Heresy For A Mere Donation HERESY FOR A MERE DONATION A Look at the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Latest Attack on the Trinity by M. Kurt Goedelman
During last summer’s district conventions the Watchtower launched its heaviest attack ever on the doctrine of the triunity of God: a 32-page, Watchtower magazine-size, full-color publication titled, Should You Believe in the Trinity? Originally the brochure sold for thirty cents, however due to the Watchtower’s recent sales policy change, it is now available in the United States for a mere donation.
For Jehovah’s Witnesses, the answer to the question solicited in the title of the publication is “No.”
Watchtower writers have amassed quotes and arguments in an effort to disprove “the central doctrine of the churches for centuries.” Thus, to get to “the root of the Trinity controversy,” secular and religious encyclopedias, and Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant works are cited. Some of the quotes have been used in previous Watchtower books. Others have not.
However, a look at the citations used in Should You Believe in the Trinity? will show that once again the Watchtower has practiced dishonest scholarship.
(This article will not make an exhaustive critique of Watchtower beliefs on this subject. A fuller treatment can be found in Robert M. Bowman, Jr.’s Why You Should Believe in the Trinity. Also a brief, yet effective treatment is found in MacGregor Ministries New & Views, April-June 1990, pp. 5-8.)
The reader might wonder why the Watchtower would appeal to Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant writers in a work that purports to debunk the Trinity doctrine. The Watchtower says “lately even some of its [the Trinity doctrine’s] supporters have added fuel to the controversy.”
Watchtower scholars and writers apparently do not understand Church history. Down through the centuries, the vast majority of those who have attacked the Trinity doctrine have regarded themselves as being within the Church. These “attacks” have resulted in the formulation of the Church’s creeds and the exposition and refinement of theology (or dogma) based upon a careful examination of the doctrine revealed in Scripture.
Anyone making even a superficial study of the Watchtower’s treatment of the Trinity doctrine will learn that the thoughts of Christian writers cited in Watchtower publications usually have been wrested from their contexts and made to say the opposite of what the writers meant.
When the citations have been more honest and contextual, they have come from liberal Protestant and Catholic writers who challenge God’s triunity. Still, in other instances, the Watchtower provides only partial quotes in its effort to convince the reader that the Trinity doctrine is a pagan notion.
MISQUOTATIONS AND HALF-QUOTES
The Watchtower writers waste little time in their new book misleading their readers. On page 4, it says, “The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be ‘beyond the grasp of human reason.'”
A look at that quote in full context conveys a different message. It says: “It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind.” (The Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 27, pg. 116)
The Watchtower’s quote, when placed in context, is hard to dispute. A God who is comprehendable to a finite mind is a God who has been overtaken by his own creation.
What makes Watchtower reasoning all the more laughable is that Jehovah’s Witnesses are told in other publications not to reject elements of God’s nature merely because they are incomprehensible. The Watchtower’s Reasoning From The Scriptures says on the subject, “Did God have a Beginning?”: “Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it. Consider these examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it. (2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther they probe into the universe, the more there is. They do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. The same principle applies to the existence of God.” (pg. 148)
Watchtower writers also ignored a statement on the same page of the encyclopedia that disputes the idea that the Trinity doctrine is pagan. It says: “It is probably a mistake to assume that the doctrine resulted from the intrusion of Greek metaphysics or philosophy into Christian thought; for the data upon which the doctrine rests, and also its earliest attempts at formulation, are much older than the church’s encounter with Greek philosophy.” (The Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 27, pg. 116)
The reader doesn’t have to turn the page to find another example. This time, the writers cite The Catholic Encyclopedia, claiming it says the Trinity doctrine is “A dogma so mysterious [it] presupposes a Divine revelation.”
When the quote is read in context, the same thing happens: A biblical, orthodox thought emerges. The encyclopedia, while stating “It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation,” goes on to say: “When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as a result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, pg. 47)
As noted by The Catholic Encyclopedia, many liberal Protestant scholars contend that the Trinity doctrine originated in the second century. That is a theory shared by the Watchtower. Yet, the encyclopedia rejects the idea, saying: “The Divinity of Christ is amply attested not merely by St. John, but by the Synoptists,” and “The various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count.” These statements clearly summarize the biblical evidence presented by the encyclopedia in defense of the Trinity. (Vol. 15, pp. 47, 49)
On page 6 of Should You Believe in the Trinity? Watchtower writers misrepresent the thoughts of Jesuit Edmund J. Fortman in his book, The Triune God. The Watchtower says Fortman says “The New Testament writers … give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.”
However, the Watchtower surgeons have excised Fortman’s next statement, which says the New Testament writers “do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated.” (The Triune God, Introduction, pg. xvi) Further, they have ignored his discussions, based on Scripture, for the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Yet, Fortman’s book cannot be regarded as totally orthodox. On page 9, he writes: “Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person.” Should You Believe in the Trinity cites that statement on page 21.
It should be noted that while the biblical authors may not have completely understood or comprehended some of that which they were inspired to write, a careful consideration of Scripture will demonstrate Fortman’s conclusion that “Sacred [Old Testament] writers never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person” is in error.
While Fortman admitted that the Spirit is described in personal terms, He is also ascribed, as in the New Testament, with attributes which can only be applicable to a person or personality. 2 Samuel 23:2 tells of the Spirit’s ability to speak; in Psalm 106:33 we are instructed that the Spirit can be rebelled against; Isaiah 63:10 informs us that the Spirit can be grieved; and in Nehemiah 9:30 we learn that the Israelites were admonished by this same Spirit. These are some of the very capabilities which Fortman notes in the New Testament in his consideration of the personality of the Holy Spirit.
The Christian will find many areas of Roman Catholic doctrine and dogma that contradict the biblical faith. Nonetheless, Catholicism’s stand for, and defense of, the doctrine of the Trinity is certainly not one of them.
The Watchtower also misrepresents, through misquotes and halfquotes, the writings of E. Washburn Hopkins, a Yale University professor of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology who died in 1932. On page 6 of its book, the Watchtower uses this statement from Hopkins’ Origin and Evolution of Religion: “To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; … they say nothing about it.”
Just before that quote, Hopkins had written: “The beginning of the doctrine of the trinity appears already in John (c. 100).” (pg. 336) The Watchtower left that out. (John’s gospel would now be dated much earlier by most scholars.)
The Watchtower also leaves out these statements by Hopkins:
“The early Church declared that Christ was the Logos and that the Logos was God.” (ibid.)
“Paul does not say that Christ is God, but he identifies Christ with the Holy Spirit and applies to him the Old Testament [verse] used of God: ‘I am God and …unto me every knee shall bow (Is. 45:22,23; Phil. 2:10).” (ibid.)
While orthodox Christians would challenge many of Hopkins’ premises, including his assertion that “Paul does not say that Christ is God” (see Titus 2:13, Colossians 2:9 and Philippians 2:6), Hopkins’ observations differ greatly from the Watchtower’s.
DISTINGUISHING DOGMA FROM DOCTRINE
When considering the statements of orthodox scholars, one must understand the distinction between dogma and doctrine or theology and doctrine. The Watchtower does not and leads its readers to believe they all mean the same thing.
Doctrine refers to that which is expressed in Scripture. Dogma or theology is the settled opinion or belief that has been established by the doctrine expressed in Scripture. Catholics are more inclined to make use of the term “dogma”; Protestants prefer “theology.”
Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, under the subject “Doctrine,” says: “It [doctrine] differs from dogma (q.v.) in that it does not connote an authoritative ecclesiastical affirmation but is rather the raw material of the word of God which councils use in formulating theological truth in definitve and sometimes polemical forms.”
Academic works of orthodoxy sometimes make reference to the evolution, development or refinement of the dogma (or theology) of the Trinity. The Watchtower, in its use of these quotations, will misconstrue or erroneously imply these declarations to mean that it was at the various church councils where the doctrine of the Trinity was invented, evolved or developed. The truth is that the doctrine is revealed within the confines of scripture, while the refined or expressed beliefs pertaining to this doctrine have been set forth at the church councils.
While, the Watchtower does not wish to afford this development of theology to Christendom, it has itself adopted the practice. One only has to compare current Watchtower theology with that of Watchtower founder Charles Taze Russell. One need not even go back that far. Watchtower theology has changed noticeably in just the past few years. The changes are not always clarifications of theology, but often are turnabouts. QUOTATIONS FROM NEO-ORTHODOX AND NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES
It is dishonest enough when Watchtower writers try to pass off liberal Protestant writers as representatives of orthodox Christianity, but they go a step further and misquote and half-quote them, too.
As is the case with all citations in Should You Believe in the Trinity? no background information on the cited writer is provided, neither is there a volume and page number of the work cited. This hinders research by the reader and makes it difficult to put into context any of the cited statements.
Those who locate even a few of the quotes soon will realize why several “Christian theologians” are cited.
One example is Adolf Harnack, author of Outlines of the History of Dogma. The Watchtower cites Harnack to support its concept that Plato’s “philosophies paved the way for [the Trinity doctrine]”. On page 11 of Should You Believe in The Trinity? Harnack is cited and the reader told “church doctrine became ‘firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians.”
Harnack is a liberal theologian who believes Christianity was a Hebrew-Oriental religion founded by Jesus Christ only to be polluted with Greek thought introduced by Paul. Harnack says in the same book cited by the Watchtower, “If the gnostics ‘hellenized’ Christianity, so had Paul.” (Outlines of the History of Dogma, Introduction) He further says “Paul wrenched the Gospel from its native soil and gave it at the same time through his Christological speculation and his carrying out of the contrast of flesh and spirit, a characteristic stamp which was comprehensible to the Greeks, although they were illy prepared to accept his special manner of reconciling it with the Law.” (ibid, pp. 21-22)
Further, the quotation refers to the whole of Christian doctrine, which Harnack believes has been defiled by pagan philosophy. Harnack’s beliefs placed him outside the realm of orthodoxy. In fact, The Catholic Encyclopedia calls Harnack an example of one from “Liberal Protestantism” who claims “that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies.” (Vol. 15, pg. 47)
Harold O.J. Brown, in his work, Heresies, said “Harnack looks on Christian theology per se as a Hellenization of the simple Gospel in the spirit of Gnosticism. From our perspective, it would be more plausible to compare philosophical and religious speculation of Paul Tillich (1886-1965) or even the massive and urbane learning of Harnack himself with Gnosticism.” (pg. 46)
This is likewise noted in the publication, Adolf Von Harnack, Liberal Theology At Its Height. Editor Martin Rumscheidt writes “Harnack became troubled by the fact that his relationship to the Church was so heavily overcast. He had always wanted to serve the Church but it did not even call upon him to sit on commissions to examine his own students for their fitness to serve the Church or their theological readiness. The Church, and for that matter some of his own colleagues, regarded him as someone who held an unbelieving theology.” (pg. 21)
Thus in its context, Harnack’s speculation not only was rejected by orthodoxy, but also should be rejected by the Watchtower.
The Watchtower gives the same treatment to the work of historian Will Durant, who emphasizes the same concept of a Church corrupted by paganism. Should You Believe in the Trinity? quotes an untitled Durant work on page 11: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it … From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.”
The quotation used is on page 595 of Durant’s 1944 work Caesar and Christ, from his series The Story of Civilization. The Watchtower has conveyed the truest sense of the idea expressed by Durant, namely that Christianity is the result of pagan influence.
The careful reader will note that the Watchtower citation uses the word “ideas.” While Jehovah’s Witnesses would readily call pagan several beliefs that Durant does, they would disagree that others, such as belief in the Last Judgment and Christian monasticism, are pagan. The writers of Should You Believe in the Trinity? left those out.
The Watchtower writers also have to fudge on Durant’s opinion that the Apostles John and Paul introduced paganism into Christianity. Durant’s notion of a pagan-influenced Christian Church is expressed in his statements which include, “Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ” and “It seems incredible that the Apocalypse [Revelation] and the Fourth Gospel should have come for the same hand, The Apocalypse is Jewish poetry, the Fourth Gospel is Greek philosophy.” (pp. 592, 594)
Further he contends that “Perhaps the apostle [John] wrote Revelation in justifiable wrath after Nero’s persecution, and the Gospel in the mellow metaphysics of his old age (A.D. 90?). His memories of the Master may by this time have faded a bit, so far as one could ever forget Jesus; and doubtless in the isles and cities of Ionia he had heard many an echo of Greek mysticism and philosophy.” (pg. 594) The Jehovah’s Witnesses, unlike Durant, believe that pagan element in Christianity was introduced much later.
Finally, while the Watchtower booklet indicates Durant to be a historian, it should be noted that he is an American historian. Further, The Encyclopedia Americana notes that Durant’s “Critics recognize his knowledge of cultural history but complained of his sweeping, often outdated generalizations, his reliance on sometimes dubious secondary works, and his avoidance of controversial subjects.” (Vol. x, pg. 486).
Another writing cited because of its “historical evidence” is Alvan Lamson’s 19th-century work, The Church of the First Three Centuries. The Watchtower tries to use this work to buttress its claim that while the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are spoken of together, it is “not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians.” (pg. 7)
Should You Believe in the Trinity? further quotes Lamson as saying: “The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; …it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; …it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.” (pg. 11)
Lamson’s book can be accurately quoted in context by the Watchtower. When Linda Hull, director of a West Virginia-based counter -cult ministry contacted the Watchtower in pursuit of documentation of its Trinity booklet, she received only photocopies of pages from this publication. But even with this book, the Watchtower had something to hide.
One edition of the book is distributed by the British and Foreign Unitarian Association in London. This shows how far Watchtower writers must stretch to find a doctrinal ally, an ally they are not willing to readily admit. Hull’s photocopies contained no reference to the Unitarian origin of Lamson’s volume. However, the Unitarian source is clearly identified on the title page of other editions of the work.
This disclosure is reminiscent of the discovery in 1981 of the source of the Johannes Greber New Testament translation, which the Watchtower quoted in support of its rendering of John 1:1. The Greber New Testament was distributed by the Johannes Greber Foundation, which promoted occult activities such as communicating with the spirit world.
HISTORICAL FALLACIES
The Watchtower’s answer to the question “How did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?” (pp. 7-12), reads this way: “For many years, there had been much opposition on biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicea.” The conference of these bishops in the spring of 325 A.D. has come to be known as the Council of Nicea. Concerning this Council the Watchtower has cited the works of The Encyclopedia Britannica, Henry Chadwick’s The Early Church and Bernhard Lohse’s A Short History of Christian Doctrine.
These works are used to support the Watchtower claim that Constantine’s role at Nicea was crucial. “After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction … What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.” (pg. 8)
E. Calvin Beisner, in his work, God in Three Persons, disagrees. While Beisner would accept the idea that Constantine did not fully understand the issues, he stresses that Constantine:
“Did understand that this problem had caused a major division within Christianity; and as a Christian himself, he wished to see this brought to an end. He did all he could to restore unity without using political force, but to no avail… The role of the emperor in all this has long been the subject of great debate. It has been argued that his purpose was only political, the unification of a powerful force within the empire, namely the Christian Church… However, it seems highly questionable to see Constantine’s involvement in the problem as purely political, or nearly so, as others have implied. The more likely view is that politics and religion were both important to Constantine, for it appears that he inherited from his father an early tendency toward Christianity, and certainly at his famous ‘conversion’ something more than an ingenious plan for military victory occurred to him.” (pp. 108, 109)
Beisner further shows that the doctrine of the Trinity was not approved for political reasons. He notes that “The forty years immediately following the Council of Nicea were some of the darkest hours for the orthodox faith …Constantine was won to the side of the Arians, and later received Eusebius of Nicomedia into his close confidence, being baptized by him on his deathbed. When Constantine turned his favor to the Arians, he recalled Arius from exile, sent him again to Alexandria, and the Arians were back in power.” (pp. 125, 126)
Thus it was the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” of the fourth century who enjoyed political favor, not those of the orthodox faith.
Having examined some of the scholastic dishonesty of the Watchtower, we will now briefly turn our attention to a review of a few of the misinterpretations of Scripture found in the latter portion of the booklet.
THEOLOGICAL STRAWMEN
The Watchtower often misstates the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and then quickly refutes it. In the beginning of Should You Believe in the Trinity? Catholic and Greek Orthodox sources are cited, providing an accurate definition of the Trinity doctrine. Then the Watchtower uses another dishonest technique: ignoring the explanation and refuting an erroneous one.
The Watchtower writers repeatedly apply the theology known as Sabellianism, modalism or “Jesus Only” to that of trinitarianism. The two are incompatible. The Church has denounced as heresy the belief that the one God is a single person or essence who has revealed himself in different roles or modes. (For more information on Modalism, see “The Oneness Doctrine: Full Gospel or Fool Gospel?,” The Quarterly Journal, July-Sept, 1989, pp. 1, 9-11.)
Thus, when an erroneous definition or a faulty interpretation of a teaching is used, it is easy to argue against it.
Under the heading “Jesus Distinguished From God” (pg. 17), the Watchtower points to the words of Christ in John 17:3 as he prays that eternal life is knowing Thee [the Father] the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” Jehovah’s Witnesses, trying to denigrate Christ, miss the context of His words. Eternal life lies in the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ. The Apostle John repeatedly writes that eternal life is achieved through belief in the Son. Jesus is also addressed by John as the true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20).
Here Watchtower logic causes problems for Jehovah’s Witnesses. If the Father is alone the only true God, then Jesus, who is also referred to as God or “a god,” must be a false God.
Beisner addresses Jesus’ words in John 17:5 and the interpretation that the Father is “the only true God.” He comments that to regard this verse as an undeification of Jesus is:
“A very simple mistake that every first semester logic student knows about. It is the simple mistake of denying the antecedent, is what it is called. Illustrated this way: All men are mortal, Fido is not a man, therefore Fido is not mortal. The parallel with it is: The Father is the only true God, Jesus is not the Father, therefore Jesus is not the only true God. That is not how it works. The only way you could get to that conclusion is if instead you put the word only, not before true God, but before Father. Only the Father is the true God, Jesus Christ is not the Father, therefore Jesus Christ is not God. Now that would be a logically valid argument.” (Transcript from The John Ankerberg Show, “The United Pentecostal Church International”)
A second Scripture citation on page 17, John 20:17, is appealed to in that the risen Savior instructs Mary Magdalene that He is to ascend “to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” The Watchtower, through its misunderstanding of the Bible or by deliberate misrepresentation of Scripture, has arrived at this erroneous conclusion. The Bible is clear that Jesus is both God and man (see John 1:1, 14; Philippians 2:5-11). As the Savior walked upon the earth He made statements and actions both as God (see John 5:39; 8:58) and as man (see John 4:7; 11:35).
The Watchtower Society has repeatedly disregarded or changed scripture that stresses the deity of Christ and adhered to any passage that emphasizes the humanity of Christ. John 20:17 is a perfect example. The clear context of Jesus’ words is shown to be spoken from His humanity. Jehovah’s Witnesses fail to take note of the statement “go to my brethren and say to them …” which precedes his words that He is ascending to His Father and God. “Go to my brethren” provides one with the insight that as a man Jesus is to ascend to the Father.
The statement “Jesus further showed that he was a separate being from God by saying: ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone’ (Mark 10:18 JB)” (pg. 17) places Jehovah’s Witnesses in a peculiar position of denying the absolute goodness of Jesus. This is evident because they state, “So Jesus was saying that no one is as good as God is, not even Jesus himself. God is good in a way that separates him from Jesus.”
First it should be noted that no degrees of goodness are expressed in this verse. This interpretation can only be achieved by reading it into the text. The Watchtower’s interpretation and the words of Scripture found in Mark 10:17-18 serves as a classic example. Here, Jesus replied to the ruler who called him good: “no one is good except God alone.” Thus the Watchtower concludes that since Jesus is not God, he cannot be addressed as good.
Dr. Randolph Yeager, in The Renaissance New Testament, writes “Our Lord decided to ask him [the ruler] for a definition of terms. Why call Jesus good, unless he had a perverted conception of goodness. How can one call any man good? If the man is good is he not also God? So, if the man really believed that Jesus was good he should have called Him God. If Jesus is not God then He is only a man like the rich young ruler. And if that is true He is not good. So why did the man call Him good? In order that he also could call himself good. Thus Jesus was saying ‘Either worship me as God if you really think that I am good, or keep your compliments to yourself, since you are obviously insincere.'”
Jesus did not deny that He was good or that He is God. He merely questioned the ruler’s intentions. In Luke 23:58, Joseph of Arimathea (a disciple of Jesus) is called “good,” using the same Greek word agathos found in Mark 10:18. The same is said of Barnabas in Acts 11:24. Thus if one applies the Watchtower logic and biblical interpretation Joseph and/or Barnabas can be made to be God.
The Watchtower’s interpretation and forced meaning of Mark 10:17-18 is further shown futile by The Society’s own New World Translation’s rendering of Colossians 2:9. The NWT states “because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” No Jehovah’s Witness could argue against the fact that a quality of God is his goodness. Therefore, Christ possesses that divine quality, in that he possesses “all the fullness of divine quality.” When one accepts Paul’s declaration (Colossians 2:9) the Watchtower’s interpretation of the Mark 10 passage is shown to be in error and must be rejected. (An expose’ of six additional Watchtower “proof texts” denying the deity of Jesus Christ are available in the pamphlet, “The Strawmen of the Watchtower Society,” available from Personal Freedom Outreach.) WATCHTOWER REBUTTAL OF TRINITY PROOF TEXTS
Under six subheadings in Should You Believe in the Trinity?, Watchtower writers respond to orthodox arguments for the doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. A look at two of the responses will show the error of Watchtower thinking on these subjects.
First, take the Watchtower treatment of Philippians 2:6. The Watchtower’s booklet here notes that “the Catholic Douay Version (Dy) of 1609 says of Jesus: ‘Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.'” (pg. 25)
The Watchtower uses a little verbal sleight of hand here to make its point. The booklet presents observations calling the reader’s attention to the phrase “though it not robbery” (Greek: harpa’zo) and argues for translation of the Greek verb as “to seize,” “to snatch violently” or “to grasp at” existing in God’s form. (pg. 25)
Through the Watchtower’s prolific discourse of the word harpa’zo, the reader’s attention has been diverted from the proper focal point of Paul’s declaration. Harpa’zo may certainly and properly be translated as noted by the Watchtower. However, the Greek words that should have been considered are huparchon (“being”) and morphe (“form”).
Concerning the latter, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament by James H. Moulton and George Milligan, comments that morphe “always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it.” (pg. 417)
Further, in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Joseph H. Thayer writes under the heading morphe that Philippians 2:6 “is to be explained as follows: who, although (formerly when he was logos asarkos [without flesh]) he bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God (the sovereign, opp. to morphe doulos), yet did not think that this equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained (see harpa’zo, 2), but emptied himself of it (see kenoo, 1) so as to assume the form of a servant, in that he became like unto men (for angels also are doulos tou Theos [slaves of God], Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8 sq.) and was found in fashion as a man.” (pg. 418)
In reference to the former, huparchon, Ralph P. Martin in his work, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says “Being in the form of God looks back to our Lord’s pre-temporal existence as the Second Person of the Trinity. The verbal form translated being, huparchon, need not necessarily mean this, but it seems clear that this meaning is the only satisfactory one in the context.” (pg. 96) It is also of interest to note that the Watchtower has cited Martin’s publication (pg. 25) in presenting its argument for the translation of harpa’zo, yet completely ignores or disregards his commentary of the words huparchon and morphe.
Thus the meaning of Paul’s statement is that Jesus Christ existed in the form of God, yet for the sake of mankind’s redemption, thought the recognition of his divine stature not something to be retained or “seized.” But limited Himself by His undertaking the “form of man.” Quite simply, Paul’s statement that he existed in the “form of God” (i.e., God) parallels his declaration in verse 7 that He also existed in the “form of man” (i.e., man).
Finally, no writing about the Watchtower and the Trinity would be complete without comments on John 1:1. The prologue of John’s gospel has always been a major problem for Watchtower theologians.
The Watchtower’s booklet introduces the above verse from the King James Version’s “and the Word was God.” Following, although not quoted in full, are other versions which parallel (or can be misconstrued to fit) Watchtower theology. A few of the Watchtower’s classical favorites which are referenced are: The New Testament in an Improved Version; The Emphatic Diaglott (a Christadelphian-influenced translation); The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (the Watchtower’s translation); along with the reliable The Bible – An American Translation (by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed). Also a few German translations are mentioned.
Concerning the “a god” translation of The New Testament in an Improved Version the Jehovah’s Witnesses will many times lead one to believe that it is the work of Archbishop William Newcome (Archbishop of Armagh). However, this is not the case. In reality Thomas Belsham, a Unitarian, altered the original text of Newcome’s translation. A footnote in Belsham’s work cites Newcome as stating the Word “was God.” Thus the version utilized by the Watchtower is one which was produced under a Unitarian bias.
Reputable scholars all agree, John 1:1 cannot be translated as “the word was a god.” Bruce M. Metzger (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary) stated that “if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation.” (Theology Today, April, 1953, pg. 75)
The late Dr. William Barclay, from the University of Glasgow, Scotland, wrote: “The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: ‘Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,’ a translation which is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.” (The Expository Times, October, 1953, pg. 32)
Dr. Harry A. Sturz, Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College, commented: “Therefore, the NWT (New World Translation) rendering: ‘the Word was a god’ is not a ‘literal’ but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: ‘the Word was God.'” (The Bible Collector, July-September, 1971, pg. 12).
The co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, the late Dr. Julius R. Mantey, labeled the Watchtower’s translation of John 1:1 as being “shockingly mistranslated” and added that it is “A grossly misleading translation.” (Depth Explorations in the New Testament, pg. 138).
Thus only through the use of obscure Bible translations and the use of unqualified scholars and translators can the “a god” rendering be made to stand. Those who have devoted themselves to a lifelong study of the biblical languages (and have the credentials to act as skilled translators) will have no part of the Watchtower’s perversion of John 1:1.
In regards to the translation by J.M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed (and similarly the translation by James Moffatt), stating that the Word (or Logos) “was divine” in no way undermines the deity of the Lord Jesus.
The Watchtower is of course, correct in stating that the “first theos [in John 1:1] is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (‘and the Word was with [the] God’). On the other hand, there is no article before the second theos at John 1:1.” (pg. 27)
Again in the Watchtower’s Reasoning from the Scriptures (pg. 212) a corresponding observation is presented: “The definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of ‘theos’ (God) but not before the second” and that “The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality about someone.” However, while the Watchtower is grammatically valid in its grammatical observations, nonetheless it has drawn incorrect conclusions from this data in order to justify its theology.
In reference to their erroneous conclusion, the Watchtower Society, for several years, deliberately misquoted H.E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey’s A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament on this very point (see the 1969 edition of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, pg. 1158). Dana and Mantey point out that the absence of the definite article “the” places stress upon the qualitative aspect of the noun rather than its mere identity. This is the reasoning behind Moffatt and Smith and Goodspeed’s rendering of “divine.” If John’s concluding phrase of John 1:1 would read “and the Word was the God” then it would be understood that all there is to God is the Word. However, as Dana and Mantey stated “As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in ‘Theos.’ As expected, the above statement failed to make its way into the Watchtower’s citation of Dana and Mantey’s Grammar.
The Watchtower’s Should You Believe in the Trinity? will be a major tool both now and in the years to come in persuading those who are scripturally illiterate to accept an unbiblical theology. As with the apostles and Church fathers, the Church must take the time to provide Christians with solid and scriptural responses to those who would challenge our faith and beliefs. (1 Peter 3:15)
Editor’s Note: For further study on the doctrine of the Trinity, we highly recommend: God in Three Persons by E. Calvin Beisner (Tyndale House, $7.95); Why You Should Believe in the Trinity by Robert M. Bowman, Jr. (Baker Book House, $7.95); and The Three Are One by Stuart Olyott (Evangelical Press, $4.95). These works are available from Personal Freedom Outreach. (Please add $1.00 to the above cost to shipping costs.)
(c) 1990 – Personal Freedom Outreach. All rights reserved. Reproduction is prohibited except for portions intended for personal use and noncommercial purposes. For reproduction per mission, contact: Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O. Box 26062, Saint Louis, Missouri 63136, (314) 388-2648.