Acts 13:12 NWT......at the teaching of "Jehovah"....I was reading in Acts and the apostles were teaching about Jesus, and so when I saw the word "Jehovah", it seemed out of context with the other context in Acts. ( I think there may be some instances where the name Jehovah may fit into Acts--but the jury isn't in on that ) I went into Bible Gateway which lists how the verse is translated in other versions and the several others I read all translated "the Lord" ( not all capitols so meaning Jesus) which I think is more fitting with the context. I really need to get another Bible besides the NWT...I keep thinking I may end up with my Dad's large print Bible. Just posting this observation.
acts 13:12 "Jehovah" or the "Lord"
by enoughisenough 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
slimboyfat
Could be - it looks like a case that could go either way. New Testament scholar James Dunn categorises it as an ambiguous use of kyrios that could apply to either God or Jesus. The NWT study Bible makes a reasonable case for their inclusion of Jehovah in the verse based on the context:
In the preceding two verses, Kyʹri·os occurs twice. In both cases, it refers to God and can be viewed as a substitute for the divine name. (See comments on Acts 13:10, 11) The expression “the teaching of Jehovah” is synonymous with “the word of God,” used at Acts 13:5. That verse says that when Paul and his companions arrived in Cyprus, they “began proclaiming the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews.” As a result, the proconsul Sergius Paulus was “eager to hear the word of God.” (Acts 13:7) So it is natural to conclude that after witnessing what Paul said and did, Sergius Paulus was astounded at what he had learned about Jehovah God and the teaching originating from Him. Some translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew use the divine name here. So in view of the context and the background of the expression and the ambiguity of the term Kyʹri·os, the divine name is used in the main text.
-
aqwsed12345
"an ambiguous use of kyrios that could apply to either God or Jesus."
You work with 'a priori' preconceptions: you logically start from the assumption that God/YHVH only denotes the Father, so if the singular speaks in the first person, as a person separate from him, to Jesus, this already proves that Jesus cannot be God. However, such usage is nothing more than WTS jargon.
When the WTS thinks of God, Jehovah, of course, it automatically thinks of the Father. It is true that the name of the God of Israel is Yahweh or Jehovah. It is also true that Jesus called the Father God and God his Father. But of this, the formula Jehovah / God = the Father is only logical for the Watchtower Society. The divine name Yahweh or Jehovah does not denote only one person, but the Godhead itself (theotes, Col 2:9), in whom three persons can be identified. The name of the second person is "the Son" (ho húios), his human name is "Jesus", and his mission is "Christ." The third person does have a name, since there is only one "Holy Spirit" in the Bible, so it is often simply "the Spirit" (to pneuma). Christians worship the same God with the same name (Jehovah / Yahweh) as Jehovah's Witnesses, they only claim that Jehovah God is more than Father: Son and Holy Spirit as well.
Talking about "Jesus and Jehovah" is a Watchtowerite, JW theological jargon, and of course can only be interpreted in this context.
In order to emphasize antitrinitarian teachings, the divine name YHWH is limited to God the Father only. This is why, for example, if a Christian says "Jesus is Jehovah", then the JW brain understands that "Jesus is the Father", which is obviously ridiculous not only for JWs, but for theologically correct Christianity. With the use of words such as "Jehovah and Jesus" also force their Arian theology, so that the antitrinitarian dogma is embedded in the JW even at the linguistic level. Cf. Newspeak.
But of course, if we expand the wording, it becomes understandable. We do not say, for example, that Jesus is "equal to Jehovah", but that the divine name YHWH is not the name of just one person, namely the Father, but rather the deity itself, in which three persons can be identified.
"Some translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew use the divine name here."
So what then? It's still unauthorized addition, just like when Fred Franz did it.
-
slimboyfat
Talking about "Jesus and Jehovah" is a Watchtowerite, JW theological jargon, and of course can only be interpreted in this context.
It’s what Psalm 110:1 says: “Jehovah declared to my Lord: sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”.
The Lord Jesus is distinct from and subordinate to Jehovah God in scripture.
What two names do you suppose are written on the foreheads of believers in Revelation 14:1?
-
aqwsed12345
The argument was that nowhere in the New Testament does it say "Jehovah and Jesus", even a basic element of WTS jargon. Psalm 110 does not at all prove that Jesus is not YHWH, since based on its context it is not about the Son as God, but as a Messianic Davidic King, in which respect Jesus is indeed a man and not God. According to his human nature, Jesus is a Messianic King, according to his human nature he is the heir to David's throne, and of course Jesus' humanity is not God, not YHWH. Jesus' human and divine natures are distinct but inseparable.
“The humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 922).
Although he received the title "The Lord" as a human also, but by this his human nature did not become God (because there can be no change in God), so it means sharing in the divine glory. So YHWH God can speak about the man Jesus from an aspect from which he is really not YHWH God, but a man as the messianic king.
"Jesus Christ, forty days after His resurrection, ascended of Himself into heaven in the sight of His Apostles; and that while as God He was equal to His Father in glory, as man He has been raised above all the Angels and Saints, and constituted Lord of all things." (Catechism of St. Pius X)
-
slimboyfat
So Jesus being called ‘Lord’ means that he’s God, except in Psalm 110 where it means he’s a man?
Maybe it simply means what the Bible says: that Jesus is God’s Son, the firstborn of all creation, who God has appointed ruler over everything.
What about ‘Lord’ in Phil 2:11 where everyone bows their knee to Jesus as Lord? Is that verse referring to his ‘humanity’ or his ‘divinity’? Either way it doesn’t work because Jesus is called Lord “to the glory of God the Father”. The Bible wasn’t written to be read as Trinitarians insist it must be read to fit the dogma. It took centuries for Trinitarian dogma to even formulate such strained readings.
-
aqwsed12345
If something is declared as a dogma, it's not the same as when the Watchtower announces "new light". Rather, what happens is that a belief that the Church has already held is officially defined. So it's like building a pathway in a public park where people have already trodden down the grass. Therefore, for example the early church was Trinitarian before the Council of Nicaea too. However, because the Arian crisis was not such a significant trend that would have caused a crisis endangering the unity of the Church, there was no need to define it at an ecumenical council until then.
I'll give an example: suppose there's a country where there's no law enacted that forbids public nudity, and the people, by themselves, without a written legal obligation, automatically behave that way. As soon as some scandalous, publicly practiced sexual licentiousness movement starts, the state would enact a law that public nudity is prohibited. In this case, it's not that people started to dress up only from the enactment of this law, but that the societal pressure and customary law sufficiently regulated it until then. However, now that it seemed that it wasn't enough, it was necessary to enact the already existing norm as a higher-level written norm.
Only a teaching that was already part of the Church's faith can and may be elevated to a dogma. However, it is not ruled out that some theologians may have debated it until then. The Magisterium has no right to change the faith, so the proclamation of a dogma can never be something that is new in terms of content.
In contrast to the Watchtower, in Catholic teaching it is not defined here what must be believed under the burden of disfellowshipping, but what is forbidden to deny. So, as in a modern rule of law state, "everything is free that is not forbidden", at the Watchtower, on the contrary, what is "a matter of conscience" is the exception. Dogmas therefore only mark extreme values, like buoys in swimming, but you have to swim between them yourself.
And yes, it is clear from Philippians 2:5-11 that he received the title "Lord" as a man only after his ascension.
The example of the humility of Jesus Christ.
"5 Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who though he was in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a robbery, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave and being made like unto men. And appearing in the form of man, 8 he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even to death on a cross. 9 Therefore God also has exalted him and has bestowed upon him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven, on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."Explanation:
v5. The apostle urges the faithful to follow the example of Christ in their feelings and endeavors, to become like Christ. The driving force for this humble, self-sacrificing love is the example of Jesus.
v6. The Greek text of this verse could be translated as: (Christ Jesus), who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God (in equality with God) to be something acquired by force (robbery); or the latter words can be understood as: he did not consider it to be something that he had to cling to forcefully, a thing to be clung to. Since the corresponding Greek word (harpagmos: literally “rapine,” “robbery”) is used in the Bible only here by the apostle Paul, the only way to determine its meaning is to consider the context in the text. And since the apostle then says that Christ Jesus exchanged his divine existence for a human-like existence and took on human form, it seems more likely that Christ Jesus did not cling forcefully to equality with God, but became like us, humans. Jesus Christ was in the "form of God": Christ, the second divine person, was in divine glory and majesty according to his divine essence and nature. Before the Incarnation, his form, or mode of existence, was the glorious and majestic divine existence. - Equality with God: Christ was essentially equal to God the Father and the Holy Spirit, and before the Incarnation, he was equal in the manifestation of divine glory and majesty.
v7. Emptied himself: not by surrendering the divine nature, which is impossible, but by foregoing the glory attached to it. He renounced his divine glory and majesty, he shed it, when he took on the form of a servant and became like humans. The apostle does not simply say that Christ became human, because he wants to express the great difference between the second divine person who became human and other humans, as John Chrysostom says: he was not only what he appeared to be, but also God. He appeared as a man: according to the Greek text, this sentence must be connected to the following, thus: When he appeared as a man, he humbled himself... Let the same self-denying, self-humbling love be yours as was Christ's. Although he possessed divine nature and reality, and it would not have been arrogance to claim divine properties as his own: he stripped himself of this infinite majesty, and taking on human nature, became completely similar to humans, except for sin, and outwardly appeared only as a man (John Chrysostom, Theophilus, Augustine). Others interpret it this way: He indeed possessed his divine nature, but did not want to boast with it, to show it off, as his spoils in the victor's triumphal procession: but he hid it, etc.
v8. See Romans 8:3. The Incarnation was for Christ, who lived in divine glory, an emptying of himself, a renunciation of the divine glory to which he had a right by nature. Another manifestation of his humility was then that, as a man, he took on the fate of a servant and the death of a slave, renounced his own will, was obedient with such dedication and fidelity, the culmination of which was death on the cross.
v9. He exalted him also in his humanity, so according to his human nature. As God, he could not be exalted more (John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anselm, Augustine): He raised him very high, placed him. - He gave him the name that is above every name: the name whose meaning, content, and power surpass all names, such a dignity that is above all dignity.
v10. At the name of Jesus: the apostle does not say: at the name of the Son of God, or: at the name of Christ, but he names the name that the Son of God bore during his earthly life. Before Jesus, acknowledging Jesus, his messianic, redeeming dignity. Clearly because the exaltation of Jesus Christ not only means that he returned to the glory he had before the Incarnation (verse 6), but also that the human nature of Jesus Christ was glorified, which was the instrument of his humility. At the name of Jesus: or before the Incarnate Son of God, every knee should bow: the heavenly ones, i.e., the angels and the saints, the earthly ones, the people living on earth, and the underworld ones, the souls suffering in damnation and the evil spirits, whose power the God-man broke. The praise of the saved in heaven, of people on earth, of the suffering in purgatory, of the damned in hell, whether these are people or evil spirits; because the damned are forced to acknowledge Jesus as their lord, judge, and punisher (Anselm).
v11. See: Isaih 45:24. (Cf. Romans 14:11) He possesses the same glory, dignity, and power as the Father. Note: in his letters, the apostle usually names the Father together with the Son, without would mention it separately mentioning the Holy Spirit, since he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, therefore it is understood. According to the Greek: that Jesus Christ is the Lord to the glory of God the Father, i.e., to the glorification of the Father, confessing the Son’s divinity redounds to the Father’s glory, insofar as through the rule of the Son, the creatures are subjected to the creator God, and the glory and honor from which sin has unreasonably tried to deprive him is returned to the Father. In Isaiah the prophet, the Lord God claims the honor for himself, that every knee should bow before him, and every tongue should confess him. Paul the apostle claims this homage for the glorified God-man, to whom God the Father has given that name, which is due the honor that befits God, and this name is: the name of the Lord. The early Christians called the risen Messiah sitting at the right hand of God by this name (1 Cor 12:3. Acts 2:36, etc.) and with this name confessed Christ's deity. To the glory of God the Father: just as the whole work of redemption by Jesus, so the worship of the redeemed ultimately serves the glory of our common Father, God the Father. The Vulgate slightly changes the meaning of the Greek and renders it as follows: "and every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father".
In summary: Jesus Christ renounced the glory due to the Son of God during His earthly life, even accepting the struggles of earthly life and death. His self-emptying was a precondition for sacrifice and merit earning. His obedience granted greater honor to the Father than what sin had denied Him. His glorification is that, in His resurrection and ascension, He assumed the power and glory due to the Son of God, and as God-man, He is the object of our worship.