does the new NIV distort the Scriptures? - part 4

A few minutes trolling around online will produce dozens of websites warning you about the dangers of the NIV.

Here's a quote from one of my "favorites":

"Did you know that it was written by Zondervan and they are OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publish The Satanic Bible, and the Joy of Gay Sex. NIV has removed 64,575 words from the Bible including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and omnipotent to name but a few . . . NIV has also removed 45 complete verses."

In my next post I will respond to the more serious charge, that the NIV "removed" verses from the Bible. But first let me set the record straight:

Zondervan chooses the binding and
style of the NIV Bibles they print,
but they are not involved in the
translation (Photo: C. Imes)

1. Zondervan is a reputable Christian publishing house, fully staffed by evangelical believers, and it continues to produce some of the finest resources available for Christian Bible study today. Yes, it was bought by HarperCollins, a secular publishing house, but Zondervan retains full control of the editing process and employs believing scholars to do this work. The content of books published by the parent company in no way affects the quality or accuracy of Zondervan's publications. 
2. Even so, Zondervan did NOT "write" the NIV, nor did they translate it. The work was done by a team of Christian scholars (the Committee on Bible Translation, or CBT) working under Biblica according to the wishes of the original translation team. Zondervan simply makes the CBT's translation available to the wider world, choosing the binding, the size and color of the font, and the formats in which it will be printed.
3. If a word appears to be "missing" from the NIV, it has disappeared for one of two reasons. Either the translators felt that a different word would more accurately convey the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic text, or the translators determined that a word or words did not belong in the translation because the best ancient manuscripts did not include it. 

The word "Jehovah" is a good example. No such word exists in Hebrew. God revealed his personal name to Moses in Exodus 3:14. We can be confident that the consonants of that name are YHWH. (This is sometimes called the "Tetragrammaton," because it is made up of just four letters). However, scholars are not exactly sure which vowels were used to pronounce his name. Ancient Hebrew was written for centuries with only consonants. [Ths snds crzy bt w cn rd wtht vwls n nglsh s wll]. By the time helpful scribes decided to add dots and dashes to the Hebrew text to indicate the proper vowels (long after the time of Christ), pious Jews refused to pronounce God's personal name out of reverence. For that reason, when pious scribes added vowels to the name YHWH they deliberately used the wrong vowels so that no one would accidentally say God's name out loud. The vowels were intended to remind people to say "Adonai" (Lord) or "HaShem" ("the Name") in place of YHWH.

Some time ago, Bible scholars who did not understand this convention tried to pronounce God's Hebrew name by reading what they saw in the text -- the consonants YHWH, and the vowels meant to signal Adonai. The result was a nonsense word -- Yehowah, or Jehovah. Scholars since figured out their error, but not before hymns, churches, and even whole movements (like the "Jehovah's Witnesses") had employed the erroneous word. No one is absolutely sure how the consonants YHWH were to be pronounced. It might have been Yahweh. Another possibility is Yahu. We just don't know.

Exodus 3:15 (NIV)
Photo: C. Imes

Since the pronunciation is uncertain, most English translations have chosen to render the Tetragrammaton with four uppercase letters in English: LORD. Whenever you see that in your Bible, you can be sure that the Hebrew behind it is God's personal name, YHWH. If you see "Lord," then it's translating the Hebrew title that means "lord" or "master": Adonai.

So, did the NIV "remove" the word Jehovah from the Bible? Not exactly. They just chose to represent the Hebrew name YHWH in a different way. In my next post, I'll tackle the other part of this accusation -- that the NIV removed dozens of verses from the Bible.

is satan a fallen angel?

I honestly don't know, but I've spent the past month exploring Ezekiel 28, the text that (supposedly) depicts the fall of satan. During my research I came across an excellent resource that lays out the issues involved in interpreting this text and the others that have been understood to refer to the fall of satan. You might be surprised to hear that the Bible never teaches that satan was an angel who sinned and was later expelled from heaven. Several passages describe the fall of a human ruler using rather fantastic metaphorical language. In the early church many interpreters read those passages as if they contained two layers of meaning, one "physical" and another deeper "spiritual" sense. This allowed them to see both the fall of the literal king of Tyre and the fall of Satan in the same narrative.

Photo Credit: Wikipedia (A Tyrian Ship)

A Phoenician Cherub (http://christogenea.org/book/export/html/130)

I agree with those early interpreters that there are spiritual realities at work in the world, but I have a difficult time seeing Ezekiel 28 as a narrative account of satan's fall. In fact, the more I learn about ancient Tyre, the more Ezekiel's prophecies against Tyre make perfect sense as a reference to the physical nation and her leader. Tyre was the shipping capital of the ancient world, enjoying lavish wealth as a result, with access to every kind of precious stone imaginable. Tyrian art regularly depicts cherubim (winged beasts, sometimes with human heads) and by the time of Ezekiel Tyre was known for the production of quality engraved stamp seals. Ezekiel uses fitting metaphors for the ruler of Tyre, calling him a "seal of perfection" and a "cherub" covered with precious stones. Though he appears to be perfect and unassailable, Ezekiel says that he will be expelled from his position of authority on his lavish paradise island, just as Adam was expelled from Eden. This extended metaphor should not surprise us, because just prior to this Ezekiel has described the whole nation of Tyre as a ship (Ezek 27), and just after this he calls Pharoah a crocodile (Ezek 29) and Assyria a cedar (Ezek 30). Ezekiel delights in extracting parallels from these extended metaphors and using them to creatively describe the subjects of his oracles. We should not expect that he is referring to a literal cherub any more than we should expect that Tyre was a literal ship or Pharoah was really a river monster.

Context is key to setting the right kinds of expectations for our interpretation of this and any passage. In this case the presence of extended metaphors in Ezekiel's other oracles gives us the interepretive key. And knowing the history of Tyre helps us understand why Ezekiel would choose these particular metaphors and what he means by them. I am not necessarily trying to disprove the idea that satan is a fallen angel (if he is, I wasn't around to see it!), but I am suggesting that if satan did fall, God did not see a need to give us a detailed account of that event. For a longer article about the 'fall of Satan' I recommend checking out this website: http://www.julianspriggs.com/Pages/FallofSatan.aspx. 

3 New Testament scholars who make me want to study the Old Testament

N.T. Wright
R.T. France
Richard Bauckham

All three of these men are brilliant thinkers, clear communicators, and committed Christians.  They also share in common piercing insights that come from reading the New Testament in light of the Old Testament.  I'm so thankful for their work.  All three have opened the Scriptures for me in life-changing ways.

I just read through Richard Bauckham's 60-page essay entitled "God Crucified," which can be found in the volume I mentioned yesterday (Jesus and the God of Israel). There is so much I'd love to share from his work, but I'll choose just one example.  His big idea is that Jews during the first century had a concept of God that allowed them to include Jesus in the "divine identity" without compromising what they already believed about God.  They did not view Jesus as an exalted angelic being or a remarkable man, but as somehow one with Yahweh himself.  Their view of "one God" (which we call monotheism, a somewhat misleading term) had room for personifications of aspects of God, such as His Wisdom or His Word (Prov 8) that were in a sense distinct from him, but not altogether separate. This made it less of a stretch to worship Jesus as God. The line between who God is and who He is not included at the very least His identity as the Creator and the Ruler of all.  When Jesus was identified as present and involved at the time of creation and all things were said to be under his authority this was a clear indication that the NT writers saw him as included in the divine identity (see Phil 2:6-11; Col 1:15-20; 2:9-10 for two early expressions of this).

One particularly cogent example of why we simply must read the NT in light of the OT is found in 1 Corinthians 8:6. Ironically, this was one of the few passages that the Jehovah's Witnesses showed me just yesterday.  They saw it as proof that Jesus was not God, while I took it the other way.  Unfortunately, I had not yet read Bauckham's explanation of this verse, which is far more compelling than my feeble attempt to explain it yesterday.  There it reads:

"But for us [there is] one God, the Father
     from whom [are]all things and we for him,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
     through whom [are] all things and we through him."

Bauckham points out that this is an allusion to the Shema' of Deut 6:4, which reads:

"Hear, O Israel, the LORD, our God, the LORD is one." 

This sentence is arguably the most important one in the entire OT. Jews would have repeated it twice daily, seeing it as the central expression of their faith. The word LORD, which appears in all caps, is a translation of God's personal name, Yahweh.  When the Hebrew Bible was first translated into Greek, the translators used the Greek word kurios ("lord") to represent both LORD (Yahweh, God's personal name) and Lord (adonai, the generic word for a lord).  For Hebrew-speaking Jews, there was no confusion. Yahweh was the one, true God who deserved their worship and devotion.  He was the creator of all things and the one who sustained the universe and ruled over all.  In the NT, however, the only way to refer to Yahweh is by using the Greek word kurios, which is not a personal name but nevertheless the only option they had.  It is remarkable how often the NT authors make a point of telling us that Jesus is kurios.

Paul, in the example above, uses the identical language from the Greek translation of Deut 6:4 and divides it between God the Father and Jesus Christ.  As Bauckham insists, "Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema' a 'Lord' the Shema' does not mention.  He is identifying Jesus as the 'Lord' whom the Shema' affirms to be one." (28) The "one God" and "one Lord" created the universe.  Yahweh has now revealed Himself in His fullness in the coming of Jesus.

This is why I'm thrilled to have the opportunity to focus on the Old Testament at Wheaton.  The New Testament is very, very important to our faith and we just cannot afford to get it wrong!  With the OT clearly in view, we have a much better chance of understanding the NT in the ways that the writers (and Writer) intended.

bringin' in the big dawgs

I've been meeting with some Jehovah's Witnesses off and on for about 17 months now.  We met regularly for 6 months and then took a break for the summer. We met a few more times and then I asked if we could wait until April and meet to talk about the Trinity.

I have learned a lot from Lula. She is a godly woman, dedicated to the ministry, who really knows her Bible.  She has refused to be intimidated by my 6 years of formal Bible training and knowledge of both Greek and Hebrew.  Though not formally educated herself and not paid a dime for her ministry, she has continued to come week after week to meet with me and study the Bible.  Each time we meet she brings along someone different, always another woman volunteer. Can I make a confession?  For a long time now I've wondered when she would call in her supervisor. Today she finally did.

Kevin is the district substitute superintendent for the entire Charlotte area all the way to Spartanburg.  Like Lula, he is mystified that anyone could actually read the Bible and persist in believing in the Trinity.  Often I tell them that I can see how they could read the passage in the way that they do, but that I understand it differently. Today Kevin finally asked me (in exasperation?), "If a straightforward reading of the Bible implies that Jesus is not God, but sent from God as his representative, then what would motivate you to elevate him further?"

I was so glad he asked.  I pointed immediately to a brochure Lula had given me last year entitled, Should You Believe in the Trinity? They do a good job of introducing the topic, and I especially like this: "If the Trinity is true, it is degrading to Jesus to say that he was never equal to God as part of a Godhead. But if the Trinity is false, it is degrading to Almighty God to call anyone his equal ..." (3). This is why it matters: because right worship depends on knowing God as He really is.

Though there is a number of passages that seem to suggest that Jesus was not equal to the Father (John 14:28; 1 Cor 11:3; 15:27), there are many other indications in Scripture that Jesus was more than just God's representative (John 1:1; 17:21; Acts 2:21 with 4:12). Jesus did things that only God can do.  He forgave sins, he raised the dead, he healed a man blind from birth. Jesus also made claims that were tantamount to claiming deity.  He called himself the "light of the world" (John 9:5 with Isa 60:1-2), the "good shepherd" (John 10:11 with Eze 34), the "son of man" (Matt 17:9 with Dan 7:9-10, 13-14; Rev 1:12-18), and the "I am" (John 8:54-59 with Ex 3:3-4). These claims caused great consternation among the Jewish leaders, and in several cases they tried to stone him for blasphemy! His followers worshipped him (see John 9:38), and he did not object.

I recommended two books that have been helpful for me on this issue.  One is Donald Fairbairn's Life in the Trinity: An Introduction to Theology with the Help of the Church Fathers. Not only is it written simply and beautifully, it is changing the way I think about salvation.  I highly recommend it!  Fairbairn explains that the earliest followers of Jesus saw salvation as an invitation to share in the life of the Trinity the way the Father and Son share life together.

The other book is Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity. This one is not quite as easy to read, but terribly profound. Bauckham argues that Jesus' actions and claims about himself prompted his early followers to include him within their concept of "one God." The first century Jewish idea of monotheism was flexible enough to allow for Jesus' inclusion in the deity without seeing God as "more than one." At the end of our discussion, Kevin admitted that he needed to go back and reexamine some things in the Bible.  And that's what every good Bible discussion should do -- push us back to the Scriptures with fresh eyes to see once again what God has revealed and how we are to respond.  Please pray for Kevin, and for me and Lula as we continue to study the Bible and discuss what it teaches.

missing diamonds ... and the gift of heresy

A diamond is missing from my wedding ring (not the big one, thankfully, but one of the little accent diamonds).  It could be anywhere ... the laundry, the shower, the bedsheets, the library, the kitchen sink, my sunday school classroom, outside.  If our carpet was made of black velvet it would be much easier to find!

And that got me thinking about how heresy is a gift to the church.  A gift??!!  This past week I gave a library tour to two batches of exegesis students who are getting ready to research and write their final paper for the semester.  I took them to the shelves of commentaries on the Bible.  I said, "Do you see these two sets of commentaries?  These are the ones I can't stand.  When I read them I get so angry I want to throw them across the room.  Be sure to consult them for your papers." 

Someone who missed my introductory comments was understandably confused.  "Did you just say you don't like them but we should use them?"

"Yes," I explained, "because a paper that only cites commentaries that agree with you is a boring paper.  In order to see how the truth matters, you've got to show what happens when it gets set aside or diluted.  The commentaries I don't like are liberal commentaries that take scripture and slice and dice it, throwing out all the parts that they say that Jesus couldn't have done or said, either because it's too supernatural, or the theology is too highly developed, or whatever.  Those commentaries may have something valuable to say to you, but you'll have to sift through the chaff to find the wheat.  And the ways they mis-read scripture will be like black velvet, so that that diamond in the text can shine all the brighter."

That, incidentally, is why meeting with Jehovah's Witnesses has been so valuable for me.  I don't know what they are getting out of it, but I for one am no longer taking the precious truths of God's Word for granted.  The deity of Christ, my assurance of salvation, the personality of the Holy Spirit, the promise of eternal life with God himself, and the gift of communion have become all the more vibrant to me against the black backdrop of their misreadings of Scripture.  It truly makes me wonder whether God allows heresy to grow up around his people precisely in order to enliven our grasp of the truth.

Jesus and superman

Imagine you are driving along one day on the freeway when just ahead of you a driver loses control.  You brake and swerve to miss her as the car spins off the side of the road, flips and lands upside down.  In the blurr of the moment you pull over, put on your emergency lights and run back to help.  What you find is terrifying.  The woman is seatbelted in her seat, suspended upside-down, knocked unconcious, and her door is jammed shut.  Just when you start to panic you hear something.  Out of nowhere a strong man appears, dressed in blue spandex with a flowing red cape.  A great big letter S is stamped on his chest.  In no time at all he lifts the car and sets it back on its tires, wrenches the door off its hinges, snaps the seatbelt with his bare hands and gingerly lifts the woman out into the fresh air.  He nods to you, winks, and then leaps over the trees out of sight in a single bound, headed in the direction of the hospital, with the woman still in his strong arms.

Shortly afterwards, emergency vehicles arrive with the media close behind.  You find yourself suddenly in the center of a major investigation, peppered with questions from reporters, EMT's, and police officers.  "Tell us again," they insist.  "Who was the man who took the woman away?" 

"I told you already.  It was Superman!" 
Another volley of questions: "But how do you KNOW it was Superman?"
     "Did he introduce himself to you?" 
          "Did you actually hear him say his name?" 
You feel rather confused.  "There was no time for introductions.  He didn't need to introduce himself.  It was obvious.  He was wearing what Superman wears!" 
"But it could have been an imposter," they insist. "Maybe he wanted you to THINK he was Superman, but he really wasn't." 
"But he appeared out of nowhere," you remind them. "And he was stronger than any ordinary man, and I saw him leap over those trees!"  To your utter amazement they refuse to write in the police report that Superman was present at the scene, citing 'lack of evidence.'

Perhaps it's obvious to you by now where I am going with this.  As I've met with my JW friends to study the Bible they continue to insist that Jesus could not have been Almighty God because he never identified himself in such a way.  "If it was so vitally important that we believe in the Trinity," they tell me. "Then the Bible would have made it much more clear.  As it is, the Bible says NOTHING to prove that Jesus and Jehovah are the same God."  The more I've thought about this and studied it, the more I'm struck by the ways Scripture 'nods and winks' at us as it relates the ways in which Jesus came dressed in Yahweh's clothes and doing Yahweh's tasks.  No, he didn't make a public announcement about his true identity.  That would have cut short his ministry unnecessarily.  Instead, he revealed his identity through parables and actions so that those with 'eyes to see' would have no doubt who he was, and those who were blinded by unbelief would be unable to pin him down.

There is a widespread misconception about Jesus that he taught using stories because that way people would really understand him.  But in Mark 4:9-12 Jesus tells his disciples point blank that his parables are meant to veil his message from the unbelieving.  (See also John 9:35-41; 10:22-39; 12:37-41)  We must pray that the One who opens the eyes of the blind will open the eyes of our hearts as well.

the New Testament in 3-D

I've been reading some GREAT books on the New Testament lately, and I honestly feel like I've been handed a pair of 3-D glasses with which to read (and understand!) the Bible more profoundly than ever before.  What used to be flat, bland, or even puzzling has come alive and started to pop off of the page. Rather than keep this treasure for myself, I wanted to pass it on to you!

If you can image a pair of 3-D glasses (at least the ones from long ago), there was a red lens and a blue lens.  With these working together, an image that was specially produced for viewing with those glasses comes to life.  Without them, the same image is rather blurry, and if you stare at it too long you get a headache.  So too the Bible for many people!  A growing number of scholars are beginning to pick up on major themes in the New Testament that were missed in recent centuries.  For some reason the lenses most scholars were wearing just didn't allow them to see what was there all along.  If the NT was written with these twin ideas giving shape to everything, then we'd better put on our 3-D glasses so we can figure out what it means!

So are you ready?  Here are the 2 major keys that have breathed life back into the pages of Scripture for me this month.  They are distinct from each other (like the blue and red lenses), but when taken together they form a startlingly clear picture.

Lens #1 - Jesus is the 'true Israel.'  A lot of what Jesus says and does makes perfect sense when viewed through this lens.  Israel was called 'God's son' in the Old Testament (Ex 4:22), but they failed to do what God designed them to do (Deut 32:5).  They were supposed to obey him fully and in that way become a light to the nations (Isa 42:1-9).  But because they rebelled and were carried off into exile, they, too were in need of salvation (Isa 49:5-7). 

When Jesus is called God's Son it should be a flashing red light that he is the one who will do and be what Israel was to do and be.  His perfect obedience is patterned after Israel's failures.  One of the most poignant examples is the temptation account (Matt 4:1-11).  There Jesus spends 40 days in the wilderness being tested by satan.  He resists those temptations by using scriptures from Deuteronomy which described Israel's time of testing in the wilderness.  There could not be a more intentional parallel.  Jesus does perfectly what Israel should have done, and that qualifies him to be the light to the nations that they should have been.  Now, through faith in Jesus (the true Israelite) we become spiritual Israelites as well.  The promises made to them are fulfilled in us.  Obviously much more could be said.  But on to the next one.

Lens #2 - Jesus is Yahweh.  Much of Jesus' ministry was an acting out of what the Jews expected Yahweh (God) to come and do for them after the return from exile. The miracles, the victory over satan, the calming of the sea, the regathering of (true) Israel, and the establishment of His kingdom were all things that the OT predicted Yahweh Himself doing (Isa 52:7-10).  Jesus' deliberate journey to Jerusalem at the climax of his ministry was actually the promised return of Yahweh to fill Jerusalem with His presence (Matt 21).  But because of the failure of the Jews to recognize and believe in Him his coming was marked by judgement. 

I've only just begun to watch for the ways in which Jesus dramatizes OT prophecies or fulfills them through his actions, and my list is growing.  What excites me about this is that it is an entirely different angle from which to demonstrate His deity!  My Jehovah's Witness friends have already heard all the usual 'proof texts' about Jesus being God and they have answers for them.  But this cuts underneath all that debate to reveal the profound truth about who He is.  If we truly believe the OT prophecies, and then we see how Jesus does what Yahweh was supposed to do we have only two options.  We can suppose that God changed his mind and settled for an ambassador instead of coming Himself as He promised (NO!), or we can recognize that Jesus was Himself Almighty God.  Why didn't He just say it plainly?  Because a direct announcement would have resulted in a premature crucifixion.  All along the way He acted out His message boldly and let those actions speak for themselves.  Those who had eyes to see and ears to hear figured it out and gave Him their full allegiance.

If you want more about how to read the NT in 3-D, I recommend the following great books:

N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (he has many other books which touch on similar themes)
G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission (reviewed in more detail below)
G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson (eds), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (This commentary is worth its weight in gold.  If you can only afford one NT commentary, make this the one!)

a good book about an even better book!

I just finished reading this excellent book by Greg Beale, entitled The Temple and the Church's Mission: A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God.  It is quite profound and spans the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation.  I highly recommend it if you want to get the big picture of the message of Scripture. 

This book has been so helpful in giving me an overall framework for understanding Scripture and explaining it to the JW's who are meeting with me. I wanted to give you a taste of what I've learned in the book.  We serve an indescribable God and His Word is just amazing!

As the title suggests, Beale focuses on the concept of the temple, or dwelling place of God.  God was first present to Adam and Eve in Eden, but Beale demonstrates that God intended for Adam and Eve to extend the boundaries of the garden paradise until His presence filled the whole earth.  (A world-wide garden of Eden!) Because they failed to do this, they lost their role as 'priests' in the garden temple.  Later, God chose to make his presence most tangible in the tabernacle, and then the temple, which was also intended to grow until it filled Jerusalem and then the whole earth (see Isaiah 4:5-6; 65:17-18 and Jeremiah 3:16-17).  Israel failed at her mandate to mediate God's presence to the world.  They were exiled and the temple destroyed.  When they returned home to rebuild, they were deeply disappointed with the results.  It was not glorious, and we're never told that God's glory descended to fill it.  But John tells us that Jesus came and "tabernacled among us, and we beheld His glory" (John 1:14).  He announces that He is the new temple (Matt 12:6; John 2:19-22).  And by faith in Him we become part of the temple, the place where God's glory dwells (Eph 2:19-22; 1 Pet 2:4-10).  The grand finale is found in Rev 21-22 where all of creation becomes a temple, and there is no place where God's glory is not tangible.  Have you ever wondered why the New Jerusalem in Rev 21 is cubic?  The only other structure in the Bible which is said to have a cubic shape is the Holy of Holies, the most sacred part of the temple where God's glory dwells.  Only the high priest is allowed inside, and only once a year to make intercession for God's people.  But in John's vision the "new heavens and new earth" (i.e. the entire new creation) is a cubic garden-city where God is fully present.  The veil has been torn and now all believers live in the light of God's unhindered presence.  The Holy of Holies is all there is!

heaven and earth

Yesterday's post may have left the impression that I believe I am sealed by the Holy Spirit because I feel like I am, and Ephesians ought to have been written for me because I like it so much.  But there is much firmer ground for the idea that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit and will reign with Christ.

What I noticed yesterday is that wherever the words "heaven" and "earth" occur together in the Bible, Jehovah's Witnesses read them as two distinct places - one for the elite, anointed ones and one for the average Christian.  (Or, ironically, one as symbolic for earthly governments and the other for society).  But this is a misunderstanding of the way these words work in the Bible!  And I think it's the root of a number of their false beliefs.  The fancy word for this figure of speech is merism, which is where two words are meant to represent everything in between.  We use merism in English when we say "she was wet from head to toe."  Do we mean that her head was wet and her toe was, too?  Are we giving special emphasis to her head and toe over other body parts?  No.  We simply mean that her whole body was wet.

Genesis 1:1 tells us that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."  The Hebrew word for "heavens" functions just like the Greek word for "heavens" and the English one, too (I suppose because of the Bible's influence).  It can mean the sky, or it can refer to the place where God dwells.  Context tells us  which meaning is in view.  Was God, in Genesis 1, making a place for Himself to live as well as for us?  I don't think so.  "Heavens and earth" is a figurative way of talking about ALL OF CREATION.  If you go on to read the rest of the chapter, you'll see that God creates the sky and the land (and everything else).

In many places after that the Bible speaks of the "heavens and the earth."  Take, for example, Isaiah 1:2, "Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! For the LORD has spoken."  Is God here addressing two locations - one spiritual and one physical?  No!  He is calling all of creation as His witnesses in the court case that He is about to bring against Israel.  They have rebelled against Him and creation is ready to testify.  At the end of Isaiah he declares, "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth" (Isa 65:17).  Are these two new places God will make?  He clarifies in the following verse what he means: "I will create Jerusalem...".  That's it.  One place.  A new Jerusalem.

Fast forward to Revelation 21:1.  John announces, "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away."  Does he then go on to see TWO places?  One for the anointed, and one for the rest of us?  No!  He sees ONE place: "the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God."  (This should ring a bell).  John sees the new creation, pictured as a garden-city-temple where God will at last dwell with us as He intended from the start.  Those who are welcome to enter this paradise are "those who wash their robes" (22:14).  Is that referring to a set number of individuals (144,000 to be exact) who have been given special passes?  My JW friends would say so.  But look at Revelation 7:9ff.  There we see a "great multitude that no one could count ... wearing white robes."  These are the ones from all over the globe who will enter into the new creation and eat from the tree of life.  That's you and me! 

They carry this idea to many other places in the Bible.  Look at the beatitudes in Matthew 5.  Instead of taking this as a list of counter-cultural attributes which should characterize all the people of God, they read verse 3 and verse 5 as talking about two distinct groups of people!  One (the poor in spirit) will go to "heaven," and the other (the meek) will stay on "earth."  They are not recognizing that Matthew consistently uses "kingdom of heaven" as a label for God's Kingdom, not a place in the sky where only some will end up.  I would be very hesitant to draw a line between items 1 and 3 on a list of 9 attributes that should characterize all believers.

It all boils down to a misunderstanding of a Hebrew figure of speech.  In their desire to take the Bible "literally," JW's have excluded themselves (most of them anyway) from some of the most precious promises of Scripture.  I, for one, am looking forward to walking through those pearly gates!

blessed assurance?

I've asked myself more than once if it is worth my time to meet with "my" Jehovah's Witnesses each week for a Bible study. They are obviously convinced of their point of view, as I am of mine. So what's the point? I've decided that hearing them explain their doctrine is a fabulous motivator for me to learn how to better articulate my own. Today is a case in point.

We got a bit hung up on the 144,000 in Revelation 7. I'm not a big end-times prophecy expert and I don't claim to have a solid handle on the book of Revelation. But their interpretation of this jumped out at me as quite unusual. In short, they believe that the 144,000 are a select group of faithful believers who will rule the earth from heaven with God. They have assured me that they are not part of that group and are quite content to live here on earth. So is this just a minor difference? Better to just 'agree to disagree' and move on? I thought maybe so until we wandered into another topic and I realized just how huge the implications are.

JW's believe that regular believers (like you and me, probably, unless you are one of the few) are NOT the bride of Christ. Only the 144,000 qualify. And when I took them to Ephesians 5 (where Christ is said to give himself for the church and make her radiant - v25-26) and asked them how that squares with their theology I got the shocking answer: Ephesians wasn't written for us. It was for the 1st century church in Ephesus, and they were part of the select, anointed group of individuals who will reign with Christ. We will not. Back up to Ephesians chapter one. Remember all the spiritual blessings we thought we had in Christ? adoption as sons, forgiveness of sins, the seal of the Holy Spirit, etc. Apparently those blessings are only for the elite.

I know that my JW friends believe they are saved through faith in Christ. I have found that we do have much in common. But their two-tiered version of Christianity strips the good news out of the gospel! Ephesians was written for the church in Ephesus, but by the grace of God we, too, are members of that same, ever-expanding body of Christ. We are offered the wonderful assurance of the Holy Spirit reminding us that we belong to God (Eph 1:13-14). When I told them that I was confident that I was part of the bride of Christ and would reign with him in the new creation it was their turn to be shocked. While they couldn't argue with that (because it's based on my own 'inner witness'), they have no such hope.

A pastor friend of ours has written a wonderful response to the JW doctrine of the 144,000 which shows that the number is used as a symbolic representation of all believers in Jesus. Here is the link if you're interested in exploring this for yourself:

http://gsdisciple.blogspot.com/2008/06/numb3rs-144000.html
http://gsdisciple.blogspot.com/search?q=144%2C000

All this reminds me why it is so important for us to diligently study God's Word and continue to question our own presuppositions so that we can be receptive to the truth. I have conceeded a few things over these weeks that I think the church at large has gotten wrong. But today was not one of those days. I'm hangin' on to this one!