Original Sources for Studying Jehovah's Witness Theology

I have discussed some elements of Jehovah's Witness theology on this blog, focusing on their Arian Christology and identification of Jesus with the archangel Michael:

Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

Did Paul teach that Jesus is an archangel in 1 Thessalonians 4:16?

I just came across a good Website that reproduces, in .pdf format, many important Jehovah's Witness publications such as Charles T. Russell's Studies in the Scripture series:

Watchtower Archive

I have bookmarked this Website and downloaded a couple important texts. I am a firm believer that one must be familiar with the original sources of any religious faith, and this is a goldmine of such texts.

There are also some works from the likes of William Miller, George Storrs, and others, many of whom had an influence, both directly and indirectly, on John Thomas and others in the American Restorationist movement, so if one interacts with Christadelphians and Seventh Day Adventists, this Website will prove rather beneficial, too.

The Imperative for a Historical Book of Mormon

There will be a Sunstone symposium on the issue of the historicity of the Book of Mormon tomorrow, featuring Brant Gardner, Sandra Tanner, Mark D. Thomas, and David Bokovoy. It is a pity to see David Bokovoy, on facebook, write the following:

Tomorrow at 2:00 PM at the University of Utah I will be giving a presentation on the Book of Mormon, arguing that it is not a piece of history, but that it should nonetheless be classified as an inspired scriptural narrative. True, I haven't yet written the paper (that won't be till tomorrow morning), but trust me, it's going to be incredible.

It is a pity as David, back in 2003, co-authored one of my favourite books on the Book of Mormon with John A. Tvedtnes, Testaments: Links between the Book of Mormon and the Hebrew Bible (Tooele, UT.: Heritage Press, 2003) as well as a fine article responding to Living Hope Ministries' The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon, "The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon: Still Losing the Battle" However, in recent years, he has been more than happy to be "buddies" with vehement enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, such as Robert Bowman.

My friend, Stephen Smoot, has an excellent article The Imperative for a Historical Book of Mormon, responding to the nonsense that the Book of Mormon is "inspired fiction" (which, in my books, is a heresy). One should read Stephen's fine article and see how truly silly and utterly indefensible such a position is.

Richard McBrien on New Testament Mariology

Catholic priest and scholar, Richard McBrien, wrote the following about the New Testament’s Mariology; one has to appreciate the honesty McBrien displays, basically admitting that the Mariology of the New Testament is substantially “lower” than that of the dogmatic teachings of Roman Catholicism; one would wish that apologists such as Tim Staples would demonstrate such honesty in their discussion of Mary:

We find a somewhat negative portrait of Mary in the Gospel of Mark (3:20-25). It is just after Jesus’ selection of the Twelve (3:13-19). He is in a house with them and a great crowd gathers outside. His own family concludes that “He has gone out of his mind” (3:21). When his other and his brothers arrive, they send word for him to come out. Jesus is given the message. “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asks. Then he looks at his disciples gathered in the circle: “Here are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of God is my brother and my sister and mother” (3:33-35). The negative view is strengthened in 6:4, which reports Jesus’ return to his home in Nazareth and the sceptical reaction of his neighbors, friends, and relatives. Jesus complains: “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house.”

The Matthaen and Lucan parallels to Mark 3:20-25 (Matthew 12:24-50; Luke 8:19-21) present a different picture. Both drop the harsh introduction in Mark 3:20-21. Luke goes further and eliminates Jesus’ question, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” Neither Gospel excludes Mary from the spiritual, or eschatological, family of Jesus. In Luke especially she is the obedient handmaid of the Lord from the beginning. Later in 11:27-28 Jesus responds to a woman who declares his mother blessed by saying that those are blessed who hear the word of God and keep it. In light of Luke’s positive description of Mar in 8:19-21, it is likely Jesus is emphasizing here that Mary’s chief blessedness lies in her being one who obediently hears the word of God rather than in being his biological mother. Consistently with this interpretation, Luke’s version of the rejection of Jesus at Nazareth speaks only of a prophet’s being unacceptable “in the prophet’s hometown” (4:24). There is no reference to “their own kin,” as in Mark. Matthew, on the other hand, retains the phrase “in their own house” (13:57)

. . . .

The Book of Revelation, chapter 12, tells of “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (v. 1) who gives birth to a son “who is to rule all the nations” (v. 5). A huge dragon appears in hopes of devouring the child. When he fails in that, he pursues the woman. But he fails there, too, and goes off “to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus” (v. 17). Pious commentaries notwithstanding, the “woman” here is of Mary. Interpretations differ about the primary reference: the heavenly Jerusalem, personified wisdom, or the People of God, both Israel, which brings forth the Messiah, and the Church, which relives the experience of Israel and brings forth other children on the image of Christ. A secondary reference to Mary remains possible but uncertain. What is more certain is that the author’s symbol of the woman who is the mother of the Messiah might well lend itself to Marian interpretation once Marian interest developed in the later Christian community. Eventually, when the Book of Revelation was placed in the same canon of Scripture with the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John, the various images of the virgin, the woman and the cross, and the woman who gave birth to the Messiah would reinforce each other.

Before we leave the New Testament, some more explicit mention should be made of Mary’s virginity . . . The New Testament says nothing at all about Mary’s virginity in partu (“in the act of giving birth”), i.e., that Jesus was born miraculously, without the normal biological disruptions, nor about her virginity post partum (“after birth”), i.e., that she had no normal sexual relationships after the birth of Jesus. On the contrary, the New Testament speaks of the brothers and sisters of Jesus. This does not constitute an insuperable barrier to the belief that Mary remains a virgin after the birth of Jesus, but neither is there any convincing argument from the New Testament alone against the literal meaning of the words brother and sister when they are used of Jesus’ relatives. (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism [rev ed.; San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1994], 1079-81)

How to briefly answer the claim Ephesians 2:8-9 contradicts 2 Nephi 25:23

LDS apologist Dennis D. Chamberlain offers this succinct answer to the claim 2 Nephi 25:23 contradicts Eph 2:8-9:

In Eph. 2:9, Paul was writing to baptized members of the church, admonishing them to live by their faith in Jesus Christ. With this understanding, Paul’s statement does not contradict the following familiar Book of Mormon verse: “For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23)

Nephi does not tell us that we are saved by our works. Nephi tells us that we should reconcile ourselves to the will of God, but then after we are reconciled unto God, we are saved only by his grace:

“Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that we are saved.” (2 Nephi 10:24) (Dennis D. Chamberlain, The Biblical Evidence of the Restoration [Millennial Mind Publishing, 2004], 277 n. 1)

Refuting Matt Slick on Hebrews 7:4-10 and Sola Scriptura

Matt Slick, in an attempt to offer biblical support for sola scriptura, wrote the following:

It is true that Heb. 7:7 is about people and not about scripture.  But there is more in the text than just people.  Heb. 7:4-10,

"Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. ⁵ And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priests office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. ⁶ But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham, and blessed the one who had the promises. ⁷But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. ⁸ And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. ⁹ And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, ¹⁰ for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him."

The writer of Hebrews is mentioning different concepts as well as historical facts.  He mentions tithing, descendants of Abraham, the lesser is blessed by the greater, authority, and Federal Headship.  It is the concept of the greater in authority blessing the lesser in authority that is being examined here in this article. ("Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth?”)

As with his rather pathetic, eisegesis-driven use of 1 Cor 4:6 to support the formal doctrine of Protestantism, this is, exegetically speaking, pathetic.

Firstly, as Slick himself admits, Heb 7:4-10 is not speaking about “scripture”; he is also guilty of further question-begging by assuming “scripture” (even if implied implicitly in this pericope) is exhausted by the 66 books of the Protestant canon; considering that Hebrews was probably written in the A.D. 60s before many New Testament texts, this would prove too much, for there must be tota scriptura for sola scriptura to be operational in the Church according to Protestantism.

Secondly, Protestant commentators on Hebrews disagree with Slick that this passage has sola scriptura in view. For instance, one commentator, writing on Heb 7:4-10, offers this overview of the pericope:

7:4-10: Melchizedek explained

From the citation of Gn. 14:17-20, and the possible use of a hymn in praise of Melchizedek, the author moves on in vv.4-10 to his own midrash. Its point, briefly stated in v. 4 and developed in the rest of the paragraph, is that Abraham, and in him his Levitical descendants, acknowledged that Melchizedek was greater than himself by paying him a tithe . . . The further conclusion, that the levitical priesthood is thus inferior to Christ’s, is not drawn until vv.11-18, and only then with great care, Jesus not being named until v. 22. In the present paragraph, the receipt of the tithe is emphasized as the most important mark of Melchizedek’s superiority (vv.4-6a, 9f.). The author also introduces, almost in passing, two other marks of Melchizedek’s greatness which in the wider context, as applied to Christ, will prove more important than the tithe, which has no christological counterpart. First, Melchizedek as the greater blesses Abraham, the less (vv.6b-7). On ευλογεω →6:14; the specific language of blessing is not prominent in Hebrews, but it is related to the whole complex of promise, inheritance, and covenant. Second, v. 8 contrasts Melchizedek’s eternal life and priesthood with the mortal nature of the Levitical priests; this theme, implicit in the phrase ιερευς εις τον αιωνα, is developed in vv. 23-25. (Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993], 309-10)

Commenting on Heb 7:7, Ellingworth notes:

7:7. The superior always blesses the inferior

The significance of v. 6b is brought out by appeal to a general principle (gnomic present ευλογισθαι), as in 6:16: blessing is something done by a superior to an inferior, or example, by a father to a son, as in 11:20, 21 (→6:14; Louw-Nida, 33.470). No stress is laid on the cultic nature of the principle, as in 2:11; 9:22. Both in the Greek Bible and in pagan literature, ευλογεω is also used of an action by an inferior, especially of a human being blessing or praising God (e.g., Ps. 66[LXX 65]:8, ευλογειτε εθην τον θεον ημων; Lk. 1:64; 2:28; 24:53 [v.l. αινουντες]; Jas. 3:9); not in Hebrews (Louw-Nida 33.356). The author assumes that the context will make it clear to his readers that he is using ευλογεω of one human being blessing another.

In meaning, though not in grammar, vv. 6b-7 form a deviation from the main theme of the tithe; there is no need with Moffatt to bracket v. 7 alone, since v. 8 does not pick up on the argument from v. 6b, but from v. 6a. Δε indicates a new point (Moffatt “And”), not a contrast. The statement is emphatic. Hebrews’ typical χωρις (→ 4:15), “apart from,” is stronger than ανευ αντιλογιας, common in the papyri (M and Bauer s.v.), indicating no more than absence or non-use. Here, as in 6:16, πας denotes individual members of a group, giving the meaning “beyond any contradiction.” ‘Αντιλογια here, as in 6:16, has its primary meaning of (verbal) contradiction, not physical hostility or rebellion, as in 12:3; Jude 11.

Το ελαττον υπο χρειττονος (→ 1:4): . . . What is in focus here is a contrast of status, not of size, moral worth, age, or priestly versus lay condition. Κρειτιων is used quite generally here, but elsewhere (→ 8:6) of the superiority of the new covenant (Ibid., 366-67)

As usual, Matt is way out in left field when it comes to providing meaningful exegesis of the Bible.

For those wanting to see how weak the biblical and historical case for sola scriptura truly is, click here to access my pages discussing the topic.

James McGrath on John 17:3 and Trinitarian Gymnastics

James F. McGrath has an interesting post entitled, "The Trinity Debate and John 17:3." In it, he responds to a rather convoluted, eisegesis-driven approach by a Trinitarian on John 17:3:

First, what John 17:3 actually says is perfectly consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. Trinitarianism affirms that the Father is the only true God. After all, if there is only one true God, and the Father is God, then the Father must be the only true God. It is also consistent with the Trinity to affirm that the Father sent Jesus Christ.

So what’s the problem? Anti-Trinitarians think that the sentence creates a disjunction between “the only true God” and “Jesus Christ,” implying that Jesus Christ is not the only true God. But this is not quite correct. John 17:3 does distinguish between the Father (“you”) and “Jesus Christ,” and in this same statement identifies the Father as “the only true God,” but the statement does not deny that Jesus Christ is also true God. Rather, Christ is honoring the Father as the only true God (which he is!) while trusting the Father to exalt him at the proper time. Thus, Jesus immediately goes on to affirm that he had devoted his time on earth to glorifying the Father (v. 4) and to ask the Father in turn to glorify him (v. 5).

If John 17:3 did mean that the Father was the only true God to the exclusion of Jesus Christ, then it would be odd for John in other passages to affirm that Christ is God. If there is only one true God, and Jesus is not that God, then he is not truly God at all. Yet John explicitly calls Jesus “God,” and does so in contexts that make it clear that he is God no less than the Father.

McGrath correctly notes:

Apart from the convoluted attempt to claim that John 17:3 means something other than what it appears to, the above argument completely ignores the ways in which “God” is used more broadly in the Judaism of this time. Angelic figures were referred to as “gods” by Jews who would have spoken of one alone as “the only true God,” while Philo in particular distinguishes between one alone who is rightly called God, while the Logos is referred to as God in a lesser sense, by extension. John fits quite naturally into that first-century Jewish context, and to ignore that context in order to make John seem to be an advocate for later theological formulations seems an inappropriate (not to mention irreverent!) way of using the text. To make the argument that any use of theos must mean “God in the same sense as the Father is God” not only ignores but contradicts the sources we have from the time period in which this Gospel was composed.

I would highly recommend McGrath’s two books, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context and John's Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology for a good, scholarly discussion on the issue of New Testament theology on these points.

Son or Sun of Righteousness?

One critic of the Book of Mormon wrote the following:

The confusion between “Sun” in Mal. 4:2 and “Son” in Ether 9:22 could only have happened by reading the English translation of Mal. 4:2. In Hebrew “sun” is shemesh and “son” is ben. The similarity between the two words is only found in the English. (source)

Such an argument is rather weak, to be honest--the Book of Mormon is a dictated text; regardless of one's views about its antiquity (I affirm such; the author of this article clearly rejects such), it is not difficult to see the scribe (Oliver Cowdery) mishearing "sun" as "son" when Joseph Smith translated whatever the Nephite equivalent of ‎ שֶׁמֶשׁ shemesh/sun was in 3 Nephi 25:2 and Ether 9:22. Furthermore, this confusion on the behalf of the scribe, instead of supporting copying from the KJV, refutes such, as it makes more sense as an error of dictation--the KJV, after all, reads sun, not son.

As I told a friend of mine who made me aware of this particular blog and its problems:

I have not seen this blog before, so will bookmark it; however, the methodology seems to be poor and that of parallelomania. For instance, trying to base literary dependency upon three-word phrases, regardless of how allegedly "high" the quantity, is fallacious; Jeff Lindsay has a rather good parody of such a methodology, alongside other related ones critics engage in, at:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/bomsource.shtml

Also, a lot of his comments about the Satanological terminology of the Book of Mormon works under the assumption (which he does not explicate) that the idea of an external supernatural Satan is a post-exilic construct. While popular even in scholarly circles, such a view is untenable as the main "proof" of this (Jews during the exile borrowing from the Persian religion) is being rejected by more and more scholars, even those that would fall under the "liberal" category (e.g., John J. Collins in his Hermenia commentary on Daniel). Furthermore, Deut 32:17 and other texts assume the ontological existence of what we would label "demons." I discussed Satan and demons in the Book of Mormon at the following posts:

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2014/11/satan-in-book-of-mormon.html

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/12/deuteronomy-3217-and-book-of-mormon.html