That Day and Hour? (Part One)

Witnesses argue that since the Son did not know something that the Father knew (the day and the hour), he cannot also be Almighty God, equal with the Father. (Matthew 24:36) “How could the Son not know things the Father knows – if they are coequal?” (February 1, 1984 Watchtower, p. 7) The same point is made elsewhere. “If Jesus were part of Almighty God, however, he would know the same facts as his Father. So, then, the Son and the Father cannot be equal.” (What Does the Bible Really Teach?, p. 204; cf. August 1, 1996 Watchtower, p. 31) Now, this passage does present a difficulty to the orthodox Trinitarian, since prima facie it counts against the Deity of the Son. However, we postpone the resolution of this problem until later. For now we are content simply to show that this line of reasoning, even if it were sound, is not available to Witnesses given one of the commitments central to their doctrine of God.

Witnesses teach that, though God is capable of knowing all things, he has decided to forget some things about the past (the life patterns of the incorrigibly wicked), has chosen to be ignorant of some things that were once present (as he did with respect to the condition of Sodom and Gomorrah prior to sending the angels), and refrains from knowing some, evidently most, of the future. In brief, he can limit his knowledge. How then, can they argue that the Son cannot be Almighty God[1] because he does not know something? It is not merely that he does not know something or other. If that was the claim, then they would have to deny that the Father is Almighty God. But it is that the Son does not know something that one indisputably divine person, the Father, knows that is the issue they point to. And more specifically something that the Father determined. While it is true in actuality that the Son qua God would have to know this, it is hardly clear that they can make this point. In other words, since they imagine the doctrine of the Trinity affirms that each person has his own intellect and will, and believe that one who is God can choose to limit his factual knowledge, they cannot simply assert the following supposedly impossible[2] counterfactual: if Jesus were coequal with the Father, then he would know every fact that the Father knows. From their perspective why would it be impossible for Jesus, as Almighty God, to voluntarily choose to not know something?

We acknowledge that it would be bizarre, even setting aside the erroneous conception of the Trinity that their theology imagines we affirm, for one person of the Trinity to defer to the decision of another without also knowing all of the specifics of that decision. But, it would be no more absurd than many of the things that Witnesses say about God, such as him supposedly limiting his own knowledge in irrational and improvident ways, which was the central focus of a previous chapter. If it is believed that a divine person can voluntarily limit his knowledge, it cannot simply be assumed that this divine person must know every fact that another divine person knows. Indeed, merely to believe that a divine person can limit his knowledge affords a strong reason to conclude that, if there is more than one divine person, their knowledge does not need to be coextensive with each other. Hence, we believe that our point ultimately lands. Witnesses cannot coherently argue that for the Son[3] to be Almighty God, equal with the Father, that as God he must have known the day and the hour.

[1] As can be seen from one of our quotations, they imagine that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Son is part of Almighty God. This shows that they do not grasp what we are saying. But we believe that this error can be ignored for the purposes of this argument.

[2] Impossible, that is, because they don’t think God could be triune.

[3] Or the Holy Spirit, for that matter, about whom they make the same point.

 

Do This in Remembrance of Me

Do This in Remembrance of Me

Every year, Jehovah’s Witnesses invite others to attend their annual observance of the Lord’s evening meal or memorial. During this service, bread and wine are passed around, but most or everyone in attendance do not partake of either. In their theology, only the anointed are permitted to eat and drink, because they are the only Christians who are in the new covenant. Nevertheless, according to their literature all Christians are commanded to commemorate it. But, in light of what Jesus specifically commands for the memorial of his death, their interpretation falters. Nor is it clear that their interpretive logic can really account for the attendance of anyone who is not of the anointed, especially non-believers.

“Jesus commanded all Christians to memorialize his death.”[1] (March 1985 Our Kingdom Ministry, p. 1) For the anointed this principally means eating the bread and drinking the wine that is set aside for this holiday. For the great crowd this merely means attending the service, observing, passing around the elements, listening to the talk, congregation prayer, and singing. But overlooked in claiming that the great crowd are also commanded to memorialize his death is that Jesus specifically commands eating and drinking, which Witness theology says the great crowd cannot do. The command to “do this in remembrance of me” cannot simply be abstracted away from the specific actions Jesus enjoins. Observe closely what Jesus says. “Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.” (Matthew 26:26-27) The parallel passages, Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, are the same in this respect. There is a command to eat and drink. Thus Paul can say that he is passing on what he received from the Lord when he writes, “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:25) There is no command apart from “take, eat” and “drink.” Further, according to Witness theology, those whom Jesus first commanded, the Eleven, were all anointed. Yet from the fact that, according to their theology, Jesus commanded anointed believers to do something that the great crowd cannot do, Witness theology infers that even the great crowd are enjoined to “memorialize his death” in a different way than the specific instructions Jesus gave. This is not sound reasoning.

At best, therefore, it is only fitting or at least permissible for those in the great crowd to attend this service, but to say that Jesus enjoined them to memorialize his death by their attendance is not warranted by Scripture, that is, in light of Witness ideas about the differences between the anointed and the great crowd. But even this, and the practice of inviting non-Witnesses to attend the memorial, can be brought into doubt by the same interpretive principle that leads Witnesses to permit the Lord’s supper to be celebrated only once a year. Their chief argument supporting their view that the memorial can only be celebrated once a year is that Jesus instituted it on the Passover, which was an annual holiday. (CITE) Since he instituted it only with his anointed followers, why not, then, conclude that just as Jesus intended to command an annual observance of his supper that he intended to only invite his anointed followers to memorialize it? This last point need not be taken as decisive for our main point to stand. Consequently, it will receive no more than passing attention. Still, we think it provides one reason to reject the man-made tradition that the Lord’s supper may only be eaten annually. Even if one counters that, in fact, it is permissible and even fitting for “the increasing ‘great crowd,’ . . . as well as all who are becoming acquainted with Jehovah’s provisions” to attend, (February 1, 1976 Watchtower, p. 72) we still have successfully shown how Witness theology cannot coherently claim that all Christians are commanded to memorialize Jesus’ death. 

Now, we suggest that the very fact that Witness theology would make this claim may reveal something important. Perhaps at some level Witnesses recognize that Jesus’ actual command is for all Christians. But they’ve been misled into thinking that the actual things commanded are only for a select few. They should rather follow their better instincts, if we are right in supposing that they have them, and conclude that all of Christ’s followers ought to eat his body and drink his blood. Yes, this will weaken their two groups doctrine, but it will be more in harmony with Scripture, setting aside, of course, that the Witness memorial is only a counterpart of the sacrament of his body and blood.

Witnesses do not recognize the authority of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England. And the article we will quote presently was written to address a different practice. Nevertheless, since we were struck by how aptly it can be applied to their custom, we quote part of Article XXV: “The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.” Is it in obedience to Christ to only watch the elements be passed around and perhaps eaten and drunk by a few? Surely not. And, as we said, we suspect that at some level Witnesses may recognize that their shuffling around of a plate and glass does not live up to the Scriptural command. Let them, therefore, duly use them, and not merely gaze upon them and carry them about. All Christians are commanded to memorialize his death. And absent some legitimate spiritual concern, such as Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, they are to take, eat and drink them.

 [1] Cf. March 1, 1982 Watchtower, p. 31; March 1992 Our Kingdom Ministry, p. 3; February 15, 2003 Watchtower, p. 13.

The Men Signed of the Cross

On Twitter, one Jehovah’s Witness asks, “If the one you loved was murdered by someone using an assault rifle would you wear its image[?]” Obviously he expects a negative answer. In saying this he not only imagines he has made a decisive argument, but he is echoing several Watchtower publications. For instance, the November 8, 1972 Awake!, p. 27 states:[1]

“HOW would you feel if one of your dearest friends was executed on false charges? Would you make a replica of the instrument of execution, say a hangman’s noose or an electric chair? Would you kiss that replica, burn candles before it or wear it around your neck as an ornament? ‘Of course not,’ you may say.

“But are not millions of persons, in effect, doing that? Do they not speak of Jesus Christ as their dearest friend, who showed his love for them by giving up his life? Do they not say that Jesus, though guilty of no sin, was executed on a cross? Yet, are not crosses displayed in their churches, their homes and on their person? Do not many people even kiss crosses, burn candles in front of them and bow before them? How did such a thing come about?”

Setting aside that these publications conflate many religious uses of the cross, and ignoring their other ahistorical arguments against the cross, let us note that this is one of the weakest arguments that they could have come up with. For the case of Christ dying, and dying specifically upon the cross, is obviously very disanalogous to the unjust death of a loved one by firearm. Observe how central the cross is in the theology, preaching, and spiritual life of the Apostle Paul. See how clear he makes it that “we preach Christ crucified” (1 Corinthians 1:23) and that he does not boast “except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ”. (Galatians 6:14) By no means is he afraid of or intent on abolishing “the stumbling block of the cross”. (Galatians 5:11) Indeed, he had “determined to know nothing among [the Corinthians] except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” It was insufficient to preach Jesus Christ, or even on his death as such. But it was necessary to emphasize that he died such a death as this, “even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:8) And it was to this cross that Christ himself compared the life of discipleship. “If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me.” (Matthew 16:24)

To depict the cross of Jesus in a religious setting is hardly impiety or tantamount to the betrayal of a close friend. If it was, one would be able to justly find fault with the Apostle Paul for making the ostensibly inglorious instrument of Christ’s death so central to his theology and preaching. But on the contrary, to depict the cross in a religious setting, by adorning one’s church with it or one’s body with it, merely physically embodies a lodestar of the Apostle’s thought and the epitome of Christian discipleship: the crucifixion of Christ. It serves as an implicit reminder that we have been “united with Him in the likeness of His death . . . [when] our old self was crucified with Him.” (Romans 6:5-6). 

Nor should it be forgotten that Witnesses once decorated their own literature and even persons with the (crown and) cross. True, they think they have purified themselves of a pagan symbol by waging war against that most wonderful of monuments to God’s grace. Nevertheless they themselves still depict Christ upon the stake that they think he was killed on. Let us, therefore, ask them: If a friend of yours was killed unjustly would you expend effort depicting his death to adorn your magazines and books that could otherwise do without it? Surely, you would not. And yet, they do thus with Christ. Perhaps it is because they are aware of the sublimity of the cross of Christ upon which the Savior was crucified and salvation won. But if this is so, let them cease inveighing against those who adorn their churches or person with the cross of Christ, by means of which He has saved them.

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

[1] The May 1, 1989 Watchtower, p. 25 makes the same argument. And the March 1, 2008 Watchtower, p. 22 makes a similar point.

Presbyterian Chess

 

You'll Own Nothing

William Lane Craig's Neo-Apollinarianism

 

Neighboring Peoples

 The October 8, 1974 Awake!, p. 20 states: 

“God’s concern for all human creatures is strikingly manifest in his dealings with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. These had sunk into extreme debauchery. God said: “The cry of complaint about Sodom and Gomorrah, yes, it is loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy.” (Gen. 18:20) Evidently neighboring peoples were shocked and grieved at the corrupt conduct and cried out to God. He respected their dismayed attitude and their right to be free from the danger that the debauchery of the Sodomites posed to them. For that reason he determined to destroy those two cities and associated ones.” 

The comment that it was “evidently neighboring peoples” that “cried out to God” is interesting. Remember, according to their doctrine, God had chosen to remain ignorant about what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah for some unspecified period of time. He really did not know if Sodom and Gomorrah were as bad as people were saying. Hence, it would be expected that Witnesses would say that any outcry against them that he had heard came from neighboring peoples, not from within those cities, despite Lot presumably complaining about the inhabitants of the cities. (2 Peter 2:8) If they concede that he had heard any outcries coming from within those cities, then they could not reasonably claim that he was not already fully aware of what was going on in there. For it is utterly incredulous to suppose that God would be generally unaware of what was happening in those cities yet able know when exactly to pay attention to some areas within them whenever Lot or whoever else was afflicted by their inhabitants decided to cry out and then immediately turn away the gaze of his awareness so as to remain truly ignorant of what was actually transpiring in those cities. In other words, if God was unaware of what was happening in those cities, he must not have heard any prayers coming from within them. And this inference fits nicely with this Witness publication’s claim that the cry of complaint concerning Sodom and Gomorrah had come from neighboring peoples. 

Is this what is meant by the publication’s reference to neighboring peoples? Perhaps not. But at any rate it serves as a suitable occasion to bring up this implication of their bizarre doctrine that God’s knowledge of the present can be selective and not exhaustive.