Explanation of the Trinity in ASL

Armenian Orthodox subdeacon Tigran Khachikyan gives a detailed look at the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity in American Sign Language. Captions are available for those who don’t understand ASL:

Part one is here.

Seeds of Doubt for Jehovah’s Witnesses: The Name Jehovah # 1

This is the first in a new series on short questions or points one can make in discussions with Jehovah’s Witnesses. The idea is to plant a “seed of doubt” in the mind of the Witness. Often, these are questions they’ve never thought of before. They could lead to in depth discussions but that’s not necessary and may even be counter-productive.

These are questions to provoke thought — not to win some sort of debate. Avoid an argumentative spirit or trying to force the Witness you’re talking with feel he has to give you an answer immediately. Don’t expect the Witness to “cry uncle” in your presence. Just plant the question and if further discussion on the subject continues come back to the question again. If needed, there are “further reading” links at the end but it’s probably best just to plant the seed of doubt and let it take root.

The Name Jehovah — 1

As their name indicates, the Jehovah’s Witnesses attach great importance to the name Jehovah. They believe their use of the name Jehovah is an identifying mark that they are the real Christians.

There’s a lot to the subject and one can get involved in complex historical arguments. A direct question to ask that most Witnesses have not thought about and few would have answers for is to ask this:

Is there a verse in the New Testament where Jesus utters the name “Jehovah” in one of his prayers?

There isn’t. And even though the Witnesses’ New World Translation has “restored” the name Jehovah to the New Testament, it forgot to “restore” it to any of Jesus’ prayers. (The fact that Jesus never utters the name Jehovah or Yahweh in any of his prayers is good internal evidence that this so-called “restoration” is invalid.)

A Witness may refer to passages where Jesus prays: “Hallowed be thy name” or “Let your name be sanctified” (Matthew 6:9) or “I have made your name manifest” (John 17:6) — but come back to the question:

Does Jesus actually use the name “Jehovah” in these prayers?

He doesn’t. That’s the point you want to emphasize. He doesn’t actually utter Jehovah or Yahweh or any such name in these prayers. Instead, he refers to God as “Father.” Remember, before Jesus said: “Hallowed be thy name,” he said: “Our Father.” Similarly, in John chapter 17. There he prays to God as “Father” (John 17:1).

In the Semitic culture of his listeners, the word “name” does not always mean a pronunciation of someone’s personal name. In commenting on John 17:6, the Bible commentator Albert Barnes explains this use of “name:

The word name here includes the attributes or character of God. Jesus had made known his character, his law, his will, his plan of mercy — or, in other words, he had revealed GOD to them. The word name is often used to designate the person, Jn 15:21, Mt 10:22, Rom 2:24, 1 Tim 6:1.

We even do this in our own culture. For example, a policeman may shout: “Open the door in the name of the law!” There, “name” refers to authority.

In subsequent discussions on what the Witness will refer to as the “importance” of Christians using the name Jehovah, come back to the initial question:

So, would it be okay if I just followed Jesus’ example of addressing God as “Father” in prayer?

If Jesus didn’t use the name Jehovah in any of his prayers, do I need to?

For further reading:

Jesus/Yahweh: The Name Above Every Name

Is God’s Name Jehovah?

Jehovah — Name Above All Names?

Ignatius of Antioch’s View of the Trinity

It’s a bit anachronistic to speak of St. Ignatius of Antioch (died about 117 A.D.) and Trinitarian theology as the doctrine of the Trinity developed in the first centuries of Christianity and its associated terminology was finalized in the third and fourth centuries as a reflection of the realities it had experienced. J.N.D. Kelly explains that the monotheistic faith Christianity had inherited from Judaism had to be integrated with “the fresh data of the specifically Christian revelation. Reduced to their simplest, these were the convictions that God had made Himself known in the Person of Jesus, the Messiah, raising Him from the dead and offering salvation to men through Him, and that He had poured out His Holy Spirit on the Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 87-88). Kelly’s book is an excellent resource to see how the Church’s understanding of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit developed in the early Church.

How did St. Ignatius of Antioch write about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Fr. Edmund Fortman gives this analysis which shows the high view St. Ignatius had of the Son and Holy Spirit:

Ignatius delves more deeply into some matters than do the other Apostolic Fathers and adds his personal reflections but without developing any systematic theology. 1

The core of his thought is the divine ‘economy’ in the universe. God wished to save the world and humanity from the despotism of the prince of this world. And so He ‘manifested Himself in Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word proceeding from silence, and who in all things was pleasing to Him who sent Him’ (Magn. 8.2). ‘Our God, Jesus the Christ, was born of Mary . . . of the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit’ (Eph. 18.2). He ‘was truly crucified and died. . . and was truly raised from the dead when His Father raised Him’ (Trall. 9).

For Ignatius God is Father, and by ‘Father’ he means primarily ‘Father of Jesus Christ’ : ‘There is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son’ (Magn. 8.2). Jesus is called ‘God’ 14 times (Eph. inscr. 1.1, 7.2, 15.3, 17.2, 18.2, 19.3; Trall. 7.1; Rom. inscr. 3.3, 6.3; Smyrn. 1.1; Pdyc. 8.3). He is the Father’s Word (Magn. 8.2), ‘the mind of the Father’ (Eph. 3.3), and ‘the mouth through which the Father truly spoke’ (Rom. 8.2). He is ‘His only Son’ (Rom. inscr.), ‘generate and ingenerate, God in man . . . son of Mary and Son of God . . . Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Eph. 7.2). He is the one ‘who is beyond time the Eternal the Invisible who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible who suffered for our sake’ (Polyc. 3.2).

It has been said that for Ignatius Jesus’ ‘divine Sonship dates from the incarnation,’ 2 and that he ‘seems rather to ascribe the divine sonship of Jesus to the fact that Mary conceived by the operation of the Holy Spirit.’ 3 If he did date Jesus’ sonship from the incarnation he did not thereby deny His pre-existence. For he declared very definitely that Jesus Christ ‘from eternity was with the Father and at last appeared to us’ (Magn. 6.1) and that He ‘came forth from one Father in whom He is and to whom He has returned’ (Magn. 7.2). But just how He was distinct from the Father, since both are God, Ignatius does not say. Perhaps he hints at an answer when he says that Christ is the Father’s ‘thought’ (Eph. 3.2).

While Ignatius concentrated most of his thought on Christ, he did not ignore the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was the principle of the Lord’s virginal conception (Eph. 18.2). Through the Holy Spirit Christ ‘confirmed . . . in stability the officers of the Church’ (Phil. inscr.). This Spirit spoke through Ignatius himself (Phil. 7.1). Ignatius does not cite the Matthean baptismal formula, but he does sometimes mention Father. Son, and Holy Spirit together. He urges the Magnesians to ‘be eager . . . to be confirmed in the commandments of our Lord and His apostles, so that “whatever you do may prosper” . . . in the Son and Father and Spirit’ (Magn. 13.2). And in one of his most famous passages he declares: ‘Like the stones of a temple, cut for a building of God the Father, you have been lifted up to the top by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the Cross, and the rope of the Holy Spirit’ (Eph. 9.1). Thus although there is nothing remotely resembling a doctrine of the Trinity in Ignatius, the triadic pattern of thought is there, and two of its members, the Father and Jesus Christ, are clearly and often designated as God.

It has been urged 4 that for Ignatius there is no Trinity before the birth of Jesus, but that before the birth there was only God and a pre-existent Christ, who is called either Logos or Holy Spirit. There is, however, no solid evidence that Ignatius either in intention or in words made any such identification either in his letter to the Smyrnaeans (inscr.) or in that to the Magnesians (13.1,2). On the contrary. when Ignatius writes that ‘our God, Jesus Christ, was born of Mary . . . and of the Holy Spirit’ (Eph. 18.2), he seems to indicate that before this birth both ‘our God Jesus Christ’ and the Holy Spirit pre-existed distinctly and that thus there was a Trinity before His birth.

Notes:

1. Quasten, Patrology, 1 : 63-76; Lawson, A Theological and Historical Introduction to the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 101-152.
2. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York and London. 1965), p. 92.
3. J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas (3 vols. St. Louis, 1910) 1 : 123.
4. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, pp. 184, 191.

Taken from The Triune God: A Historical Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Edmund J. Fortman, pp.  38-40.

For further reading:

A Review of the Watchtower’s Comments Concerning the View of Ignatius of Antioch and the Deity of Christ

The Watchtower and the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers

Why Isn’t Jesus Called “God” More Often in the New Testament?

H/T: The Divine Life

Blogger Eric Sammons answers a question that is often raised by those who do not accept the traditional understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ. The book he recommends by Murray J. Harris was very helpful in my wife’s coming to understand how the early Christians viewed Jesus and that the terminology they used actually reflected a high Christology (understanding of the nature of Christ).

Why Isn’t Jesus Called “God” More Often in the New Testament?

By Eric Sammons

"In answer Thomas said to him: 'My Lord and my God!'" (John 20:28)

Ever since I started studying the Bible seriously I have noticed a curious fact: in the New Testament, it is very rare that Jesus is explicitly referred to as “God” (Greek theos). In fact, there are only two cases in the whole of the New Testament that Jesus is unquestionably called God (John 1:1; 20:28), although there are a small number of other passages in which the author is probably using the term God to refer to Jesus (John 1:18, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1), although each of these other instances are questioned in some quarters.

What is particularly interesting is that just a few years after the writing of the New Testament books we find other Christians who have no such hesitation. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of John the Apostle and died in the early 2nd century, shows no reserve is calling Jesus God:

“For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary” (Ignatius Letter to the Ephesians 18:2);

“love towards Jesus Christ our God” (Ignatius Letter to the Romans Preface);

“I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you” (Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans 1:1).

So why do the New Testament writers hesitate, or even refuse, to call Jesus God if they believed him to be divine?

Some, of course, would say that the N.T. authors did not, in fact, believe Jesus to be divine. But that ignores the overwhelming evidence of the N.T. writings. Even if Jesus were never called God in the N.T. it is still clear that the first Christians believed him to be divine. His authority to change the Law (Matthew 5) and to forgive sins (Matthew 9:1-3), as well as his exaltation as Lord of the Universe (Philippians 2:9-11, Colossians 1:15-20) are just a few examples showing that the N.T. authors believed him to be equal to God. So, again, why didn’t they just go around explicitly calling him God as later Christians would do?

The answer lies in the strictly monotheistic Jewish atmosphere in which the first Christians lived and breathed and the competing worldview of the ruling Roman Empire. To a first century Jew, there was only one God and that was the God of Israel. To apply the term God to another being would be to reject the strongest pillar of Judaism: monotheism. To the first century Roman pagan, on the other hand, there were many gods and applying the term theos to someone caused no more concern than calling him powerful or a ruler. So the first century Jewish Christians (and remember, all the first Christians were Jewish) had a dilemma: they understood and accepted that Jesus possessed divine attributes, yet they also held steadfast to Jewish monotheism, so how could they express this without being perceived as Roman polytheists? If they just blithely called Jesus God, most Jews (and pagans) would believe they were inventing yet another god in the pantheon of pagan gods – or they would have believed that the Christian equated Jesus with God the Father. In many ways, the revelation of the Trinity was the greatest linguistic challenge man ever faced.

So the New Testament authors closely guarded their use of the title God for Jesus, and used many other ways to express his divinity. No one reading the N.T. books in the first century would have questioned that their authors believed Jesus to be divine, but at the same time they would have also been clear that these authors did not believe Jesus to be the same person as God the Father. By being circumspect in their language, they were able to protect both their monotheistic beliefs as well as their conviction that Jesus was God.

Eventually, as Christianity grew it became more confident in its distinctive beliefs regarding the Godhead in contrast to both Judaism and paganism and so was able to more freely assign the title God to Jesus outright, as we see in the writing of St. Ignatius of Antioch. The belief didn’t change, but the language used to express it did develop.

For further reading: Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus by Murray J. Harris

Additional reading:

Jesus, Yahweh: The Name Above Every Name

Jesus of Nazareth — Who is He? by Arthur Wallis

The Father and the Son

Thirty years ago I read these words from a short booklet which challenged my theological understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son. It’s impossible to put into one post the reasons why someone changes their understanding of such a complex subject. Still, these words and other comments in that booklet helped me to realize that Christ was not on the level of a creature but  is on the level of Deity. For those interested in more on this subject, I recommend reading the entire booklet, referenced below.

THE FATHER AND THE SON

In the cross-examination of a witness it is often the facts which emerge accidentally that provide the most convincing witness to the truth, just because they are unintentional rather than calculated and prepared. So it is with this theme in Scripture. Not only in the great doctrinal passages — so often the battleground of controversy — but in the most casual allusions and seemingly incidental statements scattered throughout Scripture, do we find pointers to the truth. For example, there are passages in which the name of the Son is linked with that of the Father in such a way, and in such connections, as to leave an honest inquirer in no doubt as to how the person of the Son is to be viewed. Let us look at some of them.

Jesus said, “If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” (John 14:23)

And again, “But now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.” (John 15:24)

Then in the epistles we read, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 1:7)

“Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way unto you.” (1 Thessalonians 3:11)

“Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13)

Finally in the book of Revelation: “Salvation unto our God who is seated on the throne, and unto the Lamb.” (Revelation 7:10)

These are bit a sample of the many that could be quoted. Do they not leave the reader with the strong impression that these persons belong to the same plane, the same order of being? When we find created beings innumerable, out of every nation under heaven, rendering to the Lamb the same ascription of worship and homage that they ascribe to the eternal God, how can we possibly think that this great gulf that separates the creature from the Creator separates him from God and not him from man?

How would it sound to us if Scripture was to read, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and Michael his archangel”?

Or, if Scripture led us to ascribe “Salvation unto our God who is seated on the throne, and unto the angel Gabriel”?

Then consider him who is seen in the above scriptures in company with the Father, indwelling those who believe and obey him, and who is, with the Father, the joint source of grace and peace to believing men, the joint director of the steps of his servants, the joint object of their ascriptions of worship. Is he merely a supreme spirit-creature? Is he only a kind of super-archangel who had a beginning in time, and might have an end if his Creator so desired?

Taken from Jesus of Nazareth — Who Is He? by Arthur Wallis, pp. 18-19.

For further reading:

Jesus, Yahweh: The Name Above Every Name

There is One Physician

St. Ignatius of Antioch was martyred in a Roman arena in 107 A.D. After his death, the saint’s followers lovingly carried his relics back to Antioch, where they remained until 637, when they were transferred to the Church of St. Clement in Rome.

This is chapter 7 of St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to Christians in Ephesus. After warning about danger of false teachers, he speaks of the true Physician of souls, giving us a strong testimony of the Deity of Christ:

For there are some who make a practice of carrying about the Name with wicked guile, and do certain other things unworthy of God; these you must shun as wild beasts, for they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, and you must be upon your guard against them, for they are scarcely to be cured.

There is one Physician,

who is both flesh and spirit,

born and yet not born,

who is God in man,

true life in death,

both of Mary and of God,

first passible and then impassible,

Jesus Christ our Lord.

Text from the the translation of the Apostolic Fathers by Kirsopp Lake, Vol. 1, page 181.

Further reading:

Jesus as God in the Second Century

A Review of the Watchtower’s Comments Concerning the Views of Ignatius of Antioch and the Deity of Christ

The Ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch

“Found to be Above Death”: Ecclesiology as Eucharistic Soteriology in the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch

Audio Recordings of the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch based on the translation by Lightfoot.

Jesus, Yahweh: The Name Above Every Name

Christians have traditionally applied the Tetragrammaton to Jesus Christ

The Jehovah’s Witnesses view Jesus Christ as the greatest of God’s creations, having only the nature of a creature. This is different than the historic Christian view of Christ, which affirms that the man Jesus also shares the essence of God. The strongest testimony showing that the early Christians regarded Christ as God is how they without hesitation identified Christ with the Old Testament Yahweh (or Jehovah). The following article reviews some of the evidence for this in the New Testament.

The name "Yahweh" in modern Hebrew script. The four consonant letters YHWH form the Tetragrammaton

The name Yahweh (or Jehovah) appears nearly 7,000 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. There the Name is written in four Hebrew letters, referred to as the Tetragrammaton. Most English translations render the Hebrew Tetragrammaton as LORD, while some (like the New Jerusalem Bible and Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible ) use “Yahweh” and others (like the American Standard Version of 1901 and the New World Translation ) use “Jehovah.”

But, between the Old Testament and the New Testament the Name suddenly disappears! There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and not one of them has the Name in either Greek or Hebrew letters. The Watchtower Society claims that the Name was there in the original Greek New Testament, but that it was later removed. They claim this with no real evidence, for they are unable to produce even one manuscript of the Greek New Testament with the Name! Besides, some of those manuscripts of the New Testament date from within one generation of the original writings. That leaves very little chance for the Watchtower Society’s theory of a conspiracy to remove the Name from the New Testament writings. (The Watchtower Society attempts to prove their theory of a gross tampering of the New Testament by citing a few older copies of Greek translations of the Old Testament — what is known as the Septuagint — that have the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. Again, there are no Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the Tetragrammaton. None. Of over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament — not one has the Name.)  If we accept the facts the way they are (without trying to change them to fit a preconceived theory) we are forced to admit the Name is not in the New Testament.

In the New Testament we meet up with another name. The name that is emphasized in the New Testament is the name of Jesus. (This makes for an interesting comparison in the New World Translation. While the Watchtower Society claims to “restore” the name Jehovah 237 times to the New Testament, their Comprehensive Concordance lists the name Jesus over 900 times!) In the book of Acts we particularly notice the emphasis of the name of Jesus. If you have an exhaustive concordance look up the word “name” in the book of Acts. Over and over again you will see the Name the early Christian church emphasized was the name of Jesus!

At Acts 3:6 St. Peter healed the lame beggar in the name of Jesus Christ. In Acts 4:7,10,12,17,18 we read about the first disciples defending themselves before the Sanhedrin, proclaiming their use of the name of Jesus. In Chapter 5 they are back before the Jewish high court. For whose name did they suffer? Acts 5:41 tells us: “These, therefore, went their way from before the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy to be dishonored in behalf of his name.” They suffered for the name of Jesus! Space does not permit us to look at all the relevant verses. Take time to consider these few: Acts 8:12; 9:13-16,27,28; 15:26; 16:18; 19:17; 21:13; 26:9. In Acts the Name that is emphasized is the name of Jesus Christ

Why the change of emphasis between the Old Testament Yahweh and the New Testament Jesus? Are we being introduced to some rival deity in the New Testament when we encounter so much emphasis on the name of Jesus? That is the way some nearly react when it is suggested that the answer lies in the fact that the New Testament  identifies Jesus with Yahweh. Bear in mind that I am not saying Jesus is the Father! Rather, what I am saying is that Jesus and the Father share the same Name.

Charles Taze Russell, the first President of the Watchtower Society, was firm in his belief that the name Jehovah could not be applied to Jesus. He is quoted with apparent approval on page 22 of an official history book published by the Watchtower Society in 1959 entitled  Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose:

“We confidently assert that the name Jehovah is never applied in Scripture to any but the Father. It is for those who claim the reverse to give a text, and show its applicability to Jesus or anyone else than the Father. Here is a way to prove the matter conclusively-the New Testament writers quote much from the Old Testament; do they ever quote a passage in which the word Jehovah occurs and apply it to Jesus? We claim that they do not.” — Quoted from pages 2,3 of the August 1882 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower. [Note: In recent years the Society has backed down from this position.]

Contrast what Russell wrote with this statement from a contemporary of his — J. Gresham Machen, a Professor at Princeton. He wrote in the book Christianity and Liberalism (1923):

“It is a matter of small consequence whether Paul ever applies to Jesus the Greek word which is translated ‘God’ in the English Bible; certainly it is very difficult, in view of Rom. ix. 5, to deny that he does. However that may be, the term ‘Lord,’ which is Paul’s regular designation of Jesus, is really just as much a designation of deity as is the term ‘God.’ It was a designation of deity even in the pagan religions with which Paul’s converts were familiar; and (what is far more important) in the Greek translation of the Old Testament which was current in Paul’s day and was used by the Apostle himself, the term was used to translate the ‘Jahwe’ of the Hebrew text. And Paul does not hesitate to apply to Jesus stupendous passages in the Greek Old Testament where the term Lord thus designates the God of Israel.” –page 97.

Let’s consider a few quotations from the Old Testament and see if the New Testament writers had any problem in applying passages containing the name Yahweh to Jesus. We will use the Witnesses New World Translation for these comparisons.

St. Paul quotes Psalm 68:18 and applied it to the Ascension of Jesus Christ. Psalm 68:18 says: “You have ascended on high; you have carried away captives; you have taken gifts in the form of men, Yes, even the stubborn ones, to reside among them, O Jah God.” (“Jah” is an abbreviated form of the name Jehovah.) Notice how St. Paul applies this passage at Ephesians 4:7-10: “Now to each one of us undeserved kindness was given according to how the Christ measured out the free gift. Wherefore he says: ‘When he ascended on high he carried away captives; he gave gifts in men.’ Now the expression ‘he ascended,’ what does it mean but that he also descended into the lower regions, that is, the earth? The very one that descended is also the one that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might give fulness to all things.”

Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes the Greek Septuagint version of Psalm 102:25-27 and applies it to Christ: “You at the beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually; and just like an outer garment they will grow old, and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed, but you are the same, and your years will never run out.” Not only do we here see a New Testament writer apply an Old Testament passage about Yahweh to Jesus Christ — notice to what lengths this New Testament writer will go in his scripture application. He openly identifies Christ as the Creator of heaven and earth. And he contrasts the impermanence of creation against its Creator, who is unchangeable and eternal. Does it make sense to think the writer of Hebrews felt Christ was only a creature after seeing how he applies Scripture?

Notice this comparison between 1 Peter 3:14,15 and Isaiah 8:12,13. 1 Peter says: “But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are happy. However, the object of their fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.” Now, Isaiah says: “‘You men must not say, “A conspiracy!” respecting all that of which this people keep saying, “A conspiracy!” and the object of their fear you men must not fear, nor must you tremble at it. Jehovah of armies-he is the One whom you should treat as holy, and he should be the object of your fear, and he should be the One causing you to tremble.’” This comparison is even more striking if one compares the Greek word order of 1 Peter with the Greek Septuagint of Isaiah. The Hebrew says: “Sanctify Jehovah of hosts” (according to Jay Green’s The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible ) but the Greek Septuagint has “Sanctify ye the Lord himself.” (From Brenton’s translation of the Septuagint.)

Now, St. Peter, writing in Greek, would most naturally quote from the standard Greek translation of the Old Testament,  the Septuagint. The Septuagint here says: kurion auton hagiasate (Greek word order: “Lord himself sanctify”). St. Peter’s quotation in 1 Peter 3:14,15 is practically identical except here he exchanges the word auton (himself) for who is Christ. He writes: kurion de ton christon hagiasate (Greek word order: “Lord but the Christ sanctify” – compare the Watchtower Society’s Kingdom Interlinear Translation.) It is as if St. Peter were adding a parenthetical thought to his quotation from Isaiah: “The object of their fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. The Lord (who is Christ ) you should sanctify.” Peter was making sure we knew that the Lord we are to sanctify is Christ!

Notice this prophecy from Isaiah 40:3-5: “Listen! Someone is calling out in the wilderness: ‘Clear up the way of Jehovah, you people! Make the highway for our God through the desert plain straight. Let every valley be raised up, and every mountain and hill be made low. And the knobby ground must become level land, and the rugged ground a valley plain. And the glory of Jehovah will certainly be revealed, and all flesh must see it together. ‘” Matthew 3:1-3, Mark 1:1-4, Luke 3:2-6 and John 1:23 apply this passage to John the Baptist’s preparatory work before the ministry of Jesus.

It becomes undeniable that New Testament writers applied Old Testament passages about Yahweh to Jesus. Can we be sure they were thereby identifying Jesus with Yahweh?

Consider this example: Isaiah 6:1-10: “In the year that King Uzziah died I, however, got to see Jehovah, sitting on a throne lofty and lifted up, and his skirts were filling the temple. Seraphs were standing above him. . .And this one called to that one and said: ‘Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of armies. The fulness of all the earth is his glory’. . .And I proceeded to say: ‘Woe to me! . . .for my eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of armies, himself!’. . .And I began to hear the voice of Jehovah saying: ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’ And I proceeded to say: ‘Here I am! Send me.’ And he went on to say: ‘Go, and you must say to this people, “Hear again and again, O men, but do not understand; and see again and again, but do not get any knowledge.” Make the heart of this people unreceptive, and make their very ears unresponsive, and paste their very eyes together, that they may not see with their eyes and with their ears they may not hear, and that their own heart may not understand and that they may not actually turn back and get healing for themselves.’”

Compare this with John 12:36b,37,39-41: “Jesus spoke these things and went off and hid from them. But although he had performed so many signs before them, they were not putting faith in him. . .The reason why they were not able to believe is that Isaiah said: ‘He has blinded their eyes and he has made their hearts hard, that they should not see with their eyes and get the thought with their hearts and turn around and I should heal them.’ Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him.” If St.  John had no problem saying that Isaiah’s vision of Jehovah in His temple was a vision of Christ’s glory, why should we? Even the New World Translation Reference Bible cross-references Isaiah 6:1 to John 12:41!

We are told at Isaiah 45:22-24: “Turn to me and be saved, all you at the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no one else. By my own self I have sworn-out of my own mouth in righteousness the word has gone forth, so that it will not return — that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear, saying, ‘Surely in Jehovah there are full righteousness and strength.’” Notice how Paul makes a direct allusion to this passage at Philippians 2:9-11 (NIV): “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” At Isaiah 45:23 we were told that every knee would bend in worship and every tongue swear to Jehovah. St. Paul alludes to this and says this would happen “at the name of Jesus.” Why? Because St. Paul adds that God has shared with Christ “the name that is above every name “– the Divine Name. So, when every knee bows before Jesus and every tongue confesses Jesus Christ as LORD, does this detract from the Father? Not at all! Rather, Paul said this would glorify God the Father! Did not Jesus Himself say that it was God’s will that “all should pay the same honor to the Son as to the Father”? (John 5:23) Interestingly, early editions of the New Testament part of the New World Translation had a cross-reference at Philippians 2:10 pointing to Isaiah 45:23. Their 1984 Reference Bible edition has removed that cross-reference.

Consider these points:

What was the most sacred Name to the Jews? Didn’t the people of Israel have an intense awe for the Divine Name? So, how could Paul and Peter and John (who were from a Jewish background) so freely apply passages about Yahweh to Jesus Christ?

Why did they have no hesitation in identifying Christ with Jehovah? When they called Jesus LORD, weren’t they making a mind-boggling claim? The risen Savior was identified with Yahweh of the Old Testament!

Is that perhaps one reason why we are told at 1 Corinthians 12:3: “No one can say: ‘Jesus is LORD,’ except by the Holy Spirit”?

Recognizing who Christ truly is — the One who has the Name above all names — is a work wrought by God.

Recommended further reading on the Person of Christ:

Jesus of Nazareth — Who is He? by Arthur Wallis

The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ by Bruce Metzger

The Lord of Glory by Benjamin Warfield

Further reading examining the  Watchtower Society’s “restoration” of the Name Jehovah to the New Testament:

The Divine Name in the New World Translation by Lynn Lundquist

The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures by Lynn Lundquist

Letters to the Watchtower Society on the Hebrew “J-versions”