INTRODUCTION
History tends to repeat itself when the lessons are not learned. Jehovah’s Witnesses are the continuation of Arius heresy (256–336). Arius said Christ was a created being and He had a different essence than God. “According to Arius, the Son was the first and greatest of all that God had created; He was closer to God than all others, and the rest of creation related to God through the Son.” Alexander (bishop of Alexandria) responded by gathering a council of Egyptian bishops to oppose Arius heresy. Later Constantine gathered 300 bishops at the Council of Nicaea to draft a doctrinal statement of faith, known as “Creed of Nicaea.” Creed stated Christ was not a created being and has the same “essence of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, of the same essence as the Father.”
Russell, who was born in the 1800s and was the founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses, mirrored the teaching of Arius. Russell used Zion’s Watchtower to push Arius ideas. The purpose of this study is to survey the Jehovah’s Witnesses roots, observe Charles Russell’s character, and defend the deity of Christ by exposing the misinterpreted Bible verses.
Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) answer the question regarding God’s first creation on their
Watchtower Online Library this way:
Russell, who was born in the 1800s and was the founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses, mirrored the teaching of Arius. Russell used Zion’s Watchtower to push Arius ideas. The purpose of this study is to survey the Jehovah’s Witnesses roots, observe Charles Russell’s character, and defend the deity of Christ by exposing the misinterpreted Bible verses.
The Denial of Christ Deity
The Origin of JesusJehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) answer the question regarding God’s first creation on their
Watchtower Online Library this way:
Who was his [Jehovah’s] first creation? The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as ‘the beginning of the creation by God.’ (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is ‘the firstborn of all creation.’ That is so ‘because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.’
As it was mentioned above, JWs were not the first who came to the conclusion that Christ was a created being. In fact, there were a couple of movements that made similar claims starting from Arius (a fourth-century heretic), to Charles Russell (the founder of the Jehovah’s Witness movement). Arius stated, “The Unbegun made the Son a beginning of things originated; and advanced Him as a Son to Himself by adoption.” In other words, God made Christ.
Church Fathers Viewed on Christ
The Church fathers believed Jesus Christ was fully God. Second Epistle of Clement,
which is dated between 120 and 140, said: “Brothers, we ought to think of Jesus Christ as we do of God—as the ‘judge of the living and the dead.’” The letter to Diognetus written in the second century stated, “He sends him as a King sending his son: he sent him as God.” Allison Gregg quotes Melito of Sardis from the second century: “He was invested with a body, but it did not limit his divinity... He needed nourishment because he was man, yet he did not cease to nourish the entire world because he is God.” After Christ’s ascension, it is reasonable to conclude that disciples and the followers of Christ believed in the Deity of Christ.
Church Fathers Viewed on Christ
The Church fathers believed Jesus Christ was fully God. Second Epistle of Clement,
which is dated between 120 and 140, said: “Brothers, we ought to think of Jesus Christ as we do of God—as the ‘judge of the living and the dead.’” The letter to Diognetus written in the second century stated, “He sends him as a King sending his son: he sent him as God.” Allison Gregg quotes Melito of Sardis from the second century: “He was invested with a body, but it did not limit his divinity... He needed nourishment because he was man, yet he did not cease to nourish the entire world because he is God.” After Christ’s ascension, it is reasonable to conclude that disciples and the followers of Christ believed in the Deity of Christ.
The Rejection of the Deity of Christ
Arius, who lived in the 4th century, was not able to grasp the idea that Christ was God. He “proposed that Jesus was the highest created being of God.” Gaining momentum with Arius’s teaching, Constantine convened a meeting in AD 325 because he feared a division within the Roman Empire. Three groups were presented at the Council: pro-Arian, anti-Arian, and undecided. Arianism was immediately rejected and Eusebius of Caesarea took the lead to formulate the teaching on the Deity of Christ. The Creed of Nicea (AD 325) was drafted proclaiming Christ to be the same substance of the Father, Christ who was fully God. At the end, “only two of the more than three hundred theologians attending the council joined Arius in refusing to sign the creed.” The teaching of Arianism received an overwhelming rebuke and was proclaimed heresy. Three hundred men concluded that Christ was God and only two people disagreed. The Council of Constantinople in 381 AD reaffirmed the Nicene Creed. In the Chalcedonian Creed (AD 451), hypostatic union of Christ nature was formulated. It “stated that the two ‘natures’ were united without mixture, without change, without division, and without separation.” Christ’s deity was the centerpiece of history.
Arius, who lived in the 4th century, was not able to grasp the idea that Christ was God. He “proposed that Jesus was the highest created being of God.” Gaining momentum with Arius’s teaching, Constantine convened a meeting in AD 325 because he feared a division within the Roman Empire. Three groups were presented at the Council: pro-Arian, anti-Arian, and undecided. Arianism was immediately rejected and Eusebius of Caesarea took the lead to formulate the teaching on the Deity of Christ. The Creed of Nicea (AD 325) was drafted proclaiming Christ to be the same substance of the Father, Christ who was fully God. At the end, “only two of the more than three hundred theologians attending the council joined Arius in refusing to sign the creed.” The teaching of Arianism received an overwhelming rebuke and was proclaimed heresy. Three hundred men concluded that Christ was God and only two people disagreed. The Council of Constantinople in 381 AD reaffirmed the Nicene Creed. In the Chalcedonian Creed (AD 451), hypostatic union of Christ nature was formulated. It “stated that the two ‘natures’ were united without mixture, without change, without division, and without separation.” Christ’s deity was the centerpiece of history.
Russell’s Knowledge of the Original Language
Russell’s character was questioned and his behavior towards other Christians was
unwelcome. He went about to claim “that he alone has the proper understanding of the Scriptures, condemning that translators of the Bible and denouncing all ministers and teachers of the Word except himself, and his little satellites, as ignorant, empty-headed and deceitful. “This is the man also who condemns all books and papers except those written by himself or published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.” During the court trial on Dec. 9, 1912, he was asked about his knowledge of Greek language. Russell claimed to have “a high scholastic standing, having knowledge of the dead languages, having taken a course in theology, systematic and historical theology, ordination, church affiliation.” A copy of the New Testament Greek was given to him to read the alphabet; he was not able to do so. Thus, Russell admitted that he did not know the original language, which he previously claimed he did. Russell’s further said, “He knew nothing about Latin, and Hebrew and neither had he ever taken a course in Philosophy, Systematic Theology and neither had he ever attended any of the higher schools of learning.” Russell told the truth to the court, yet to his followers, he continued to make the impression that he knew Greek and was one of the great scholars who ever lived.
Russell’s character was questioned and his behavior towards other Christians was
unwelcome. He went about to claim “that he alone has the proper understanding of the Scriptures, condemning that translators of the Bible and denouncing all ministers and teachers of the Word except himself, and his little satellites, as ignorant, empty-headed and deceitful. “This is the man also who condemns all books and papers except those written by himself or published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.” During the court trial on Dec. 9, 1912, he was asked about his knowledge of Greek language. Russell claimed to have “a high scholastic standing, having knowledge of the dead languages, having taken a course in theology, systematic and historical theology, ordination, church affiliation.” A copy of the New Testament Greek was given to him to read the alphabet; he was not able to do so. Thus, Russell admitted that he did not know the original language, which he previously claimed he did. Russell’s further said, “He knew nothing about Latin, and Hebrew and neither had he ever taken a course in Philosophy, Systematic Theology and neither had he ever attended any of the higher schools of learning.” Russell told the truth to the court, yet to his followers, he continued to make the impression that he knew Greek and was one of the great scholars who ever lived.
Mrs. Russell Asked for a Divorce
Russell’s character brought more problems to his life. Mrs. Russell sued her husband to get a divorce. She was tired of seeing her husband act loosely with another woman. Mrs Russell said, “You have been very intimate with her, and that you have been in the habit of hugging and kissing her and having her sit on your knee and fondling each other.” To which Russell replied, “I am like a jelly fish. I float around here and there. I touch this one and that one, and if she responds, I take her to me, and if not, I float on to others.” Scripture is very clear on the character of a minister. He must be “above reproach, the husband of one wife” (Titus 1:6). Christ warned of false prophets in sheeps’ clothing and people can know them by their fruits (Matt 7:15–16). Russell, who claimed to represent the right interpretation of the Bible, disqualified himself with a loose attitude toward other women.
Russell’s character brought more problems to his life. Mrs. Russell sued her husband to get a divorce. She was tired of seeing her husband act loosely with another woman. Mrs Russell said, “You have been very intimate with her, and that you have been in the habit of hugging and kissing her and having her sit on your knee and fondling each other.” To which Russell replied, “I am like a jelly fish. I float around here and there. I touch this one and that one, and if she responds, I take her to me, and if not, I float on to others.” Scripture is very clear on the character of a minister. He must be “above reproach, the husband of one wife” (Titus 1:6). Christ warned of false prophets in sheeps’ clothing and people can know them by their fruits (Matt 7:15–16). Russell, who claimed to represent the right interpretation of the Bible, disqualified himself with a loose attitude toward other women.
History also speaks of Russell’s inhumane business ties. Russellwas accused of selling
“Miracle Wheat” for $60 a bushel, which was double for what the wheat had sold. Thus he preyed on the sick and dying. The court convicted Russell. In the light of Jehovah’s Witness teaching, the character of their founder should be closely inspected.
Russell’s approach to the original language mirrored the Jehovah’s Witness approach to original languages today. Jehovah’s Witnesses are “guilty of misstatement in the presentation of the facts, and even in their definition of what Christians clergymen believe the Deity to be.” Often, the Jehovah’s Witness Bible has grammatical inconsistencies in how they translate one verse from another. The key passages that speak of Christ’s Deity were deliberately translated in such a way to bolster the teaching that a Christ was created by God is not the same substance as the Jehovah.
Jehovah’s Witnesses main reference of Jesus origin is in Revelation 3:14. They claim
Christ was a created based on this statement: “the beginning of the creation of God.” Yes, this verse refers to Jesus, and No! It is not speaking of Jesus as the first creation. The word “beginning” (archē) uses “Christ as the source or origin of all creation.” We see this in John 1:3 “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” The apostle John often “refers to a beginning point in time (John 1:1, 2; 6:64; 8:25, 44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:7, 13, 14, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 5, 6), not the first thing in a series.” Christ caused the beginning of creation, versus being the first creation. The lack of knowledge of the original language leads JWs to make a significant heresy.
“Miracle Wheat” for $60 a bushel, which was double for what the wheat had sold. Thus he preyed on the sick and dying. The court convicted Russell. In the light of Jehovah’s Witness teaching, the character of their founder should be closely inspected.
Russell’s approach to the original language mirrored the Jehovah’s Witness approach to original languages today. Jehovah’s Witnesses are “guilty of misstatement in the presentation of the facts, and even in their definition of what Christians clergymen believe the Deity to be.” Often, the Jehovah’s Witness Bible has grammatical inconsistencies in how they translate one verse from another. The key passages that speak of Christ’s Deity were deliberately translated in such a way to bolster the teaching that a Christ was created by God is not the same substance as the Jehovah.
The Error of “New World Translation of the Holy Scripture”
Revelation 3:14Jehovah’s Witnesses main reference of Jesus origin is in Revelation 3:14. They claim
Christ was a created based on this statement: “the beginning of the creation of God.” Yes, this verse refers to Jesus, and No! It is not speaking of Jesus as the first creation. The word “beginning” (archē) uses “Christ as the source or origin of all creation.” We see this in John 1:3 “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” The apostle John often “refers to a beginning point in time (John 1:1, 2; 6:64; 8:25, 44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:7, 13, 14, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 5, 6), not the first thing in a series.” Christ caused the beginning of creation, versus being the first creation. The lack of knowledge of the original language leads JWs to make a significant heresy.
Colossians 1:15–16
JWs continue to speak of Christ’s origin in defense quote Colossians 1:15, 16. It says “Jesus is ‘the firstborn of all creation.’” JWs claim that Colossians 1:15, 16 directly connects to Revelation 3:4. “Beginning of all creation” is connected to “the firstborn of all creation.” Yet, above we having establish that the “beginning” means, creation came through Christ vs being the first created. The “firstborn,” does not refer to Christ being created. “Paul would not have called Christ the ‘firstborn’ (prototokos) but the ‘first-created’ (protoktisis)—a term that is never used of Christ in the New Testament. JW apply “first-created” to the word “firstborn.” In Greek and Jewish culture, calling someone a firstborn meant to give the inheritance. Esau was born first chronologically, but Jacob who was the “firstborn” to receive the inheritance. Firstborn speaks of priority in time or supremacy in rank. Therefore, “Christ is before all creation in time; he is also over it in rank and dignity. The major stress, however, seems to be on the idea of supremacy. When ignoring the etymology of the “firstborn,” it leads people to make wrong conclusions.
JWs continue to speak of Christ’s origin in defense quote Colossians 1:15, 16. It says “Jesus is ‘the firstborn of all creation.’” JWs claim that Colossians 1:15, 16 directly connects to Revelation 3:4. “Beginning of all creation” is connected to “the firstborn of all creation.” Yet, above we having establish that the “beginning” means, creation came through Christ vs being the first created. The “firstborn,” does not refer to Christ being created. “Paul would not have called Christ the ‘firstborn’ (prototokos) but the ‘first-created’ (protoktisis)—a term that is never used of Christ in the New Testament. JW apply “first-created” to the word “firstborn.” In Greek and Jewish culture, calling someone a firstborn meant to give the inheritance. Esau was born first chronologically, but Jacob who was the “firstborn” to receive the inheritance. Firstborn speaks of priority in time or supremacy in rank. Therefore, “Christ is before all creation in time; he is also over it in rank and dignity. The major stress, however, seems to be on the idea of supremacy. When ignoring the etymology of the “firstborn,” it leads people to make wrong conclusions.
John 1:1
When comparing John 1:1 in “New World Translation of the Holy Scripture,” to the “New American Standard Bible,” the NWT translates the word God with a small g. NASB translates John 1:1 this way: “the Word was God.” The NWT translates “the Word was a god.” The application of these two differences is vast. It deals with the origin of Christ. Was the “Word” God or a god? JW explain why they don’t translate God with a capital g. "The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word the·onʹ refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the·osʹ has no definite article.” Yet, one only wonders why the principles they highlight are not seen used in other text of the Bible. Dr. T. David Gordon says, “there are 255 occurrence total (19 nominatives, 169 genitives, 36 datives, 31 accusatives)” and most of the NWT translated God that has no article with a capital g. Here.
JW decided to translate with a small g because it fit their doctrine, breaking all grammatical rules. The Colwall’s rule (which was clearly ignored) says, “A definite predicate nominative does not usually take the article when preceding the copula (linking verb)...In this passage, the anarthrous predicate nominate θεος precedes the copula ην. In contest, this means neither that the Word and God are equated nor that the Word is “a” god (indefinite) but that the Word is essentially (quality) God.” The translators of NWT bible do not understand how the article is used in Greek. “In general, the presence of the article emphasizes particular identity, while the absence of the article emphasizes quality or characteristics.” In John 1:1, the author emphasizes the quality of “Word” leading to the right transition: "the Word was God.” Yet for JWs to make this conclusion, they would have to change their teaching on Christ. It leads us to conclude that a deliberate and purposeful translation of NWT does not reflect original text, but rather the heretical teaching of Arius.
When comparing John 1:1 in “New World Translation of the Holy Scripture,” to the “New American Standard Bible,” the NWT translates the word God with a small g. NASB translates John 1:1 this way: “the Word was God.” The NWT translates “the Word was a god.” The application of these two differences is vast. It deals with the origin of Christ. Was the “Word” God or a god? JW explain why they don’t translate God with a capital g. "The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word the·onʹ refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the·osʹ has no definite article.” Yet, one only wonders why the principles they highlight are not seen used in other text of the Bible. Dr. T. David Gordon says, “there are 255 occurrence total (19 nominatives, 169 genitives, 36 datives, 31 accusatives)” and most of the NWT translated God that has no article with a capital g. Here.
JW decided to translate with a small g because it fit their doctrine, breaking all grammatical rules. The Colwall’s rule (which was clearly ignored) says, “A definite predicate nominative does not usually take the article when preceding the copula (linking verb)...In this passage, the anarthrous predicate nominate θεος precedes the copula ην. In contest, this means neither that the Word and God are equated nor that the Word is “a” god (indefinite) but that the Word is essentially (quality) God.” The translators of NWT bible do not understand how the article is used in Greek. “In general, the presence of the article emphasizes particular identity, while the absence of the article emphasizes quality or characteristics.” In John 1:1, the author emphasizes the quality of “Word” leading to the right transition: "the Word was God.” Yet for JWs to make this conclusion, they would have to change their teaching on Christ. It leads us to conclude that a deliberate and purposeful translation of NWT does not reflect original text, but rather the heretical teaching of Arius.
CONCLUSION
There are more verses to analyze the Deity of Christ, yet giving with the limitations of the assignment these are the three Bible verses JWs use in their defense. Arius began the heresy and Russell continues to this day. When grammatical principles are ignored, the teaching of JWs makes sense. Yet when the grammatical principles are not ignored, the deity of Christ shines. Those who conclude that Christ was a created being have walked away from the Bible. They have walked away from the church fathers, and they have walked away from the salvation. Christ said, “You will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allison, Gregg R. Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.
Athanasius, Alexandria of. Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia. Vol. 4, St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Translated by John Henry Newman and Archibald T. Robertson. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1892.
Black, David A. Learn to Read New Testament Greek. Nashville: B&H, 2009.
Bowman, Robert M. Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: an Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989.
Chevallier, Temple. A Translation of the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius, and of the First Apology of Justin Martyr: With an Introduction and Brief Notes Illustrative of the Ecclesiastical History of the First Two Centuries. Cambridge: J. & J.J. Deighton, 1833.
Donfried, Karl P. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 38, The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 1974.
Gordon, David. “Anarthrous Uses of θεος in the New Testament.” Gordon. Accessed July 4,2018. http://www.tdgordon.net/theology/god_or_god_at_john_11.pdf.
Grenz, Stanley, J. David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling. Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Johnson, Alan F. Revelation. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation 12. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
Köstenberger, Andreas, J. Benjamin L. Merkle, and Robert L. Plummer. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek: an Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament. Nashville: B & H Academic, 2016.
MacArthur, John F. Colossians. MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.
Martin, Walter, and Norman Klann. Jehovah of the Watchtower. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1981.
Needham, Nick. 2000 Years of Christ’s Power, Part One: The Age of the Early Church Fathers.
10 Rev. ed. Geanies House, Fearn: Christian Focus, 2016.
Ron, Rhodes. Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Eugene: Harvest House, 2009.
Ross, John J. Some Facts and More Facts about the Self-Styled “Pastor” Charles T. Russell.Winnipeg: North-West Bible and Tract Depot, 1913.
Ryrie, Charles Coldwell. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.
Vaughan, Curtis. Colossians. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon 11. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
Vonderlack, R. Robert. “Russell, Charles Taze,” in Who’s Who in Christian History, edited by J.D. Douglas and Philip W. Comfort, 600. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1992.
Comments