View PDF / Spanish

YES, YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY!!!
 

CHAPTER 7: JESUS IS GOD!

• WHAT ABOUT TRINITY “PROOF TEXTS”?
• JOHN 10:30: “I and the Father Are One”
• JOHN 5:18: “Making Himself Equal To God”
• PHILIPPIANS 2:6: “Equal With God”
• JOHN 8:58: “I Am”
• JOHN 1:1: “The Word Was God”
• ISAIAH 9:6: Jesus is the “Everlasting Father”
• THE NEW TESTAMENT IN AN IMPROVED VERSION, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, 1808: “…and the word was a god.”
• THE EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson
• THE JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
• JOSEPH HENRY THAYER
• DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, by John L. McKenzie
• 4 REASONS THE SOCIETY’S TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1 IS UNTENABLE
• THEOS = GOD OR “DIVINE QUALITY”?
• ARE THERE TWO “MIGHTY GODS”?

The Society references about four passages in the New Testament where the three persons of the Trinity are manifested: 2 Corinthians 13:13-14; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Matthew 3:16 and 28:19. Matthew 28:19 is especially worth noting: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.…”

Upon examination of this passage, noting that the definite article (the) is placed in front of each of the persons of the Trinity, one can see how each of the persons are demonstrated as being distinct from each other. When one considers the fact that the word “name” is singular and yet these persons are revealed as being distinct from each other, the plurality within unity of the Trinity is recognizable. Not only does Matthew 28:19 clearly communicate the concept of composite unity within the Trinity, but by stating that believers are to baptize “in the name” of each of these persons, it indicates that each person of the Trinity possesses equal power and authority. One might wonder how the fact that baptism is to be performed in the “name” of these persons indicates that their power and authority is equal. This question can be answered by considering the following scenario: What is Scripture teaching us when it states that believers are to pray in the name of Jesus? Since it is obvious that by praying in the name of Jesus, we are actually praying in the power and authority of Christ, we can conclude that Scripture is communicating the fact that by baptizing “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” we are actually doing this in the power and authority of each of these persons. Thus, it is evident that Matthew 28:19 is one of the most vivid declarations of the Trinity found in the New Testament.

While the oneness and unity of the persons of the Trinity may not be as conclusively revealed in the other passages used to support the Trinity, when one considers the whole testimony of Scripture on this issue, it becomes evident that the Trinity is nevertheless a Biblical concept, for we know from Scripture that the Father is called God (Philippians 2:11), the Son is called God (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; John 1:1, 18; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8), and the Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-4; 2 Corinthians 3:17), and yet there is only one God.

“For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God.…However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.…Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.…How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?…And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.…Before Me there was not God formed, and there will be none after Me. I, even I, am the LORD; And there is no savior besides Me.…I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me.…Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.…For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me.…”—1 Corinthians 8:5-6; Galatians 4:8; 1 Timothy 1:17; John 5:44; 17:3; Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:6, 8; 46:9

The belief that there is only one God is called monotheism. The Jews, adhering to the Hebrew Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and other Old Testament passages, were monotheists who tenaciously threatened to stone anyone who would dare to commit blasphemy by claiming to be God. (Leviticus 24:16) This is why the Jews on several occasions endeavored to stone Jesus, for He was claiming to have the attributes of the one and only true God—thus declaring to be God.1. The Jews realized that since there is only one “true God” (John 17:3), all other “so-called” gods are, in reality, only false gods. To the Jews, there was no middle ground. Either a being is of the true God, or he is a false god. These were the issues with which Jesus’ Jewish disciples struggled until they recognized that Jesus is in fact the true God;2. just as Thomas called Jesus, “My Lord, and my God!,”3. and Jesus blessed him for believing (John 20:28-29).

While claiming to be monotheist and admitting that there is only one “true God,” Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that there are other beings who are called “gods” due to their position and authority. They place Jesus in the category of being one of these “gods.” Although on the surface, this belief may seem plausible, this belief is not monotheism, but rather, henotheism. While henotheists assert that there is only one God we must serve and worship, they do not deny the concept that there are other divine beings who are “gods,” but who are inferior to the Almighty True God. As can be seen by the passages noted earlier, Scripture militates against this position, for God uncompromisingly declares that He is the “only God” and “there is no one like Me.” With this as a background, we will now focus our attention on the Watchtower arguments against the Trinitarian “proof texts” referenced in the Society’s booklet.

JOHN 10:30: “I and the Father Are One”

The context of John 17:21-22 where Jesus prays that his followers would be “one” just as He and the Father are “one” is totally different from the context of John 10:30. According to 2 Corinthians 13:5, the test of being a true believer is having Christ living “in you.” When God, through the Holy Spirit, comes to dwell within a new believer (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19), He changes that person’s heart (2 Corinthians 5:17) and gives him a new nature and a new love for fellow believers (Ephesians 1:15). God imparts each believer with spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12, 14) which equip him to be able to work together in unity with other believers for the cause of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:10). This “oneness” of “unity of purpose” found among believers, however, is different from the oneness that Jesus at John 10:30 was expressing that He and the Father possess. This is evident by the Jews’ immediate reaction to Christ’s claim, for they took up stones to stone Him as they understood His claim to be an affirmation of Deity.

“‘I and the Father are one.’ The Jews took up stones again to stone Him.…The Jews answered Him, ‘For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Has it not been written in your Law, “I said, you are gods”? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming,” because I said, “I am the Son of God”?….believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.’ Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.”—John 10:30, 32-36, 38-39

If Jesus was merely claiming to have “unity of purpose” with the Father (as the Society asserts), why would the Jews try to stone Him for something that they believed they possessed—that is, unity of purpose with the Father? If the Jews simply misunderstood Christ’s statements, why didn’t Jesus correct their misunderstanding? Instead of correcting their understanding, however, Jesus indicated that the Jews understood His statements correctly. By contrasting His claim to be the true God with the vain claims of unrighteous judges who thought of themselves as “gods” but to whom God’s judgment was pronounced (Psalm 82), Jesus demonstrated that what these judges claimed in falsehood, He is in reality—the true God!

“...the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.…For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father, He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.…I and the Father are one.…Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.…Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, ‘Show us the Father’?…All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said, that He takes of Mine, and will disclose it to you.”—John 5:19, 22-23; 10:30; 14:1, 9; 16:15

 

JOHN 5:18: “Making Himself Equal To God”

JOHN 5:17-23:

“But He answered them, ‘My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.’ For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. Jesus therefore answered and was saying to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner….For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.’ ”

Far from defending Himself from the Jews’ accusations, the context of John 5:18 demonstrates that Christ responded to the Jews—not by denying their claims—but by affirming that they were correct in their understanding. Notice how Jesus responded to the Jews by continuing to describe how He possesses all the power and authority of Jehovah and does things that only Jehovah can do. Finally, He claims that He receives the same honor and worship that Jehovah receives. Is it any wonder the Jews endeavored to stone Him for blasphemy?

PHILIPPIANS 2:6: “Equal With God”

“BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD”: 3 CONCEPTS TO NOTE:

1. The Greek word translated “being” (huparcho) is in the present tense and therefore carries the idea of continual existence as God.4.
2. The Greek word translated “nature” (morphe) is unique in that it is only used twice in the New Testament and in both cases, only of Christ. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old And New Testament Words offers the following insights concerning this word:

“morphe…is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phil. 2:6,7, in the phrases ‘being in the form of God,’ and ‘taking the form of a servant.’ An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: ‘morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists….Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ….For the interpretation of “the form of God” it is sufficient to say that (1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and (2) that it does not include in itself anything “accidental” or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the “form,” at another separated from it….The true meaning of morphe in the expression “form of God” is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, “form of a servant.” It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that “form” must therefore have the same sense in both.’ (From Gifford, ‘The Incarnation,’ pp. 16,19,39.)” —Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, p. 251

In the same way that Christ possesses the “nature” of a man and, as a result, is considered to be a complete human being (not a creature who is half man and half divine), Jesus possesses the “nature” of God and is therefore considered to be fully Divine as the infinite God.

3. While it is true that in the incarnation, Christ did not seek to grasp (arpazw—harpazo) at equality with God, this does not in any way contradict the fact that Christ, in His Divine nature, is equal to God the Father. An examination of the context of Philippians 2:6 reveals that Paul is exhorting Christians to humbly give their lives in sacrifice for the brethren. It is in this context of humility that Paul uses the example of Christ who, although existing eternally in God’s nature, laid aside the equality which He possesses with the Father in order to give His life for us. If Christ did not possess this equality with the Father prior to the incarnation, the whole example would be destroyed. Not trying to exalt oneself and become equal with God is hardly a vivid example of humility.

3 WAYS JESUS “MADE HIMSELF NOTHING”:

1. HE CONCEALED HIS PREINCARNATE GLORY: Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:12-18

2. HE SUBMITTED TO THE LIMITATIONS OF HUMAN WEAKNESS AND HE VOLUNTARILY CHOSE NOT TO USE HIS DIVINE QUALITIES ON CERTAIN OCCASIONS.

3. “BEING MADE IN HUMAN LIKENESS”: HE TOOK ON AN ADDITIONAL NATURE = THE NATURE OF A MAN: Prior to the incarnation Jesus was one in person and one in nature; but at the incarnation, Jesus took on an additional nature and thus became a full man while He still retained His full Deity as God. Although, on certain occasions, attributes of His Divine nature are applied to His human person (John 16:30), His natures are not mixed. He is not half God and half man, but is two in nature while yet remaining one person. It is for this reason that we see in Scripture certain occasions where Jesus (while operating under the limitations of His human nature) was unable to foretell the future (Mark 13:32), while on other occasions, He (demonstrating His Divine attribute of omniscience) was able to foretell the future (John 6:64).

“But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone….Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things…to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” —Hebrews 2:9, 14-17

JOHN 8:58: “I Am”

“Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.’ ”
—New American Standard Bible
“Jesus said to them: ‘Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.’ ”
—New World Translation

3 REASONS THE SOCIETY’S TRANSLATION OF JOHN 8:58 IS INCORRECT:

1.The present infinitive “to be” (einai) is a derivative of the present tense verb εἰμι (eimi) which literally means “I am.” If Jesus had wanted to say “I was,” He could have easily used the imperfect tense ἤμην (ēmēn), for “I was,” instead of using the present tense ἐγὼ εἰμί (egō  eimi).

2. Contrary to the Society’s claims, the Greek phrase ho ohn, which is employed in the LXX (Septuagint) translation of Exodus 3:14, is actually a present participle, and while eimi is present indicative, both are present tense forms of the same infinitive “to be” (einai) and both indicate timeless existence given the context of these passages.5. The Jews who lived at the time of Christ were well familiar with the Greek Septuagint, and as a result, clearly saw the connection (Leviticus 24:16), for they tried to stone Jesus for blasphemy (verse 59). The Jews had no laws commanding the stoning of people who merely thought of themselves as being angels!! Indeed, Jesus in His Divine nature has “neither beginning of days nor end of life” (Hebrews 7:3) for He has always existed as God throughout all eternity.

3. The New World Translation correctly translates ego eimi as “I am” in nearly every place throughout the New Testament except where it appears in John 8:58. 6.Why the inconsistency in translation?  The translation of the present tense ego eimi as “I am” in this context indicates a continuous existence, without beginning and without end, and therefore contradicts the Society’s claims that Jesus is a created being—the archangel Michael.  Thus, in an attempt to make this verse compatible with their doctrine, they chose to translate the present tense ego eimi as “I have been,” thereby losing the connection between the Greek Septuagint’s rendering of “I am” in Exodus 3:14 and Jesus’ statement of “I am” in John 8:58. The bias of the Society’s New World Translation against the Deity of Jesus Christ is clearly demonstrated when one compares this translation with the Greek-English Kingdom Interlinear translation that is also distributed by the Watchtower Society.  Note the following chart:

JOHN 1:1: “The Word Was God”

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
—New American Standard
“In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
—New World Translation

Attempting to disprove the Deity of Christ that is so clearly articulated at John 1:1, the Society setup a straw-man argument based on the preposition “with” found in this passage, and thus, they proceeded to knock that argument down. This type of reasoning serves as a clever way to sidestep the key issue being addressed and to confuse people as to how the doctrine of the Trinity is defined. Since Trinitarians do not believe that God the Father and God the Son are the same person, this argument has no basis in reality. When one defines the doctrine of the Trinity as consisting of three separate and distinct persons who are one God, it is not inconceivable to comprehend how Jesus is “with” God the Father, and yet possesses the same power, authority, and Divine nature that God the Father possesses. At Isaiah 44:24, the Society’s New World Translation states: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?” Since no one was “with” Jehovah when He created the earth, Jesus must be Jehovah God!

Likewise, John 1:3 states: “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” Upon consideration of this passage, the crucial questions that must be asked are: Which category does Jesus fall under? Is He in the created being category, or the eternal, non-created category?

Since it is preposterous to assert that Jesus created Himself, the only rational conclusion one can draw is that Jesus must be as eternal as God the Father is. Thus, this passage is one of the clearest passages that demonstrates the eternal and omnipotent nature of the Son. Since Jesus created “all things” and no created thing came into existence “apart from Him,” Jesus certainly cannot be a created creature, as the Society claims, but must reign supreme as the eternal God who is without “beginning of days, nor end of life.” ((Hebrews 7:3)

We have already discussed how Scripture acknowledges the distinction between the Person of the Father and the Person of the Son within the Godhead. Yet, Isaiah 9:6 not only declares that Jesus is the “mighty God” but it attributes the title “Eternal Father” to Him. How are we to understand this title of Christ? Does this mean that Christ the Son of God is somehow interchangeable with the Person of the Father? No. Scripture often uses the phrase “Father of…” to denote authorship, possession or the source of something. Thus, when Scripture proclaims that God is:

• “the Father of mercies”—2 Corinthians 1:3
• “the Father of glory”—Ephesians 1:17
• “the Father of lights”—James 1:17

It declares that God is the Author and Source of all of these attributes. Likewise, when the Son is called the “Eternal Father”, we understand this to mean that Jesus is the “Father of Eternity” or as the Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) translates this phrase in Isaiah 9:6, He is the “Avi Ad (Possessor of Eternity).” This agrees with John 10:28 where Jesus is said to “give” eternal life to his followers. How could Jesus “give” eternal life to people if He Himself does not own or possess eternity as the uncreated God? This is why the Pharisees criticized Jesus for claiming the authority to “forgive sins” (Mark 2:7). Just as the true God is the only One who has the authority to forgive sins since He is ultimately the One being insulted by our sins, so it is with the gift of eternal life. Only the uncreated, eternal God, who Possesses Eternity, has the authority to grant eternal life to those He chooses to pardon. Thus, as Author and “Possessor of Eternity,” Isaiah 9:6 is yet another Scripture that proves the fact that Jesus is eternal, without “beginning of days…” (Hebrews 7:3) and cannot be created. 

THE NEW TESTAMENT IN AN IMPROVED VERSION, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, 1808: “…and the word was a god.”7.

Concerning the Society’s quoting of this version in support of their claim that Jesus is “a god,” Peter Barnes notes the following:

“The New Testament in an Improved Version, based on Archbishop Newcome’s manuscript was not published until years after Newcome’s death, when his original text came into the possession of the ‘Society for promoting Christian Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue - Unitarian.’ Unitarians are the same as Jehovah’s Witnesses in that they refuse to believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. Those Unitarian publishers produced an ‘edited version’ of Newcomb’s manuscript!”—The Truth About Jesus and the Trinity, 1994, p. 11

THE EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson8.

Just as The New Testament in an Improved Version is not without bias, Wilson’s translation has an element of bias due to the fact that Wilson was a Christadelphian. According to the November 8, 1944 Watchtower publication Consolation: “Mr. Wilson was reportedly a Christadelphian. Christadelphians believe the organized churches are apostate, do not believe in the ‘trinity’, do not believe in the ‘inherent immortality of the soul’ or in ‘eternal torment’, but hold that eternal death is the punishment awaiting the wicked.”9. However, despite all of this, Peter Barnes observes:

“If we look at the Emphatic Diaglott and check Benjamin Wilson’s translation of John 1:1, we will note that in the interlinear section (which shows each Greek word with its corresponding English word underneath), Wilson has written under the Greek word ‘QeoV’ (deity, God), ‘a god,’ but when we examine Wilson’s finalized translation (his preferred rendering), we find that he does not say ‘the word was a god,’ but ‘the Word was God.’ Therefore his translation does not provide adequate support for the New World Translation.”—The Truth About Jesus and the Trinity, pp. 11-12

THE JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

Endeavoring to find support for their conclusions from the Journal of Biblical Literature, the Society declares:

“The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions ‘with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.’ As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo’gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: ‘The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the-os’] cannot be regarded as definite.’ ”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 27

In the Journal of Biblical Literature, the author lists five possible ways John could have written John 1:1. I will list these ways and then quote his statements concerning them. Keep in mind that Clause B is the clause that John used when he wrote John 1:1:

A. ho logos en ho theos (The Word was the God.)
B. theos en ho logos (God was the Word.)
C. ho logos theos en (The Word God was.)
D. ho logos en theos (The Word was God.)
E. ho logos en theios (The Word was divine.)

“Clause A, with an arthrous predicate, would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no ho theos which is not also ho logos. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of 1:1, in which John writes that ho logos en pros ton theon [The Word was with the God]. This clause suggests relationship, and thus some form of ‘personal’ differentiation, between the two. Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the logos was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos. Clause E would be an attenuated form of D. It would mean that the logos was ‘divine,’ without specifying further in what way or to what extent it was divine. It could also imply that the logos, being only theios, was subordinate to theos. John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E. Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicated theos as definite. This would make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they would then contradict the preceding clause of 1:1. As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would imply in B or C that they share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos. Clauses B and C are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis. C would mean that the logos (rather than something else) had the nature of theos. B means that the logos has the nature of theos (rather than something else). In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis.…Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.”—Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87

Note that the Journal specifically identifies how John would have had to write John 1:1 if he had wanted to communicate the Watchtower teaching that Jesus is “divine” or “a god.” Then, the Journal specifically demonstrates how John did not want to communicate this idea for it states: “John evidently wished to say something about the logos [Word] that was other than A [the God] and more than D and E [‘a god’ or divine].” According to the Journal, the reason John did not say that the Word was “the God” (as in Clause A) is due to the fact that had John made this statement, he would have contradicted the preceding clause (“the Word was with God”), and as a result, would have made a statement that would have denied the distinction between the person of the Father and the person of the Son. As can be seen, far from supporting the Watchtower position, the Journal of Biblical Literature actually militates against their position for the Journal concludes that “ho logos, [the Word] no less than ho theos, [the God] had the nature of theos [God].”

JOSEPH HENRY THAYER

Endeavoring to find support for their theology from the well-known Greek scholar Joseph Henry Thayer, the Society allegedly quotes Thayer as stating that “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.”10. A look at the Society’s bibliography for the Trinity brochure lists this quote as coming from “Thayer’s personal copy of Griesbach’s Greek New Testament text, 1809, with Thayer’s handwritten comments on John 1:1 interleaved.” Since I don’t have a way of checking the context or the accuracy of this quote, I cannot substantiate or refute this statement which was supposedly made by Thayer. However, in order to determine whether or not Thayer supports Watchtower ideology, one can look at other statements Thayer has made regarding Christ.

One prime example to consider is Thayer’s comments on Colossians 2:9 which states that “…in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” In his Greek English Lexicon, Thayer notes that the Greek word for Deity (theotes) used in this verse means “deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col. ii.9.”11. This is certainly not the kind of statement one would expect from a scholar who doesn’t believe in the Deity of Christ. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that Thayer does not support Watchtower ideology. Although it is impossible to do a contextual study of Thayer’s alleged statement concerning the Word, one can assume that if Thayer did make this statement, it may very well have been in the context of the Word not being the same person as the person of God the Father.

DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, by John L. McKenzie

The Society quotes John L. McKenzie as stating that “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated…‘the word was a divine being.’ ”12. Let’s look at the context from which this statement was taken:

“In the words of Jesus and in much of the rest of the NT the God of Israel (Gk ho theos) is the Father of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few times. Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’ Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, ‘My Lord and my God’ (Jn 20:28). ‘The glory of our great God and Savior’ which is to appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus (Tt 2:13).”—Dictionary of the Bible, 1965, p. 317

Here again is another example of how the Watchtower has twisted a statement made by a scholar attempting to make it appear that the particular scholar supports their doctrine. Just like the other scholars previously discussed, McKenzie believes that the Word is “divine” in the same sense that the Father is divine and that the reason the title of “the God” is applied to Christ only a few times in Scripture is due to the fact that the biblical writers recognized the distinction between the person of the Father and the person of the Son. However, McKenzie is quick to point out that these writers invoked “Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father”, and therefore proves that Jesus is just as much God as the Father is God.

The Society’s bias against the Deity of Christ is plainly seen in this Watchtower argument against Colwell’s Greek grammar rule. As has already been discussed, when one considers the testimony of Scripture with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, literally hundreds of passages can be cited from which the concept of the Trinity is derived. Although the Society has repeatedly sought scholarly support for their doctrines, such support has been difficult for the Society to obtain; and thus, the Society has resorted to misrepresenting what these scholars have written. One prime example of this occurs in the 1969 edition of the Society’s Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, pp. 1158-1159 in which they misquote Dr. Julius Robert Mantey’s A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament to try to elicit support for their rendering of John 1:1. In response to the Society’s misquoting of him, Dr. Mantey13. called the Society’s New World Translation a “grossly misleading translation.” The following is an excerpt taken from the statement Mantey wrote in response to the Society’s translation:

“Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation I am making this statement. The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, ‘the Word was deity.’ Moffatt’s rendering is ‘the Word was divine.’ William’s translation is, ‘the Word was God Himself.’ Each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek. For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) does in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as they have done. But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have.…And, if we contrast with that the belittling implication that Christ was only a god, do we not at once detect the discord? Does not such a conception conflict with the New Testament message both in whole and in part?”—“A Grossly Misleading Translation,” pp. 1-2

As is clearly evident, the scholarly community does not endorse the assertions of the Watchtower Society of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

4 REASONS THE SOCIETY’S TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1 IS UNTENABLE

1. IS SATAN JEHOVAH? HE IS CALLED “THE GOD” AT 2 CORINTHIANS 4:4: “among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers.…”—New World Translation Doesn’t this passage undermine the Society’s rule concerning the definite article (the) being used to designate the true God from lesser “gods”?

2. JEHOVAH IS ALSO CALLED “A GOD” AT LUKE 20:37-38: “…when he calls Jehovah ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’ He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.”—New World Translation Since the term “God” is used of Jehovah without the definite article, doesn’t this discredit the Society’s claim that Jesus is not the true God because the term “God” is used in reference to Christ without the definite article?

3. CONSISTENCY IN TRANSLATION: If one is consistent in applying the Society’s rule of inserting the article “a” whenever the definite article (the) is not written in the Greek, the following verses would read this way:

· JOHN 1:6:“There came a man, sent from a God.…”
· JOHN 1:18: “No man has seen a God at any time.…”
· MATTHEW 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of a God.”

4. SCRIPTURE CALLS JESUS “THE GOD” WHICH INDICATES HE IS JEHOVAH:

· MATTHEW 1:23: “Look! The virgin...will give birth to son, and they will call the name of him Immanuel; which is being translated With us the God.” —Kingdom Interlinear Translation
· JOHN 20:28: “Answered Thomas and he said to him The Lord of me and the God of me!”—Kingdom Interlinear Translation
· JOHN 1:18: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
· 1 JOHN 5:20; 1:2: “…we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.…the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.…”
· HEBREWS 1:8: “But of the Son He says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His Kingdom.’ ”

Throughout Hebrews 1-3, Christ is shown to be superior to creation as He is contrasted to the angels, the prophets, and Moses. At Hebrews 1:10-12, we read a passage taken from Psalm 102:25-28 that was written exclusively of Jehovah in the Old Testament but applied directly to Christ here in the New Testament.

Incidentally, Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation taken right out of Psalm 45:6-7. Hebrew Parallelism occurs where the literary structure of one verse is seen to be identical to that of another verse. In this case, in the Septuagint, the literary structure of Psalm 45:6: “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever” is seen to be identical to the literary structure of the previous verse, Psalm 45:5: “Thy weapons, O Mighty One, are sharpened.” Therefore, the translation of “Thy throne, O God….” at Hebrews 1:8 is much more correct than the Watchtower Society’s New World Translation.

THEOS = GOD OR “DIVINE QUALITY”?

Jehovah’s Witnesses often point to the fact that at John 1:1, the first occurrence of the Greek word translated “God” (in reference to the Father) appears as theon, while the second occurrence of the Greek word translated “God” (in reference to the Son) appears as theos. They then proceed to argue that since a different form of the word appears in reference to Jesus, He can’t possibly be the same God as the Father. However, the difference between these Greek forms is due only to Greek grammar and can be demonstrated by noting that at John 3:16, the Greek grammar form of theos is used in reference to the Father. If John had wanted to communicate the idea that Jesus merely possesses “divine qualities” (as the Watchtower Society asserts), there was a clearer word he could have used—theios. Instead, he used theos which is the strongest word for Deity available in the Greek language. Notice how the lesser word for deity theios is employed in the following passage:

2 PETER 1:4: “For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the Divine [theias] nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.”

This verse is not implying that Christians will become “little gods” or that their human natures will turn into “divine natures.” Rather, it is teaching that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, the Holy Spirit actually dwells within that person (1 Corinthians 3:16), and it is in this sense that the person becomes a partaker of the “divine nature.” Jesus, in contrast to men and angels, is Divine and is therefore God (theos). Jehovah God declares:

“Remember the first things of a long time ago, that I am the Divine One and there is no other God, nor anyone like me.”—Isaiah 46:9, New World Translation

One more fact worth noting at John 1:1 is that Jehovah’s Witnesses often point to the fact that in their Greek text found in the Watchtower produced Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, the word “Theon” for God the Father is capitalized while the term “theos” for Christ is not. This, however, does not affect the veracity of the text nor does it support their theology, for the original Greek manuscripts were uncial manuscripts and thus were written in all capital letters. The Watchtower even notes this fact in their 1962 publication, “The Word” Who is He? According to John, p. 54

ARE THERE TWO “MIGHTY GODS”?

At Isaiah 9:6, we read that Jesus is called the “mighty God”  Yet, Jehovah God is called “mighty God” at Isaiah 10:20-21.  Are there two “mighty Gods”?  The real issue is not whether other beings are called “gods,” but which category of “god” does Jesus fall under?  Does He fall under the category of being the true God or a false god?  While Jehovah’s Witnesses assert that there is a category of “gods” that is neither true nor false and that these “gods” hold the title of “god” due to their power and authority, Scripture reveals that this is not the case.  For example, at Psalm 82:6-7, Israelite judges were called “gods” in sarcasm because these judges (who thought of themselves a “gods”) were reviling the true God by their unrighteous judgments.  Psalm 82 is a psalm of condemnation for these judges who acted as if they were “gods” in that they made life and death decisions for others, but they would ultimately “die like men”  —thus proving the infinite difference between the true God and the mightiest of mortals.  

“However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.…Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God….we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.…the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.…And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.…For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me.” —Galatians 4:8; Philippians 2:5-614.; 1 John 5:20; 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:16-17; Isaiah 46:9

By teaching that there are many “gods” who are neither true or false, Watchtower doctrine resembles henotheism rather than monotheism or polytheism. While henotheism is very similar to polytheism in that it advocates the existence of many “gods,” it differs from polytheism by teaching that there is only one God who should receive worship. As is clearly demonstrated by Scripture, neither henotheism or polytheism is correct, for Jehovah God is the “only God” (1 Timothy 1:17).

WHO IS THE “FIRST AND LAST”?

WHO IS THE ROCK?

In chapters two and three of First Peter, Peter quotes Isaiah 8:12-14 which speaks exclusively of Jehovah God and applies this passage directly to Christ. Regarding the Watchtower Society’s insertion of the Divine Name (Jehovah) into the texts of their Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament), the Society’s Greek-English Translation states:

“In the LXX the Greek words Ky’ri-os and The-os’ [Lord and God] have been used to crowd out the distinctive name of the Supreme Deity. Every comprehensive Greek-English dictionary states that these two Greek words have been used as equivalents of the divine name [Jehovah]. Hence, the modern translator is warranted in using the divine name Jehovah as an equivalent of those two Greek words, that is, at places where the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quote verses, passages, and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures or from the LXX where the divine name occurs.…How many modern translators determine when to render the Greek words Ky’ri-os and The-os’ as the divine name? By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then they must refer back to the Hebrew text to locate whether the divine name appears there. In this way they can determine the identity to be given to Ky’ri-os and The-os’, and make appropriate use of the personal name.” —The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1985, pp. 11-12

I Peter 3:15 states that we are to “sanctify Christ as Lord.…” According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, the word “sanctify” means “to set apart as holy.” Thus, Peter (quoting Isaiah 8:13 which speaks of regarding Jehovah as holy) literally states that we are to “sanctify” (regard as holy) “Christ as Lord.” If we apply the Society’s rule of inserting the name “Jehovah” into the text of any New Testament passage which is quoting a Hebrew passage where the divine name (Jehovah or YHWH) appears, we could literally translate 1 Peter 3:15 as “…sanctify Christ as Jehovah.…”, for the divine name appears in Isaiah 8:13! At 1 Peter 2:4-8, Peter also quotes Isaiah 8:14 which states that Jehovah God is the stumbling stone of Israel and reveals that this Jehovah God who is the “stone of stumbling” is Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus is Jehovah God!

JESUS IS ALMIGHTY!

· MATTHEW 28:18: “And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.’ ”15.
· HEBREWS 1:3: “And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.”16.
· MARK 2:7-12: “ ‘Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?’ And immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, ‘Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts?…But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—He said to the paralytic—’I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.’ And he rose and immediately took up the pallet and went out in the sight of all; so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, ‘We have never seen anything like this.’ ”

JESUS IS JEHOVAH GOD!

At John 20:28, Thomas addressed Jesus as “My Lord and my God!” If Thomas were merely making “an emotional exclamation of astonishment” by addressing Jesus as God, wouldn’t this have been equivalent to taking the name of Jehovah in vain? If Jesus were not God, wouldn’t this exclamation require a rebuke on the part of Christ? Instead of correcting Thomas, however, at verse 29 we read that Jesus commended Thomas for believing in Him! Psalm 35:23 calls Jehovah (Yahweh) “my God and my Lord.” It may be that Thomas, who was quite familiar with the Old Testament, had this verse in mind when he addressed Jesus as “My Lord and my God.”

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”—Acts 20:28

“For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him.…For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.”—Colossians 1:19; 2:9

NEXT CHAPTER

============

1. See John 5:18; John 8:58-59; John 10:30-39 and John 19:7
2. See John 6:69 and cross-reference to Isaiah 54:5.
3. Psalm 35:23 calls Jehovah (Yahweh) “my God and my Lord.” It may be that Thomas, who was quite familiar with the Old Testament, had this verse in mind when he addressed Jesus as “my Lord and my God.”
4. The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance And Lexicon, by Jay P. Green, Sr., 1982 (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MS), p. 883
5. See The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, by Wesley J. Perschbacher, 1990, (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA), pp. 119, 294
6. Attempting to provide justification for the New World Translation’s rendering of eimi as “I have been” at John 8:58, some Jehovah’s Witnesses point to John 14:9 where eimi is translated in many Bibles as “Have I been.”  In translational cases such as this, it is important to remember the differences between the contexts of the passages being discussed. In this instance, John 8:58 refers to Jesus’ eternal identity as having existed prior to Abraham, whereas John 14:9 does not refer to the length of His existence, but rather, the length of his mortal presence among men.  A rendering of eimi as “Have I been” in the phrase: “Have I been so long with you …” at John 14:9 in the New American Standard Bible means essentially the same as the rendering of: “Am I so long a time with you…” in the Darby Translation.  Since the essential meaning of John 14:9 does not change regardless of whether one renders eimi as “Am I…” or “Have I been,” one cannot use John 14:9 or any other passage where forms of eimi are rendered as “was” or “have been” to support the faulty rendering of the New World Translation at John 8:58 where a rendering of “I have been” completely changes the meaning of the passage.
7. Quoted in Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 27
8. Ibid.
9. Consolation, November 8, 1944, p. 26
10. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 28
11. The New Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1974, p. 288
12. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 28
13. Dr. Mantey is a professor of Greek and New Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary of Chicago, Illinois.
14. This verse is quoted from the New International Version
15. See also John 16:15
16. See also Colossians 1:17