More on Sharp's Rule, Trinitarianism and Rob Bowman
Part Six: The Truth about "the Only True God"
By Greg Stafford
The Bible teaches that angels are "gods," that Jesus is an "only-begotten god,"
and that Jehovah is the God of gods. (Ps. 8:5; 136:2; Micah 5:4; John 1:18)
Further, the Bible tells us that the Father is "only true God" and that He is
the "one God." In contrast, trinitarianism teaches that the Father, Son and holy
spirit are the only true God, and that they are also the one God.
So why do trinitarians consider their view biblical when it is in direct
conflict with clear statements of Scripture? Let me allow Rob Bowman to explain
this unbridgeable gulf. I will, of course, point out the many problems with
Bowman's attempt to harmonize the post-biblical view of the Trinity with the
biblical view of God and Christ. Please consider our arguments carefully, before
you decide which position is in harmony with Scripture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Posted by Rob Bowman on June 18, 1998 at 21:29:03:
Reply to Stafford on Sharp's Rule
Part Five: The Meaning of Calling Jesus "God"
By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
BOWMAN:
In this final installment of my reply to Greg, we will assume that Jesus is
indeed called THEOS in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Even granting that premise
for the sake of argument, Greg maintains that these verses would not be
identifying Jesus Christ as Jehovah God, but instead as a lesser, inferior
divine being or god. We conclude, then, with a refutation of this claim.
STAFFORD:
Remember, not only does Bowman proceed with the above-stated assumption, but he
assumes a meaning for THEOS that is nowhere articulated in Scripture, but is the
result of post-biblical theology that is in conflict with the teachings of
Scripture (see below).
BOWMAN:
H. HAS GREG SHOWN A SECONDARY, POSITIVE SENSE FOR "THEOS"?
If Jesus is called THEOS in these or any other biblical texts, this poses a
direct contradiction to Watchtower theology unless that usage can be
successfully distinguished from the Bible's customary usage of THEOS for
Jehovah. Greg follows the standard Watchtower line here, arguing that the Bible
calls creatures "gods" in a secondary, lesser sense. Furthermore, he argues that
such a secondary sense must apply in ANY text, including Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter
1:1, that might call Jesus THEOS.
STAFFORD:
And Rob here follows the standard trinitarian argument by objecting to the
biblical teaching that others are called "god" or "gods" in a lesser, positive
sense. Consider:
BOWMAN:
In my paper on Sharp's rule, I had written:
"The plurality of Gods explanation founders on the simple fact that the Bible
repeatedly asserts that there is only one God (Deut. 4:35, 39; 32:39; 2 Sam.
22:32; Isa. 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5, 14, 21-22; 46:9; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3;
Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James
2:19; 1 John 5:20; Jude 25). It says this in just about every way that the
Hebrew and Greek languages permit. The biblical passages cited here use three
different Hebrew words for God (the singular el and eloah as well as the
intensive plural form elohim) as well as the singular Greek theos. They not only
contain the simple expressions 'one God' or 'only God' but also make such
assertions as 'there is no other God.' Attempts to circumvent this plain,
explicit, and repeated teaching of Scripture are unsound, as I have argued
elsewhere" (Bowman, 27)
Greg replied:
>>>And I have argued that Bowman's view on this matter is unsound and
unbiblical. See Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, pages 185-201. . . . he fails to
realize that, as is the case with angels and some humans, Jesus can be called
"god" with a sense different than that understood for the Father. . . . So when
the Bible says there is but one God, we must first determine the sense for the
term when used in this restrictive manner. . . . The fact is the Bible nowhere
denies that the angels are gods. It does, however, specifically identify them as
such. (Ps. 8:5, and others).>>> (Stafford, 27c)
BOWMAN:
Although Greg did "argue" that my "view on this matter is unsound and
unbiblical," he did so without giving serious consideration of MY arguments. In
the section of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended to which Greg refers (pp. 185-201),
Greg refers to my writings only twice (pp. 186, 188-89).
STAFFORD:
Bowman is not the only person to try and get around the clear teaching of
Scripture on this matter, so I do not have to refer to him directly every single
time I discuss issues relating to this subject.
BOWMAN:
The first reference quotes me but does not discuss the arguments I give for what
I said.
STAFFORD:
I stated your position clearly and accurately. Then I refute it clearly and
accurately.
BOWMAN:
In the second reference he briefly describes my view on the question of whether
angels are gods and attempts to rebut only one of my exegetical objections to
the Watchtower interpretation of Hebrews 2. In neither of these references to my
writings does Greg represent my position or argument fairly or accurately, as I
shall explain shortly.
STAFFORD:
This is an act of desperation, as we will see below.
BOWMAN:
Greg cited two of my books in the above-mentioned section: Jehovah's Witnesses,
Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John (Baker, 1989) and Why You Should Believe in
the Trinity (Baker, 1989, cited here as Trinity). Here is a quick run-down of
the arguments from those two books that were not even mentioned by Greg in his
section supposedly refuting my position on whether creatures are ever called
gods in a positive sense. For an elaboration of these arguments (which in some
cases may be necessary to appreciate their force), please consult those books.
1.Never in Scripture is the singular Hebrew form EL or the singular Greek form
THEOS applied in a positive, approving sense to an angel, mere human, or any
other creature.
STAFFORD:
Let me start by saying that the reason I did not address this specific argument
is because it is so bad that I was not about to waste any space talking about
it. If the Bible calls angels "gods" collectively then are they not gods
INDIVIDUALLY, also? Bowman thinks his arguments are so good, and that if you
don't address every single argument his position is somehow still intact. Trust
me, I have no problem responding to Bowman's book line by line, paragraph by
paragraph, subject by subject. But I am not going to waste space talking about
some bad argument he actually thought worthy of print, when I could be
discussing more useful and informative matters.
Of course, when we analyze Bowman's arguments the usual holes appear rather
quickly. First of all, how is it that 'elohim differs from 'el when applied to
God? If anything the intensive plural is MORE majestic! So when an "angel" is
called 'elohim in a positive sense, as in the case of Judges 13:22, it is
obvious that Bowman's position is hopelessly without merit. It gets even more
interesting when they (= trinitarians) start arguing that this particular angel
is some sort of "Jehovah angel," an uncreated angel! Anything to protect their
view, I guess. Of course the Bible says NOTHING about any such being, but
trinitarians have developed a habit of giving new meanings to words and reading
unscriptural concepts into the Bible. I say this, not to be mean, but because it
is a reoccurring problem that is an integral part of trinitarian apologetics.
Again, there is actually a difference between an intensive plural and the
singular 'el, but it is a difference that argues AGAINST Bowman's view, since 'elohim
is actually more majestic than 'el. At any rate, it is of interest to note that
the singular THEOS is applied to the angel in Judges 13:22 LXX. Also, the use of
'el in Isaiah 9:6, for the future Jesus, is translated by ANGELOS ("angel") in
the LXX (9:5), just like 'elohim is in Psalm 8:5. Thus, we again enter the realm
of sense and reference, which Bowman regularly confuses. On a side note, the LXX
recognized a clear difference in sense for 'el in Isaiah 10:21, translating it
as "strong God." Isaiah 10:21 LXX gives us a literal word-for-word translation,
and a literal interpretation. Isaiah 9:5 LXX gives us an interpretive
translation, which is a literal interpretation. You'll see why I say this after
considering the arguments about Ps. 8:5 below.
BOWMAN:
The singular THEOS in the NT always refers either to the true God or, in six
instances, to a false god (Acts 7:43; 12:22; 28:6; 2 Cor. 4:4; Phil. 3:19; 2
Thess. 2:7). Thus, there is no third use of the singular THEOS to refer to a
creature as "a god," unless we count the texts calling Jesus THEOS (Jehovah's
Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John, 58-60).
STAFFORD:
And since Jesus is an "only-begotten god," and since he is distinguished from
God in terms of THEOS, AND since there is one who is God to him, then we should
naturally understand the use of 'el/THEOS for him as we do of angels in the OT:
Jehovah is the God of lesser gods. (Ps. 8:5; 136:2; John 1:1, 18; 20:17) It's
that simple. Unless Bowman is going to argue that Jesus is a false god, the only
conclusion is that he is a lesser god, the only-begotten god, the Son of the
Father, Jehovah. (Micah 5:4) Of course, trinitarians cannot have that, for they
have already committed themselves to a view of God that is taught in
post-biblical creeds.
BOWMAN:
1.None of the many texts that say there is only one God can fairly be construed
to mean merely that there is only one God that is almighty, or that is to be
worshipped, or that is named Jehovah. The statements are explicit and
unqualified affirmations of one God and denials of any other (Trinity, 51).
STAFFORD:
This is directly refuted in my book, on pages 194-196. All of the statements to
which Bowman refers ARE qualified and contrast Jehovah with the idols of man,
and those who set themselves up in opposition to Him. Bowman is just making
things up again. Of course, when the Bible does refer to "one God" or "the only
true God" it is NEVER done unambiguously in reference to Jesus, but it IS done
unambiguously in reference to the Father, Jehovah, Jesus' God. (Micah 5:4; 1 Cor.
8:4-6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5) The Father is the one God, the only true God, and
the God of His Son. Again, it's that simple.
BOWMAN:
3. ELOHIM in Psalm 8:5 should be translated "God" because Psalm 8:3-8 closely
parallels Genesis 1:1, 8, 16, 26-28, where ELOHIM clearly means "God" (Trinity,
52).
STAFFORD:
Oh my…Can everyone sense the desperation in the above argument? Think about it,
really. Just how does Psalm 8:3-8 closely parallel Genesis 1:1, 8, 16, 26-28, so
that 'elohim in Psalm 8:5 "should be translated `God'"? Let's see, Genesis 1:1
says that God MADE the heavens and the earth. In verse 17 we are told that God
MADE the expanse and caused a division between above and below the expanse.
Genesis 1:8 says God called "the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening
and there came to be morning, a second day." Genesis 1:16 talks about how God
MADE the two "great luminaries," and verses 26-28 tell us that God MADE man and
woman in His image and the image of those with Him, and that He blessed them.
But Psalm 8:3-8 reads, according to the NRSV (bracketed comments are original to
NRSV):
"3 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars
that you have established; 4 what are human beings that you are mindful of them,
mortals {Heb [ben adam], lit. [son of man]} that you care for them? 5 Yet you
have made them a little lower than God, {Or [than the divine beings] or
[angels]: Heb [elohim]} and crowned them with glory and honor. 6 You have given
them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their
feet, 7 all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, 8 the birds of the
air, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas."
STAFFORD:
Now, notice that the Psalmist is saying "YOU," that is, Jehovah (verse 1), MADE
him (man) a "little lower than" … Whom? Well, since God is the one making them
it doesn't make sense for David to indirectly refer to God when he uses the
first person and directly addresses Jehovah throughout this Psalm. But, more
than that, we are not a "little lower than God"! Thus, William Hugh Brownlee
admits: "That man is infinitely less than God all ancient Jews knew right well;
but the Psalmist declares man to be a little less than the angels, little short
of supernatural." ("Anthropology and Soteriology in the the Dead Sea Scrolls and
in the New Testament," in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other
Essays, Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring, ed. James M. Efird
[Durham, N. C.: Duke UP, 1972], page 217) But, of course, Paul makes this quite
clear in Hebrews 2:7, 9. Notice how Bowman tries to get around this:
BOWMAN:
4. The focus in Psalm 8:5 is on the exalted status of mankind, whereas the focus
of Hebrews 2:7 is on the temporary humbling of Christ (Trinity, 53).
STAFFORD:
Notice how Bowman makes a point, that he imagines has some bearing on this
issue, but does not? Actually, man's status is not exactly "exalted" in Psalm 8.
Rather, David, in view of the grandeur of God's heavenly creations, asks how God
even considers man worthy of His attention. Yet, in spite of our lowly state God
made us in his image, just below the angelic gods, and gave us dominion over the
beasts of the field, the fish of the sea and the birds of heaven. Bowman also
robs Hebrews 2:7 of its true import, which is hardly limited to a temporary
"humbling of Christ." Paul states that Jesus, like mankind before him, was made
"lower than angels." The LXX identifies the "gods" of Psalm 8:5 as angels, and
Paul accepts that identification as accurate. Thus, Jesus was NOT a God-man
while on earth, but "emptied himself" by giving up his divine nature and
assuming a human nature. (Php 2:6-9) That is why he was "lower than angels." If
he were a God-man he would not have been "lower than angels." But this is where
post-biblical, Chalcedonian theology enters the picture, unfortunately.
BOWMAN:
5. If Hebrews 2:7 does implicitly understand ELOHIM in Psalm 8:5 to mean "gods"
and refer to angels, Hebrews may be arguing that angels should not be worshiped
as gods, since throughout this passage (Heb. 1:5-2:18) he is arguing for the
superiority of the Son to all angels (Trinity, 53).
STAFFORD:
There is absolutely nothing in Paul's quotation of the LXX that in anyway argues
for what Bowman wants to read into this text. ALSO, Psalm 8:5 is talking about
the NATURE of those below whom man was made. That is why the issue is how they
were "made." Man is "lower than angels" in terms of nature, as the angels are 'elohim.
Paul is merely taking this same distinction and applying it to the nature Jesus
assumed, which was similarly "lower than angels."
BOWMAN:
6. The above interpretation of Hebrews fits Hebrews 1:6, which quotes Psalm 97:7
as commanding the angels to worship the Son; in the Psalm the angels are called
ELOHIM, but clearly regarded as the powers behind idols (Trinity, 53).
STAFFORD:
Bowman completely ignores what I say about this in my book, and for good reason.
The fact is Paul is likely quoting the LXX of Deut. 32:43. But Bowman fails to
mention this here or in his book. What is more, Psalm 97:7 says nothing about
angels being the power behind idols.
BOWMAN:
7. The Bible flatly states that demonic spirits are NOT gods (1 Cor. 10:20; Gal.
4:8), thus proving that angels cannot be truly regarded as gods on the basis of
either their being spirits or their mighty power (Trinity, 53-54).
STAFFORD:
Try as you might, you will NEVER find in 1 Cor. 10:20 or Gal. 4:8 anything
resembling this statement: "The Bible flatly states that demonic spirits are NOT
gods." It is also a non sequitur to argue that this misuse of Scripture proves
that "angels cannot be truly regarded as gods on the basis of either their being
spirits or their mighty power." Both demons and angels are gods. The only
difference is one group serves the Most High God, and the other opposes Him by
drawing the worship of others after themselves.
Now do you see why I ignored much of what Bowman wrote? Bowman makes things up
and ignores key data in order to force feed his readers his brand of theology,
which is unbiblical. The Bible says the angels are gods, Bowman says they are
not. We accept what the Bible says, Bowman rejects it because such a view cannot
be harmonized with his post-biblical theology (see below).
BOWMAN:
Greg also cites Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34-36 in support of the claim that some
human beings can be called "gods" (Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, 191-92). His
treatment here completely ignores my discussion of these passages (Trinity,
55-58).
STAFFORD:
This is almost too much. Anyone remotely familiar with what I wrote concerning
these texts knows that I do not commit to identifying the "gods" in these verses
as human judges. THAT is the conclusion Bowman puts forth, without even
suggesting that this text could be referring to angels. In fact, I make no
definite conclusion on this matter, so how could I and why would I respond to
Bowman's weak treatment of this subject which assumes (that's his wording, page
55) a view that I do not necessarily agree with? Also, I make a key point
regarding Jesus' use of Psalm 82, and Bowman completely ignores it. See pages
191-192 of my book for details.
BOWMAN:
Let me respond briefly to Greg where he did interact with my writings in this
section of his book. He quotes me where I wrote, "for JWs to translate 'a god'
is in one sense grammatically possible, but only if they are willing to adopt a
pagan interpretation of the entire verse." While denying, of course, that his
interpretation is pagan or unbiblical, Greg uses my statement as support for his
claim that "grammatically it could be rendered 'the Word was God,' 'divine,' or
'a god'" (Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, 186). Likewise, in his critique of my
paper Greg writes:
>>>However, I find it interesting that proponents of the Trinity selectively
emphasize the grammar of a passage in one instance, and the theology in another.
For example, Bowman, in his book Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and that
Gospel of John, page 62, states regarding John 1:1: "For JWs to translate `a
god' is in one sense grammatically possible, but only if they are willing to
adopt a pagan interpretation of the entire verse." Well, Mr. Bowman, we could
say the same thing for you with regard to Titus 2:13, especially in view of the
post-biblical meaning you pour into the term theos as applied to Jesus. Grammar
is not the absolute basis for interpretation.>>> (Stafford, 19-20)
Now, a careful reader may notice something in Greg's quotation from my book. The
statement that the rendering "a god" is "grammatically possible" is QUALIFIED by
the little phrase, "in one sense." This phrase will alert the critical reader
that Greg has neglected to state whether and, if so, in what sense I argue that
such a translation is NOT grammatically possible. Lo and behold, I did make such
an argument in the very paragraph Greg is quoting:
>>>Taken out of its biblical context and transposed to a pagan Greek context,
"the Word was a God" would be a possible rendering. However, in that context
"God" in the preceding clause ("the Word was with God") would not refer to the
God of the Bible, to a one true and almighty God. This is because, as has been
conclusively demonstrated, grammatically THEOS refers to the Word as THEOS in
the same sense as, or of the same kind as, TON THEON. Thus, in a pagan context
TON THEON would refer to the same kind of "god" as THEOS - namely, a finite god
in a pantheon of many gods. The point is that for JWs to translate "a god" is in
one sense grammatically possible, but ONLY IF THEY ARE WILLING TO ADOPT A PAGAN
INTERPRETATION OF THE ENTIRE VERSE. It is completely invalid for them to
translate the first two clauses in keeping with biblical theology, and then to
translate the third clause in a way acceptable only to pagan polytheistic
readers. In other words, it IS grammatically impossible to understand TON THEON
in the second clause to mean an infinite, eternal, and absolutely unique Creator
God, and in the third clause to understand THEOS to mean simply a mighty
angel.>>> (Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John, 62;
capitalization represents italics in the original)
Now, is it honest to quote me to the effect that the NWT rendering is
grammatically possible, without reporting that I also stated that in a more
important sense such a rendering is NOT grammatically possible? I don't think
so.
STAFFORD:
I have often heard that people who feel trapped, or who are backed into a
corner, react abnormally, out of desperation. While I would not say Bowman's
response is abnormal, it is certainly indicative of desperation. Let me explain.
Dishonest, ignorance, deception, look up every one of these terms, for I think
they all apply to Bowman's above-stated argument. The paragraph from my book
where I quote Bowman reads:
<<QUOTE>>
According to one issue of The Watchtower: "Jehovah's Witnesses do not deny
Jesus' godship, or divinity. They accept what John 1:1 says of him, that he is
`a god.' However, the Church [in this context the Greek Orthodox Church] says
that Jesus is not just a god but that he is the almighty God." As noted earlier,
the translation "the Word was God" is difficult to understand unless it is read
by a person who has been taught to interpret it according to Trinitarianism (and
even then it does not seem to make much sense to most Trinitarians), because
this would then help them understand how Jesus could be "with" God and at the
same time be "God," without (allegedly) violating the biblical teaching of
monotheism. On the other hand, Robert Bowman maintains that "for JWs to
translate `a god' is in one sense grammatically possible, but only if they are
willing to adopt a pagan interpretation of the entire verse." But which
translation, as well as the understanding attached to it, is really guilty of
clashing with the Bible's teaching that there is only one true God? This is the
key point in determining the proper translation of John 1:1c, for grammatically
it could be rendered "the Word was God," "divine," or "a god."-Jehovah's
Witnesses Defended, pages 185-186.
<<END QUOTE>>
STAFFORD:
So, from my quotation of Bowman, the only conclusion one could come to, is that
he believes "a god" is "in ONE SENSE grammatically possible, but ONLY if [we]
are willing to adopt a PAGAN INTERPRETATION OF THE ENTIRE VERSE." Of course, I
also reference Rob's book after I make this quote, so anyone can check it out
further if they so choose. But, again, it is impossible to understand my
quotation of Rob's book, as given above, in any other way than as he intended,
which is, "a god" is ONLY possible in ONE SENSE, that is, if we adopt a PAGAN
INTERPRETATION OF THE ENTIRE VERSE.
In light of this, we do well to ask: Rob, what were you thinking? Why are you
wasting our time? Why are you dishonestly trying to make it seem as if I did
something that I did not? Is this what you learned in seminary? There are many
other questions I could ask, but Bowman is no longer worthy of serious
consideration, as his arguments consistently demonstrate. I am not saying this
to be mean, but I am frustrated, because Bowman is misleading many of you with
arguments like the above. The only reason I think some of you believe Bowman, if
any of you do, is because you also believe in the Trinity, and have come to rely
on him for your arguments. I know it is hard to imagine that someone whom you
view to be a serious scholar could advance such arguments, but he does! He also
makes personal attacks without knowing any of the facts, and thus reveals his
true motives. Believe me, if you had been attacked, misrepresented and misquoted
for over three months, you would understand why I feel this way toward Rob. For
an example, review his argument above, and my answer, or just review any of my
previous replies and you'll see how Bowman consistently misrepresents what I
say. He also misrepresents the WT, as we discussed previously. Here is one
example:
FROM PART TWO OF MY REPLY
<<QUOTE>>
STAFFORD:
On pages 71-73 of Bowman's book, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, to which
he referred, he puts forth the following arguments as justification for his view
about the two-natures of Christ. I will quote the first and last paragraphs and
then paraphrase the arguments in the remaining second and third paragraphs.
FIRST PARAGRAPH
BOWMAN:
"Then there are texts that speak of the Father as the God of Jesus Christ (e.g.,
John 20:17; 1 Cor. 11:3). The Watchtower booklet [Should You Believe in the
Trinity?] argues: `Since Jesus had a God, his Father, he could not at the same
time be that God' (p. 17). But again, trinitarians do not hold that Jesus is his
Father. They hold that Jesus, because he became a man, was placed in a position
in which as man he was required to honor the Father as his God. At the same
time, trinitarians may point out some aspects of the Bible's teaching that show
that JWs have misunderstood the implications of the Father being Christ's God."
STAFFORD:
Before we discuss the "aspects" to which Bowman refers, it should be pointed out
that 1 Cor. 11:3 does not refer to the Father as Jesus' God. This is not a
significant matter, but I find it odd that he would reference this passage as an
instance of the Father being Jesus' God. I don't think Bowman actually considers
"head" the equivalent of "God," which, in this context would not work very well,
given that man is the "head" of woman. Second, Bowman misrepresents our
argument. Please read the second sentence of the above paragraph. Notice, the
Witnesses' objection has to do with the fact that Jesus "had a God," which quite
obviously means that "he could not at the same time be that God"! But Bowman's
objection is, "trinitarians do not hold that Jesus is his Father." How does this
objection relate to the "Booklet's" objection?
<<END OF QUOTE>>
STAFFORD:
Bowman does this all the time, unfortunately. Here is another example from his
book, which I also gave in Part Two of my reply:
<<QUOTE>>
FOURTH PARAGRAPH (Of Why You Should Believe in the Trinity):
BOWMAN:
"Then there are texts that simply refer to `God' alongside Christ in such a way
as to distinguish them. For instance, 1 Timothy 5:21 speaks of `God and Christ
Jesus,' and 1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes between `one God, the Father,' and
`one Lord, Jesus Christ.' But trinitarians have a simple answer: These texts
refer to the Father as `God' not because Jesus Christ is less than God, but
simply because the title God was normally used of the Father."
STAFFORD:
On a side note, there are shortcomings on page 73 of Bowman's book that I will
not address here, but they are addressed in Chapter 4 of my book. Now, notice
that both 1 Timothy 5:21 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguish God from Christ. THAT
MEANS they are not the same God! We will discuss this point further in a few
moments, but it should be noted that Bowman's answer, "These texts refer to the
Father as `God' not because Jesus Christ is less than God, but simply because
the title God was normally used of the Father," completely misses the point of
our objection. It is particularly noteworthy that 1 Cor. 8:6 refers to the
Father, one person, as the "one God." Yet, trinitarians consider the "one God"
three persons.
<<END OF QUOTE>>
STAFFORD:
Until Bowman agrees to honestly deal with our arguments, I am afraid that little
progress will be made. But we'll keep trying!
BOWMAN:
The other place where Greg interacts with my writings in this section deals with
the interpretation of Hebrews 2:7 in its quotation from Psalm 8:5. Let me
respond to his arguments at this point.
First, Greg argues that the translation of Psalm 8:5 as "a little lower than
God" must be wrong because "it is hardly the case that man is a 'little lower'
than God!" (Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, 188). Greg is able to cite evangelical
scholars Archer and Chirichigno in support of this argument (188 n. 58).
However, I would simply point out that Psalm 8 is a song, written in Hebrew
poetic style. The description of man here is probably to be taken as a
hyperbolic way of saying what Genesis 1:26-27 states, namely, that man was made
in the image of God (ELOHIM, as in Ps. 8:5). Again, see my discussion of the
relation between Psalm 8 and Genesis 1 for amplification of the argument.
STAFFORD:
The desperation continues…Psalm 8 says that our being in the image of God is
either a little lower than God or gods (= angels). The Targums, LXX, Syriac
Peshitta and the Vulgate all agree that 'elohim here refers to angels. Of
course, the apostle Paul accepts this identification, also. Bowman's position is
without foundation. Yes, it's a song. What's your point? What could you possibly
be trying to prove? What would be the point of saying, even in hyperbole, that
we are a "little less than God"? Does that sound like something an ancient
Israelite would say, even in song? Being made in God's image does not make us a
"little less than God." Of course, as I have pointed out above, the first-person
direct address to Jehovah does not make sense if "God" in verse 5 is also taken
in reference to Jehovah. But, again, your interpretation is not only against the
Bible (Heb. 2:7, 9) but against most, if not all, ancient authorities. But when
such an iron-clad text disagrees with your preconceived views, you are faced
with two options: 1) Accept it in spite of what you think, or 2) dishonestly try
to distort it.
BOWMAN:
Second, Greg objects to the idea, which he attributes to me, that "the INSPIRED
writer of Hebrews 2:7, 9 would quote from an INACCURATE translation of the
Hebrew of Psalm 8:5" (ibid., 188). Greg admits that "angels" is not a literal
translation of ELOHIM, but points out that the Septuagint was an interpretive
translation, not a woodenly literal or word-for-word translation (ibid., 189).
Exactly what I said!
>>>The fact that the writer of Hebrews quoted the Septuagint does not imply that
the Septuagint rendering he quoted was a literal or accurate word-for-word
translation of the Hebrew (after all, "angels" is not a literal translation of
"gods"). Rather, Hebrews 2:7 is a paraphrase of Psalm 8:5 that, while
introducing a new understanding of it, DOES NOT CONTRADICT IT.>>> (Trinity,
52-53, emphasis added)
The only sense in which I denied that the LXX rendering of Psalm 8:5 was not
"accurate" was that it was not a word-for-word translation. I specifically
denied that Hebrews 2:7 contradicted or misused Psalm 8:5. Once again, Greg
failed to give a balanced, fair presentation of what I actually said. That's 0
for 2!
STAFFORD:
And that's about 0 for 100 for you, as you continue to miss the point and
distort the facts. Let's try again, shall we? First, when you say it is not
"literal" or an "accurate word-for-word translation," you are wrong. From a
formal equivalent standpoint it is true, but when it comes to presenting the
literal, word-for-word translation of the SENSE of 'elohim in this passage, it
is most certainly "literal" and "accurate." MY POINT is that this whole
argument, presented by you, IS MEANINGLESS, for it completely misunderstands the
nature of the LXX translation, particularly in this instance. Now, here is what
I said:
<<FROM JWS DEFENDED, PAGES 188-189>>
Bowman objects to the view that references such as Psalm 8:5 teach that angels
are "gods." Because this understanding presents such a problem to Trinitarian
theology, Bowman is not so willing to view Psalm 8:5, or any other verse in the
Bible for that matter, as a reference to angels as "gods" in a lesser but
positive sense. His opinion is that these scriptures, if directed to angels at
all, are references to angels as false gods, since the Bible teaches that there
is only one true God. However, the fact is Psalm 8:5 is a reference to angels,
not as false gods, but as gods of a secondary class. The inspired writer of
Hebrews confirmed this in his quotation of the LXX rendering of Psalm 8:5 which
calls the 'elohim "angels." (Heb 2:7, 9) Still, Bowman and others believe that
translating 'elohim as "God" better captures the meaning of the Psalm. But this
view is unacceptable for several reasons.
First, not only does Bowman's suggestion directly contradict the quotation in
Hebrews 2:7, 9, but it is hardly the case that man is a "little lower" than God!
While we are made in His image, being endowed with qualities such as love,
justice, wisdom and knowledge, we are in no way a "little lower" than God. Also,
we reject without hesitation Bowman's suggestion that the inspired writer of
Hebrews 2:7, 9 would quote from an inaccurate translation of the Hebrew of Psalm
8:5. He argues that "`angels' is certainly not a literal translation of `gods.'"
While it is true that "angels" is not the formal equivalent of "gods"
(particularly in English), it is quite beside the point here. It is a well known
fact among scholars that many books and sections of books of the LXX offer a
more exegetical (interpretive) translation than other, more literal books.
<<END OF QUOTE---FOOTNOTES OMITTED>>
STAFFORD:
Now, notice: First I point out that Bowman objects to the view that 'elohim in
Psalm 8:5 refers to angels. Next I point out that he would grant that it applies
to angels only if they are viewed as false gods. Then I point out that the
inspired writer of Hebrews DISAGREES with Bowman's view, by accepting the
identification of the 'elohim in Psalm 8:5 as "angels." I state Bowman's
preferred view of Psalm 8:5, namely, that it refers to God himself. I then point
out that Bowman's view (which view, again, sees 'elohim in Psalm 8:5 as a
reference to Almighty God) is unacceptable for the following reason: It is
contradicted by the accepted identification of the 'elohim as "angels" in
Hebrews 2:7, 9. Bowman claims that the fact that the author of Hebrews quoted
the LXX somehow accounts for what he, at this point in his argument, views as an
INACCURATE IDENTIFICATION OF THE 'elohim AS "ANGELS." Thus, since Bowman does
not believe that Psalm 8:5 refers to angels, then, to him, such an
identification would be INACCURATE! So, since Paul accepted this INACCURATE
identification, then, in Bowman's view, Paul quoted an inaccurate translation.
That Bowman does not understand this means one of two things: 1) He does not
understand the implications of his argument, or 2) he is perhaps too blinded by
his zeal to defend an indefensible view of God that originated several hundred
years after the Bible was written.
BOWMAN:
If ANGELOI ("angels," Heb. 2:7) is not a word-for-word substitution for ELOHIM
("gods" or "God"), then the Watchtower argument that angels ARE gods in a
positive sense falls. Oddly enough, I can't find a single verse in the Bible
that makes this assertion or its equivalent. As long as the THOUGHT of Hebrews
2:7 AS A WHOLE is in agreement with the thought of Psalm 8:5 as a whole, there
is no contradiction between the two verses even on the assumption that the
Hebrew ELOHIM refers to God and not to angels as gods.
STAFFORD:
It is a literal transfer of SENSE, Rob. You are the one who argued that it was
not a word-for-word equivalent, as if this somehow supported your view. That is
what I refuted in my book, by pointing out that you missed the point. You
intimated that since 'elohim is not a literal translation on the word-level,
then this somehow advances your point. It does not! You are also wrong in your
first sentence above. The simple fact is the angels are called "gods" in Psalm
8:5. If this is true, then the trinitarian position crumbles. Of course, it
crumbles on a number of other fronts, but this puts it to rest, also. Paul
accepted the identification of 'elohim in Psalm 8:5 as ANGELS. He does NOT
accept your view. Thus, you are at odds with Paul, and do not accept his
approved identification of the 'elohim as "angels."
BOWMAN:
There is much more that I could say on this question, but I believe what has
been presented here is sufficient to call into question Greg's claim to have
shown that my view on this subject is unbiblical.
STAFFORD:
That's it?! You have nothing further you wish to offer? What else is there to
say, Rob? Since you have not proven anything to support your view, maybe you
could share with us those things that you are currently withholding?
BOWMAN:
I. DO THESE TEXTS CALL JESUS "SAVIOR" IN A SECONDARY SENSE?
I now turn to the surrounding language used for Jesus Christ in the context of
him being called THEOS in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Before discussing Greg's
general argument on this question, I wish to treat briefly his claim that the
title "Savior" does not imply Christ's deity.
I had written:
"Earlier we argued that the two nouns 'God' and 'Savior' were so closely and
regularly linked in the OT (specifically the Septuagint) that Jewish readers or
Gentile Christians familiar with the OT would easily and naturally link the two
in Titus 2:13 and apply them to one person. In the OT, of course, these two
nouns when used together in the OT always refer to Yahweh (Deut. 32:15; 1 Sam.
10:19; Ps. 23:5 [Heb., 24:5]; 24:5 [25:5]; 26:1, 9 [27:1, 9]; 61:3, 7 [62:2, 6];
64:6 [65:5]; 78:9 [79:9]; 94:1 [95:1]; Isa. 12:2; 17:10; 45:15, 21; 62:11; Mic.
7:7; Hab. 3:18)" (Bowman, 30).
Greg began his response with the following claim:
>>>First, Bowman forgets that we are not dealing exclusively with the nouns
"God" and "Savior," but with "the great God" and "Savior Jesus Christ.">>>
(Stafford, 30a)
This assertion is false, since I go on to cite a passage that calls Jehovah both
"great God" and "Savior" in the same immediate context.
STAFFORD:
Bowman's assertion is false and misses the point. He fails to understand a
rather simple point: "God" is used, in Titus 2:13, together with "great," and
"Savior" is used together with "Jesus Christ." None of Bowman's examples have
these same nouns and adjectives in the same verse! Was I somehow unclear about
this? I think Bowman failed to see my point because he has a demonstrated
problem of recognizing sense and reference. I am not trying to be mean, but
factual. This has been a reoccurring problem since our discussion began. I mean,
think about it, reread what I wrote above and compare it to his statement. The
two do not match at all.
BOWMAN:
Moreover, I have shown that "Savior Jesus Christ" is not used as a separate
semantical unit in these passages. Besides, in context I was discussing the
significance of Jesus being called "Savior" not in isolation but as part of the
expressions "the great God and Savior" and "our God and Savior," given that this
is the correct exegesis of these two texts. It seems Greg is the one who has
forgotten what was the issue.
STAFFORD:
That's a good one, Rob. Really, though, there is nothing funny about Bowman's
misunderstandings on this point. Bowman has not shown what he thinks he has
shown, as I have shown in my previous replies. "Savior" is without question
restricted to "Jesus Christ." Whether "Jesus Christ" further defines "the great
God" is another matter, and one which I dealt with in Part Four of my reply. But
it still does not change the fact that "Savior" is restricted to "Jesus Christ"
and can stand alone as either "Savior Jesus Christ" or "Savior, Jesus Christ."
Bowman has not given the correct exegesis of this verse, and his view,
regardless of translation, CANNOT be harmonized with the theology of Paul or any
other Bible writer.
BOWMAN:
One stray point Greg makes that might be thought to call this conclusion into
question should, however, be addressed. Greg emphasizes repeatedly that Jesus is
presented in the NT as a Savior who was "sent" by the Father (Greg cites 1 John
4:14 to make this point). Of course, as a trinitarian I do not deny that the
Father sent the Son, and in fact regard this point as essential to the doctrine
of the Trinity. But in answer to Greg's argument, the NT never presents Jesus'
status as Savior as a secondary, weaker, or lesser status than the status of God
as Savior.
STAFFORD:
That is an unproven assumption. Based on the biblical use of SOTER and MOSHIA,
the Father sends many to perform His work of salvation. The usage in the OT for
human "saviors" is picked up in the NT and applied to Christ. Of course, since
you redefine terms like "father," "son," "firstborn," "give," "greater," "head,"
and others, I don't expect that you would acknowledge this biblical distinction
regarding "savior."
BOWMAN:
In fact, throughout Titus the apostle Paul alternates between referring to "God"
as "our Savior" (Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4) and Jesus Christ as "our Savior" (Titus
1:4; 2:13; 3:6), WITH NO INDICATION OF A DIFFERENCE IN SENSE. When we then
recognize that Jesus Christ is called both "God" and "our Savior" in Titus 2:13,
it is evident that Paul does not here differentiate Jesus' role as Savior as a
subordinate or derivative sense from the role of God as Savior.
STAFFORD:
Of course, I refuted this notion in Part Five of my reply. Please see it for
details. Bowman is here begging the question. In the fist-century Christian
community Jesus was understood as a "sent-forth Savior" and the Father as the
Provider of salvation. This is the clear biblical teaching on this subject.
Thus, there most certainly is a different SENSE for the same term, when applied
to the Father or the Son. The images that are called to mind when this term is
used of either one of these BEINGS is not the same, as one was sent by the
other, in providing salvation.
BOWMAN:
J. WHY IS OT LANGUAGE FOR JEHOVAH APPLIED TO JESUS?
We come, finally, to Greg's attempt to refute my argument that Jesus is not only
called THEOS in a positive, affirmative sense in these two texts, but is also
described in the larger context, especially in Titus 2:13-14, as if he were
Jehovah. I had pointed out that Titus 2:14 applies the language of Psalm 129:8
LXX (130:8 Heb.), which speaks of Jehovah "redeeming Israel from all his lawless
deeds," to Jesus Christ. This OT text is woven together in Titus 2:14 with
Ezekiel 37:23, where Jehovah says that he "will deliver them from all their
lawless deeds" and "purify them" to be his "people," and the OT texts that speak
of Israel as "a people for Jehovah's own possession" (Ex. 19:5, etc.). All of
this language, found in the OT applied exclusively to Jehovah, is applied in
Titus 2:14 to Jesus Christ, along with the description "our great God and
Savior," a description that in OT language also is applied only to Jehovah. In
short, what the OT says Jehovah would do for himself - save and redeem and
purify a people to be his own - the NT says Jesus Christ has done FOR HIMSELF
(Bowman, 30-31).
STAFFORD:
That is because Jesus is the fulfillment of the Promises made by his God! (Micah
5:4) That is why we find passages applied to people like Solomon, later applied
to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8-9 (see below). Many other examples of this sort could be
given. The FACT is, though, Jesus was GIVEN possession of these people, to
fulfill Jehovah's will. (John 17:6) That is why the people belong to Jehovah in
Ezekiel 19:5, but to Christ in Titus 2:14 (see below for more on this issue).
There is a transfer of ownership that is in accord with Jehovah's will for
mankind. If you would put down the systematic theologies and stick to the
Scriptures, you would not need me to point this out to you. But you did offer a
reply to this point. Consider:
BOWMAN:
Greg's response is rather superficial. He argues that this can all be explained
in terms of Jehovah "doing His works through the Son" and the Son coming "in the
Father's name" (John 14:10; 5:43). This line of reasoning continues the false
dichotomy that is basic to Watchtower theology: either the Son is God and acts
independently of his Father, or the Father is acting through the Son and
therefore the Son is less than God. As reasonable as this dichotomy must seem to
Greg, it is unbiblical, since the Bible affirms both that Jesus is God (in the
unqualified, highest sense, as in the texts we are considering) and that Jesus
is the Son who came in his Father's name to do his will.
STAFFORD:
So, basically Bowman's answer is: Your wrong Greg and I (Bowman) am right.
Bowman simply denies the force of the scriptures I cite, and does not deal with
their implications at all. His argument is circular:
The texts Greg cites do not prove that Jesus is not God in the highest sense,
because Jesus is God in the highest sense.
No, Rob, he is not. The Bible makes it clear that no one has seen God, but we
have seen the only-begotten god. (John 1:18) Thus, they are not the same God.
Also, Jehovah is the God of the Son, showing His superiority over the Son. It's
simple, when you let the Bible speak, without adding post-biblical
qualifications to it.
BOWMAN:
Moreover, Greg's argument cannot account for the fact that Titus 2:13-14 says
that Jesus did these things to make a people for himself, using OT language that
referred to Jehovah making a people for himself. To account for this Greg offers
another explanation, namely, that the people belong to Jesus because the Father
gave them to him (John 17:6). His argument runs into a serious problem, though,
which is best seen by letting Greg speak for himself:
Greg:
>>>Notice that in John 17:6 Jesus says that the people whom the Father gave to
him previously belonged to the Father, but now they belong to the Son. Well, if
they are both Jehovah, then there was really no change of possession, as far as
"God" is concerned. But here we can see that there is a change of possession,
not in terms of the unbiblical distinction of "persons" in a biblically unknown
"Godhead," but that Jehovah, of whom Ezekiel speaks, now gives the
aforementioned "people" to His Son.>>>
BOWMAN:
Greg evidently posits this "change of possession" on the past tense verb in John
17:6, "they WERE yours." However, in verses 9-10 Jesus says to the Father, "for
they ARE yours; and all things that are mine are yours, and yours are mine."
Notice that they remain the Father's while at the same time belonging to the
Son. This is not a "zero-sum" transference; the people belong to the Father and
the Son equally and fully ("all things that are mine are yours, and yours are
mine").
STAFFORD:
Obviously if the Father has the ability to "give" them to someone, then they
always remain His to some degree. But you missed the verb upon which I was
focused, and that is TO GIVE. We are discussing how they came to be possessed by
Jesus, and the text is plain for all to see. They were GIVEN to Jesus. No one
GAVE THEM to the Father. The Father has always had them, and He gave them to the
Son, which is why Titus 2:14 says what it does. How is it that you missed this
rather salient point?
BOWMAN:
If anything, Greg digs the hole a bit deeper when he writes:
>>>Ownership of the Christian congregation has been given to the Son, who
fulfills his Father's will in relation to them. Even though the Christians
belong to Christ, they are still spoken of as under the protection of the
Father. (John 10:29)>>>
This is indeed stated in John 10:29, in the context of Jesus affirming that the
protecting hand of the Father and the protecting hand of the Son are not two
separate realities, because Jesus and the Father are ONE (John 10:30).
STAFFORD:
Of course they are ONE, Rob, JUST AS they and the disciples are ONE. (John
17:21) Was that the "deep hole" to which you were referring?
BOWMAN:
In general, Greg's strategy throughout this part of his critique was to splinter
the various elements of Paul's glorious description of Jesus Christ into
discrete parts and then claim that each one individually could be explained
without identifying Jesus Christ as Jehovah. Let me review these quickly:
· Jesus may be called THEOS, but angels are called THEOI (a premise very much in
dispute, and of dubious relevance to a text applying the singular THEOS to
Jesus).
STAFFORD:
A singular is no different from a plural, if the sense is the same. In view of
the fact that Jehovah is the God of angels (Ps. 136:2), including Jesus (Micah
5:4), the sense is the same in terms of being distinct from and subordinate to
Jehovah (see above for further details).
BOWMAN:
· Jesus is called SÔTĘR, but so were the Israelite judges (but never in the same
sense as God).
STAFFORD:
How do you know, Rob? What proof do you offer? None!
BOWMAN:
· We are to await Jesus' "epiphany," but that could be a double epiphany (even
though the Bible never uses the word EPIPHANEIA or its cognates in that way).
STAFFORD:
And just how many times does the Bible use EPIPHANEIA for Jesus, Rob?
BOWMAN:
· Jesus is said to redeem and purify us as his people, which the OT said in the
same language of Jehovah; but this just means that Jehovah redeemed and purified
a people through Jesus and then gave that people to Jesus (even though this is
not what Titus 2 says).
STAFFORD:
That is what the Bible says, Rob. Titus 2:14 is part of the Bible.
BOWMAN:
The problem with this reasoning is that it does not treat Titus 2:13-14 as a
whole. Paul is giving titles to Jesus that in tandem are applied to Jehovah
alone ("God" and "Savior"). One of these titles, in the singular, is never used
in a positive sense of anyone but Jehovah ("God"). Paul uses these titles of the
Father in the same context without any apparent shift in sense. And in this same
context he describes Jesus doing what the OT says Jehovah would do for himself,
without any of the qualifications that Greg would insinuate into the text. If we
take all of these aspects of the passage as a whole, it is hard to resist the
conclusion that Paul is writing about Jesus as if he were Jehovah. At the very
least, it would be astonishingly careless of Paul to apply such language to
Jesus so freely and unqualifiedly, if Paul did not believe that Jesus is Jehovah
God.
STAFFORD:
What is "astonishingly careless" is to assume all of the above, which you do,
without any proof to support the view you read into the text. All of your above
contentions have been sufficiently refuted, and will continue to be, as they are
unbiblical. I respect the fact that you are trying to defend a view that you
hold dear, but if you truly want to know the God and Jesus of the Bible, then
you must accept what the Bible says without pouring post- and unbiblical
meanings into words.
Jehovah is the God of Jesus, who is himself an only-begotten god, who was given
life by the Father, that others might live because of him, worshipping the
Father in spirit and truth. (Micah 5:4; John 1:18; 4:24; 5:26; 6:56)
------------ADDENDUM-----------
Recently Rob Bowman posted an attempt to rid himself of Jesus' unqualified
statement found in John 17:3. Obviously, for people who believe that the True
God is three persons, Jesus' words to one person, the Father, "you are the only
true God," are very disturbing. But if we want to worship God as He truly is,
and honor His Son the way He intended, then we must have an accurate view of
their relationship, not one based on post-biblical creeds that distorts the true
distinction and relationship between the two greatest personages in the
universe.
With this in mind, let us consider Bowman's attempt to get around Jesus'
unqualified statement:
-------------------------------------------
True God vs. False Gods: A False Dilemma?
By Rob Bowman
There has been considerable discussion recently over an argument frequently used
by trinitarians to prove that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the only true God. The
argument may be stated as follows:
1. There is only one true THEOS (from Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 John 5:20; etc.).
2. Whatever is regarded as THEOS but is not a true THEOS is a false THEOS (from
the law of excluded middle).
3. Jesus is THEOS and is not a false THEOS (from John 1:1, 18; etc.).
4. Therefore, Jesus is the only true THEOS (from [1], [2], and [3]).
STAFFORD:
Let me help Bowman out a bit here, as he continues to use biblical language in
unbiblical ways. In #1, when he says there is only one true THEOS, he
understands THEOS as a triune being. Sometimes he'll argue that he does not
always have to use the term in that sense, but he does, unless he provides
further qualification. For, you see, since, according to them, there is only one
God in a positive sense, then every time the word God is used it must apply to
the one that it denotes, which to them is a Trinity. Regarding #2, Bowman seems
to forget about the "either/or fallacy," and he also fails to define what he
means by "true" and "false." In #s 3 and 4 we have an example of the problem
mentioned concerning #1: If there is only one THEOS, and that THEOS is triune,
then, if Jesus is THEOS, then Jesus is triune, UNLESS Bowman is using THEOS in
two different senses, which he fails to articulate, and for good reason. You
see, since the Bible nowhere articulates Bowman's view, he tries to get away
with using the simple terminology of Scripture (THEOS) without explaining to his
readers/hearers that he is using the terms in a different sense.
BOWMAN:
Jehovah's Witnesses typically claim that this argument flies in the face of
biblical evidence that creatures are honored in Scripture with the title "god"
without being considered either false gods or the one true God. Specifically,
they claim that the term "gods" is applied in Scripture to angels (ELOHIM, Ps.
8:5; 97:7; cf. ANGELOI in the LXX of these texts and in Heb. 2:7; 1:6), judges (ELOHIM,
Ps. 82:6; THEOI, John 10:34), or God's representative, such as Moses (ELOHIM,
Ex. 4:16; 7:1). Sometimes they also appeal to the fact that Satan is called
THEOS (2 Cor. 4:4).
STAFFORD:
That's just one of the problems, Rob. The real problem is you are using THEOS in
a sense different from the way the Bible uses it. Jehovah is the God of Jesus,
just as He is the God of the angels. (Ps. 136:2; Micah 5:4) This fact alone
removes the Trinity from the category of biblical teachings. Jesus is a certain
kind of THEOS that the Father is not. --John 1:18.
BOWMAN:
First of all, may we agree that the ONLY way to attack the argument as stated
above is to question premise (2)? Premises (1) and (3) are drawn from direct
biblical statements and are not likely to be challenged by Jehovah's Witnesses.
STAFFORD:
Just a minute, Rob. You have a post-biblical view for THEOS as used in #1 and
#3. So your whole argument is without biblical basis.
BOWMAN:
The conclusion (4) follows directly and inexorably from the three premises.
Thus, the only reasonable way of disputing the conclusion would appear to be the
dispute premise (2). Thus, for the biblical evidence cited by the Witnesses to
have any bearing on the soundness of the argument presented above, it must call
into question premise (2).
STAFFORD:
We talked about this before, but apparently Bowman has learned little if
anything from our previous discussions.
We cannot determine the accuracy of your conclusion until we know in what sense
you are using the term THEOS.
BOWMAN:
Now, as I have indicated premise (2) follows simply from the law of excluded
middle. That is, it follows from an application of one of the three fundamental
principles of deductive logic, specifically, the principle that whatever is not
A is non-A. Although I grant that the law of excluded middle can be ABUSED, that
does not mean that it has no valid USE. And in this case the application of the
law in formulating premise (2) seems quite straightforward. Where the word
"true" means real, genuine, authentic, or the like, the word "false" is properly
regarded as its antonym (that is, whatever is not "true" is "false"). And there
can be no denying that in Jeremiah 10:10, for example, the word "true" has this
meaning of the opposite of "false." The premise therefore seems no more
problematic than are any of the following statements:
· Whatever is regarded as Scripture but is not true Scripture is false
Scripture.
· Whoever is regarded as a prophet but is not a true prophet is a false prophet.
· Whoever is regarded as a king but is not a true king is a false king.
· Any proposition that is not a true proposition is a false proposition.
· If this is not a true dilemma, it must be a false dilemma.
STAFFORD:
There is a significant problem with Bowman's reasoning on this matter. If "true"
is A and "false" is B, then Bowman's argument runs like this: Whatever is non-A
is B. But that is not accurate in terms of our discussion. He does not allow for
C, D, E, etc. He wants you to think that the only viable option for non-A
("true") is B ("false"). This is known as a false dichotomy, and the rest of
Bowman's argument suffers from it.
BOWMAN:
Notice that even where the precise connotation of "true" differs (as in the last
two examples above) the application of the law of the excluded middle still
holds. From a semantic standpoint, premise (2) is especially similar to the
statements above using the titles "prophet" and "king." The main difference, of
course, is that while the Bible never says there is only one prophet or one
king, it does say there is only one God. In any case, these sentences illustrate
the validity of the law of the excluded middle and its application in premise
(2).
It seems to me, then, that we require rather strong reasons for setting aside
premise (2), including some explanation as to why, contrary to what would appear
to be the case, the law of excluded middle cannot be applied in this way.
STAFFORD:
Again, Bowman has narrowed the options to but two, when there are more. The fact
is the Bible uses the word "true" in a sense other than "false," and it is this
point that is so deadly to Trinitarianism, in view of John 17:3. Bowman knows
the problem, but instead of embracing Scripture he argues against it, as
follows:
BOWMAN:
Now, as I have noted, the Witnesses do supply some evidence that they think
overturns premise (2), namely, texts where they say that the Bible refers to
various creatures as "gods." However, it seems to me that this use of these
texts calls into question, NOT PREMISE (2), BUT PREMISE (1). That is, what the
Witnesses seem to be attempting to show from such passages as Exodus 4:16 and
Psalm 82:6 is that there is more than one true THEOS. That is, if Moses truly is
an ELOHIM, or a THEOS, and if the angels truly are THEOI, as the Jehovah's
Witnesses claim, then it seems what they are denying is not the law of excluded
middle but the biblical teaching that there is only one true God. For I see no
difference between these two statements:
1. There is only one true THEOS.
1a. There is only one being that truly is THEOS.
If someone can argue persuasively that there is a substantive difference between
these two propositions, I'm willing to be persuaded. But until that case can be
made, I will continue to insist that if Moses, an angel, a judge, or any other
creature is truly a THEOS, then it is not true that there is only one true THEOS.
STAFFORD:
Obviously Bowman will not be persuaded by anything that argues against
trinitarianism. But the fact is the Bible uses true for things to contrast them,
not necessarily with that which is false, but with that which is a semblance or
copy of the reality belonging to that which is true. Consider this quote, from
my book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended:
<<QUOTE>>
The Greek word translated "true" (alethinos) can have one of several meanings,
depending on the context and usage of the author or speaker. According to BAGD,
alethinos can mean: "genuine, real . . . Of God in contrast to other gods, who
are not real . . . true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the
archetype, not by its copies." To illustrate this meaning of a "reality
possessed only by the archetype, not by its copies," consider John 1:9, where
John says concerning Jesus, "The true light [to phos to alethinon] that gives
light to every sort of man was about to come into the world" (compare 1Jo 2:8).
Does this mean that Jesus' disciples (Mt 5:14) are "false" lights? No. It means
they are not the original light, but copies of it, giving forth the light they
received from Jesus.
Similarly, when Jesus contrasted himself, "the true bread from heaven [ton arton
ek tou ouranou ton alethinon]," with the manna that God gave the Israelites, did
this mean the manna was not really food? (Joh 6:32-33) Surely he meant the manna
was not food in the far more excellent sense that his life-saving sacrifice (his
flesh-Joh 6:51, 54-56) would prove to be. The manna, and other earthly foods,
give only temporary sustenance; they are but a copy of the reality possessed by
the real food God gives.
Finally, we note the contrast made in Hebrews 8 between the "true tent" (tes
skenes tes alethines) in verse 2 and the typical tent God commanded Moses to
make. (verse 5; 9:9) In all these texts alethinos is contrasted, not with
something "false," but is used to describe that which is the archetype as
opposed to that which is a copy of the original.
<<END OD QUOTE-FOOTNOTES OMITTED>>
STAFFORD:
Obviously, the contrast in Hebrews 8 is between the TRUE tent (A) and that which
is not a true tent. But when we say that the earthly tent is non-A, does not
automatically make it B (= "false")? To Bowman it apparently does, but he is out
to prove his post-biblical theology regardless of the consequences. The fact is
the earthly tent is not B, but what we might label C, that is, a copy of the
true tent that exists in heaven. It is the same with Jesus, who is a copy of the
only true God. (John 17:3; Heb. 1:3) Let's consider how Bowman tries to get
around this:
BOWMAN:
I am aware that Jehovah's Witnesses argue that the Greek word ALĘTHINOS
translated "true" in John 17:3 refers to the Father as the archetypal God, not
as the only real or genuine God. For those who have not read my treatment of
this argument before, allow me to explain why I don't find this argument to be
consistent with the evidence.
1. Why, in the context of John 17, would Jesus speak of the Father as the
archetypical God? With what typical "God" is the Father being contrasted? In
John 6:32, the text most commonly cited to establish this meaning, Jesus
explicitly contrasts the earthly bread, or manna, with himself as the heavenly
manna. I don't see any such contrast even implied in John 17:3.
STAFFORD:
Look harder, Rob. He is being contrasted with ALL known gods. Why else would
Jesus make that statement?
BOWMAN:
3.Jesus does (contrary to what is sometimes said by Jehovah's Witnesses) use
ALĘTHINOS to mean "true" in contrast to "false" (see, for example, John 4:23,
37; possibly also 7:28). John in this Gospel also uses the word to mean "true"
in contrast to "false" when he is not quoting Jesus directly (John 19:35). Thus,
in three or four instances in John's Gospel ALĘTHINOS clearly means "true" in
contrast to "false."
STAFFORD:
Actually, in John 4:23 Jesus is speaking of the worshippers themselves, not what
or whom they are worshipping. Thus, the Samaritans copy the worship of the Jews,
but the true worshippers will worship the Father (not Father, Son, and holy
spirit) as the archetypical type of worship that should be imitated. The
Samaritans did worship, but not in accordance with the true, archetypical
pattern of worship set forth by the Law and in the prophets. You need to define
"false" in this instance.
Uh, Rob, what false saying is being contrasted with the "true saying" in John
4:37?
In John 7:28 we have another reference to the Father as "true." What "false"
beings are contrasted with the Father here?
BOWMAN:
3. There are only three instances of ALĘTHINOS in John being used where one
might interpret the word to have the connotation of the archetype in contrast to
the type. All three of these are in reference to Jesus as the true light (John
1:9), the true bread (John 6:32), and the true vine (John 15:1). I'm not sure
that this is particularly helpful to the Jehovah's Witnesses' argument that
Jehovah the Father alone is the archetypal God. Moreover, in John 1:9 "the true
light" is probably in contrast to John the Baptist who was falsely regarded by
some as the light (John 1:6-8). In the epistle the term "the true light" stands
in contrast to the darkness of those who profess to be in the light but are not
(1 John 2:8-9).
STAFFORD:
My, my…I hate to sound negative, but this is getting ridiculous. How far will
you go, Rob? Does you preconceived view mean that much to you? Let me point out
some HUGE problems with the above paragraph. 1) Bowman's response to the uses of
ALETHINOS in John's Gospel is, "I'm not sure that this is particularly helpful
to the Jehovah's Witnesses' argument that Jehovah the Father alone is the
archetypal God." Oh, okay, Rob, now we get it. Actually, we don't. Go ahead and
assume that your statement is not a serious threat to our position. 2) Rob then
attempts to illustrate what he means (?) by focusing in on John 1:9, but notice
what he says, "in John 1:9 `the true light' is probably in contrast to John the
Baptist who was falsely regarded by some as the light (John 1:6-8)." Rob, how
does a FALSE VIEW OF JOHN AS THE TRUE LIGHT equate to him BEING A FALSE LIGHT?
The question is what kind of light was John and the disciples, not whether they
were falsely VIEWED as the true light!
If I had not read it for myself I would not have believed such a terrible
obfuscation of the facts were possible.
BOWMAN:
4. In the Book of Revelation the word is used ten times, always to mean "true"
in contrast to "false" or "unreliable" (Rev. 3:7, 14; 6:10; 15:3; 16:7; 19:2, 9,
11; 21:5; 22:6).
STAFFORD:
Really? So, since Jesus is called the "true witness" does that mean his
followers are "false witnesses"? If it means they are "true witnesses" then what
is the difference between them and Jesus, if any? I don't see a contrast in Rev.
3:7, 6:10. Could you please elaborate on how you view the use of "true" in Rev.
15:3, 16:7, 19:2, 9, 11, 21:5 and 22:6 as being in contrast to that which is
false or unreliable? Can there be gradations of reliability, or should we trust
the words of God's faithful creations just as much as we would trust the words
of God Himself? Still, as I state in my book, in John 17:3 and elsewhere we are
not talking about "true" in terms of true or false, right or wrong. The Bible
clearly outlines a use of "true" that is in contrast to copies made in the image
of the archetype (see above).
BOWMAN:
5. In short, out of 8 occurrences in the Gospel of John, and 22 occurrences in
John's writings total, the word ALĘTHINOS has the meaning Witnesses attribute to
it no more than two (or, possibly, three) times. Thus, far from my proposed
meaning being an unusual one in John, it is the Witnesses' proposed meaning that
is highly unusual.
STAFFORD:
Here you go again, assuming you have proved something when you have done no such
thing. Of course, this statistical approach is flawed anyway, as it does not
account for the context or the peculiarities of the thing modified by "true."
Can you do us a favor, Rob? Make a search of all the uses of "the God of"
someone and tell us what consistent meaning emerges. Don't forget to include
references like Psalm 136:2.
BOWMAN:
6. This means that we must look at how the same expression as a whole, "true
God," is used, not just the word "true" in isolation. If we do that, the meaning
"true" as opposed to "false" becomes established as the only viable view. In
biblical usage the expression "the true God" contrasts the Lord with false gods,
such as idols, or with false conceptions of God (2 Chron. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John
17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20).
STAFFORD:
What we must look for are uses of "true" in Scripture. Then, after we find the
different uses, we choose the one that fits with the teaching of the text in the
context of Scripture, not the teachings of the fourth and fifth centuries. The
Bible clearly teaches that there are others called gods (Ps. 8:5; John 1:18),
and that Jehovah is the God of these beings. (Ps. 136:2; Micah 5:4) Thus, since
we know that "true" is used (notice Bowman did not consider the use of "true"
Hebrews) to contrast an archetype with its copies, then it is obvious that
"true," as used by Jesus in John 17:3, is meant to highlight Jehovah as unique,
being the only one who is true among those called gods. The Bible specifically
says, by the way, that Jesus is a copy of God, and thus he is NOT the archetype,
nor eternal. --- Hebrews 1:3.
BOWMAN:
Again, my point is that citing Psalm 82:6 or any other verse to prove that there
REALLY are other THEOI besides the Lord THEOS directly contradicts the Bible.
Not only do we have the several texts that refer to the true God, and even the
ONLY true God, but we have numerous texts that flatly affirm that there is ONE
God, using the words EL, ELOHIM, and THEOS (Deut. 4:35, 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32;
Isa. 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5, 14, 21-22; 46:9; Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor.
8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25). Why would
the Bible say there is only one THEOS if there were actually in truth many?
STAFORD:
Because there is only one in the sense in which the Bible speaks. Why would
Jesus call the Father the ONLY true God, if in fact that Son and the holy spirit
are also the ONLY true God? Why would the Bible call the Father the "one God" if
the one God were really the Father, Son and holy spirit? Nowhere does the Bible
call the Son or the holy spirit the true God or the one God, but both terms are
used of the Father, and RESTRICTED to Him by His Son. (John 17:3) I think your
problem stems from your confusion over sense and reference and your desire to
read post-biblical views into Scripture at all costs. Just accept what Jesus
says Rob! (John 17:3) Join us in worshipping the Father in spirit and in truth!
- John 4:24.
BOWMAN:
Now, given this line of reasoning, what should we say about the texts Jehovah's
Witnesses cite to prove that there are creatures that are called "gods" but
which are not false gods? Here I'll summarize a couple of points that I have
made before.
1. In no biblical text is an individual creature honored positively with the
singular title "God" (either in Hebrew or in Greek), unless we count texts that
are referring to Jesus. This even includes the few OT texts that use the title
"God" (EL or ELOHIM) typologically of the Davidic king in a way that looks
forward to Jesus the Messiah (Ps. 45:6; Isa. 7:14; 9:6). Much of the OT uses
language about David or his son that did not apply literally to them but did
apply literally to David's descendant, Jesus (see Acts 2:25-35 for an explicit
example). Ironically, in these OT texts the earthly David or Solomon is the
"type" and JESUS CHRIST IS THE "ARCHETYPE"! Thus, David and Solomon were not
actually being called "God," but the term was being applied to their descendant,
Jesus, who REALLY IS GOD.
STAFFORD:
Of course, the plural form of "God" in Hebrew is more majestic than the
singular, so Bowman's point misses the mark, particularly when you consider
Judges 13:22. Bowman assumes that Ps. 45:6 does not apply in a literal sense to
Solomon, but even if it did not, the text still uses "God," even in its final
application in Hebrews 1:8-9, in a qualified sense, for the text tells us, "That
is why God, your God [lit. `the God of you'] . . ."! Yes, if Jesus is called
THEOS in Hebrews 1:8 (and Bowman merely assumes this), it is another QUALIFIED
reference to Jesus as THEOS, as a copy of the archetype, his God, according to
verse 3 and 9. How Bowman can arrive at his "JESUS IS THE ARCHETYPE" conclusion
in view of these facts is amazing.
Bowman has shown us that trinitarians have no substantive defense for their
position. Trinitarianism remains hopelessly unbiblical. This fact should be
obvious to everyone, by now.
Greg Stafford