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 publica-
tion 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 cen-
turies." 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 prac-
ticed 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 them-
selves 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 examina-
tion 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 chal-
lenge 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 mes-
sage. 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 appre-
hended (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 comprehendible 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 incomprehensi-
ble. 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 exam-
ple. 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 appro-
bation 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 doc-
trine 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 doc-
trine 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 discus-
sions, 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 at-
tributes 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 half-
quotes, 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 estab-
lished 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 definitive and sometimes polemi-
cal 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 Chris-
tianity, 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 provid-
ed, 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 doc-
trine]". On page 11 of Should You Believe in The Trinity? Har-
nack 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 'helle-
nized' 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 comprehen-
sible to the Greeks, although they were ill 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 doc-
trine, which Harnack believes has been defiled by pagan philoso-
phy. 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 unbe-
lieving theology." (pg. 21)
Thus in its context, Harnack's speculation not only was reject-
ed by orthodoxy, but also should be rejected by the Watchtower.
The Watchtower gives the same treatment to the work of histori-
an Will Durant, who emphasizes the same concept of a Church cor-
rupted 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 Watch-
tower has conveyed the truest sense of the idea expressed by
Durant, namely that Christianity is the result of pagan influ-
ence.
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 monas-
ticism, 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 Chris-
tianity. 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 some-
times 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 compara-
tively 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 Watch-
tower. When Linda Hull, director of a West Virginia-based coun-
ter-cult ministry contacted the Watchtower in pursuit of documen-
tation of its Trinity booklet, she received only photocopies of
pages from this publication. But even with this book, the Watch-
tower 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 con-
tained 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 communicat-
ing 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 de-
veloping 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 em-
pire, and he wanted to solidify his domain." (pg. 8)
E. Calvin Beisner, in his work, God in Three Persons, disa-
grees. 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 unifica-
tion 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 oc-
curred 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 Watch-
tower, 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 STRAW MEN
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 doc-
trine. 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 informa-
tion 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. Eter-
nal 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 interpreta-
tion 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 ex-
pressed 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 "be-
cause 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 possess-
es 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 Watch-
tower 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 doc-
trines 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 Watch-
tower 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 redemp-
tion, thought the recognition of his divine stature not something
to be retained or "seized." But limited Himself by His undertak-
ing the "form of man." Quite simply, Paul's statement that he
existed in the "form of God" (i.e., God) parallels his declara-
tion 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 theolo-
gians.
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 Transla-
tion of the Christian Greek Scriptures (the Watchtower's transla-
tion); along with the reliable The Bible - An American Transla-
tion (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 Testa-
ment 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 representa-
tion is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, poly-
theistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall.
As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a fright-
ful 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 trans-
lated: 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impos-
sible. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the
New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." (The Expos-
itory 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 transla-
tion of John 1:1 as being "shockingly mistranslated" and added
that it is "A grossly misleading translation." (Depth Explora-
tions 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 creden-
tials 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), stat-
ing 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 iden-
tity, 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." Howev-
er, while the Watchtower is grammatically valid in its grammati-
cal 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.
../