Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345
@vienne
Your argument criticizes my interpretation of Philippians 2:6, particularly regarding the word "harpagmos," and claims that it means "to steal" or "to attain something that did not belong to him." However, this interpretation overlooks the broader context and the nuances of the Greek language used in the passage. Let's delve into why this criticism doesn't hold up and how the term "harpagmos" should be understood.
The term "harpagmos" is indeed rare in Greek literature and appears only once in the New Testament, in Philippians 2:6. The word itself can have an active sense (raptus, the act of seizing or robbery) or a passive sense (res rapta, something already seized or a prize). However, the context of Philippians 2:6-8 suggests that "harpagmos" should be understood in the passive sense, as something to be grasped or clung to. This interpretation aligns with the broader message of the passage, which emphasizes Christ's humility and willingness to relinquish His divine privileges.
The phrase "oukh harpagmon hēgēsato" is better understood as "He did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped", or "He did not insist on (stick to) the equality with God at all costs". This translation captures the passive sense of "harpagmos" (res rapta), meaning that Christ did not view His equality with God as something to be held onto tightly or clung to. This also results in the 'res retinenda' (“a thing to be retained”) interpretation, because how does the robber feel about the stolen thing? He wants to keep it at all costs, as desirable prey, clings to it, like Gullum in LOTR to the One Ring. The passage negates this rapacious attitude for Christ regarding the "equality with God", so instead of this, He was willing to empty Himself, taking on the form of a servant.
This interpretation is crucial because it contrasts with the idea that Christ was trying to "seize" or "steal" equality with God. The text explicitly states that Christ already existed "in the form of God" (en morphē Theou), indicating that He did not need to attain equality with God—it was already His. The focus is on Christ's voluntary renunciation of His divine privileges, not on any attempt to acquire something that wasn't His.
Historically, various groups, including the Arians, have attempted to reinterpret this passage to diminish Christ's divinity, there are three typical strategies:
1. Wulfila's Gothic Translation: Wulfila, an Arian bishop, translated "equal" (isa) as "similar" (galeiko) in his Gothic version of the Bible, which downplays the equality of the Son with the Father.
2. JW Interpretation: They argue that "harpagmos" should be understood as "something to be seized" (res rapienda) implying that Christ did not attempt to "usurp" equality with God. However, this interpretation conflicts with the passive sense suggested by the context.
3. Relativizing "God": Some interpretations, like the ones slimboyfat propagates here, attempt to diminish the significance of the term "God" (Theos) here, when applied to Christ, suggesting that it refers to a lesser, "god-like" status, and asserting being "in the form of God" only means existing as a spirit, as an angel. This, however, contradicts the consistent use of the term in the New Testament to denote full divinity.
Philippians 2:6-8 is a profound passage that underscores Christ's humility. It begins by stating that Christ existed "in the form of God," which means He shared in the divine nature and glory. Despite this, He "did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped" but "emptied Himself" by taking on human nature. This self-emptying is not a denial of His divinity but an expression of His willingness to humble Himself for the sake of humanity.
The passage culminates in Christ's exaltation by God the Father, showing that His humility and obedience led to His glorification. This sequence—humility, obedience, and exaltation—demonstrates the Christian virtue of humility and the ultimate victory of Christ as both God and man.
The interpretation that "harpagmos" in Philippians 2:6 refers to an attempt by Christ to steal or usurp something that was not His is not supported by the context of the passage. Instead, the word is better understood as referring to something that Christ did not cling to or grasp tightly—His equality with God. The passage highlights Christ's humility and His willingness to relinquish His divine privileges to become human and fulfill His redemptive mission. This understanding is consistent with the broader theological message of the New Testament and the historical interpretations upheld by the Christian Church.
* * *
1 Timothy 2:5 emphasizes Jesus' unique role as the mediator, which is perfectly aligned with His dual nature as fully God and fully man. It does not suggest He is merely a created being standing outside of God’s nature. This passage could be rather problematic for theJW theology, because they assert that Christ ceased to be a man after his death (and is now only an archangel), and according to the text, the man Christ is the mediator, so now there is no mediator for mankind (sorry, actually just for the 144k "class").
The claim that a mediator must be entirely separate from the parties involved in a covenant misunderstands the unique role of Jesus as described in the New Testament. In 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul states, "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." This verse does not imply that Jesus is separate from God in essence or being, but rather emphasizes His unique position as both fully God and fully man, perfectly suited to mediate between humanity and God.
As the God-man, Jesus Christ is uniquely qualified to be the mediator. His dual nature means that He can represent both parties: as fully divine, He can represent God to humanity; as fully human, He can represent humanity to God. This does not diminish His divinity but rather affirms His unique role in the economy of salvation.
The assertion that the New Covenant would not require a mediator if it were unilateral is correct in the sense that God initiates and guarantees the covenant. However, the role of Jesus as mediator does not imply that He is a third party. Instead, it demonstrates the way God chose to enact the covenant—through the person of Jesus Christ, who is both God and man. This mediatorship is not a sign of inferiority but an essential function within the framework of God’s redemptive plan.
The role of a mediator in the New Testament is distinct from that in human legal or contractual terms. In the Old Testament, mediators like Moses served as intermediaries between God and Israel, but they were not divine themselves. Jesus, however, as the mediator of the New Covenant, is not merely an intermediary but the incarnate God who bridges the gap between humanity and the divine. His priesthood, as explained in Hebrews, is a fulfillment of the Old Covenant priesthood but is superior because He is both the high priest and the sacrifice (Hebrews 7:26-28).
The book of Hebrews elaborates on Jesus’ high priesthood, showing that He fulfills the role of mediator in a way that no mere human could. Hebrews 9:15 states, "Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance." This mediatorship is effective because Jesus is God incarnate, who offers Himself as the perfect sacrifice.
* * *
Your observation that “in some sense Christ needed to be perfected” based on Hebrews 5:9, and that this implies the possibility of failure, is rooted in a misunderstanding of what “perfected” means in this context. The Greek word translated as “made perfect” in Hebrews 5:9 is teleioō, which means “to complete” or “to bring to full maturity.” It does not suggest that Jesus was morally or ontologically imperfect, either in His divine or human nature. Instead, it refers to the completion of His mission as the Messiah. Jesus’ perfection in this context is about reaching the goal set for His incarnate mission: to become the source of eternal salvation for those who obey Him. This is not about overcoming moral flaws but about fulfilling the work He came to do.
In Christian theology, Jesus is recognized as having two distinct natures—divine and human—united in one person. His divine nature, being fully God, is indeed perfect and unchangeable, as Hebrews 13:8 attests: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” However, in His human nature, He experienced growth and development as any human would. Luke 2:52 tells us that Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” This growth was part of His experience as a true human being.
Hebrews 5:8-9 emphasizes that Jesus “learned obedience through what He suffered” and was “made perfect” as a result. This does not imply that He was ever disobedient or imperfect but that He fully experienced and accomplished what it meant to be obedient even unto death (Philippians 2:8). The perfection mentioned here refers to the completion of His qualifications as the perfect High Priest who could fully empathize with human weakness and offer Himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin.
The idea that being “perfected” implies the possibility of failure misunderstands the nature of Christ’s mission. While Jesus experienced real human struggles and suffering, His divine nature ensured that His mission would not fail. The perfection of Christ was not a process of overcoming potential moral failure but of fully accomplishing the purpose for which He was sent—redeeming humanity through His death and resurrection. The possibility of failure is a characteristic of finite, created beings, not of the divine. In Jesus’ case, the process of being “perfected” was not about moral or ethical perfection, which He already possessed, but about completing His role as Savior. It was a journey through which He fulfilled all righteousness (Matthew 3:15) and became the “author of eternal salvation” (Hebrews 5:9).
Finally, it’s crucial to understand that Jesus, as God incarnate, could not fail in His mission. His divine nature ensured the success of His redemptive work. The incarnation was God’s plan for humanity’s salvation, and as such, it carried the certainty of divine fulfillment. The idea of Jesus being “perfected” is thus about the unfolding of God’s perfect plan within human history, not about correcting any imperfection or overcoming a possibility of failure.
In summary, Hebrews 5:9’s statement that Jesus was “made perfect” must be understood within the broader context of His mission and the hypostatic union of His divine and human natures. The perfection refers to the completion of His role as the Messiah and High Priest, not to any moral or ontological deficiency. God’s plan in Christ was never at risk of failure, and Christ’s “perfection” was the realization of that divine plan within human history.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
The accusation that Trinitarian scholars approach the text with a prior commitment to the doctrine of the Trinity can be turned back on those who oppose this view. Scholars who reject the Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2 often do so from their own prior commitments, whether theological, philosophical, or denominational. For instance, scholars aligned with Jehovah's Witnesses or other non-Trinitarian groups also bring their theological biases to the text, interpreting it in ways that conform to their pre-existing beliefs. Every interpreter, whether Trinitarian or not, brings some level of prior belief to their reading of the text. The critical issue is not whether a scholar has a prior belief but whether their interpretation is consistent with the historical and textual evidence.
It’s often argued that reading Philippians 2 in a Trinitarian way "imposes" fourth-century doctrine onto a first-century text. However, this overlooks the fact that the seeds of Trinitarian doctrine are found within the New Testament itself, even if not fully developed until later. The early Church’s reflection on texts like Philippians 2:5-11 led to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity because the text itself speaks to the divine nature of Christ.
The language of Philippians 2, particularly phrases like "existing in the form of God" and "equality with God," strongly suggests that Paul viewed Christ as possessing a divine status that is more than just that of a high-ranking angel. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was an attempt to faithfully express what was already present in the New Testament in light of the broader canon.
For example, I have no idea who this Paul Holloway is, and I have no idea where he got the idea that "According to Phil 2:6-11 Christ was a mighty angel" when there is no """"mighty angel""" in the text all.
His interpretation, which suggests that Paul viewed Christ as a pre-existent angelic being who was exalted to an even higher status after the resurrection, is certainly one perspective, but it is not without its problems. For example, interpreting "form of God" (μορφῇ θεοῦ) as merely angelic diminishes the weight of Paul’s language and the broader context in which Paul portrays Christ’s role in creation (e.g., Colossians 1:16) and His divine authority (e.g., Philippians 2:10-11, where every knee bows to Christ).
Moreover, the New Testament consistently distinguishes Christ from angels. Hebrews 1:3-4, for example, explicitly states that Christ is superior to the angels, being the "exact representation of God's being". This makes it difficult to reconcile Holloway’s interpretation with the broader New Testament witness.
Trinitarian scholars are not merely retrofitting later doctrine onto earlier texts. Rather, they argue that the New Testament itself contains the raw material for the doctrine of the Trinity. Passages like John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-20, and Philippians 2:5-11 are understood within the context of Jewish monotheism and the unique claims the early Christians made about Jesus. Trinitarian readings of Philippians 2 consider how the early Christians, many of whom were Jewish monotheists, came to the conviction that Jesus was worthy of worship and identified Him with Yahweh. This worship of Jesus as divine can be seen as a key reason why the early Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, eventually articulated the doctrine of the Trinity.
While it’s true that a broad range of scholars, including those from non-Trinitarian backgrounds, have studied Philippians 2, there remains a strong consensus among many scholars that the text points to a high Christology. Even scholars who do not hold to traditional Trinitarian orthodoxy often recognize that Philippians 2 presents Christ as more than a mere creature. The passage’s language of "equality with God" and the universal worship of Jesus strongly suggests a divine status. The diversity of scholarly opinion does not negate the validity of the Trinitarian interpretation. In fact, the persistence of Trinitarian readings across centuries, despite the emergence of various non-Trinitarian movements, underscores the strength of the evidence supporting this view.
The claim that Trinitarian interpretations of Philippians 2 are merely the result of theological bias ignores the fact that all interpretations are shaped by prior commitments. The key issue is whether the interpretation is faithful to the text and consistent with the broader scriptural witness. The Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2, far from being anachronistic, is grounded in the text’s language and its place within the early Christian understanding of Jesus’ identity. This interpretation aligns with the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus as fully divine, worthy of worship, and sharing in the essence of God, rather than as a mere angelic or created being.
Fredriksen claims without any basis that the Son is just a "lesser divine being", based on Philippians 2:6. If being "in the form of God" only means that he existed as a spirit and nothing more, then why does the Bible never claim that angels exist "in the form of God"? Furthermore, the second half of the verse makes it clear that His existence "in the form of God" also meant "equality with God", just he did not consider this a "harpagmos" (a booty, what he needs/wants to retain at all cost), so he did not cling to this glory arising from equality with God at all costs, etc. Holloway also speaks without any basis: where does Philippians 2 say that Jesus is an "angelic being"? Nowhere.
Fredriksen’s claim that Jesus was "in the form of 'a god'" rather than "in the form of the (high) God" seems to hinge on an interpretation of the Greek text that isn’t supported by the broader context of Paul's writings or by the grammar of the passage itself. The Greek phrase "ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ" (en morphē theou) does not suggest "a lesser" divine being or a polytheistic context. Rather, "theou" is a genitive noun meaning "of God," and "morphē" means "form" or "nature." The phrase "ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ" is best understood as Paul affirming that Christ existed in the very nature or essence of God. If Paul had meant to indicate a lesser divine being or an angel, he would have used different language. The term "theos" in this context is understood within the framework of Jewish monotheism, where God is singular and unique, and "God" is a monadic term. There is no hint of Jesus being "a god" among many, but rather, Paul is emphasizing that Jesus shared in the divine essence.
Fredriksen’s reading appears to ignore the broader theological context of Philippians 2:6-11. The passage isn’t just about "degrees" (?) of divinity but is a profound statement on the incarnation and the humility of Christ. The "form of God" and the subsequent "form of a servant" are central to understanding Jesus' pre-existence, incarnation, and ultimate exaltation by God the Father. The notion of "equality with God" (τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ) in verse 6 supports the traditional understanding that Jesus, though fully divine, did not cling to His divine privileges but humbled Himself by becoming human. The interpretation that Jesus merely had "god-status" as a lesser being undermines the clear implications of equality with God that Paul conveys.
Fredriksen’s and other anti-Trinitarian scholars' claims that Philippians 2 refers to Jesus as a kind of lesser divine being or angelic figure are not supported by the text. Nowhere in Philippians 2 does Paul refer to Jesus as an angel or a lesser god. In fact, the New Testament consistently portrays Jesus as superior to angels (see Hebrews 1:4-5), and as someone who possesses the same divine attributes and authority as God the Father. If Paul had intended to convey that Jesus was simply an exalted angel or "a lesser god", he could have used specific language to indicate this, as he does elsewhere when referring to angels or other spiritual beings. Instead, the language of Philippians 2 points to a unique and unparalleled relationship between Jesus and God the Father, where Jesus is both fully divine and fully human.
The traditional interpretation of Philippians 2, which sees Jesus as fully divine and equal with God, is supported by a vast array of scholarship, both ancient and modern. While it's true that some modern scholars, like Fredriksen, have sought to reinterpret these passages through different lenses, their interpretations often hinge on speculative readings that depart from the more straightforward understanding of the text. The consensus among early Church Fathers and later theologians is that Philippians 2 articulates the doctrine of Christ’s full divinity, His voluntary humility, and His subsequent exaltation. This is consistent with the broader witness of the New Testament and early Christian theology, which sees Jesus as fully God, worthy of worship, and distinct from any created being, including angels.
Fredriksen's interpretation that Jesus is distinguished from the "high God" and exists as "a lesser divine being" does not hold up when scrutinized against the Greek text, the broader context of Paul's theology, and the testimony of early Christian thought. The Greek phrase "ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ" is best understood as indicating that Jesus possessed the very nature of God, and the text itself suggests that Jesus' equality with God was something He chose not to cling to for the sake of humanity. Rather than supporting a subordinationist view of Jesus as a lesser god, Philippians 2:6-11 emphasizes the profound mystery of the incarnation: that the one who was equal with God took on human nature, humbled Himself, and was exalted by God the Father to a position of universal authority. This passage, therefore, is not about degrees of divinity but about the unique identity and mission of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
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.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
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.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
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.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
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.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
Your assertion that Jesus was "promoted" after His resurrection, as mentioned in Philippians 2:9-11 and Matthew 28:18, reflects a common misunderstanding of the nature of Christ as both fully God and fully man. Let's take a closer look at these passages and how they fit within the broader context of Christian theology.
In Philippians 2:9-11, Paul writes that "God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above every name." This passage indeed speaks of an exaltation, but it's essential to understand the nature of this exaltation.
The passage describes a movement from Jesus' voluntary humility to His exaltation. Jesus, who "being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (Philippians 2:6), chose to humble Himself by taking on human nature and becoming obedient to death on a cross. This humility does not mean that He ceased to be God or that He was less than God. Instead, it demonstrates His willingness to relinquish His divine privileges temporarily for the sake of humanity's redemption.
The "exaltation" spoken of here refers to Jesus' human nature being glorified. As the Catechism of St. Pius X explains, "As God, He was equal to His Father in glory," but "as man, He has been raised above all the Angels and Saints, and constituted Lord of all things." This exaltation does not imply that Jesus became more divine or that He was somehow less than God before; rather, it signifies the glorification of His humanity and the public acknowledgment of His lordship over all creation.
In Matthew 28:18, Jesus declares, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." This statement is often misunderstood as implying that Jesus only received divine authority after His resurrection. However, a closer examination reveals a deeper truth.
As God, Jesus already possessed all authority inherently. What Matthew 28:18 emphasizes is that Jesus, in His incarnate and now glorified human nature, exercises this authority. The "giving" of authority here is understood within the context of His role as the Mediator between God and humanity. Jesus' authority is now fully manifested and exercised in His resurrected and glorified state, where He reigns as the God-man over all creation.
The notion of "giving" in this context does not imply that Jesus was without authority before, but rather that His authority is now visibly recognized and acknowledged following His redemptive work. This authority is exercised by Jesus in His role as the incarnate Son, who, after accomplishing salvation, is rightfully acknowledged by all creation.
Your argument hinges on the idea that it would be "nonsense to talk about God being promoted to a superior position because God is supreme." This is true—God, in His divine nature, cannot be promoted. However, this does not apply to Jesus in His incarnate form.
The doctrine of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union (the union of Jesus' divine and human natures) affirm that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. His divine nature is eternal, unchanging, and all-powerful. His human nature, however, underwent the process of humiliation and exaltation as part of God's redemptive plan.
When Scripture speaks of Jesus being exalted or given authority, it refers to His human nature. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "The humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God." His exaltation is not a promotion in His divine nature, but a glorification of His human nature, reflecting the acknowledgment of His completed work of salvation.
You also mention that Jesus is "distinct and subject to almighty God," which is true in terms of His incarnate mission. The Son, in His role as the incarnate Word, willingly submits to the Father’s will, as part of the divine economy of salvation.
The subordination of the Son to the Father during His earthly ministry is a matter of economic order, not of ontological inferiority. Within the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal. The submission of the Son to the Father pertains to His role in the economy of salvation, where He operates in perfect obedience as the incarnate Son, but this in no way diminishes His divine status.
Hebrews 1:8-9, which you referenced, highlights this distinction: Jesus is addressed as "God," and His throne is described as "forever and ever." This passage clearly attributes divinity to Jesus, while also acknowledging His role within the Trinity.
Hence the passages in Philippians 2 and Matthew 28 do not undermine the divinity of Christ; rather, they highlight the glorification of His human nature and His role in the divine plan of salvation. Jesus' exaltation is not about Him becoming God or receiving divinity, but about the acknowledgment of His work and the glorification of His human nature. The New Testament consistently affirms both the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus, upholding the mystery of the Trinity and the unique role of Jesus as the God-man.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
JWs interpret Hebrews 1:4 as suggesting that Jesus "became" superior to the angels after being exalted by God. However, the phrase "has become" (Greek: genomenos) in this context does not imply a change in nature from inferior to superior. Rather, it refers to the exaltation and recognition of Jesus' inherent superiority following His resurrection and ascension. Hebrews 1:4 does not mean that Jesus was once inferior and later promoted. Instead, it emphasizes that Jesus, in His exaltation, was declared superior to the angels because of His divine sonship. His superiority is tied to His identity as the eternal Son of God, not as a result of promotion.
The passage also highlights that Jesus' superiority is connected to the "name" He inherited, which is tied to His identity as the Son of God. The "name" in Jewish thought often represents the very nature or essence of a person. Therefore, the name Jesus inherited refers to His divine identity, not a change in status.
The JW interpretation suggests that Jesus is "firstborn" in Hebrews 1:6 in the sense of being the first created being, and therefore superior to the angels. However, the term "firstborn" (Greek: prototokos) in Hebrews 1:6 does not refer to Jesus as a created being but to His preeminence in rank.
In biblical usage, "firstborn" often denotes rank or position rather than temporal origin. For example, in Psalm 89:27, David is called the "firstborn," the highest of the kings of the earth, even though he was not the first king or the firstborn in his family. Similarly, Jesus is called "firstborn" to signify His supreme authority over all creation.
Hebrews 1:6 indicates that the angels are commanded to worship Jesus. This is significant because worship is reserved for God alone (Matthew 4:10). The fact that God commands the angels to worship Jesus points to His divine status, not merely a high rank among created beings. This aligns with the broader biblical teaching that Jesus is divine and worthy of worship (e.g., Philippians 2:10-11).
The argument that Jesus is a "reflection" of God's glory and distinct from God, yet superior to creation, is only partially correct. The term "reflection" (Greek: apaugasma) and "exact imprint" (Greek: charakter) are meant to convey that Jesus is the perfect expression of God’s nature. Hebrews 1:3 describes Jesus as the "exact imprint of [God’s] nature," meaning that He shares fully in the divine essence. The phrase "exact imprint" indicates that Jesus is the perfect and complete representation of God, possessing the same divine nature. This is not to suggest that He is a mere reflection in the sense of being lesser, but that He is fully divine, embodying the very nature of God. While Jesus is distinct from the Father in terms of personhood (as the Son), He is not distinct in essence. The distinction lies within the Persons of the Trinity, not in the nature of divinity. The Son, like the Father, is fully God.
Hebrews 1:8 directly addresses the Son as "God," quoting Psalm 45:6-7. The JW interpretation acknowledges Jesus’ divinity but still sees Him as subordinate and created. The passage in Hebrews 1:8 explicitly calls the Son "God" (Theos in Greek). This is a clear affirmation of His divine nature. The fact that the Son is addressed as "God" indicates that He shares the same divine essence as the Father. The subsequent verse (Hebrews 1:9) mentions that Jesus, while divine, has a God. This reflects the Trinitarian understanding that, within the Godhead, there is a relational order where the Son submits to the Father. However, this submission is in the context of His role in the economy of salvation, not a statement of His essence or nature. The Son’s subordination is functional, not ontological.
The argument that the author of Hebrews should have explicitly stated that Jesus is part of a Trinity if that was the belief is flawed. The doctrine of the Trinity is not stated as a simple proposition in the Bible, but it is derived from the totality of Scripture. Hebrews, like other New Testament books, presents Jesus as fully divine, eternal, and worthy of worship—attributes that align with the doctrine of the Trinity.
The Trinity doctrine arises from the need to account for the full divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while maintaining monotheism. Hebrews supports this by affirming Jesus’ divine nature, His role as Creator, His eternal Sonship, and His worthiness of worship—attributes that cannot be ascribed to any created being, no matter how exalted. Thus, the author of Hebrews contributes to the scriptural foundation for the Trinity by portraying Jesus as fully God, distinct in person from the Father, yet one in essence with Him.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345
The assertion that Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is an angel, specifically Michael the Archangel, is a core element of their theology. However, this belief is problematic when examined through the broader context of Christian theology and Scripture. Here's a detailed refutation of this perspective: The New Testament explicitly distinguishes Jesus from angels and presents Him as superior to them. The letter to the Hebrews is particularly clear on this point:
- Hebrews 1:3-5: "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word... So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father'?"
These verses demonstrate that Jesus holds a unique position as the Son of God, distinct from and superior to all angels. The rhetorical question in verse 5 emphasizes that no angel, including Michael, has ever been called the Son of God in the way that Jesus is. The Bible mentions Michael the Archangel in a few places, but these references never suggest that he is divine or equivalent to Jesus:
- Jude 1:9: "But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’"
This verse shows that Michael, despite his high rank, defers judgment to the Lord, indicating that he is not himself the Lord. This is a clear indication of Michael's status as a created being, distinct from the divine authority of Jesus.
- Daniel 10:13, 21: Michael is referred to as "one of the chief princes" and as the protector of Israel. These titles do not suggest that Michael is unique in his authority or divine in nature; rather, they indicate that he is one among other angelic leaders.
The New Testament consistently portrays Jesus as more than an angel. He is the incarnate Word of God, who existed from the beginning and through whom all things were created:
- John 1:1-3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
This passage identifies Jesus as the Word (Logos), who is not only with God but is God. This directly contradicts the idea that Jesus is merely an angel, as angels are created beings, whereas Jesus is the uncreated Creator.
- Colossians 1:16-17: "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
These verses reaffirm that Jesus is the agent of creation, including the creation of all angels. This places Him in a category entirely separate from that of angels, including Michael. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ identification of Jesus with Michael the Archangel significantly diminishes the Christian understanding of Christ's divinity. If Jesus is merely an archangel, this contradicts the historic Christian doctrine of the true deity of the Son. Moreover, the idea that Jesus could be both the Creator of all things and a created being (an archangel) presents a theological contradiction. Christian theology, based on Scripture, holds that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father, not created, and is of the same essence as God.
It is worth noting that Jehovah's Witnesses rarely refer to Jesus as simply "an angel," possibly because doing so would make it clear that their view significantly lowers the status of Jesus compared to mainstream Christian belief. The reluctance to frequently use this term might reflect an awareness that identifying Jesus as an angel could alienate those who hold to the biblical teaching of Jesus’ divinity.
The belief that Jesus is Michael the Archangel is not supported by Scripture when examined in its full context. The Bible consistently presents Jesus as superior to angels, divine, and one with God the Father, making it theologically unsound to reduce Him to the status of an archangel. The view that Jesus is an angel undermines key Christian doctrines about His divine nature and unique role in salvation. Therefore, the identification of Jesus with Michael the Archangel should be rejected as inconsistent with biblical revelation.
60
The Question of the "Great Apostasy" and the Historical Continuity of Christianity
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
1. the continuity and visibility of the church.

the true church must be continuous from the apostolic age.

there is no room in christianity for a "gap" or interruption of thousands of years during which true christianity ceased to exist and then was revived in the form of another movement.
aqwsed12345

@Rattigan350
From the perspective of Jehovah’s Witnesses, there’s roughly an 1800-year historical gap, as they exclusively focus on the "first-century" Christianity, making entirely arbitrary claims about it. This implies that they believe Christianity had essentially "collapsed" by the early 2nd century. It's no surprise they say this because even the earliest extra-biblical external and proto-orthodox sources consistently depict a type of Christianity that is uncomfortably far removed from what the Watchtower claims about the faith and religious life of early Christianity, yet very close to what Catholicism represents. Thus, they consider second-century Christianity to be completely degenerate and "apostate." Cf. No true Scotsman.
The question then arises: where exactly does the Bible mention this gap? Why doesn’t it contain instructions on what to do if you happen to live during this 1900-year period, and similar concerns?
Additionally, another thought just came to mind. According to the Watchtower, the Book of Revelation was written in 96 AD. In chapters 2 and 3, John receives instructions from Christ to write seven letters to seven churches in Asia Minor. Why didn’t Jesus inform them in these letters not to bother much, since they only had four years left before the church would collapse for 1800 years? Why does He encourage them in various ways when, in a few years, they would have to shut everything down anyway? Moreover, according to the Watchtower, as long as John was alive, the wicked "apostates" couldn’t take control (afterwards, they supposedly did almost immediately, and no one noticed that the Bible and the doctrinal system had been altered). How did John manage to prevent this from happening across the entire Roman Empire from the island of Patmos, and how did he attend the supposed (and continuously meeting) "Governing Body" in Jerusalem, and who did they appoint when all the other apostles had been dead for decades?
The parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43) is indeed a powerful metaphor used by Jesus to describe the growth of His kingdom and the opposition it would face. However, it's crucial to understand that this parable doesn't suggest a complete "extinction" of the true Church at any point. Jesus is not suggesting that the true Church would "disappear" or be overrun entirely by false Christians. Instead, the parable teaches that within the world (and even within the visible Church), there would be both genuine believers (wheat) and false believers (weeds) until the end of the age. It shows that true believers ("wheat") and false believers or adversaries ("weeds") would coexist within the visible Church until the end of time when God will separate them.
Jesus’ explanation of the parable (Matthew 13:36-43) emphasizes that the separation of the wheat and the weeds will occur at the final judgment, not that the true Church would "vanish" and later "reappear". The true Church, represented by the wheat, remains present even if it is mixed with weeds. This implies continuity, not a cessation of the true faith.
Nowhere in the parable does Jesus imply that the wheat ("true" Christians) would "disappear" or be completely "overrun" by weeds ("false" Christians). The wheat and the weeds grow together until the final judgment (the harvest), which indicates that the true Church has always existed alongside false teachings and impostors but has never ceased to exist.
Christianity, by its very nature, is based on the continuity of the apostolic teaching. Jesus promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). This promise implies a continuous presence and preservation of the Church throughout history, without interruption.
One of the key teachings of Christianity is apostolic succession, the belief that the authority given to the apostles by Christ has been handed down through successive generations of bishops and Church leaders. This chain of succession is seen as vital for preserving the integrity and teachings of the Church. Historic churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, and some Protestant denominations maintain this concept. This succession is evidence of continuity, which means that true Christianity did not disappear, even amid the rise of heresies or corruptions.
The idea that the true Church practically ceased to exist for centuries and was only “revived” by Charles Taze Russell is not consistent with historical Christianity or Jesus' promises. From the time of the apostles, there has been an unbroken line of Christian teaching, even through periods of difficulty and corruption within the Church. The early Church fathers, councils, and creeds all testify to the ongoing life and doctrinal consistency of the Church.
For Christianity to be genuine, it must be continuous, handed down from generation to generation. The idea of a “great apostasy” that entirely wiped out true Christianity until the 19th century when Charles Taze Russell (the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses) revived it is problematic. It would mean that for almost two millennia, Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16:18—that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"—was broken. Yet, Jesus promised that He would be with His Church always (Matthew 28:20), and the Holy Spirit would guide it into all truth (John 16:13).
Historical records show that despite challenges and internal conflicts, the Christian Church maintained the apostolic faith across the centuries. The early Church faced numerous heresies, but it consistently defined and defended the true faith through councils, writings, and the witness of the saints. This continuous presence refutes the idea that “true” Christianity was “lost” and only “rediscovered” in the end of the 19th century.
Throughout history, the Church has indeed faced challenges, false teachings, and divisions (heresies, schisms, etc.), but at no point did the Church cease to exist. From the early councils, such as Nicaea in 325 AD, to later movements, Christians have continually gathered in unity under the teachings of the apostles, defending orthodoxy against heresies like Arianism, Nestorianism, and Gnosticism. This shows the Church's resilience and continuity.
Early Christian writings from the Church Fathers, such as Augustine, Athanasius, and Irenaeus, provide an unbroken line of theological teaching that reflects the beliefs of the apostles. These writings contradict the claim that "true" Christianity "disappeared" and was only "revived" in the 19th century. These theologians and their works represent the continuous presence of true Christianity, long before any claim of a “great apostasy.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that directly after the apostles' death, Christianity fell into “apostasy” and did not recover until Charles Taze Russell "rediscovered" “true” Christianity in the 19th century. This view contradicts Jesus’ promise that He would be with His Church always (Matthew 28:20) and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13).
There is no historical evidence that Christianity completely fell into "apostasy" or that Russell’s interpretation represents the recovery of "original" Christianity. Jehovah’s Witnesses rely on their interpretation of history and Scripture, but this interpretation is not supported by the continuous witness of the Church throughout history.
The idea that Christianity needed to be "restored" centuries later implies that God allowed His Church to be completely corrupted for almost 2,000 years, which contradicts the scriptural promise of divine protection and guidance. Restorationist movements like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, and others each claim they are the true restoration, but they diverge significantly in theology, further weakening their claims.
Charles Taze Russell and his followers did not “restore” original Christianity; rather, they introduced new interpretations that diverged from historic Christian teachings. Russell’s theology, including his rejection of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, and the interpretation of the end times, represented a significant departure from the teachings of the early Church and the broader Christian tradition.
The claim that Russell’s movement made the “wheat” discernible from the “weeds” is based on a subjective interpretation that lacks historical support. The Christian Church had always recognized true believers within its fold, despite the presence of false teachings or unfaithful members. The Church’s ability to preserve core doctrines through ecumenical councils and creeds shows that it remained faithful to the apostolic teaching.
Claiming that Jesus' parable of the wheat and weeds justifies a belief in the “great apostasy” and “restoration” is a selective interpretation. The Church has historically interpreted this parable to mean that good and evil will coexist within the visible Church until the final judgment, not that true Christianity would disappear.
The idea of a total "apostasy" followed by a restoration through Charles Taze Russell lacks both scriptural and historical support. The continuous existence of the Church, despite challenges, heresies, and divisions, affirms Jesus’ promise that His Church would endure. The parable of the wheat and weeds demonstrates that true believers and false teachers would coexist within the Church (cf. "corpus permixtum"), not that the true Church would vanish. True Christianity has been preserved and handed down from the apostolic age to the present through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the faithful transmission of doctrine.
The notion that the true Church disappeared and was later restored by Charles Taze Russell contradicts the teachings of Jesus and the historical continuity of the Christian faith. The parable in Matthew 13 does not suggest a disappearance of the true Church but rather illustrates that the true believers would always be present, even amid false teachings. The Christian Church has existed continuously since the time of the apostles, preserving the core truths of the faith without interruption.