THE LIE OF THE JEHOVAH WITNESSES

THE LIE OF THE JEHOVAH WITNESSES

A FURTHER CHALLENGE TO THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY

In recent days I have challenged any and all representatives of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to respond to a challenge in regards to the rendering of John 14:14 in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, published by that Society. I have not, at the time of this writing, received any response to that challenge, outside of the continued insistence that the Society would never do such a thing as pervert or change the Bible. Not one of Jehovah's Witnesses has as yet had the courage or fortitude to answer even a challenge that strikes at the most basic level of the honesty of the Watchtower.

There are of course, many other instances of dishonesty represented in the Watchtower's publications, particularly in the "New World Translation". I have had many Witnesses tell me that they believed implicitly that the New World Translation (hereafter "NWT") is a modern, scholarly translation - indeed, that it is the *most* scholarly and *unbiased* translation available.

Given that most Jehovah's Witnesses are probably honest individuals who simply labor under the deception of a false religious system that demands absolute loyalty to the teachings of men rather than God (read that "cult"), it would be a service to such individuals to be able to demonstrate the fact that the NWT perverts and twists the Word of God. To demonstrate that this is so, I enter into evidence to further challenges to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:

#1: The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has purposefully mistranslated Colossians 2:9 in a vain attempt to hide the Biblical teaching of the Deity of Christ.

#2: The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has purposefully hidden the usage of the term "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" when it applies to the person of Jesus Christ in their supposed "reinsertion" of the "Divine Name" into the New Testament. That is, the Society has been inconsistent in replacing the Greek term "kurios" in verses that are quotations from the Old Testament that use the term "Yahweh" in the original Hebrew.

In order to substantiate the first allegation, I here give you the rendering of Colossians 2:9 as found in a modern, non-Witness Bible version:

Col 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, (NIV)

In another version it reads,

Col 2:9 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, (ASV)

However, in the New World Translation it is rendered,

Col 2:9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.

The mistranslation presented by the Society is in reference to the Greek term "theotetos." This term is rendered in older English versions as "Godhead" but in more modern versions (NIV, NASB, etc.) as "deity" or "Deity." The Kingdom Interlinear, 1969 edition, used to give as the "literal" rendering of the Greek text "godship" but the 1985 edition of the KIT has changed this "literal" rendering to "divinity."

To give us some information concerning this Greek term, I submit the following information:

There really are no translational difficulties presented by Colossians 2:9. There are no textual variants to worry about, and the meanings of the various words are pretty clear. However, two of the words, "theotetos" and "somatikos" do need further elaboration.

The Greek of the passage reads as follows:

"hoti en auto katoikei pan to pleroma tes theotetos somatikos,"

The clause opens with the idea of purpose, "hoti", forming the basis of Paul's warning in verse 8. The rest of the phrase is so very expressive in the Greek language that a brief look at it is certainly in order.

The first consideration has to do with the phrase "en auto katoikei". "In Him is dwelling" is the literal translation. The verb, "katoikei", is in the present indicative active third person singular. One can easily see a gnomic present, but a regular descriptive present is also quite possible. If one were to take this as a regular present, Paul would be referring to the glorified resurrection body of the Lord Jesus as the place of residence of the "fulness of Deity." This seems the best sense in light of the context of a polemic against gnosticism.

"Katoikei" is itself descriptive in meaning. Kenneth Wuest wrote:

The compound verb was used of the permanent residents of a town as compared with the transient community. The verb is in the present tense, showing durative action. The translation reads: "Because in Him there is continuously and permanently at home all the fulness of the Godhead in bodily fashion." (1)

Hence, the fact of the indwelling of Deity in Christ is not as an alien presence, but as an inhabitant in his own home.

The phrase "pan to pleroma" was significant to the Gnostic readers of this work--it steals their own terminology from them. Its significance in combating gnosticism is of great importance in understanding this passage.

"Tes theotetos" truly is the central word of this verse. The meaning as rendered by the New American Standard Bible seems to be the best: Deity. Most would be familiar with the King James rendering, "Godhead," though the meaning of this word is more obscure than that of "Deity."

The Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker lexicon renders the word "deity, divinity, used as an abstract noun for "theos"." (2) Thayer's lexicon says, "deity, i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col. ii. 9." Thayer is here giving us Grimm's words. However, he then goes on to provide some important information on his own, "[SYN. "theotes, theiotes: theot". deity differs from "theiot". divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute;" (3) This bit of information is vital. The word under consideration here, "theotes", is not the same word as is found at Romans 1:20, "theiotes". This difference is striking and purposeful. One cannot translate "theotes" as a simple quality or attribute - it refers instead to the actual essence of deity, not simply to its attributes. The most extensive passage on this important idea is found in Trench's "Synonyms of the New Testament":

...yet they ("theiotes" and "theotes") must not be regarded as identical in meaning, nor even as two different forms of the same word, which in process of time have separated off from one another, and acquired different shades of significance. On the contrary, there is a real distinction between them, and one which grounds itself on their different derivations; "theotes" being from "theos", and "theiotes", not from "to theion", which is nearly though not quite equivalent to "theos", but from the adjective "theios"...But in the second passage (Col. ii.9) St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up his person for a season and with a splendour not his own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses "theotes" to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son;... (4)

The reader is encouraged to read all of Trench's presentation.

Kenneth Wuest expanded on this idea in discussing the significance of "theotes" at Colossians 2:9:

The Greek is very strong here. One could translate, "For in Him corporeally there is permanently at home all the fulness of the Godhead." That is, in our Lord Jesus in His incarnation and in the permanent possession of His human body now glorified, there resides by nature and permanently the fulness of the Godhead. The word "Godhead" is from our second word "theotes". The word expresses Godhead in the absolute sense. It is not merely divine attributes that are in mind now, but the possession of the essence of deity in an absolute sense. The Greek Fathers never use "theiotes" but always "theotes" as alone adequately expressing the essential Godhead of the three several Persons in the Holy Trinity. The Latin Christian writers were not satisfied with divinitas which was in common use, but coined the word "deitas" as the only adequate representative of the Greek word "theotes". (5)

The concept here put forth is striking. It is impossible to conceive of a higher view of Christ. This statement, however, is not inconsistent with Paul's overall theology. Benjamin B. Warfield, while discussing Paul's conception of Christ, wrote:

...we are told not only that (naturally) in Him all the fulness dwells (Col. i.19), but, with complete explication, that "all the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily" (Col. ii.9); that is to say, the very Deity of God, that which makes God, God, in all it’s completeness, has its permanent home in Our Lord, and that in a "bodily fashion," that is, it is in Him clothed with a body. He who looks upon Jesus Christ see, no doubt, a body and a man; but as he sees the man clothed with the body, so he sees God Himself, in all the fulness of His Deity, clothed with the humanity. (6)

There is little need to further elaborate on the obvious meaning of "theotetos". Let it suffice to say that such scholars as Alford (7), Nicoll (8) and A. T. Robertson (9) all view it in similar manner. Even a cursory glance at how some of the major translations render the word bear this out:

RSV: For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily...

NIV: For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form...

NEB: For it is in Christ that the complete being of the Godhead dwells embodied...

Barclay: For it is in Christ that godhead in all its completeness dwells in bodily form.

Amplified: For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead), continues to dwell in bodily form – giving complete expression of the divine nature.

What does all of this relate to us today? Can Paul's attack on an ancient heresy called gnosticism have any relevance now? It certainly can, and it most assuredly does! Most of the modern heresies find their roots in the Church's ancient foes ("So, there is nothing new under the sun." Eccl. 1:9). Arianism and gnosticism is still rampant today. Paul's sharp words in laying down the standard by which to test all teaching must be clung to with never weakening resolve today as never before! Does a certain group or teacher admit and proclaim that all the fulness of Deity dwells in Christ Jesus bodily? If they do not, they are placed by Paul right alongside "philosophy and empty deception." This passage continues to speak today, and it will throughout eternity. May it shed its bright light on the Church until Jesus comes again!

1. Wuest, "Word Studies", vol. 1.,"Ephesians and Colossians," p. 201. See also, James Hope Moulton, George Milligan, "The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament", (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1930) p. 338. 2. Bauer, "Greek-English Lexicon," 2nd ed., p. 358. 3. Thayer, "The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon", p. 288. 4. Richard C. Trench, "Synonyms of the New Testament", (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953), pp. 7-8. See also the discussion by Bishop Lightfoot, "Colossians", pp. 181-182. 5. Wuest, "Word Studies", vol. 3, "Treasures from the Greek New Testament, pp. 75-76. 6. Benjamin B. Warfield, "The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield", (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), vol 2:184. 7. Alford, "New Testament for English Readers", vol. 3:1296. 8. Nicoll, "Expositor's Greek Testament", vol. 3:523. 9. Robertson, "Word Pictures", vol. 4:491.

Given the above information, it seems clear that the NWT translation of Colossians 2:9 is utterly insupportable from the scholarly sources. Therefore, it would seem that the Society is guilty of attempting to hide from the readers of the NWT the eternal fact that the fulness of Deity dwells in Jesus Christ.