The following is information explains the Watchtower Bible And Tract
Society's New World Translation being a perversion and a very bad
translation. Dr. Martin provides many examples and explains clearly the
perversions of scripture from the WTBTS's translation. It is exerpted from
Dr. Martin's excellent book "The Kingdom of the Cults" which I highly
recommend for Christians to use as an informative resource.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
Perversions In The New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures
by Dr. Walter R. Martin
(1) The first major perversion that Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to
foist upon the minds of the average reader is that it has remained
for them as God's true Witnesses to restore the divine name
"Jehovah" to the text of the New Testament. But let us observe this
pretext as they stated it in their own words.
The evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the
Christian Greek Scriptures has been tampered with, the same as the
text of the LXX [The Septuagint--a Greek translation of the Old
Testament] has been. And, at least from the third century A.D.
onward, the divine name in tetragrammaton [the Hebrew consonants
YHWH, usually rendered "Jehovah"] form has been eliminated from the
text by copyists....In place of it they substituted the words
"kyrios" (usually translated "the Lord") and "theos", meaning "God"
(page 18).
The "evidence" that the Witnesses refer to is a recently
discovered papyrus roll of the LXX which contains the second half
of the book of Deuteronomy and which does have the tetragrammaton
throughout. Further than this, the Witnesses refer to Aquila (A.D.
128) and Origen who both utilized the tetragrammaton in their
respective Version and Hexapla. Jerome, in the fourth century, also
mentioned the tetragrammaton as appearing in certain Greek volumes
even in his day. On the basis of this small collection of
fragmentary "evidence" Jehovah's Witnesses conclude their argument
thusly:
It proves that the original LXX did contain the divine name
wherever it occurred in the Hebrew original. Considering it a
sacrilege to use some substitute such as kyrios or theos, the
scribes inserted the tetragrammaton at its proper place in the
Greek version text (page 12).
The whole case the Witnesses try to prove is that the original
LXX and the New Testament autographs all used the tetragrammaton
(page 18) but owing to "tampering" all these were changed; hence
their responsibility to restore the divine name. Such is the
argument, and a seemingly plausible one to those not familiar with
the history of manuscripts and the Witnesses' subtle use of terms.
To explode this latest Watch Tower pretension of scholarship
completely is indeed an elementary task. It can be shown from
literally thousands of copies of the Greek New Testament that not
once does the tetragrammaton appear, not even in Matthew, possibly
written in Hebrew or Aramaic originally, and therefore more prone
than all the rest to have traces of the divine name in it yet it
does not! Beyond this, the roll of papyrus (LXX) which contains the
latter part of Deuteronomy and the divine name only proves that one
copy did have the divine name (YHWH), whereas all other existing
copies use "kyrios" and "theos", which the Witnesses claim are
"substitutes." The testimonies of Aquila, Origen and Jerome, in
turn, only show that sometimes the divine name was used, but the
general truth, upheld by all scholars, is that the Septuagint, with
minor exceptions, always uses kyrios and theos in place of the
tetragrammaton, and the New Testament never uses it at all.
Relative to the nineteen "sources" the Watch Tower uses (pages
30-33) for restoring the tetragrammaton to the New Testament, it
should be noted that they are all translations from Greek (which
uses kyrios and theos, not the tetragrammaton) back into Hebrew,
the earliest of which is A.D. 1385 and therefore they are of no
value as evidence.
These cold logical facts unmask once and for all the shallow
scholarship of Jehovah's Witnesses, whose arrogant pretension that
they have a sound basis for restoring the divine name (Jehovah) to
the Scriptures, while inferring that orthodoxy suppressed it
centuries ago, is revealed to be a hollow scholastic fraud.
No reasonable scholar, of course, objects to the use of the
term Jehovah in the Bible. But since only the Hebrew consonants
YHWH appear without vowels, pronunciation is at best uncertain, and
dogmatically to settle on Jehovah is straining at the bounds of
good linguistics. When the Witnesses arrogantly claim then to have
"restored" the divine name (Jehovah), it is almost pathetic. All
students of Hebrew know that any vowel can be inserted between the
consonants (YHWH or JHVH) so that theoretically the divine name
could be any combination from JoHeVaH to JiHiViH without doing
violence to the grammar of the language in the slightest degree. So
much then for this, another empty claim of the Watch Tower's
pseudo-scholars.
(2) Colossians 1:16 -- "by means of him all OTHER things were
created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and
the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or
Lordships or governments or authorities" (N.W.T.)
In this particular rendering, Jehovah's Witnesses attempt one
of the most clever perversions of the New Testament texts that the
author has ever seen. Knowing full well that the word OTHER does
not occur in this text, or for that matter in any of the three
texts (verses 16,17, 19), the Witnesses deliberately insert it into
the translation in a vain attempt to make Christ a creature and one
of the "things" He is spoken of as having created.
Attempting to justify this unheard of travesty upon the Greek
language and simple honesty, the New World Translation committee
insert a footnote, marked (a) after each use of the word "other",
which refers the reader to Luke 13:2,4, "and elsewhere," for
apparent support of their ungrammatical rendering. Upon turning to
Luke 13:2,4, however, the elementary Greek student can see that the
Witnesses plainly do not have any grammatical leg to stand on as is
shown by their immature reasoning. The verses utilized by the Watch
Tower to cover up their scholastic dishonesty are as follows:
So in reply, he said to them: "Do you imagine that these
Galileans were proved worse sinners than all OTHER Galileans
because they have suffered these things?" (verse 2, N.W.T.).
"Or those eighteen upon whom the tower of Siloam fell,
thereby killing them, do you imagine that they were proved greater
debtors than all OTHER men inhabiting Jerusalem?" (verse 4,
N.W.T.).
In the translation of these verses, the Watch Tower
translators also inserted the word "other," not present in the
Greek text, on the ground that it is implied in the context, owing
to the comparison made by Jesus. It is admissible, of course, that
Jesus was drawing a contrast between certain Galileans and their
fellow countrymen; but it is NOT admissible to insert terms in
order to prove a doctrinal point, and in Colossians 1:15-17 no such
comparison or contrast is being made anyway; unless, as is the case
with Jehovah's Witnesses, one assumes that Christ Himself was a
"creature" or a "thing", which would necessitate inserting the word
"other" in order to conform Scripture to a preconceived theology.
It is incorrect grammar, no reputable translation dares tamper with
doctrinal texts in this way, and not one single competent Greek
authority can be cited for this deliberate attempt to reduce the
Son of God from Creator to creature.
The entire context of Colossians 1:15-22 is filled with
superlatives in its description of the Lord Jesus as the "image of
the invisible God, the first-begetter [or 'original bringer
forth'-- Erasmus] of every creature." The Apostle Paul lauds the
Son of God as creator of all things (verse 16) and describes Him as
existing "before all things" and "holding together all things"
(verse 17). This is in perfect harmony with the entire picture
Scripture points of the eternal Word of God (John 1:1) who was made
flesh (John 1:14) and of whom it was written: "All things were make
by him, and without him was nothing made that was made" (John 1:3).
The writer of the book of Hebrews also pointed out that God's Son
"upholds all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3) and
that He is Deity in all its fullness, even as Paul wrote to the
Colossians: "For...in him should all the fullness [of God] dwell"
(Colossians 1:19 A.S.V.).
The Scriptures, therefore, bear unmistakable testimony to the
creative activity of God's Son, distinguishing Him from among the
"things" created, as THE Creator and Sustainer of "all things."
Jehovah's Witnesses have no conceivable ground, then, for this
dishonest rendering of Colossians 1:16,17 and 19 by the insertion
of the word "other" since they are supported by no grammatical
authorities, nor do they dare dispute their perversions with
competent scholars lest they further parade their obvious ignorance
of Greek exegesis.
(3) Matthew 27:50 -- "Again Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and
ceased to breathe" (N.W.T.).
Luke 23:46 -- "And Jesus called with a loud voice and said:
Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit" (N.W.T.).
For many years the Watch Tower has been fighting a vain battle
to redefine Biblical terms to suit their own peculiar theological
interpretations. They have had some measure of success in this
attempt in that they have taught the rank and file a new meaning
for tried and true Biblical terms, and it is this trait of their
deceptive system that we analyze now in connection with the above
quoted verses.
The interested student of Scripture will note from Matthew
27:50 and Luke 23:46 that they are parallel passages describing the
same event, namely the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In Matthew's
account, the Witnesses had no difficulty substituting the word
"breath" for the Greek spirit (pneuma), for in their vocabulary
this word has many meanings, none of them having any bearing upon
the general usage of the term, Biblically, i.e., that of an
immaterial cognizant nature, inherent in man by definition and
descriptive of angels through creation. Jehovah's Witnesses reject
this immaterial nature in man and call it "breath," "life," "mental
disposition" or "something wind like." In fact, they will call it
anything but what God's Word says it is, an invisible nature,
eternal by creation, a spirit, made in the image of God (Genesis
1:27). Sometimes and in various contexts, spirit (pneuma) can mean
some of the things the Witnesses hold, but context determines
translation, along with grammar, and their translations quite often
do not remain true to either.
Having forced the word "breath" into Matthew's account of the
crucifixion, to make it appear that Jesus only stopped breathing
and did not yield up His invisible nature upon dying, the Witnesses
plod on to Luke"s account, only to be caught in their own trap.
Luke, learned scholar and master of Greek that he was, forces the
Witnesses to render his account of Christ's words using the correct
term "spirit" (pneuma), instead of "breath" as in Matthew 27:50.
Thus in one fell swoop the entire watch Tower fabric of
manufactured terminology collapses, because Jesus would hardly have
said: "Father into thy hands I commit my breath" -- yet if the
Witnesses are consistent, which they seldom are, why did they not
render the identical Greek term (pneuma) as "breath" both times,
for it is a parallel account of the same scene!
The solution to this question is quite elementary as all can
clearly see. The Witnesses could not render it "breath" in Luke and
get away with it, so they used it where they could and hoped nobody
would notice it, or the different rendering in Matthew. The very
fact that Christ dismissed His spirit proves the survival of the
human spirit beyond the grave, or as Solomon so wisely put it:
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit
[pneuma -- LXX] shall return unto God who gave it" (Ecclesiastes
12:7).
(4) Philippians 1:21-23 - "For in my case to live is Christ, and
to die, gain. Now if it be to live on in the flesh, this is a
fruitage of my work .. and yet which thing to choose I do not know.
I am under pressure from these two things; but what I do desire is
the releasing and the being with Christ, for this, to be sure, is
far better" (N.W.T.).
In common with other cults that teach soul-sleep after the
death of the body, Jehovah's Witnesses translate texts
contradicting this view to suit their own ends, a prime example of
which is their rendering of Philippians 1:21-23. To anyone
possessing even a cursory knowledge of Greek grammar the
translation "but what I do desire is the releasing..." (verse 23)
signifies either a woeful ignorance of the rudiments of the
language or a deliberate, calculated perversion of terminology for
a purpose or purposes most questionable.
It is no coincidence that this text is a great "proof" passage
for the expectation of every true Christian who after death goes to
be with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). Jehovah's Witnesses realize
that if this text goes unchanged or unchallenged it destroys
utterly their Russellite teaching that the soul becomes extinct at
the death of the body. this being the case, and since they could
not challenge the text without exploding the myth of their
acceptance of the Bible as the final authority, the Watch Tower
committee chose to alter the passage in question, give it a new
interpretation, and remove this threat to their theology.
The rendering, "but what I do desire is the releasing...,"
particularly the last word, is a gross imposition upon the
principles of Greek exegesis because the untutored Russellites have
rendered the first aorist active infinitive of the verb analuoo
(analusai) as a substantive ("the releasing"), which in this
context is unscholarly and atrocious Greek. In order to translate
it "the releasing," the form would have to be the participle
construction (analusas), which when used with the word "wish" or
"desire" denotes "a great longing" or "purpose" and must be
rendered "to depart" or "to unloose". (See Thayer, Liddell and
Scott, Strong, Young and A.T. Robertson.)
Quite frankly, it may appear that I have gone to a great deal
of trouble just to refute the wrong usage of a Greek form, but in
truth this simple switching of terms is used by the Witnesses in an
attempt to teach that Paul meant something entirely different than
what he wrote to the Philippians. To see just how the Watch Tower
manages this, I quote from their own Appendix to the New World
Translation which appears on pages 780, 781.
The verb a-na-ly'sai is used as a verbal noun here. It occurs
only once more in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and that is at
Luke 12:36, where it refers to Christ's return. The related noun
(a-na'-ly-sis) occurs but once, at 2 Timothy 4:6, where the apostle
says: "The due time for my releasing is imminent." ...But here at
Philippians 1:23 we have not rendered the verb as "returning" or
"departing," but as "releasing". The reason is, that the word may
convey two thoughts, the apostle's own releasing to be with Christ
at His return and also the Lord's releasing Himself from the
heavenly restraints and returning as He promised.
In no way is the apostle here saying that immediately at his
death he would be changed into spirit and would be with Christ
forever....It is to this return of Christ and the apostle's
releasing to be always with the Lord that Paul refers at
Philippians 1:23. he says there that two things are immediately
possible for him, namely, (1) to live on in the flesh and (2) to
die. Because of the circumstances to be considered, he expressed
himself as being under pressure from these two things, not knowing
which thing to choose as proper. Then he suggests a third thing,
and this thing he really desires. There is no question about his
desire for this thing as preferable, namely, the releasing, for it
means his being with Christ.
The expression to a-na-ly'sai, or the releasing cannot
therefore be applied to the apostle's death as a human creature and
his departing thus from this life. It must refer to the events at
the time of Christ's return and second coming and the rising of all
those dead in Christ to be with him forevermore.
Here, after much grammatical intrigue, we have the key as to
why the Witnesses went to so much trouble to render "depart" as
"releasing." By slipping in this grammatical error, the Watch Tower
hoped to "prove" that Paul wasn't really discussing his impending
death and subsequent reunion with Christ at all (a fact every major
Biblical scholar and translator in history has held), but a third
thing, namely, "the events at the time of Christ's return and
second presence." With breathtaking dogmatism, the Witnesses claim
that "the releasing cannot therefore be applied to the Apostle's
death. It must refer to the events at the time of Christ's
return...."
Words fail the trained mind when confronted with this classic
example of unparalleled deceit, which finds no support in any Greek
text or exegetical grammatical authority. Contrary to the Watch
Tower's statement that "the word may convey two thoughts, the
Apostle's 'releasing' to be with Christ at his return, and also the
Lord's 'releasing' himself from the heavenly restraints and
returning as he promised" (page 781), the Greek text offers no such
thought. As a matter of plain exegetical fact, Christ's return is
not even the subject of discussion -- rather it is the Apostle's
death and his concern for the Philippians that is here portrayed.
That Paul never expected to "sleep" in his grave until the
resurrection as Jehovah's Witnesses maintain is evident by the
twenty-first verse of the chapter literally -- "For me to live is
Christ, and to die is gain." There would be no gain in dying if men
slept till the resurrection, for "God is not the God of the dead
but of the living" (Mark 12:27). Clearly then, Paul was speaking of
but two things: his possible death and subsequent presence with the
Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8), and also the possibility of his
continuing on in the body, the latter being "more needful" for the
Philippian Christians. His choice in his own words was between
these two (verse 23), and Jehovah's Witnesses have gone to great
trouble for nothing; the Greek text still records faithfully what
the inspired Apostle said -- not what the Watch Tower maintains he
said, all their deliberate trickery to the contrary.
Concluding our comments upon these verses in Philippians, we
feel constrained to point out a final example of Watch Tower
dishonesty relative to Greek translation.
On page 781 of the New World Translation, it will be recalled
that the Committee wrote: "The expression to a-na-ly'-sai or the
releasing cannot therefore apply to the apostle's death as a human
creature and his departing thus from this life."
If the interested reader will turn to page 628 of the same
Watch Tower Translation, he will observe that in 2 Timothy 4:6 the
Witnesses once more use the term "releasing" (analuseos), where all
translators are agreed that it refers to Paul's impending death.
The Revised Standard Version, often appealed to by Jehovah's
Witnesses, puts it this way:
"For I am already on the point of being sacrificed, the time
of my departure has come." (See also -- An American Translation
[Goodspeed], Authorized Version, J.N. Darby's Version, James
Moffatt's Version, J.B. Rotherham's Version, Douay Version [Roman
Catholic], etc.).
Jehovah's Witnesses themselves render the text: "For I am
already being poured out like a drink offering, and the due time of
my releasing is imminent" (2 Timothy 4:6, N.W.T.).
Now since it is admitted by the Witnesses under the pressure
of every translator's rendering of his text, that it refers to
Paul's death, and further, since the noun form of the Greek word
(analuseos) is here used and translated "releasing," why is it that
they claim on page 781 that this expression "the releasing"
(analusai -- Philippians 1:23) "...cannot therefore apply to the
apostle's death as a human creature and his departing thus from
this life"? The question becomes more embarrassing when it is
realized that Jehovah's Witnesses themselves admit that these two
forms (analusai and analuseos) are "related" (page 781). Hence they
have no excuse for maintaining in one place (Philippians 1:23) that
"the releasing" cannot refer to the apostle's death, and in another
place (2 Timothy 4:6) using a form of the same word, and allowing
that it does refer to his death. This one illustration alone should
serve to warn all honest people of the blatant deception employed
in the Watch Tower's "translations", a name not worthy of
application in many, many places.
(5) Matthew 24:3 -- "While he was sitting upon the mount of
Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: 'Tell us,
When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your
presence and of the consummation of the system of things?"
(N.W.T.).
Since the days of "Pastor" Russell and Judge Rutherford, one
of the favourite dogmas of the Watch Tower has been that of the
parousia, the second coming or "presence" of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jehovah's Witnesses, loyal Russellites that they are, have
tenaciously clung to the "Pastor's" theology in this respect and
maintain that in the year 1914 when the "times of the gentiles"
ended (according to Russell) the "second presence" of Christ began.
(See Make Sure of All Things, page 319 -- Watch Tower Bible and
Tract Society.)
From the year 1914 onward, the Witnesses maintain, Christ has
turned his attention toward earth's affairs and is dividing the
peoples and educating the true Christians in preparation for their
survival during the great storm of Armageddon, when all unfaithful
mankind will be destroyed from the face of the earth (op. cit.,
page 319).
For Jehovah's Witnesses, then, Christ is not coming; He is
here! (A.D. 1914) -- only invisibly -- and He is directing His
activities through His theocratic organization in Brooklyn, New
York. In view of this claim, it might be well to hearken unto the
voice of Matthew who wrote:
Then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ, or
there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and
false prophets, and shall deceive the very elect. Behold I have
told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold he is
in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers;
believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and
shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of
man be (Matthew 24:23-27).
Jehovah's Witnesses in their New World Translation on page 780
list the twenty-four occurrences of the Greek word parousia, which
they translate each time as "presence." They give the following
defense found on page 779:
The tendency of many translators is to render it here
"coming" or "arrival." But throughout the twenty-four occurrences,
the Greek word parousia...we have rendered it "presence." from the
comparison of the parousia of the Son of man with the days of Noah
at Matthew 24:37-39, it is very evident that the meaning of the
word is as we have rendered it. And from the contrast that is made
between the presence and the absence of the apostle both at 2
Corinthians 10:10-11 and at Philippians 2:12, the meaning of
parousia is so plain that it is beyond dispute by other
translators.
Following this gigantic claim, namely, that their translation
of the word parousia is "beyond dispute by other translators," the
theocratic authorities proceed to list the verses in question.
Now the main issue is not the translation of parousia by
"presence" because in some contexts it is certainly allowable (see
1 Corinthians 16:16, 2 Corinthians 7:6,7; 10:10 and Philippians
1:26; 2:12). But there are other contexts where it cannot be
allowed in the way Jehovah's Witnesses use it, because it not only
violates the contextual meaning of the word, but the entire meaning
of the passages as always held by the Christian Church.
Jehovah's Witnesses claim scholarship for this blanket
translation of parousia, yet not one great scholar in the history
of Greek exegesis and translation has ever held this view. Since
1871, when "Pastor" Russell produced this concept, it has been
denounced by every competent scholar upon examination.
The reason this Russellite rendering is so dangerous is that
it attempts to prove that parousia in regard to Christ's second
advent really means that His return or "presence" was to be
invisible and unknown to all but "the faithful" (Russellites, of
course). (See Make Sure of All Things, pages 319, 320-323).
The New World Translators, therefore, on the basis of those
texts where it is acceptable to render parousia "presence,"
conclude that it must be acceptable in all texts. But while it
appears to be acceptable grammatically, no one but Jehovah's
Witnesses or their sympathizers accepts the New World blanket use
of "presence," be the translators Christian or not. It simply is
not good grammar, and it will not stand up under comparative
exegesis as will be shown. To conclude that "presence" necessarily
implies invisibility is also another flaw in the Watch Tower's
argument, for in numerous places where they render parousia
"presence" the persons spoken of were hardly invisible. (See 1
Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6 and 10:10, also Philippians
1:26 and 2:12.)
If the Watch Tower were to admit for one moment that parousia
can be translated "coming" or "arrival", in the passages which
speak of Christ's return the way all scholarly translators render
it, then "Pastor" Russell's "invisible presence" of Christ would
explode in their faces. Hence their determination to deny what all
recognized Greek authorities have established.
Dr. Joseph F. Thayer, a Unitarian scholar, author of one of
the best lexicons of the Greek New Testament (who, incidentally,
denied the visible second coming of Christ), says on page 490 of
that work, when speaking of parousia: "...a return (Philippians
1:26) ...In the Advent, i.e., the future visible return from heaven
of Jesus, the Messiah, to raise the dead, hold the last judgement,
and set up formally and gloriously the Kingdom of God." (For
further references, see Liddell and Scott, Strong and any other
reputable authority.)
Dr. Thayer, it might be mentioned, was honest enough to say
what the New Testament Greek taught, even though he didn't believe
it. One could wish that Jehovah's Witnesses were at least that
honest, but they are not!
In concluding this discussion of the misuse of parousia we
shall discuss the verses Jehovah's Witnesses use to "prove" that
Christ's return was to be an invisible "presence" instead of a
visible glorious, verifiable event.
The following references and their headings were taken from
the book, Make Sure of All Things, published by the Watch Tower as
an official guide to their doctrine.
(1) Angels Testified at Jesus' Ascension as a Spirit that
Christ Would Return in Like Manner, Quiet, Unobserved by the Public
(page 320).
And after he had said these things while they (only the
disciples) were looking on, he was lifted up and a cloud caught him
up from their vision...."Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking
into the sky? This Jesus who was received up from you into heaven
will come thus in the same manner as you have beheld him going into
heaven" (Acts 1:9, 11, N.W.T.).
It is quite unnecessary to refute in detail this open
perversion of a clear Biblical teaching because as John 20:27
clearly shows, Christ was not a spirit, and did not ascent as one.
The very text they quote shows that the disciples were "looking on"
and saw him "lifted up and a cloud caught him from their vision"
(verse 9). They could hardly have been looking at a spirit, which
by definition is incorporeal, (even angels have to take a human
form in order to be seen [Genesis 19:1,2]) not with human eyes as
least, and Christ had told them once before, "Behold my hands and
my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a Spirit hath
not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Luke 24:39).
So it remains for Christ Himself to denounce the Russellite
error that He "ascended as a spirit." Moreover, since He left the
earth visibly from the Mount of Olives it is certain that He will
return visibly even as the Scriptures teach (see Matthew 26:63,64;
Daniel 7:13,14; Revelation 1:7,8; Matthew 24:7,8,30).
(2) Christ's Return Invisible, as He Testified that Man Would
Not See Him Again in Human Form (page 321).
A little longer and the world will behold me no more
(John 14:19, N.W.T.).
For I say to you, You shall by no means see me from
henceforth until you say, "Blessed is he that comes in
Jehovah's name!" (Matthew 23:39, N.W.T.).
These two passages in their respective contexts give no
support to the Russellite doctrine of an invisible "presence" of
Christ for two very excellent reasons:
(a) John 14:19 refers to Christ's anticipated death and
resurrection -- the "little longer" He made reference to could only
have referred to His resurrection and subsequent ascension (Acts
1:9,11), before which time and during the period following His
resurrection He appeared only to believers, not the world (or
unbelievers), hence the clear meaning of His words. Jesus never
said that NO one would ever "see Him Again in Human Form" as the
Watch Tower likes to make out. Rather in the same chapter He
promised to "come again and receive you unto myself, that where I
am, there you may be also" (verse 3). The Bible also is quite clear
in telling us that one day by His grace alone "we shall be like
him, for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). So the Watch
Tower once more is forced to silence by the voice of the Holy
Spirit.
(b) This second text, Matthew 23:39, really proves nothing at
all for the Watch Tower's faltering arguments except that Jerusalem
will never see Christ again until it blesses Him in repentance as
the anointed of God. Actually the text hurts the Russellite
position, for it teaches that Christ will be VISIBLE at His coming,
else they could not see Him to bless Him in the name of the Lord.
Christ also qualified the statement with the word "until," a
definite reference to His visible second advent (Matthew 24:30).
(3) Early Christians Expected Christ's Return to Be Invisible.
Paul Argued there Was Insufficient Evidence in Their Day (page
321).
However, brothers, respecting the presence of our Lord Jesus
Christ and our being gathered together to him, we request of you
not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be excited either
through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or
though a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of
Jehovah is here. Let no one seduce you in any manner, because it
will not come unless the falling away comes first and the man of
lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction (2 Thessalonians
2:1-3).
This final example from 2 Thessalonians most vividly portrays
the Witnesses at their crafty best, as they desperately attempt to
make Paul teach what in all his writings he most emphatically
denied, namely that Christ would come invisibly for His saints.
In his epistle to Titus, Paul stressed the importance of
"looking for that blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the great
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (2:13), something he would not
have been looking for if it was to be a secret, invisible parousia
or "presence."
Paul, contrary to Jehovah's Witnesses, never believed in an
invisible return, nor did any bona fide member of the Christian
Church up until the fantasies of Charles Taze Russell and his
parousia nightmare, as a careful look at Paul's first epistle to
the Thessalonians plainly reveals. Said the inspired Apostle:
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we
which are alive and remain unto the COMING of the Lord shall not
prevent them which are asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven [visible] with
a shout [audible], with the voice of the archangel, and with the
trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first (4:15,16).
Here we see that in perfect accord with Matthew 26 and
Revelation 1, Christ is pictured as coming visibly, and in this
context no reputable Greek scholar alive will allow the use of
"presence"; it must be "coming." (See also 2 Thessalonians 2:8.)
For further information relative to this subject, consult any
standard concordance and Greek lexicon available, and trace Paul's
use of the word "Coming," etc. This will convince any fair-minded
person that Paul never entertained the Watch Tower's fantastic view
of Christ's return.
These things being clearly understood, the interested reader
should give careful attention to those verses in the New Testament
which do not use the word parousia but are instead forms of the
verb elthon and related to the word erchomai, (See Thayer, page
250ff) and which refer to the Lord's coming as a visible
manifestation. These various texts cannot be twisted to fit the
Russellite pattern of "presence," since erchomai means "to come,"
"to appear," "to arrive," etc., in the most definite sense of the
term. (For reference, check Matthew 24:30 in conjunction with
Matthew 26:64 -- erchomenon; also John 14:3 -- echomai; and
Revelation 1:7 -- erchetai.)
Once it is perceived that Jehovah's Witnesses are only
interested in what they can make the Scriptures say, and not in
what the Holy Spirit has already perfectly revealed, then the
careful student will reject entirely Jehovah's Witnesses and their
Watch Tower translations. These are as "blind leaders of the blind"
(Matthew 15:14) who have "turned the grace of God into
lasciviousness, and denied our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ"
(Jude 4). Further, that they "wrest the scriptures to their own
destruction" (2 Peter 3:16), the foregoing evidence has thoroughly
revealed for all to judge.
Excerpt from: The Kingdom of the Cults; Walter R. Martin, Bethany
Fellowship Publishers, 1977
.
|
