From this verse the Witnesses conclude that the Lord Jesus Christ is an archangel because he has "an archangel's voice." No other denomination has ever come up with such a conclusion, because every other denomination has concluded that the return of the Lord will be heralded by an archangel. But let's continue with the Witnesses' argument.
They identify the archangel as Michael from Jude 9: "But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses' body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: 'May Jehovah rebuke you.'"
How does this identification work? According to Reasoning from the Scriptures, one of the manuals Witnesses use in door-to-door evangelization, "the expression 'archangel' is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying there is only one."
An interesting argument, but weak. Actually, 1Thessalonians 4:16 refers to an archangel's voice, not to the archangel's voice, implying there is more than one archangel. If there were only one, the Greek definite article (Greek's equivalent of "the") would be used, but it isn't. If there were more than one archangel, but only one is being referred to, there would be no definite article in Greek, and there isn't, making the appropriate translation "with an archangel's voice."
(The definite article is used in Jude 9, but there it serves to identify which Michael is being talked about--the one who is an archangel. In that context, it no more implies that there is only one archangel than talking about "Smokey the Bear" implies that there is only one bear.)
Reasoning from the Scriptures claims that "the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God." The Bible will contain little evidence concerning such a strange claim, but what little evidence there is argues against the Witnesses' position.
Look at Hebrews 1:5: "to which one of the angels did he [God] ever say: 'You are my son; I, today, I have become your father'?" This suggests the Son of God can't be an angel (or an archangel, since "archangel" simply means "high ranking angel"), because it was to the Son that the Father said, "I have become your father."
Even the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their own, backhanded way, recognize this. Look at their translation of verse 6: "Let all God's angels do obeisance to him," referring to the Son. The Witnesses want you to think the angels do obeisance to the (sole) archangel, but they know this isn't what the verse really says. Until 1970 the New World Translation didn't use the word "obeisance." Until then verse 6 read this way: "Let all God's angels worship him" (italics added). Angels don't worship an archangel, who, after all, is just another creature. They worship God [Rev. 19:9-10, 22:8-9]. When the New World Translation was first made, this verse slipped by the translating committee and effectively undercut the argument that Christ is really Michael.
In every Catholic and Protestant translation, the final clause of John 1:1 is given this way: "and the Word was God." The translation given by the Witnesses simply isn't supported by the Greek. When missionaries come to your door and argue that Jesus is just a creature, point out the illegitimate translation of John 1:1, and then turn to John 20:28, where Thomas says, as he probes Jesus' wounds, "My Lord and my God!" Then note that Jesus didn't correct Thomas's identification of him as God, because no correction was needed. Thomas, previously doubting, knew exactly what he was saying, and what he was saying was true.
The Jehovah's Witnesses deny the Incarnation. They do so first because Jesus isn't God, according to them, so there's no question about God taking flesh. But they also deny it in a second sense. In the Incarnation, what the Son of God was before--that is to say, God--became united with a human nature, so his two natures co-existed. But the Witnesses say that even after Jesus' appearance on Earth there was only one nature--the human.
This is how they see it: In heaven, before coming down, Jesus was the Son of God, a creature, and was known as Michaelthe archangel, a pure spirit. He then ceased to be a spirit at all. His spirit-ness entirely disappeared, vanished. On Earth the Son of God was purely human. No angelic spirit was commingled with his human nature. This man Jesus was killed at Calvary. At his Resurrection, his human body was not resuscitated. It remained in the tomb and God disintegrated it. There was no real, physical Resurrection in the traditional Christian sense. Instead, what was resurrected was Michael's angelic spirit-body.
Keep in mind the sequence. In heaven: spirit only. On Earth: body only. Back in heaven: spirit only again. There is no continuity here. The creature called Michael entirely ceased to exist!. The creature called Jesus (while here on Earth) began to exist, then, at death, he ceased to exist also. Then a creature identical to the original Michael began to exist again.
In Matthew 28:6, an angel offers as proof that Jesus has risen from the tomb the fact that the tomb is empty. This implies the body had been raised. In fact, the angel says, "He is not here; for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay." He had been laying down, but then he arose (literally, got up), physically alive.
The Witnesses rely on passages such as Acts 2:1-4: "on the day of Pentecost . . . they all became filled with the holy spirit." Written this way, it almost makes sense. But Christ spoke of the Holy Spirit as a Person in John 14:26: "But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I have told you." How can an impersonal force teach anyone anything? Does the wind teach? Do gravity or electromagnetism teach? Of course not. This verse makes sense only if "the holy spirit" is really "the Holy Spirit," a divine Person.
When speaking with a Witness about this passage, turn to the first few verses of Acts 5, the story of Ananias and Sapphira. In verse 3, Peter asks, "Why has Satan emboldened you to play false to the holy spirit and to hold back secretly some of the price of the field?" The one that was defrauded was "the holy spirit." In verse 4, Peter says, "You have played false, not to men, but to God." So it was God that was defrauded. The conclusion? That "the holy spirit" must be God, a conclusion drawn from the Witnesses' own translation of the Bible.
As already mentioned, the Jehovah's Witnesses are unitarians, not trinitarians. Only the Father--Jehovah--is God in their view. The Son is the first creature. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah's power.
Second, the verses may also refer to Christ's Person insofar as the Person of the Son is generated or begotten by the Person of the Father. This doesn't mean he's is unequal in his divine nature and therefore not divine. It means there is a certain logical relationship between the two Persons of the Father and the Son (who are both equally divine) in which it may be said, rightly, that "the Father is greater than I."--greater in the order of the three divine Persons, not greater in the order of nature or being.
Third, those verses may refer to the Son's role in the economy of redemption. He came to fulfill the Father's will in redeeming us, thus the Father holds a position in some sense superior to his. Also, he came to reveal the Father to us, thus again he is doing the Father's will and is so serving the Father. Thus the Son might be said to be inferior to the Father in the role he plays, but not in his essential nature.
Are there verses that argue against the Witnesses' position? Sure. Look at John 10:30: "The Father and I are one." This is blunt. So how do the Witnesses interpret a verse such as this? They say Jesus meant he was "one in agreement, purpose, and organization" with the Father, that's all. But they ignore the very next verse, in which the Jews take up stones to throw at him, and verse 33, in which they say, "It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God" (RSV). This is not a Witness translation. We must use it because the New World Translation, as in John 1:1, translates the Greek improperly. It gives: "We are stoning you . . . because you, although being a man, make yourself a god." Note the lower-case "g" again.
The Witnesses ignore the import of Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit." Another translator's slip here? Note the singular "name." If the Father, Son, and "holy spirit" were three different entities--God, exalted creature, and impersonal force--then they'd have three names, not one name. The fact that the singular is used implies a unity of being.
What is that one name that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share? Jehovah. There can be no question that the Father is referred to in the Old Testament as Jehovah (or, more consistently rendered, Yahweh), but this name applies to the Son as well. In John 8:56-59, we read: "[Jesus said to the Jews:] 'Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.' The Jews then said to him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.' So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (RSV).
As any Bible student knows, "I AM" is the literal translation of Jehovah or Yahweh (cf. Ex. 3:14--"God said to Moses . . . 'Say to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you,'" RSV). Thus Jesus claimed to be Jehovah, and the Jews understood, for they picked up stones to stone him! But if the Father is Jehovah and if Jesus is Jehovah, then the Holy Spirit is Jehovah, and thus the three divine Persons share one name. (In the two passages just cited, we had to use a non-Witness translation because their version mistranslates these two passages precisely in order to hide the fact that Jesus claimed to be Jehovah!)
Go over these verses carefully with the next Witness who comes to your door. Show him, always, the context of what is being said, whether on this topic or on any other. Remember, the Witnesses, far more than any Fundamentalists, take verses out of context. They are the preeminent proof-texters. Often the very next verse will undercut their interpretation of the single verse they're expounding to you. Never accept their interpretations at face value (or their translations--always have on hand Catholic and Protestant translations to compare the New World Translation with). Read everything in context, and show the Witnesses the context.
� 1996 Diaspora Ministry International, Inc. This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the copyright holder.
Last modified May 25, 1996.