John 14:28

Status
Not open for further replies.

Christopher88

Puritan Board Sophomore
In my community today, a group of Jehovah Witness's were out and about. Now I missed my opportunity to be a witness, instead I was more of southerner when I answered my door.
I know a general idea of what they hold too.

There argument on the website is from John 14:28 which Jesus claims the Father is greater then he. Now I have a pretty solid argument as to go against this miss interpretation but would like here some others thoughts.

How would you respond to the arguments of Jesus not being God?
 
In my community today, a group of Jehovah Witness's were out and about. Now I missed my opportunity to be a witness, instead I was more of southerner when I answered my door.
I know a general idea of what they hold too.

There argument on the website is from John 14:28 which Jesus claims the Father is greater then he. Now I have a pretty solid argument as to go against this miss interpretation but would like here some others thoughts.

How would you respond to the arguments of Jesus not being God?

The first places I typically go to when this is brought up are those where Christ lays claim to divinity Himself - the "I AM" statement in John 8:58-9, which the JW's translate conveniently to fit their theology, though the Greek doesn't allow their translation, or really, any other option than "Before Abraham was, I AM". The fact that the crowd picked up stones to stone him clearly indicates that they viewed his words as a blasphemous claim to divinity. Another clear and in some ways more important place is, John 10:30-33, where the crowd states clearly that Jesus has claimed to be God. Not only did they pick up stones, but they said that he claimed to be God. This too is mistranslated in the New World Translation. These (and John 1:1) are tricky places to argue with the JW's because they for the most part won't know (or accept) the fact that the Greek can't be translated the way their New World Translation does it. John 8:58-9 though is really clear, being a problem with simple verb tense - John 1:1 rests on a different and more complicated (though completely sound) concept in translation.

I also would go to the scene with Caiaphas (in Matthew 26), where he tears his robes at the 'blasphemy' of Christ's claims to divinity by referring to Himself as the Messiah, which is a clear claim to Divinity, and as the Son of Man - which is no self-deprecating remark, but another claim to being God, if the references back to Daniel are traced. I don't know whether the JWs mess with those verses, but here it's also quite clear... what you would have to do is establish the fact that a claim to being Messiah, and/or a claim to holding the title Son of Man (which Jesus does numerous places, not just here) is a claim to being God. If you can do that, you have another arrow in your quiver.
 
Any serious reading of Acts alongside Joel and Isaiah (and others) should be sufficient to prove that the Apostles clearly taught that Jesus was YHWH. Brief examples:

And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved.
For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,
As the LORD has said,
Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.
Joel 2:32

For I am the LORD your God,
The Holy One of Israel, your Savior
Isaiah 43:3 (plus many, many more)

Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved
Acts 4:12 (plus many, many more, also see Romans 10:13, etc.)


Now, I do not know to what extent the JW's own version changes the wording - perhaps it is enough to obfuscate the clear testimony of Scripture. I'm also not good about witnessing. Usually when I get handed Watchtower I say, "I believe Jesus is Jehovah", and that pretty much ends it.
 
I just listened to a sermon about witnessing to JW's on SermonAudio from Trevor Hammack. This is what he says to do.

First have them read from the NWT Revelation 1:8. Then ask them who the Alpha and the Omega is. They will say that Jehovah God the Almighty is the Alpha and Omega.

Then, ask them to read Revelation 21:6. Ask them who is the beginning and the end. They will say that Jehovah God, who is the Alpha and Omega, the Almighty is the beginning and the end.

Then ask them to read Revelation 22:13. Ask them who is the first and the last. They will say Jehovah God. Do not go to verse 16 next as they will just tell you that the speakers change throughout this passage, don't argue. Up until now we have been non-confrontational. Next is the confrontational part.

Ask them to go back a read Revelation 1:17-18. Then ask them when Jehovah God died. Then quickly go to Isaiah 44:6 where God says that He is the first and the last and that there is no god besides Him.

Apparently, asking them when Jehovah God died will throw them into a state of confusion and they will try to leave.
 
It's best - according to former JWs that I've heard of - to have info of your own to hand that will undermine their faith in the Watchtower, although no doubt other argumentation can be used.
 
I also met a woman who grew up JW and came out of it at 25 years old. She told me that what the Holy Spirit used to show her the truth was this: When going door-to-door, multiple Christians told her that "God loves her". She told me that she didn't believe it, but eventually the love of God shown through!
 
In what way or respect is the Father greater than Him? Greater as the Father in distinction from Jesus being the eternal Son of God or greater as God in distinction from Jesus (merely) being a created being? The latter denying any notion of Jesus' divinity, whereas the former affirms the distinction between the persons in the Godhead (particularly with respect to Jesus humanity and servanthood as per Philippians 2:5ff.).
 
As to John 14:28... Given Jesus' state of humiliation at the time he made that comment, it's sensible that even though he's equal to the Father in his divine perfections and nature he might speak of the Father being greater. The context of that line is that Jesus is talking about returning to the Father. That's a step up from where he was at that moment. He's going to a greater place, to be back with the Father who at that moment enjoys a greater state than Jesus' state of humiliation. So the disciples should not be troubled. Greater things are ahead for Jesus... and, in time, for them, who'll be following.

The whole passage is about "when we all get to heaven." To take a passing comment from Jesus that's meant to make a point about where he's going... and then build a doctrine of the Son's inferiority around that when there are many other passages that speak directly and purposefully to the issue of the Son being fully God... is sloppy biblical interpretation. If you want to know whether or not Jesus is fully God, start with passages that directly address that topic. Let those passages inform your understanding of passages where the topic may be mentioned indirectly in passing. That's letting Scripture interpret Scripture.
 
Back in high school, I used to argue in favor of this Jehovah's Witness doctrine, as my grandmother spent time in the JW group. What turned the corner for me on this teaching was the thought, "Well then, who died for your sins? If it wasn't God, then we have a second-class sacrifice for our sins and a second-class righteousness imputed to our account, for a created being can never rise to the necessary level of atonement and righteousness for it to count as eternal."

The Son can be distinct from the Father, and can be lesser and subservient. And yet, the Son is God.
I Cor. 15
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


The Father is invisible, dwelling in unapproachable light. The Son is the visible manifestation of the Father, the "hypostasis," as Heb. 1:3 says.

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.


Blessings!
 
I read this passage from Philippians 2 to some JW's that came to our door this summer.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:5-11

I thought it made it quite clear that Christ humbles himself before the Father, but is still equal with him and clearly an object of our worship, since we are told that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow."
 
How would you rate this argument;
If Jehovah God demands perfection and man is fallen according to scripture who can meet God's standards for sacrifice? If Jesus is not perfect, one he can not meet God's approval for sacrifice. If Jesus is perfect but not God its contrary to scripture teachings that all man is fallen and sinful.

So in that statement I conclude Jesus has to be God because God is the only perfect fit to meet His standards. If Jesus is not God, then I will become a Jew and wait for God. I say this figuratively as firmly hold to the doctrine of the trinity as a Christian.

The biggest draw and understanding of the doctrine of the trinity is at the foot of the cross. Only God himself could meet his standards. Jesus is God.

Not sure if that would be a solid argument for the JW.
 
How would you rate this argument;
If Jehovah God demands perfection and man is fallen according to scripture who can meet God's standards for sacrifice? If Jesus is not perfect, one he can not meet God's approval for sacrifice. If Jesus is perfect but not God its contrary to scripture teachings that all man is fallen and sinful.

So in that statement I conclude Jesus has to be God because God is the only perfect fit to meet His standards. If Jesus is not God, then I will become a Jew and wait for God. I say this figuratively as firmly hold to the doctrine of the trinity as a Christian.

The biggest draw and understanding of the doctrine of the trinity is at the foot of the cross. Only God himself could meet his standards. Jesus is God.

Not sure if that would be a solid argument for the JW.

I'm not sure I'm following this - I'm assuming you're thinking about offeirng the first three sentences as your argument. The problem is, the third sentence of those is incorrect. Jesus is, in Scripture, spoken of as being absolutely without sin... He is perfect - in both his humanity and his divinity. I would never use that third sentence - it's not correct, and is not necessary.

One of the difficulties you get into with JWs is that (I think) they don't accept the concept of atonement - paying for sins by the death of Christ. As such, the argument that DOES work - that Jesus, in order to be able to cover more than one person's sins must not only be a perfect man (that would allow for the covering of ONE person's sins) but God (i.e. His death was of infinite worth). If the atonement is not understood as a vicarious penal substitution, then this argument will be hard to make.

So in short... I wouldn't argue the way you've suggested... it'll take much more than a quick few lines to argue this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top