;
one specimen having the quality of the lexical class of ... "

Memra says that 'noute' in Sahidic means "an entity not a quality." This is simply begging the question. Layton says the indefinite article: "predicates either a quality (we'd omit the English article in English: 'is divine') or an entity ('is a god'); the reader decides which reading to give it." Now, if one determines that 'noute' in John 1:1c refers to an entity, then the indefinite article will be translated with the English indefinite article: "a God." (The original Sahidic, like Greek, was written in all capital letters, so it is an unwarranted imposition on the text to render "God" with a lower-case "g"). But notice that, according to Layton, the indefinite article can also predicate the quality of 'noute' - as he says in his grammar, "one specimen having the quality of the lexical class."

Layton's additional comments in personal email regarding "divine" were specifically referring to 'noute' in John 1:1c. He says that the indefinite article can predicate either an entity or a quality. Memra is assuming that 'noute' in John 1:1c refers to an entity, and so - of course - Layton would agree (as he apparently did in email to Memra or Solomon) that "a god" is the proper translation. However, he says that 'noute' with the indefinite article in this verse can also predicate quality, and nothing Memra has written disproves this point. Memra, apparently, does not understand the concept of predication when he makes the statement "noute is an entity not a quality," or - at the very least - he is not "really listening" to what Layton is saying.

Memra goes on to summarize an email he received from Coptic scholar Ariel Shisha-Halevy, but this scholar also says that the indefinite article may be used qualitatively ("godlike/divine"). This point has also been made to Solomon Landers in personal email from J. Warren Wells of the Sahidica Project: ""The idea in this context to me is that the Word was like God. The literal text simply doesn't say the degree to which he was like God; be it partly or absolutely" (quoted on Rob's discussion board).

Shisha-Halevy and Wells both have pointed out (the former in the email summarized by Memra, the latter in email to me) that it is impossible to avoid bringing theology into this discussion. The grammar, alone, cannot prove that the Word was "a god," "a God," or "had the quality of God" in the minds of the Coptic translators. Indeed, a thorough study of the Sahidic Translation, based on the published MSS, is needed to even begin such a task.