Bible translation issues and reflections on whether Jesus is the archangel Michael or God Himself
TL;DR:
A Jehovah’s Witness’s claim that Jesus is the archangel Michael is rejected. Mysteries like the resurrection or creation require awe, not total rational understanding. The New World Translation, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses, renders John 1:1 as “a god” and inserts “Jehovah” where no known extant Greek New Testament manuscript contains the divine name YHWH. The page emphasizes that Jesus is God incarnate and that fidelity to the original texts takes precedence over denominational preference.
The God who created the universe out of nothing would
have had no problem raising Jesus from the dead.
We need to learn from the early Greek Church Fathers
that sometimes we just need to stand in awe of God rather than trying to figure out
everything.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was the archangel
Michael, even though not one Bible verse hints at that while many do point to Jesus as God
incarnate.
The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that their New World Translation of the Bible
"stays close" to the original Greek. I do not want a translation that merely stays close to the original text; I want one
that faithfully communicates the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
“As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures.” — Acts 17:2, 2011 NIV
Excerpts from email interchange with a Jehovah's Witness
Jehovah's Witness question: Don't you believe this way simply
because that's the way you were brought up?
My answer: I am saddened that you think I believe what I believe simply because I
grew up surrounded by others believing this way. I made, and I continue to make, a conscious
decision to accept the biblical assertion that Jesus is God in human form who came to deliver the
human race. My decision to invite Christ into my life and to make Him Lord has made a radical
difference in my life.
Jehovah's Witness question: If Jesus was God, how could God have
raised Him from the dead? That doesn't make sense.
My answer: It's not a problem for me to say that God raised Jesus from the dead any
more than it's a problem for me to say that God created the universe out of nothing. It's difficult
for us to get our human minds around that. However, just because I don't understand
something doesn't mean it's not so.
I don't totally understand electricity, but that doesn't keep me from asking the electric company to
hook my house up to their power lines. I don't understand how cell phones work, but that doesn't
make me sit here saying, "They're an illusion; it cannot be."
One lesson we can learn from the early Greek Church Fathers is that sometimes we need to stand
in awe of God rather than assume that everything about Him must be fully comprehensible. Their
emphasis can remind Western Christians that faith involves worship and mystery as well as
carefully formulated beliefs.
Jehovah's Witness question: Who do you think the archangel
Michael is, according to Daniel 10:13, 21, Daniel 12:1, Jude 9, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16? Did
you know that Jesus is the archangel Michael?
My answer: The archangel Michael is simply who the Bible says he is. He is the
archangel Michael. Not a single verse of Scripture says the archangel Michael is Jesus
Christ.
“To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand . . .’?” — Hebrews 1:13, 2011 NIV. Jesus cannot therefore be identified merely as an archangel, for Scripture gives the Son a unique position at the right hand of God the Father.
“It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come.” — Hebrews 2:5, 2011 NIV. Since Jesus is portrayed as the ruler of that coming world, this passage distinguishes Him from the angels rather than identifying Him as one of them.
I like the way Ken Taylor puts Hebrews 1:14 in his paraphrased Living Bible: "The angels are only spirit-messengers sent out to help and care for those who are to receive his
salvation." Angels do accomplish specific tasks for Yahweh, but they will not "judge" the world. That should be clear from reading chapters one and two of Hebrews.
Now, as to who Jesus Christ is, the Bible clearly identifies Jesus as God:
“The Word was God.” — John 1:1, 2011 NIV. This passage clearly looks back to Genesis 1:1. It points to the eternal existence of “the Word” (Jesus). Only God is eternally preexistent.
I like the way the New English Bible translates John 1:1: "What God was, the Word was."
“Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” — John 20:28, 2011 NIV. Unless the statement is interpreted in a highly unnatural way, Thomas
was saying that Jesus was God. Thomas was not speaking to two different persons. When Thomas spoke to Jesus, he called Him both Lord and God.
“From them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all.” — Romans 9:5, 2011 NIV. Doesn't the apostle Paul clearly identify Christ as God in this passage?
“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” — Colossians 2:9, 2011 NIV. If all the fullness of the Deity is in Christ, then He is Deity, isn't He? Here's how Bible scholar William Barclay translates Colossians 2:9: "It is in Christ that godhead in all its completeness dwells in bodily form."
“But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.’” —
Hebrews 1:8, 2011 NIV. The most natural grammatical reading is that the Son is being addressed as God. Moreover, the contrasting word “but” distinguishes what is said about the Son from what has just been said about the angels.
“They will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”). — Matthew 1:23, 2011 NIV. The title Immanuel reinforces Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as the divine presence among His people.
Titus repeatedly uses the title “Savior” for both God and Jesus Christ. Most notably, Titus 2:13 speaks of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” Together, these passages support the New Testament’s identification of Jesus with God rather than with an angelic being.
Note: The November 1879 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence said that the archangel Michael was not Jesus. It also quoted John 1 as saying, “The Word was God.”
Jehovah's Witness question: Why are you so critical of the New
World Translation of the Bible? Isn't it superior to other translations because it uses the real name
of God, whereas the others do not? Don't you agree that it stays close to the original Greek?
My answer: As to your comment that the New World Translation is the
only Bible that has God's real name in it: That claim is not accurate. If you are talking about the name "Jehovah," did you not know that the classic
King James Version from 1611 uses Jehovah in passages in Genesis, Exodus, Judges,
Psalms, and Isaiah? An updated version of that classic English Bible called The 21st
Century
King James Version uses Jehovah in those same passages. The American Standard
Version uses Jehovah 5822 times. Young's Literal Translation uses Jehovah 5787
times. Darby's Translation uses Jehovah 5791 times. The Third Millennium Bible and
the
Webster Bible both use Jehovah.
A very contemporary English translation or paraphrase called The
Message uses Yahweh
in several places. The Holman Christian Standard Bible uses
Yahweh 611 times. The Hebrew Names Version of the World English Bible uses Yahweh 5,795 times. The Bible in Basic English uses Yahweh.
Now, as to why I'm critical of the New World Translation: One reason is that its
rendering of John 1:1 -- "and the Word was a god" -- is used to support the position that
Jesus was not God Himself in human flesh.
How did "a god" get in John 1? The major English translations I consulted—
including King James, New King James, Revised Standard, New English Bible, Living Bible,
New International Version, and The Amplified Bible -- have an "a" in front of God at
the end of John 1:1. Their translators understand the Greek construction to mean, "and the Word was God."
I speak a few other languages and so looked in my Italian
Bible. It says: "La parola era Dio" (the Word was God). A more
contemporary Italian translation follows an almost word-for-word progression with the Greek:
"Dio era il Verbo" (God was the Word).
I looked in a French Bible. It says: "La Parole était Dieu" (the
Word was God). I looked in the Spanish. It says: "El Verbo era
Dios" (the Word was God). The Haitian Creole Bible says: "La Parol te
Bon-Dieu" (the Word was God). In each of those translations, the work was done by scholars working from the original-language texts.
John 1 has a thought that builds toward a climax. John intends to show that Jesus is God
incarnate. Proclaiming the deity of Christ seems to be a principal reason John wrote this Gospel as
well as his letters. Thus, rather than beginning with a birth narrative, as Matthew and Luke do, John starts with
the eternal preexistence of Jesus. In his first chapter, John uses words and phrases that clearly
remind us of Genesis 1. John seems eager to make sure his readers see the
connection between Jesus and God. Thus, John begins his Gospel with the climactic declaration, “and the Word was God.”
Now, let's return to the idea that the New World Translation is superior to other English
translations because it uses the "real" name of God whereas others do not. I assume you are
referring to the word Jehovah. Jehovah, of course, may not be the right rendering of the
original Hebrew word. Indeed, don't the Jehovah's Witness leaders agree that Yahweh is the most
likely rendering of the original Hebrew word? Therefore, using “Jehovah” does not by itself establish greater accuracy. Most scholars regard “Yahweh” as a closer approximation of the Hebrew name represented by the four consonants YHWH.
It also puzzles me that the word Jehovah appears 237 times in the New Testament of the New
World Translation. No known extant Greek New Testament manuscript contains the divine name YHWH in those locations. The Greek text instead normally has kyrios, meaning “Lord,” or theos, meaning “God.” A translation following the extant Greek manuscripts would normally render kyrios as “Lord.” The selective substitution of “Jehovah” therefore appears to reflect a theological interpretation rather than the wording preserved in the Greek manuscripts.
You are right. The New World Translation is "close" to the original Greek. It's just not
faithful to it. I want a faithful translation. I don't want one that's just "close." Wasn't it
familiar saying, "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades." 🙂
Share this page:
Watchtower Society interchange: A member of Jehovah’s Witnesses and I exchanged numerous emails about beliefs and doctrines. This page presents some of his questions and my responses. Some material overlaps because our correspondence occasionally returned to the same themes.
One limitation of our email exchange was that my friend rarely responded directly to my answers or asked follow-up questions. As a result, relatively few subjects developed into sustained conversations.
