Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?

by slimboyfat 152 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
Why use ChatGPT when I have my own notes?
Your response highlights a common misunderstanding of the nature of Jesus Christ and the relationship between His divinity and humanity. When the New Testament speaks of Jesus being "exalted" or given "all power," it’s essential to understand that all these statements refer to His incarnate and glorified human nature, not to His divine nature. The distinction between Jesus' divine and human natures is central to Christian theology, particularly in the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, which teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully man.
Philippians 2:6-7 emphasizes that Jesus, in His divine nature, was equal with God but chose to humble Himself by taking on human nature. The exaltation mentioned in Philippians 2:9 refers to the glorification of His humanity after completing His redemptive work, not a change in His divine status. This refers to the glorification of Jesus' humanity. The notion of exaltation relates to His human nature, which was humbled during His earthly life and now glorified. As God, Jesus is already in the highest possible position; He cannot be “exalted” further in His divine nature. This exaltation pertains to His human nature, which now shares in the divine glory in a new and public way after His resurrection and ascension.
By the way the NWT translates Philippians 2:9 as "God exalted him to a higher position," whereas the original Greek implies an extreme exaltation ("hyper-exalted") above all else, which is not adequately captured by the NWT's phrasing. Additionally, the NWT introduces the word "other" into the phrase "above every other name," which is not present in the original text, further diluting the sense of Christ's absolute supremacy. The original Greek text of Philippians 2:9 uses the term "hyperypsōsen," meaning "to exalt above all" or "to the highest degree," which reflects the ultimate glorification of Christ's human nature following His humility and death. The phrase "the Name above every name" signifies that Christ's name is supreme, without comparison to others. The NWT's translation appears to reflect Jehovah's Witnesses' theological stance that Jesus is a created being, rather than affirming His divine nature as fully equal with God.
Matthew 28:18, where Jesus says, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me," reflects the authority He exercises as the God-man, in His incarnate state, after His resurrection. It does not imply that He lacked this authority as God but that His humanity was now glorified, and His role as the Mediator was fully realized. This phrase refers to Jesus’ role in His human nature after the resurrection. As God, Jesus always possessed all power. The “giving” of power refers to His mission and role as the incarnate Son, now fully recognized and acknowledged in His glorified state. This does not imply inferiority in His divine nature but rather fulfills His role in salvation history.
The idea that Jesus is “less than God” because He received power or was exalted is a misunderstanding of the relationship between His divine and human natures.
As God: Jesus is eternally omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. His divine nature did not change or diminish when He became incarnate. As John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus, as the Word, is fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.
As Man: Jesus, in His human nature, humbled Himself and took on the limitations of humanity (Philippians 2:7). This humility and subsequent exaltation pertain to His human nature, not to His divine nature. The exaltation after His resurrection is the glorification of His humanity, not a promotion to divinity. The power and authority He exercises post-resurrection are now manifest in His glorified human nature, acting as the God-man, the mediator between God and humanity.
The New Testament does not teach that the Son, the divine Logos is ontologally less than God the Father. Rather, it affirms both His full divinity and His real humanity. The statements about Jesus receiving power or being exalted are to be understood in the context of His incarnate mission and the glorification of His humanity. These do not detract from His divinity but rather reveal the mystery of the Incarnation—God becoming man to redeem humanity.
Thus, the claims made by Jehovah’s Witnesses misinterpret the nature of Jesus and the biblical teaching on His divinity. The exaltation and receiving of power refer to His human nature and role as the Mediator, not a change in His divine status. Jesus, as the God-man, is fully divine and fully human, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the eternal Trinity.
vienne

I see the Catholic troll has struck again.
slimboyfat

The New Testament does not teach that the Son, the divine Logos is ontologally less than God the Father.
The NT says that God is in every way greater than Jesus.
Jesus gets his knowledge from God. (Rev 1.1)
Jesus gets his power from God. (Matt 28.18)
Jesus gets his life from God. (John 6.57)
Quite simply “the Father is greater than I”. (John 14.28)
Ontology is the language of philosophy not the Bible, but if you force that language onto the Bible it is clear that God is greater than his Son in every conceivable respect.
slimboyfat

According to many such approaches, Paul construes Christ as a divine being in 2:6, and his comment about not seeking "equality with God as something to be grasped by force (or as 'booty')" means that Christ did not try to usurp the status of the supreme God (res rapienda). Though the language in v. 6 remains difficult, such a reading makes much better sense of the drama of 2:6-11, which seems to require a move from a lower rank in the heavens to a higher one. Furthermore, though many writers ridicule the use of terms like theos (god) for any but the supreme God of Jewish lore, this amounts to a polemical overstatement that is not carried out consistently in practice (see, e.g., IIMelchizedek ii.10. Thus, the statement that Christ was "in the form of a god" (2:6) need not suggest that Christ had some special identification with the supreme deity, though this idea has proved seductive for some. Instead, and in a rather straightforward way, being in the "form of a god" conveys that Christ was originally a lesser divine being, probably a member of the council or heavenly entourage.
Emma Wasserman, (2018). Apocalypse as Holy War: Divine Politics and Polemics in the Letters of Paul. Yale University Press, page 133.
vienne

(Hebrews 5:1-10) 5 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed [If Jesus is God co-equal with the father he would not be 'appointed' but assume the office in his own right. A priest is an intercessor, not the God he serves.] in their behalf over the things relating to God, so that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal compassionately with the ignorant and erring ones, since he too is confronted with his own weakness, [God in what ever form he has is not weak in any sense. Neither does he learn from weakness.] 3 and because of that he must make offerings for his own sins just as he does for those of the people. 4 A man does not take this honor of his own accord, but he receives it only when he is called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So, too, the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: [Jesus was glorified in the same way as Aaron. A lesser is raised/glorified by the greater] “You are my son; today I have become your father.” 6 As he also says in another place, “You are a priest forever in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek.” 7 During his life on earth, Christ offered up supplications and also petitions, with strong outcries and tears, [Jesus prayed. God does not pray to himself. God's servants pray to him. Isaiah calls Jesus his servant. A Servant is not greater than his master, but less.] to the One who was able to save him out of death, [One needing salvation is less than and dependent on the one providing it.] and he was favorably heard for his godly fear. [εὐλαβείας "godly fear" is variously translated "worship" and "reverence." God does not worship himself.] 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. [To whom was Jesus obedient? He was obedient to God. Obedience to God is worship. The lesser worships the greater. And in what sense does God learn anything. Everything is already within his intellectual grasp] ]9 And after he had been made perfect, [In what ever way Jesus was 'made perfect' he was in some sense not perfect or complete. That could not be said of God.] he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, 10 because he has been designated by God [Note: By God. Not by himself. Not a self-designation] a high priest in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek.[A priest is never the God he serves.]
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
While it’s true that the New Testament shows Jesus in a role of submission to God the Father, this does not necessarily imply that Jesus is ontologically inferior to God. The distinction between Jesus' humanity and divinity is essential to understanding these passages. For example:
- Revelation 1:1 shows that Jesus, in His role as the mediator between God and humanity, receives knowledge from God. This aligns with His role in the economy of salvation, not with His divine nature.
- Matthew 28:18 indicates that all authority is given to Jesus in His resurrected, glorified state as the God-man. This does not imply that Jesus was without authority before His resurrection but rather that His authority is now exercised in a new, glorified way.
- John 6:57 and John 14:28 highlight the unique relationship between the Father and the Son within the Trinity. When Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I," He refers to His incarnate state, where He voluntarily assumed a position of humility (Philippians 2:5-8). This statement reflects His functional subordination during His earthly ministry, not an ontological subordination within the Godhead.
You mention that ontology is "the language of philosophy and not the Bible", but theological terms help us clarify and defend the truths found in Scripture. The Church, especially at the Council of Nicaea, used philosophical language to express biblical truths accurately and unambiguously. The term "homoousios" (of the same substance) was used to affirm that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, meaning that they share the same divine essence. while the Bible may not explicitly use the term "ontology," it still addresses and reveals essential truths about the nature of God and His relationship with His Son, Jesus Christ. Theology, the study of the nature of God, often intersects with philosophy, and ontology is a tool that helps us articulate and understand these biblical truths.
The idea that Jesus is ontologically less than God comes from misunderstandings and misinterpretations that were corrected by the early Church. The Arian controversy, for example, argued that the Son was a created being and thus subordinate to the Father. This view was rejected at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where the Church affirmed that the Son is co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father.
The doctrines developed by the Church were not influenced by pagan philosophy but were responses to heresies that tried to undermine the true nature of Christ as revealed in Scripture. The early Church Fathers and Councils were committed to preserving the apostolic faith as it was handed down, using philosophical language to protect the integrity of the faith against distortions.
The New Testament affirms both the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus. In His humanity, Jesus can be seen in a role of subordination to the Father. However, in His divinity, Jesus is fully equal with the Father. The distinction between Jesus’ two natures (divine and human) is crucial. The subordination you see in the New Testament pertains to His human nature and His role in salvation history, not to His divine nature.
The New Testament does not teach that Jesus is ontologically less than God. The passages you’ve cited refer to His role within the economy of salvation, where He voluntarily submitted Himself in His humanity. However, in His divine nature, Jesus is fully God, co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial with the Father. This is the consistent teaching of the early Church, affirmed in the face of heresies that sought to diminish Christ's divine status. Understanding these distinctions is crucial to fully grasping the mystery of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture and upheld by the historic Christian faith.
To address the argument presented by Emma Wasserman, it's important to clarify the context and interpretation of Philippians 2:6 and to explore the broader theological implications within Christian doctrine. Philippians 2:6-11 is one of the most significant Christological passages in the New Testament, often referred to as the "Christ Hymn." In this passage, Paul describes Jesus Christ’s humility and exaltation. The key phrase in question, "being in the form of God," is often debated, particularly regarding its implications for understanding Christ’s divinity.
Wasserman suggests that "being in the form of God" could imply that Christ was "a lesser divine being", perhaps part of a heavenly council, rather than being fully equal with God. The word "morphe" does not merely suggest outward appearance but refers to the essential nature or condition of something. Thus, when Paul says Christ was in the "form of God," he is indicating that Christ possesses the very nature of God, not merely a superficial likeness. The phrase "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" does not imply that Christ lacked equality with God or sought to attain it illegitimately. Rather, it emphasizes that Christ, already possessing divine equality, did not cling to His status but willingly humbled Himself for the sake of humanity. This humility and self-emptying (kenosis) is not about rejecting divinity but about voluntarily setting aside the privileges of divinity to fully embrace humanity.
In the New Testament, the concept of "lesser divine beings" does not align with the developed Jewish monotheism of the Second Temple period. By this time, Jewish thought had firmly established Yahweh as the one and only God, ruling out any notion of other "gods" in the divine sense that was present in earlier, more henotheistic or polytheistic contexts.
During the Second Temple period, Jewish monotheism had become strictly defined. The use of the term "Elohim" or "Theos" was reserved exclusively for Yahweh, the one true God. This development is evident in the way the Septuagint (LXX) translators chose to render certain Hebrew terms into Greek. For instance, in Psalm 8:5, where the Hebrew text uses "elohim," the LXX translates this as "angels" (aggeloi), not "gods" (theoi), reflecting a clear monotheistic interpretation.
In the New Testament, the authors operate within this monotheistic framework. Jesus is identified as "Theos" (God) in a way that is unique and distinct from how "Elohim" or "Theos" might have been applied metaphorically or analogically in the Old Testament. The application of the term "Theos" to Jesus, as in John 1:1, is not a trivial designation but a profound theological statement about His nature as fully divine and fully God.
When the New Testament writers use the term "Theos" to refer to Jesus, they are not merely assigning Him a status as a lesser deity or a member of a divine council. Instead, they are making a definitive statement about His identity as the incarnate Word of God, who shares in the very essence and nature of God. The use of "Theos" to describe Jesus is intentional and significant. The New Testament writers had other terms at their disposal, such as "theios" (divine, godlike), "hemitheos" (demigod), or "hero," but they chose "Theos" to convey the full divinity of Christ. This choice reflects a recognition that Jesus is not merely a powerful spiritual being but fully God, co-equal with the Father.
By using "Theos," the New Testament authors avoided the confusion that might arise from using terms associated with lesser deities or mythological beings. In classical Greek, "Theos" referred to the major gods of the pantheon, whereas terms like "hemitheos" or "theios" could imply a being of lesser status. The deliberate use of "Theos" for Jesus serves to affirm His unique and supreme divinity.
The New Testament does not simply carry over the flexible use of "Elohim" from the Old Testament. Instead, it reflects the mature monotheism of Second Temple Judaism, where only Yahweh is God, and any other use of divine titles is metaphorical or honorific, not ontological.
The New Testament's use of "Theos" for Jesus must be understood in light of this evolved monotheism. While the Old Testament might apply "Elohim" to judges, angels, or even human leaders in a metaphorical sense, the New Testament reserves "Theos" for God alone, and when applied to Jesus, it underscores His divine nature.
Jehovah's Witnesses and similar groups often attempt to bridge the gap between Old Testament references to "gods" (elohim) and New Testament Christology by skipping over the significant theological developments that occurred between these periods.
By retroactively applying First Temple period terminology to New Testament theology, one risks imposing an outdated framework onto a more developed monotheistic understanding. The New Testament's use of "Theos" for Jesus is not a mere continuation of Old Testament metaphorical usage but a declaration of His divine identity within a monotheistic context.
The New Testament's portrayal of Jesus as "Theos" is not about assigning Him the status of a lesser divine being but about affirming His full divinity within a strict monotheistic framework. The term "Theos" is used deliberately and with deep theological significance, reflecting the belief that Jesus is one with the Father in essence and nature. Attempts to interpret Jesus as "a lesser god" based on earlier Old Testament language overlook the significant theological developments that shaped the New Testament's understanding of God and Christ.
aqwsed12345

@vienne
The assertion is made that if Jesus were co-equal with the Father, He would not be "appointed" but would assume the office in His own right. However, this misunderstands the nature of Christ’s mission and the doctrine of the Incarnation.
Philippians 2:6-8 explains that Jesus, though being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be exploited but emptied Himself, taking on the form of a servant and being made in human likeness. The fact that Christ was "appointed" as High Priest reflects His role in the economy of salvation as the God-man who mediates between God and humanity. This does not diminish His divinity but highlights His unique role in the divine plan of salvation, where He voluntarily takes on a role for the sake of humanity.
The comparison with Aaron in Hebrews 5 emphasizes that Christ, in His human nature, was appointed by God just as Aaron was. However, unlike Aaron, Christ's priesthood is of a different order—after the order of Melchizedek, which is superior to the Levitical priesthood. This highlights His unique and eternal priesthood, which transcends the earthly priesthood.
Your argument that God, in whatever form, cannot be weak or learn from weakness misunderstands the nature of the Incarnation.
Jesus, in His humanity, experienced the full range of human emotions and sufferings, including weakness. This does not imply a deficiency in His divine nature but rather demonstrates the mystery of the Incarnation, where the divine and human natures coexist in the person of Christ. His learning obedience "through what He suffered" (Hebrews 5:8) was part of His human experience, fully identifying with humanity.
The statement that Jesus was "made perfect" (Hebrews 5:9) does not imply that He was imperfect in His divine nature. Instead, it refers to His human nature being perfected through the fulfillment of His mission, culminating in His sacrificial death and resurrection. This "perfection" means the completion of His work of salvation, making Him the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him.
Your argument suggests that a priest cannot be the God he serves, and thus Jesus' role as a priest indicates His inferiority to God.
While earthly priests serve God by offering sacrifices for their own sins and the sins of others, Jesus, being sinless, offers Himself as the perfect sacrifice. His priesthood, therefore, is not just another priestly role but is unique and unparalleled. He is both the priest and the sacrifice, offering Himself to God the Father. This does not make Him less than God but rather highlights the unique role He plays in the divine plan.
Jesus is both God and the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). His priesthood is not a sign of inferiority but a function of His role in the economy of salvation. He mediates as the God-man, fully God and fully man, reconciling humanity to God through His sacrificial death.
The argument against Christ's divinity based on His role as a high priest fails to account for the Trinitarian understanding of God and the hypostatic union (the union of Christ's divine and human natures).
In the doctrine of the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but one in essence. The Son’s incarnation and His role as a high priest do not imply subordination in essence or being but rather a distinct role within the economy of salvation. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal in divinity, even as they fulfill different roles.
The hypostatic union means that Jesus has two natures—divine and human—in one person. His actions as a high priest pertain to His human nature, through which He mediates between God and humanity. His divine nature remains fully God, unchanging and all-powerful.
The argument presented misunderstands the complex theological doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Jesus being appointed as a high priest, learning obedience, and being made perfect are all aspects of His incarnate mission as the God-man. These do not diminish His divinity but rather highlight His unique role in the salvation of humanity. The New Testament consistently upholds Jesus’ full divinity while also affirming His genuine humanity, through which He fulfills the role of the ultimate High Priest, not just for a season, but forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
slimboyfat

E.P. Sanders was a senior biblical scholar who had a huge impact on the field of study. His comments on Phil 2.5–11 are to the point.
In any case, “equality with,” like “form of,” avoids direct identification of Christ with God. The New Testament authors had not yet thought of the idea of the Trinity, and so making Christ a part of a larger Godhead was not an option. His precise relationship no God was usually just called "sonship," which could have a broad meaning as we shall see when we discuss Romans 1. All Israelites were in some sense "sons of God."
In later years, Paul's use of "form of God" and "being found in human form," would lead to numerous debates: was he God or human merely in appearance? In particular, was he a real human? Fortunately we do not have to delve into this. The hymn as written uses "form of" to mean "possessed at least some of the characteristics of," not merely "appeared to be." On the other hand, "possessed at least some of the characteristics of" proposes less identity between God and Jesus than is expressed in the much later formulation, that God and Christ were of the same ousia, "essence."
E. P. Sanders, (2016). Paul: The apostle's life, letters and thought. scm Press, p 603
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
You should look up this link: https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-philippians2-6.htm
E.P. Sanders’ interpretation of Philippians 2:5–11 does not fully account for the theological depth present in Paul's writings. Sanders argues that the phrase "equality with God" and the concept of the "form of God" suggest a more limited connection between Christ and God, avoiding direct identification with God.
The phrase "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Phil 2:6) has been interpreted by scholars as an indication of Christ's pre-existing divine status. The Greek word "ἁρπαγμός" (harpagmos), translated as "grasped," can imply something not exploited or held onto. This suggests that Christ, though possessing equality with God, chose not to cling to His divine status but humbled Himself .
The phrase "form of God" (μορφῇ θεοῦ) in Philippians 2:6 does not merely imply possessing "some" divine characteristics but rather indicates an intrinsic divine nature. As noted in various theological commentaries, the term "morphe" is understood as an expression of the true nature of a being. Jesus, existing in the form of God, signifies His pre-incarnate divine status, possessing the very attributes and essence of God. This understanding aligns with the early Christian belief that Jesus was indeed fully divine.
Sanders suggests that the hymn stops short of directly identifying Christ with God, emphasizing a kind of functional subordination. However, the act of "not grasping equality with God" does not imply that Christ lacked equality; rather, it illustrates His humility. The doctrine of Kenosis (self-emptying) described in Philippians 2:7, where Christ voluntarily relinquished His divine privileges without ceasing to be divine, underscores His equality with God.
The later Christian interpretation that Jesus is of the same essence (ὁμοούσιος) with the Father aligns with the trajectory set by New Testament texts like Philippians 2. Sanders’ assertion that the New Testament authors did not conceive "the idea of the Trinity" is partly accurate in the sense that the formal doctrine of the Trinity was developed later. However, Sanders’ suggestion that these ideas were not fully developed at the time of Paul is somewhat misleading, as the early church consistently viewed such passages as affirming Christ’s divinity, leading naturally into the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. The New Testament texts, including Philippians 2, lay the groundwork for Trinitarian theology. The passage describes Jesus in terms that would later be understood as affirming His divine nature, distinct yet fully equal with the Father. The use of "form of God" and the subsequent exaltation of Jesus, where "every knee shall bow" and "every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," (Phil 2:10-11) alludes to Isaiah 45:23, which refers to Yahweh, thereby attributing to Jesus the worship due to God alone. This points to an early Christian understanding of Jesus’ divine status, which would later be fully articulated in the doctrine of the Trinity.
The tension between Christ’s divine and human natures is a central theme in Christian theology. While Sanders emphasizes the humanity of Christ in this passage, the traditional interpretation, supported by early church theologians, views the passage as affirming both Christ’s full humanity and full divinity. The "form of God" indicates His divine nature, while the "form of a servant" highlights His incarnation as a human being .
The interpretation of Philippians 2:5-11 by early Church Fathers and theologians aligns with the understanding that Jesus, being in the "form of God," was indeed actually divine. The notion that Jesus was fully divine yet humbled Himself to become human is a cornerstone of Christian theology, reflected in the Nicene Creed and other early formulations of the faith. These theological reflections did not arise in a vacuum but were grounded in scriptural texts like Philippians 2. The Trinity proof texts document also underscores that this passage cannot be easily reconciled with a view that diminishes Christ's divinity, as it explicitly acknowledges His pre-incarnate divine status and voluntary self-limitation.
slimboyfat

Those who read Philippians 2 in agreement with later Trinitarian dogma are invariably scholars who have a prior faith commitment to the Trinity. Scholars who approach the text from a historical perspective read the text in its own first century context, not the fourth century. Many more scholars could be cited, such as Paul Holloway, who explains the passage this way.
Paul conceived of what is commonly referred to as Christ's incarnation as a kind of metamorphosis. According to Phil 2:6-11 Christ was a mighty angel who originally existed "in the form [opñ] of God." For the sake of humans and in obedience to the divine will he took "the form (opon] of a slave," changing himself into human "likeness" (Quoíwua) and "appearance" (oxnua). After his death on a cross, God restored him to his original angelic form, but now as the even more glorious ruling angel who bears the divine Name and shares the divine throne: "therefore God more highly exalted him [UTEpú|woe] and gave him the Name that is above every other name [rò ovoLa Tò UTTÈo Tav övoua], in order that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow .. to the glory of God the Father. "
Paul Holloway, (2017). Philippians. Fortress Press, pages 49 and 50.
You don’t need to agree with the way JWs read passages such as Philippians 2 but you would do well to acknowledge that their reading of such texts is in line with a broad sweep of serious scholars who have studied the text.

Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?

Share this