The view briefly stated:1
“Jesus
had an existence in heaven before coming to the earth. But was it as one of the
persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible plainly
states that in his pre-human existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just
as angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had
existed before their creation …. to worship God on his terms means to reject
the Trinity doctrine” (Watchtower, “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” [1989]:
14, 31).
Arguments Considered:
“Jesus is not God because
Colossians 1:15 states that he is ‘the first-born of all creation,’ i.e. the
first one to have been created by Jehovah.” To conclude that the term “firstborn” here has reference to
the first to have been created is to ignore the biblical usage of the term. The
Greek word is prototokos, which
signifies priority or superiority (cf. Ex. 4:22; Deut. 21:15-17). The future
tense of Psalm 89:27 shows that “firstborn” is a title of preeminence, not a
reference to origin (applied here to David, the youngest son of Jesse). Ephraim is called the “firstborn” (Jer. 31:9), even though
he was the youngest brother (Gen. 48:14). In Colossians 1:15 Christ is called
“firstborn” because he is superior or preeminent to all created things (cf.
Rom. 8:29). Why? “Because by him all things were created …” (v. 16). If Jesus
had been created, yet he created all created things, he would have created
himself! Further,
Paul goes on to say that Jesus is “the firstborn [prototokos] from the dead” (v. 18b), not that he is the first to
have ever risen from the dead (cf. Matt. 11:5; John 11:44) but “that in all things He
may have the preeminence” (v. 18c; cf. Rom. 6:9).
“Jesus is a created being, not God, because
Revelation 3:14 refers to him as “the beginning of the creation by God” (New
World Translation).”
This verse is mistranslated in the NWT. The instrumental “by God” is not the
original wording of the text, rather the genitive “of God.” The term translated
“beginning” is the Greek word archē, meaning “origin” or “first cause.” This passage actually
says that Christ was the moving cause of God’s creation, which parallels John
1:3 and Col. 1:16. In Rev. 21:6 God is described as “the beginning [archē] and the end.”
“John 1:1 should be translated,
‘the Word was a god.’ When the Greek word theos appears with a definite article
(‘the’), it should be rendered ‘the God’ or ‘God.’ Since there is no indefinite
article (‘a’) in Greek, in the absence of the definite article, theos should be
translated ‘a god.’” This is not a legitimate rule for
the use of the article in the Greek NT.2 Of the 282 occurrences of
the anarthrous theos (without the article),
the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is 94% unfaithful to their
own rule. In the first chapter of John alone, theos appears five times without an article (vv. 1, 6, 12, 13, 18),
yet the NWT translators render it “God” in every instance except in v. 1, where
it clearly refers to Christ! Further, if the Bible teaches that there is only
one God (Deut. 6:4) and if Jesus is “a god” (i.e. an additional one), the
advocates of this view are advocating polytheism .3
“Jesus can’t be God or equal with God because he is inferior to
God (John 14:28).” A fundamental error undergirding
this and similar arguments is the false assumption that a subordinate role is
equivalent to an inferior nature. All Christians have been directed to submit
to one another (Gal. 5:13; Eph. 5:21; 1 Pet. 5:5) yet remain equal in essence
or worth (Gal. 3:28). Despite this equality, however, different functions have
been allocated to the various believers, e.g. wives submit to husbands (Eph.
5:22), members submit to leaders (Heb. 13:17), etc. There is a clear
distinction between substance (equality) and function (subordination). The
contrast within the Godhead is functional, not one of nature or essence. When
the one we know as Jesus “became flesh,” he took on an inferior role and could
thus say, for instance, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). The word
“greater” refers to position, whereas the word “better” would be applicable to
nature (cf. Heb. 1:4). All passages dealing with Christ’s subordination (1 Cor.
11:3; etc.) refer to his role in the flesh but do not detract from his divine
essence. Moreover, his temptations, visibility, subjection to death, etc.,
merely relate to his subordinate role that began when he took on human flesh.
The descriptive expression, “the Son of God,” signifies both subordination (of
position) and equality (of nature). See John 5:17-18; 10:17-33; etc.
“Jesus
cannot be God because he referred to the Father as ‘the only true God’ (John
17:3).” This statement, like all other scriptural affirmations of
divine exclusiveness, is in contrast to the false gods of polytheism and has
nothing to do with Jesus allegedly denying anything about himself. If there is
no Savior besides Almighty God (Isa. 43:11), would the deniers of Christ’s
deity dismiss Jesus as Savior? (Eph. 5:23; Phil. 3:20; 2 Tim. 1:10; etc.). If
Jesus is the “one Lord” (Eph. 4:4; Jude 4), does this mean the Father cannot be
Lord? (Matt. 11:25; Luke 1:32; Acts 1:25; 2:20, 25, 39;
4:24). These exclusive statements merely eliminate those outside,
not within, the Godhead.
Further Observations:
Jesus is called “My Lord and my God” in
John 20:28. The designations “Lord” and “God” are translated from the Greek
words kurios and theos, and whenever these words are used together in the NT, they
are equivalent to the Hebrew terms Yahweh
(“Jehovah”) and elohim (“God”) (Mark
12:29-30; Luke 1:68; 10:27; Acts 3:22; cf. Ex. 20:7) and always refer to the
Supreme Deity (Acts 2:39; 4:24; 7:37). Moreover, the designation “the Alpha and
the Omega” is a clear reference to God that is equally applied to Jesus (Rev.
1:8, 17-18; 22:12-13, 16; cf. Isa. 44:6).
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 Arianism is the view that
Jesus the Son was created by God the Father and is therefore inferior in
essence to God the Father. Arius of Alexandria (ca. 250-336) is the first on
record to have espoused and promoted this view (thus “Arianism”). In modern
times a form of this doctrine is held by religious groups such as the Jehovah’s
Witnesses, Mormons, and various Unitarian sects.
2 In the Greek NT, word order
is used for emphasis and the article distinguishes the subject from the
predicate nominative. The only legitimate rendering of kai theos ēn ho logos in John 1:1 is, “and the Word was God.” The
emphatic position of theos stresses
essence or quality, and the absence of the article avoids the conclusion that
the Word is the Person of God [the Father]; the word order shows that the Word
has all the divine attributes of God. If the order and/or employment of the
article were different, ho logos ēn ho theos
(“the Word was the God”) = Sabellianism (Jesus is the Father); or ho logos ēn theos (“the Word was a god”) = Arianism.
3 The typical Jehovah’s Witness response is to point out Jesus’ words in John 10:34-35, where human judges are called “gods.” But this is the Lord’s response to antagonistic unbelievers, in stark contrast to passages like 1:1 and 20:28. Jesus is quoting Psa. 82:6, where the plural elohim (Hebrew) and the corresponding plural theoi (Greek) essentially refers to “mighty ones.” Nowhere in the New Testament is the plural theoi ever applied to God the Father or Jesus Christ. Moreover, Jesus’ customary approach when responding to his enemies was indirect and ambiguous (cf. 8:3-9, 21-29; 9:39-41; 10:1-6, 24; 18:19-21, 33-34; 19:9; also Matt. 12:1-8; 13:10-15; 21:23-27). In John 10:30-39 Jesus does not deny their inference but simply quotes scripture to show their inconsistency; he does not give in to their devious request to “tell us plainly” (v. 24). Neither John 1:1-3, nor 20:28, nor comparable passages, equate to the dispute in John 10.
3 The typical Jehovah’s Witness response is to point out Jesus’ words in John 10:34-35, where human judges are called “gods.” But this is the Lord’s response to antagonistic unbelievers, in stark contrast to passages like 1:1 and 20:28. Jesus is quoting Psa. 82:6, where the plural elohim (Hebrew) and the corresponding plural theoi (Greek) essentially refers to “mighty ones.” Nowhere in the New Testament is the plural theoi ever applied to God the Father or Jesus Christ. Moreover, Jesus’ customary approach when responding to his enemies was indirect and ambiguous (cf. 8:3-9, 21-29; 9:39-41; 10:1-6, 24; 18:19-21, 33-34; 19:9; also Matt. 12:1-8; 13:10-15; 21:23-27). In John 10:30-39 Jesus does not deny their inference but simply quotes scripture to show their inconsistency; he does not give in to their devious request to “tell us plainly” (v. 24). Neither John 1:1-3, nor 20:28, nor comparable passages, equate to the dispute in John 10.
Related Posts: The Triune Godhead, Responding to Anti-Trinitarian Arguments, Deity of Christ
No comments:
Post a Comment