Thursday, October 4, 2018

John L. Mckenzie, and "the Word was a divine being"


"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'" Dictionary of the Bible, 317, John McKenzie

As quoted in _Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses_ by Ron Rhodes, p. 105:
"The Watchtower reasoning seems to be that since Jesus was just a 'divine being,' He is less than Jehovah....However, on the same page McKenzie calls Yahweh (Jehovah) 'a divine personal being';
McKenzie also states that Jesus is called 'God' in both John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 and that John 1:18 expresses 'an identity between God and Jesus Christ.' So McKenzie's words actually argue against the Watchtower position."

Reply: Is this really true though?

A) Are not both Jesus and Jehovah "divine beings?" So what exactly is the point, especially since they are differentiated with the adjective "personal." The fact that Jesus is only a "divine being" and Jehovah a "divine personal being" has led to some websites stating incorrectly that Jesus was termed a "divine personal being."

Next to "the God [=the Father]" Jesus was just a "divine being", not even a "divine personal being."

Additionally, Catholics like McKenzie have no problems calling angels "divine beings":

"All gods: divine beings thoroughly subordinate to Israel's God. The Greek translates 'angels,' an interpretation adopted by Hebrews 1:6." Ps. 97:7 NAB footnote

I have no problem in "an identity between God and Jesus Christ" since it was Jesus who said that he that seen him has seen the Father. To see Jesus was to see what God was like. McKenzie goes on to state that this is an "identity of Jesus and the Father", and McKenzie's use of Scriptures like Jn 20:28 and Tt 2:13 in regards to Jesus, and titles "which belong to the Father." Trinitarianism does not see Jesus as the Father, and neither should anyone else.

When the Judges are called "God" at Ex. 21:6; 22:8; Ps. 82 and John 10, they are called a title "which belongs to the Father." This does not imply an ontological identity?

The point that McKenzie made is that ho theos [the God] "is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself," therefore we must differentiate between the 2 Gods mentioned at John 1:1.

What does *divine* mean anyways? Mirriam-Webster states it as:
"1divine \de-vn\ adj diviner; -est 1 : of, relating to, or being God or a god 2 : supremely good : superb;
also : heavenly divinely adv"

Certainly, Yahweh, Jesus, and even the angels, fall into the category of divine beings.

Just take a look at the ways angels are represented in the Bible at Genesis 6:2:
"supernatural beings" TEV1, CEV
"heavenly beings" TEV2, New Jewish P.S.,
"the sons of God" NRSV, NKJV, NWT
"beings from the spirit world" Living Bible
"angels" LXX Codex Alexandrinus, Moffatt
"sons of heaven" NAB

The whole argument stems from Rhodes refusal to accept Jesus as "a god" at John 1:1, yet no one complains as the highly respected American Standard Version calls Jehovah "a god" at Deut 4:7, "For
what great nation is there, that hath a god so nigh unto them, as Jehovah our God is whensoever we call upon him?"

Many, like Julius Mantey prefer "the Word was Deity." But again, what does DEITY mean?
Again, let us turn to Mirriam-Webster: "deity \de-e-te, da-\ n, pl -ties 1 : divinity 2 2 cap : god 1 3 : a god or goddess"

Further, McKenzie never uses the terms "God the Father and God the Son." In fact, I cannot find any reference to words *persons* or *nature* either. If you move ahead (to the subheading "Trinity") you will see that even he says these terms are from Greek philosophy and are NOT IN THE BIBLE. He DOES state that ho theos [the God] is not used of Jesus in the NT. The preceding paragraph in question states that "Yahweh is not man" and "Yahweh was not flesh" and the entire article ends with this beautifully put paragraph:

"In Jesus Christ therefore not only the word of God is made flesh, but all of the saving attributes of Yahweh in the OT. In Him God is known in a new and more intimately personal manner, and through Him God is attained more nearly; for He speaks of 'my Father and your Father, my God and your God'"

BUT WHAT ELSE DOES MCKENZIE WRITE?
"The relation of the Father and Son as set forth in [John 5:17ff] is the foundation of later developments in Trinitarian and Christological belief and theology; it is not identical with these later developments. Much of the discourse seems to be a refutation of the charge that Jesus claimed to be equal to God. This is met by affirming that the Son can do nothing independently of the Father. Later theology found it necessary to refine this statement by a distinction between person and nature which John did not know" (Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More, 1976. Mckenzie p.187).

"The New Testament writers could not have said that Jesus Christ is God: God meant the Father. They could and did say that Jesus is God's Son" (Light On The Gospels; Chicago,
ILL: Thomas More, 1976. Mckenzie p.188).

"it is altogether impossible to deduce the Nicene Creed, and still less the dogmatic statements of the Council of Chalcedon from the Synoptic Gospels . . The word 'consubstantial' had not even been invented yet: far from defining it, the evangelists could not even have spelled it. No, they did not know and they did not care" (Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More,
1976. Mckenzie p.188).

It seems McKenzie's words actually argue against "Dr." Rhodes position.

I found it interesting to read some of the reviews of Rhodes' book on Amazon:

"Probably the worst book on JWs ever written. Instead of giving you my opinion, I would prefer to cite specific examples from different chapters of Rhodes' book, and then give you my opinion based on those examples. LIST OF 5 UNPROVEN AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS 1) On page 177 of Rhodes' book, he says, "The fact that Michael [the archangel] is ONE AMONG EQUALS [emphasis added] proves that he is not unique." Of course, the Bible nowhere says Michael is "one among equals." But he certainly is unique to Daniel, as he is "the prince of you people [=Israel]."--Daniel 10:21. 2) Rhodes, on page 123 of his book, cites the Greek-English lexicon by Bauer (commonly referred to as BAG), and says that this lexicon defines the Greek word ARCHE in Revelation 3:14 as "first cause." This is one of the definitions BAG gives, but the lexicon also states, "The the mng. [meaning] beginning=first created is linguistically poss. [possible]." Thus, Rhodes witholds this crucial qualification from his readers. 3) On page 63 of his book, Rhodes claims that Jesus used the expression EGO EIMI ("I am") "as a way of identifying Himself as God." But nowhere does he comment on the use of this expression by the man Jesus healed in John 9:9. Of course, EGO EIMI is often associated with Jesus' identity as the Messiah (compare John 4:25-26), not God. Rhodes' failure to deal with texts such as John 9:9 reveal that he is not interested in presenting a complete discussion of the facts, but only his dogmatic opinion. 4) This one is truly amazing. On page 113 of his book, Rhodes contrasts the New World Translation's rendering of John 8:58 ("I have been") with the New American Standard Bible's reading ("I am"). He then concludes on page 116 of his book, "Scholars agree that the Watchtower Society has no justification for translating ego eimi in John 8:58 as `I have been.'" However, Rhodes fails to recognize that the very same Bible he uses in comparision with the NWT, namely, the NASB, contains this alternate reading in the margin of its editions of 1960-73, "Or, I have been"! Also, it is NOT true that "Scholars agree that the Watchtower Society has no justification." In fact, one of the world's leading Greek grammarians, K. L. McKay, translates John 8:58, "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born."--A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 42. 5) Finally, as if the above were not enough to warn you of the misleading content of this book, consider Rhodes' unfounded statement on page 173 of his book, the opening words of Chapter 7: "According to the Watchtower Society, Jesus Christ is a MERE ANGEL." (emphasis added to "mere angel") The truth is, Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus Christ is the Archangel, and thus the ruler of the angels. Also, the Witnesses believe Jesus is second only to Jehovah God Himself. Such a being could hardly be considered a "mere angel"! Still, Rhodes misleads his readers into thinking that the Witnesses' view of Jesus is one that gives him no glory at all, and relegates him to the position of a "mere angel." There are many other statements from Rhodes' book that would also support my negative review, but the above should be enough to encourage any reader of his book to exercise great care, and to never take what he says as the final court of arbitration when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses. The reader should question Rhodes the same way you would question the Witnesses or anyone else. Never let the fact that someone put something in print convince you that it is true based on that fact alone."

No comments:

Post a Comment