The original biblical manuscripts, women Bible teachers, assurance for believers, God's
name, celebrating communion, the exaltation of Jesus, and hell
TL;DR:
This webpage records an extended written dialogue between the author and a Jehovah's Witness. The page answers a series of doctrinal questions about biblical context, linguistic accuracy, and the harmony of scriptural passages. It contrasts mainstream Christian interpretations with Watchtower teachings on ancient biblical manuscripts, women Bible teachers, assurance for believers, celebrating communion, the person of Christ, and hell.
- Palaeographer and biblical scholar Frederic Kenyon said,
"In substance, the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New
Testament."
- Jehovah's Witnesses permit women to participate in public preaching but restrict congregational leadership and certain teaching responsibilities to men. Can this be reconciled with Deborah's position as an Old Testament "judge"
or with Priscilla teaching Apollos?
- The assurance that we are forgiven and
have eternal life springs from two sources: (1) the witness of the Spirit and (2) an inward
awareness of change (Ephesians 2:1-6).
- Perhaps the most horrifying thing about the biblical concept
of hell is the banishment from God's presence.
- The Bible is clear that there is one God ("Yahweh") who has revealed Himself in three
persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Replies to a Jehovah's Witness
"Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, 'We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.'" — Exodus 24:7 (NIV 2011)
Excerpts from an email exchange with a Jehovah's Witness
His questions; my answers
- Jehovah's Witness question: Do you have the original
manuscripts of the Scriptures? You make it sound like you do.
- My answer: I have on my bookshelf a scholarly edition of the Greek New Testament that seeks to reconstruct the wording of the original manuscripts. It is based on scholars' comparison of thousands of surviving Greek manuscripts and manuscript fragments, along with other evidence for the New Testament text. So, yes, I do speak with some certainty when I talk about what the "original
manuscripts" said.
That sense of certainty is affirmed by the opinion of Frederic Kenyon, a former director of the British Museum. He wrote: "It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament."
So, do I have the original manuscripts in my possession?
No, I do not. While no one else does either, I am confident that the Greek New Testament on my shelf faithfully represents the original text, while recognizing that scholars continue to discuss some individual readings.
- Jehovah's Witness question: Did you know the Bible says a woman
is not permitted to teach in the congregation on the platform?
- My answer: I've looked in several Bible concordances and cannot find the word
"platform" in any of them. Are you sure the Bible says this?
If you say women should not be in leadership roles, then what do you do with Deborah?
What do you do with Priscilla, who, together with Aquila, explained the way of God more accurately to Apollos (Acts 18:26)? What do
you do with the women mentioned in Paul's letters whose roles suggest leadership in house churches?
Yes, I know Paul does say a couple of things about women
not speaking, but you have to put what Paul said together with what Paul did. To really
understand what the Holy Spirit wants to say to us through Paul's writings on this issue, you have
to reconcile two seemingly opposite things: what Paul said and what Paul did. It seems to me
that what Paul did would carry more weight than what some people think he seems to be
saying. Indeed, you create far more biblical interpretation problems than you solve by trying to
say Paul meant that women should not have church leadership roles.
- Jehovah's Witness question: How can you say that Jesus included you
in His new covenant? What scripture told you that you were in that new covenant?
- My answer: You're asking about a very important subject: assurance. We can know
that God has saved us and made us part of His kingdom. We can be certain that God has forgiven us and given us eternal life. This assurance, which begins in the
new birth, springs from two sources: (1) the witness of the Spirit and (2) an inward awareness
of change (Ephesians 2:1-6).
My sense of assurance does not grow simply out of right beliefs. I must not say that believing all the right things is reason enough to conclude that I am right with God.
Instead, my assurance that I partake of the new covenant comes as the result of the testimony of God's Spirit mentioned in Romans 8:16 (and also mentioned in Galatians 4:6).
As to the "new covenant" phrase, in Jeremiah 31:31-34 the
reference is clearly to all of God's people and not a small, selected group of super-spiritual
people. That's also true of the "new covenant" reference in Hebrews 8:8-12.
So, who told me I was part of the new covenant? The Bible.
As I mentioned, the phrase "new covenant" is used in Jeremiah 31 and then again on the night of
the Last Supper our Lord ate with His disciples. At that time, He spoke of the cup as "the
new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; see also Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24).
From what you have written, you don't seem to think that 1 Corinthians is talking about how
believers in Corinth were celebrating this "new covenant," but I do.
Isn't it noteworthy how Christ, at the Last Supper, connects the "new" covenant with His "blood"? That makes me think of Exodus 24:7, when Moses "took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people." After hearing the covenant, the people promised to obey the Lord. Then came its ratification: "Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, 'This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.'" (Exodus 24:8, NIV 2011).
Clearly, the original covenant (old or older covenant) was for all of God's people. I believe — and feel confirmed in my heart by the Spirit (Romans 8) — that the "new" covenant that replaced it was also for all of God's people and not just a select
few.
Take a look at Hebrews 9:11-23. What contrast does that
passage make between the new covenant and the old? Is it that the old covenant was for all of
God's people while the new covenant instituted by Jesus was going to be limited to only a few?
No, the contrast explained in Hebrews 9:11-23 is the perfection of Christ's atonement as
compared to the limitations of the sacrifices of the old covenant. The difference between the old and new covenants does not concern who may participate in them. Doesn't the difference between the old and new covenants lie in the "how"
or "substance" of them?
- Jehovah's Witness question: This is a simple question: Who is God
the Father? You don't have to give me a long explanation. Give me the short one. Does God the Father have a name?
- My answer: This sounds like you don't understand what I'm saying when I talk about the doctrine of the Trinity. The short explanation is that Scripture calls God "Yahweh." Scripture is clear that the one God ("Yahweh") has revealed Himself through three
persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is fully God, as are the Son and the Holy Spirit.
- Jehovah's Witness question: Where in Acts 2:42 and 2:46 did it say
that the meal they were taking was the Lord's Evening Meal?
- My answer: In accounts of early Christian gatherings, "breaking bread" can refer to the Lord's Supper, although the phrase can also describe sharing an ordinary meal. Look at that phrase in its context in Acts 2. Acts 2:42 is
all about spiritual things: doctrine, Christian fellowship, prayers, and "breaking bread." I understand Acts 2:42 as describing a worship gathering that included the Lord's Supper.
Look at how the Gospel writers describe the Lord's Supper
in Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, and Luke 22:19. Luke 24:30 also describes Jesus breaking bread at the meal in Emmaus. Jesus took bread and "broke
it." To early Christians, that "breaking bread" phrase in 1 Corinthians 11:24 meant far more than
an ordinary meal. Look at 1 Corinthians 10:16. Without a doubt, "breaking bread" in 1
Corinthians 10 refers to the celebration of the Lord's Supper. So, when Paul comes back a few
sentences later in the next chapter and again describes the breaking of bread, I understand him to be referring to the Lord's Supper.
- Jehovah's Witness question: You also said that you take communion
every month. Do you do this in remembrance of Jesus' death or as the Lord's Evening Meal? I
hope not!
- My answer: Yes, I take communion with all the members of my church
congregation every time it is served (about once a month) in obedience to the instruction in 1 Corinthians 11.
How can you read 1 Corinthians 11 and say that those first century Christians were only observing the Lord's Supper once a year? Is Paul scolding the Corinthians because they were observing the Lord's Supper too often? No, he is not. Isn't he
simply scolding them for the way they were doing it?
Acts 20:7 describes believers gathering on the first day of the week to break bread, a passage often cited in support of weekly communion.
- Jehovah's Witness question: What do you think the Bible says about hell?
- My answer: Three Greek terms are rendered as "hell" in various English translations of the New Testament:
Hades, tartarus, and gehenna. Hades seems to be a reference to the
intermediate state of people before the Judgment, while the one place in which a verb related to Tartarus is used (2 Peter 2:4) seems to be referring to an intermediate state of wicked angels. Gehenna, which is compounded
from two Hebrew words ge and Hinnom, literally means "valley of Hinnom."
The Valley of Hinnom lies south and southwest of Jerusalem. It was associated with child sacrifice (2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6). Josiah desecrated Topheth there to prevent further sacrifices to Molech (2 Kings 23:10). Jeremiah 7:32-33 foretells judgment and burial in the valley, while Isaiah 66:24 depicts the bodies of those who rebelled against God. These passages provide a biblical background for the imagery of judgment associated with Gehenna.
The often-repeated claim that the valley was a garbage dump with continually burning fires is not supported by clear ancient evidence. The biblical associations with sacrifice and judgment provide a firmer basis for discussing Jesus' use of the term.
In the New Testament, the compound word "gehenna" is used 12 times. Eleven of those references are in statements of Jesus. I understand these references to Gehenna as warnings of final judgment and punishment.
Scripture often uses figurative language to describe future punishment. Perhaps the most horrifying thing about the idea of hell is the banishment from God's presence that is indicated in Matthew 25:41.
To be banished from God is to be forever separated from all good.
In terms of hell being eternal, we have to look carefully at
the word "eternal" used in Matthew 18:8. The parallel passage in Mark 9:43-48
adds some additional phrases of explanation. Mark 3:29 also warns that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; NIV 2011 describes it as "an eternal sin." There's also the use of the word "eternal" in Matthew 25:46.
Jesus describes people being thrown outside, into darkness (Matthew 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). I understand this imagery as conveying exclusion from God's kingdom and its blessings.
Some people protest that a good God could never send
people to hell. That objection to the existence of hell is answered by Jesus' scathing question in
Matthew 23:33: "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"
In these three passages, the description of darkness is followed by "weeping and gnashing of teeth." I understand this description as depicting conscious remorse and suffering, rather than unconsciousness or annihilation.
Among the terms that Paul uses are "death" (thanatos) and
"destruction" (apoleia, olethros). I understand these terms in their contexts as describing ruin and loss, rather than necessarily the cessation of existence. The Watchtower publication often appeals to
W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of the New Testament as an authority. Do you know
what Vine says about Paul's use of "apoleia," the word often translated as "destruction"?
Vine says that "apoleia" (or destruction), as used in Romans 9:22 and Philippians 3:19,
means "loss of well-being, not of being." This supports my understanding of "destruction" as ruin rather than annihilation. Paul describes people being "shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2 Thessalonians 1:9, NIV 2011).
I do not understand the biblical descriptions of final judgment as teaching total extinction. Christians disagree about how these passages should be interpreted, but I understand "destruction" here as ruin rather than annihilation. A smashed watch illustrates the distinction: it no longer functions as intended, yet its material remains. This analogy illustrates my interpretation; it does not by itself establish the meaning of a Greek word.
Jesus said, "For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it" (Mark 8:35, NIV 2011). The context concerns discipleship and the loss or preservation of life; the word "lose" alone does not settle the question of annihilation.
Some have argued that "aionios," which is commonly translated as "everlasting" or
"eternal," means only "of the ages" and does not necessarily contain the sense of "without end."
However, Matthew 25:46 uses the same adjective for both eternal punishment and eternal life. I regard that parallel as a strong argument for the enduring nature of both. The shared adjective is significant, although its use alone does not settle every question about the nature of the punishment.
- Jehovah's Witness question: According to Philippians 2:9-11, who gave Jesus His exalted position?
- My answer: Because we have come to different conclusions about what the Bible
says about Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the future, the church, the nature and
means of salvation, and other things, we are going to disagree on the meaning of many verses
in the Bible.
We both have ways of looking at Holy Scripture that seem coherent to us. Because we have
chosen different paths, we see the same words in a different light.
For instance, I see Revelation 7:9 as saying people from every tongue, people, and nation will be
in heaven. As a Jehovah's Witness, you say it doesn't mean that. I see the phrase "And do not
grieve the Holy Spirit of God" in Ephesians 4:30 as a clear indication that the Holy Spirit is a
Person. You say it doesn't mean that. I see the words of Mark 9:43 — "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out" — as meaning that those who refuse God's
invitation to be reconciled to Him will exist throughout all eternity, separated from Him. You say
it doesn't mean that. I take the words of Colossians 2:9 — "For in Christ all the fullness of the
Deity lives in bodily form" — to mean that Christ was fully God. You do not.
Now, as to the Philippians 2 passage. In the mystery of the workings of the Trinity, God the Father gives God the Son His exalted position. God the Son voluntarily assumed a subordinate position; God the Father exalted Him. In verse 11, Jesus is confessed as Lord. The Greek word kyrios can mean "lord" or "master," so the title alone does not establish His deity. The stronger point is the passage's use of language from Isaiah 45:23, where every knee bows and every tongue acknowledges God. Philippians 2:9-11 applies that language to Jesus.
Romans 14:9-12 also draws on Isaiah 45:23 in describing accountability to God. I understand these connections as a powerful testimony to the deity of the Son within the confession of the one God.
I realize that is not how you see Philippians 2, but that is how I see it.
Questions for you to ask a
Jehovah's Witness
— Howard Culbertson, hculbert@snu.edu
You might also like these
