The original biblical manuscripts, women Bible teachers, assurance for believers, God's
name, celebrating communion, the exaltation of Jesus, 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
- The Jehovah's Witnesses forbid women to preach or hold top
leadership positions. 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 [Moses] 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
Excerpts from 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 Greek New Testament that New
Testament scholars say is most likely the wording written in the original manuscripts. It is
based on the nearly 5,000 full and partial ancient manuscripts that we have of the New
Testament writings. So, yes, I do speak with some certainty when I talk about what the "original
That sense of certainty is echoed by the opinion of Frederic Kenyon, director of the
British Museum. He says: "It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the
Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the Newt Testament."
So, do I have the original manuscripts in my possession?
No, I do not. While no one else does either, I do feel certain that the Greek New Testament on
my shelf says what the original manuscripts said.
- 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 was charged with teaching Apollos? What do
you do with the women in Paul's letters that are talked about in ways that sound like
they were house church leaders?
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. Knowing that we are forgiven and
have eternal life are matters we can be certain about. 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 (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 8:7.
So, who told me I was part of the new covenant? The Bible.
As I mentioned, he 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, Matthew 26:28, Mark.14:24, and 1 Corinthians 11:25).
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 significant how at the Last Supper, Christ 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 in the audience of the people" words indicating God's
undertaking on behalf of His people and what He required of them. After Moses had read from
the people, the people responded: "All that Yahweh hath spoken will we do, and be obedient"
(their part of the covenant). Then comes the ratification of the covenant: "Moses took the blood
(half of which had already been sprinkled on the altar), and sprinkled it on the people, and said,
Behold the blood of the covenant which Yahweh hath made with you concerning all these words"
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
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 failings of the agricultural and animal sacrifices of the old covenant. The
difference between the Old and New Covenants is not upon the "who" (that is, who can
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. Gjive me the short one. Does God the
Father have a name?
- My answer: This sounds like you don't really 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.
- 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: The phrase "breaking bread" had a parrticular meaning in the New
Testament. When used in Scripture in the context of a church congregational meeting, "breaking
bread" always means the Lord's Supper. 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." Clearly,
the reference is not to an ordinary meal, but to a worship event.
Look at how the Gospel writers describe the Lord's Supper
in Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, and even Luke 24:30. 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 uses that exact phrase, he means precisely the same
- 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
- My answer: Yes, I take communion with all the members of my church
congregation every time it is served (about once a month) in total obedience to 1 Corinthians
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?
Are you aware that it was common in the First Century for
believers to celebrate communion every week?
- Jehovah's Witness question: What do you think the Bible says about
- My answer: There are three words translated as "hell" in various English versions:
Hades, tartarus, and gehenna. Hades seems to be a reference to the
intermediate state of people prior to the Judgment while the one place in which 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."
Hinnom. thus, was originally a name for a valley just southeast of Jerusalem. That's the valley
where children were sacrificed to Molech (2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6). Josiah, in his effort to stamp
out idolatry, turned the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) into a dump for burning trash and the
disposal of unclean corpses (2 Kings 23:10). It was also the place where the bodies of those slain
in the destruction of Jerusalem were thrown (Isaiah 66:24 and Jeremiah 7:32). It thus became
associated in the prophetic writings with the place of judgment and doom. In the New Testament,
gehenna is no longer identified with the Valley of Hinnom. It now simply means eternal
When the valley of Hinnom was a garbage dump, fires
burned there continually. It is, therefore, not surprising that words like unquenchable fire, eternal
fire and furnace of fire came to be associated with the usage of the word gehenna.
In the New Testament, that compound word "gehenna" is
used 12 times. Eleven of those references are in statements of Jesus. In all 12 instances, the
words refer to punishment in the future yet to come. Thus, the word "hell" in the sense of
gehenna refers to the final punishment of evil angels and impenitent human beings.
The terms used in Scripture to express the idea of future
punishment have a great deal of the figurative about them. 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 "everlasting" or "eternal" used in Matthew 18:8. The parallel passage in Mark 9:43-44
adds some additional phrases of explanation. The phrase "eternal damnation" is also used in
Mark 3:29. There's also the use of the words "eternal" or "everlasting" in Matthew 25:31-46.
Hell is called "outer darkness" by Jesus (Matthew 8:21;
22:13; 25:30). Since light and darkness symbolize good and evil, outer darkness would then be
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 serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced
In at least three places in the New Testament, the phrase
"outer darkness" is followed by a description of people weeping and "gnashing" their teeth. So,
clearly, this "outer darkness" is not a place of unconsciousness or annihilation. Instreads what is
described is conscious remorse and suffering.
Among the terms that Paul uses are "death" (thanatos) and
"destruction" (apoleia, olethros). As Paul uses them, those words are
qualitative rather than temporal terms. 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." Thus, when Paul speaks of "destruction" he does not
mean "annihilation." Indeed, Paul explains that he is talking about "exclusion from the presence
of the Lord and from the glory of His might" (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9).
Neither Old nor New Testament writings say that a human's final end is total extinction. As I
have noted, the New Testament warns that a person may be destroyed (or rather self-destroyed).
However, this does not mean annihilation. When a watch gets smashed, it may be destroyed as a
watch, but it does not vanish. In its ruined state, that watch is still a watch, even though it is a
sad contrast to what it was designed to be. When Jesus taught that "whoever wishes to save his
life shall destroy (apolesis) it (Mark 8:35), He did not mean that one would thus
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, while this Greek term is used seven times for the future punishment of the wicked, it is
used some 51 times for the future happiness of the redeemed. So, if you say that the future
punishment of the impenitent is terminated by annihilation, then you have undercut the Biblical
argument for everlasting life for the righteous (since the same word is used to say that both the
punishment and the reward are "everlasting").
- 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, therefore, see the exact 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 -- which says, " "And if your
hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your
two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire." -- 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. Indeed, in verse 11, when Jesus is called Lord, the Greek
word used is the equivalent of the Old Testament Hebrew word Adonai,, which clearly
refers to God!
In Romans 14:9-12, Isaiah 45:23-24 is quoted and applied to
the Father. In Philippians 2:9-11 that same form of the highest worship mentioned in Isaiah 45 is
applied to the Son. What a powerful testimony that both the Father and the Son are God.
I realize that is not how you see Philippians 2, but that is how I see it.
Questions for you to ask a
-- Howard Culbertson,
You might also like these