A Lengthy Correspondence with a Jehovah’s Witness

The following letters are a series of correspondences in 1990 between me and a woman named Christie. These sprang out of a request of her aunt’s that I read some literature Christie sent her and respond to her with my thoughts. The particular booklet I responded to was Should You Believe in the Trinity (Is Jesus Christ the Almighty God)? It was my goal to deal directly with one of the main passages that Jehovah’s Witnesses assert supports their view that Jesus is the first and highest creation of God, and not Almighty God Himself. They translate John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” They note, correctly, that the word God (Greek, theos) does have the definite article “the” in front of the first instance of it’s occurrence in the verse, but does not in the second occurrence. They suppose, incorrectly, that this means you can translate the last phrase of the verse, “the Word was a god.” So in my first letter, I deal with this passage and other related passages that assert the deity of Jesus.

Dear Christy,

I appreciate the opportunity to try to explain what the church has deemed the true perspective of who God is and what He requires of us. I have read the publication of Jehovah’s Witnesses, “Should You Believe in the Trinity (Is Jesus Christ the Almighty God?)” and I guess that you are already convinced that He is not. Since, however, you have asked your aunt to have one of her ministers respond I am grateful for the chance to be able to present our case for your consideration. I am afraid it will get a little technical in places but I see no way to avoid that. I will try my best to make it as clear as possible.

I am well aware of the historical process of the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, which, admittedly, was not a matter of smooth agreement along the way, but a process of debate and dialogue for many years. My preference, however, in approaching the matter of the Trinity is to begin with the person of Jesus Christ. That, after all, is how the process began. The church was forced to consider who Jesus was and when they decided that He was indeed God they were forced to explain how that harmonized with the teaching of one God. What eventually resulted was the doctrine of the Trinity.

The most basic place to start is John’s Gospel. In John 1:1 it says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (New International Version). The Greek reads like this:

En archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon,

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God

kai theos ēn ho logos.

And God was the Word.

I have placed an English equivalent under the Greek transliteration following the word order of the Greek but that is not necessarily the way it should be translated. How it should be translated is, of course, at issue. The Greek language does not depend entirely on word order, as does English, to communicate meaning. In the sentence, “I hit the ball to Charlie,” we know the subject, direct object and indirect object (all nouns) by their place in the sentence. The only way we could change the word order and still say the same thing is, “I hit Charlie the ball.” Those of us who speak the language know that “I” of this sentence did not hit Charlie (as though he were the direct object of the verb). But in Greek nouns have different spellings (case endings, if you have ever studied Latin) that show what their function in the sentence is. The Greek could say, “Charlie I the ball hit” or “Charlie the ball I hit” and mean what our English equivalent means by giving “Charlie” the indirect object ending and “ball” the direct object ending. The subject “I” could either be included in the form of the verb or as a pronoun with the verb (like English).

All this is to point out that in John 1:1 the word order is not the final determinative of meaning. What is different about John 1:1, however, is that the endings in the last two nouns “God” and “Word” are both the ending for the subjects of sentences in Greek. This is because the verb that connects them is a verb of being (“was”) which requires that the noun that is the subject and the noun that is the predicate (the one which follows the verb) must agree as to ending. The question is, which noun is the subject and which is the predicate? We could either read, “God was the Word” or “the Word was God.” Because “the Word” is the topic of the whole sentence and the subject of the verb right before this (“the Word was with God”) it only makes sense to see it as the subject here, also. All the translations in “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” (I’ll just abbreviate it SYBT from now on) agree with this.

The next question, naturally, is that of why there is no definite article “the” before “God” when John says, “the Word was God.” It is hard for English speakers to understand how the Greeks used the definite article or why, at times, they left if off. We know that they used the definite article like we do often, to mark a noun as definite (not “a man” but “the man,” that is, a certain one in particular, perhaps one that has just been referred to previously). They sometimes used it as a relative pronoun, “the one who” like in John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God, the taking away the sin of the world one,” that is, “the one who takes away the sin of the world.”

The definite article could be left off (there is not an indefinite article like “a” or “an” in Greek) to make something indefinite as in John 1:6, “There was a man sent from God.” Or the article could be left off if the writer wanted to emphasize the noun as a quality, as John does in 3:2, “(Nicodemus) came to (Jesus) by night” (“night” is the noun and has no article). But there are times when the noun is definitely definite and you would expect the definite article to be there and it is not. In John 1:18 it says, “No one has seen God at any time,” but “God” does not have the article. We would not translate it “No one has seen a god at any time.” Similarly, in John 3:2 Nicodemus said to Jesus, “We know that you are a teacher sent from God,” but there is no article on “god” and certainly Nicodemus did not mean, “We know that you are a teacher sent from a god.” Many such instances can be found (Mt. 6:24; Lk. 2:14; 20:38; Rom. 8:8,33; 2 Cor. 1:21; 5:19; Gal. 2:19; 4:8; 2 Thess. 1:8; Tit. 1:16; etc., etc.) but it is obvious in each context that the true God is meant. Thus a Greek speaker could mean the noun to be definite without using the definite article.

In John 1:1 there is also another issue. In the phrase “the Word was God” God is the predicate but actually comes before the verb “was” in the Greek. The rule of Colwell referred to in SYBT suggests that when a predicate noun is meant to be definite and it comes before the verb it does not usually have the definite article on it. If that were true, John could leave off the article on “God” and still mean the true God and not “a god.” This fits with several instances where to translate the predicate noun as indefinite (“a…”) would not make sense. In John 8:54 Jesus says, “It is my Father who glorifies me, whom you say that He is our God.” “God” comes before the verb in the Greek without the article (“that God of us He is” is a word for word translation) but could not mean, “He is a god of ours.”

On the other hand, SYBT points out that in John 8:44 Satan is said to be “a murderer from the beginning” and “a liar and the father of lies” but “murderer” and “liar” are predicate nouns coming before the verb. Why wouldn’t they be translated “the murderer” and “the liar” according to Colwell’s rule? Well, they could be. SYBT is wrong when it says, “most translations insert the word ‘a’ because Greek grammar and the context require it.” Greek grammar certainly does not “require” it as we have seen and though the context suggests it, it does not require it. But the other error here is that Colwell’s rule does not refer to all predicate nouns coming before the verb, but to all definite predicate nouns coming before the verb, that is, nouns which have already been judged to be definite.

Christy, I realize this is confusing if you are not familiar with Greek grammar, and it sounds like Colwell’s rule is begging the question. What right do we have to assume that John views “god” as a definite noun in John 1:1? Why could he not view “god” as indefinite and so mean it to be translated indefinitely, “The Word was a god?” Well, consider what that would have John saying. John is a Jew who has been taught, “I am the Lord (Jehovah) your God…. You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:2,3). And, “All the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD (Jehovah) made the heavens” (1 Chron. 16:26). Also, “What god is there in heaven and on earth who can do the deeds and mighty works you do?” (Deut. 3:24). And, “Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me” (Isa. 43:10). And yet we are expected to believe, if the New World Translation is right, that John would call Jesus “a god” who was formed after God, who made the heavens and earth, who does the mighty works of God.

Then John proceeds to describe this Jesus not only as the one through whom all things were made (1:3), but the light of men who has light in himself that gives life, the true light who has glory and is full of grace and truth (1:4-14). For John to say that Jesus was even “a god” would be to fly in the face of all the Old Testament teaching about God’s uniqueness.

So, for the sake of argument, we say it is just as likely that John meant to say that Jesus is “God” as to say he is “a god.” On the church’s view of the Trinity, however, John would be saying that He is the same God of the Old Testament who said, “Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me.” Given the church’s explanation of this, it would not be directly contradictory of the Old Testament revelation. I’ll explain in a moment. On SYBT’s view John is introducing a concept that directly contradicts Isaiah 43:10. He would be saying that there was a god formed after God, who is in league with God, to be sure, but who is accorded special honor as God’s special servant.

That is why the church has chosen to understand John’s statement in John 1:1 to mean, “The Word was God.” The church has looked at the testimony of the apostles to Christ and at Jehovah’s statement in Isaiah 42:5-8, for example, and has concluded, “This is talking about Jesus!” That passage reads:

This is what God the LORD [Jehovah] says – he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:  “I, the LORD [Jehovah], have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open the eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.  I am the LORD [Jehovah]; that is my Name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.”

But Jesus seems to be given such glory when John says, “We beheld his glory” or when Jesus prayed, “Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began,” John 17:5, or when the living creatures in heaven praise the Lamb saying, “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise,” after saying basically the same thing about God, Revelation 5:12 and 4:11, and then in the same breath singing, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” 5:13].

Or the church has looked at Isaiah 44:6 which reads:

This is what the LORD [Jehovah] says – Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD [Jehovah] Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

And the church has realized that this is what John heard coming from the lips of the resurrected Jesus: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living one; I was dead, and behold I am alive forever and ever!” (Revelation 1:17,18). And they see another reflection of Isaiah in the New Testament when Jehovah says, “There is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me….By Myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear” (Isaiah 45:21,23). They compare this with the words of Paul in Philippians 2:9-11, “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

So why should it be strange if the church also accepts the possible translations of Romans 9:5, “From them [the Jews] is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!” and Titus 2:13, “We wait for the blessed hope – the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” and 2 Peter 1:1, “The righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

This view of Jesus is also the only view that really makes sense of the attitude of the New Testament writers. They talk about the “church of God in Corinth…together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ – their Lord and ours.” No one should ever do this if Jesus is just a created being. And then the New Testament letter writers offer “grace and peace” from both “God our Father and the Lord Jesus” as if they are on an equal standing (1 Corinthians 1:2-3). They talk about being “servants of Christ” (1 Corinthians 4:1) and of Christ being “Immanuel – which mans ‘God with us’” (Matthew 1:6), and of “all the fullness of the Deity” dwelling in Christ “in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). They call him the “radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Hebrews 1:3) and picture the Father saying to Christ, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever” (Hebrews 1:8), quoting of him, “In the beginning, O Lord [this Old Testament quote uses the name Jehovah] you laid the foundations of the earth…they will perish, but you remain” (Hebrews 1:10-11).

Peter calls him the “Chief Shepherd” and the “Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Peter 5:4; 2:25), even though in the Old Testament Jehovah is said to be our Shepherd (Psalm 23). He speaks of the “eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:11). John considers it no injustice to the Father to proclaim that his “fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3) and freely says, “We are in him who is true – even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20).

I am aware, of course, that some of the passages I have referred to are retranslated by Jehovah’s Witnesses in their New World Translation, but I am trying to establish a general perspective that the writers of the New Testament had such an exalted view of Jesus Christ that even if he were the first created being it would be too high a view of any creature.

That brings me to Colossians 1:15, which is supposed to be the basis for the view that Jesus is the first creation of God. If those who spoke the Greek language understood “firstborn” to mean the first child begotten and born by his father as opposed to subsequent children born, then we would need to consider that possibility here, also. And, in fact, they did. But that is not the only meaning they had when using this word. The word could be used as a metaphor for one who had the priority of position over others, with no idea of birth or coming into existence being included. For example, in Psalm 89:27 Jehovah says of David, “I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.” The second line of this poetic statement explains the meaning of “firstborn,” that is, “the most exalted.” David obviously was not God’s son by generation (procreation). The word “appoint” also helps us see that fathering in the literal sense is not in view, but fathering in a figurative sense. Jehovah calls Israel his “firstborn son” when telling Moses to warn Pharaoh to let Israel go (Exodus 4:22,23), but Israel was, though not the first nation God birthed, yet God’s most “treasured possession” (Exodus 19:5) among the nations.

So which use of “firstborn” makes most sense when used of Jesus? Well in the very next breath after Paul calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) he says Jesus is “before all things” and the “firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy” (Colossians 1:17,18). The word “firstborn” in verse 18 is obviously figurative, coming to life after dying being compared to being born, the word “firstborn” signifying that Jesus is the most important one brought back, the initiator of resurrection (even though others had been raised from the dead, though not with resurrection bodies). This seems to indicate that the figurative use of “firstborn” is being used in Colossians 1:15, also. Besides, ‘giving birth to’ is not the same as creating. ‘Giving birth to’ results in someone of your same nature being born. Even if we were to take it literally in this passage it would suggest that Jesus has the same nature as God, that is, he is deity himself.

What I need to explain at this point, Christy, is how there can also be so many other passages that speak of Jesus as submitting to the Father’s authority (1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28, for example). The church saw in the Bible four strands of testimony concerning the Father and Son. God is everywhere declared to be one (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:6, etc.). Jesus is said to be God (John 1:1; 20:28). Each is viewed as a different person (Jesus prays to the Father, goes to the Father, etc.). Each has a different function that is carried out in a line of authority from the Father to the Son (John 5:16-24).

To preserve the Biblical concept of God’s oneness they felt they had to assert that there is only one essence (nature, an aggregate of characteristics which makes up a being). To preserve the Biblical concept of the distinction of Jesus’ personality from the Father’s they allowed that more than one personality could possess the one same essence. Jesus, then, could be said to have the same essence as the Father and be called God, and yet be a different personality from the Father. He could also take on a unique function, that of adding to Himself another nature or essence, human nature, in order to pay the penalty for our sins by dying in our place.

In so doing Jesus took a submissive role, but submission does not mean inferiority of nature or essence. Wives are to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:23) but that does not mean they are inferior to their husbands in essence. On the contrary, they are equally made in the image of God. In certain areas they will be superior to their husbands but they still submit. Even so, Jesus submits to the Father, not because he is inferior, but because He has so chosen to fulfill the plan of redemption. That is why He can be the mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5), because He is both God and man (He is one personality who possess two natures). As SYBT says, “If Jesus, however, were part of a Godhead, the ransom price would have been infinitely higher than what God’s own law required,” suggesting that Jesus only had to be a finite sacrifice to die for Adam. But the price had to be infinitely high because Jesus was not the ransom for Adam’s sin alone, but for the whole world (1 John 2:2). We are not only guilty of Adam’s sin but all our own, also (Colossians 2:13,14).

And so we are to be baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Each is listed because they each have a critical role in our salvation and they are the ones into whom we are equally to be baptized because they are not just any Tom, Dick or Harry, but the authors of our salvation. We look to “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” (2 Corinthians 13:13, notice the order, by the way) because our salvation is equally dependent on each of them. Yet, because the Son submits His will to the Father, the Father is the one usually designated “God.”

The early church fathers writing after the apostles express this same belief. Ignatius (he lived from 30-107 A.D.), in his epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 1, could talk of “the blood of God” when speaking of Jesus’ sacrifice. In chapter 7 he could describe Christ as “one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh” and in chapter 18 as “our God, Jesus Christ.” He could also say, in his epistle to the Magnesians, chapter 7, “The Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him,” and then, that “there is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent.” To the Trallians, chapter 7, he commands, “Continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God,” and again to the Smyrnaeans he refers to “Christ our God” (chapter 10).

In his dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr (114-165 A.D.) includes a lengthy argument attempting to prove to Trypho, a Jew, that Jesus is God. Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.) writes at length about how “neither the prophets nor the apostles did ever name another God, or call him Lord, except the true and only God” (Against Heresies, chapter 8), whereas, of course, Irenaeus and all the writers of the New Testament called Jesus Lord repeatedly.

The list of witnesses to Jesus’ deity and equality with God could go on and on, but the point is that this is what necessitated an explanation of the Trinity. When Arius (around 300 A.D.) sought to clarify the distinction of Jesus’ personality from the Father’s in reaction to those who denied it, he felt it better to reduce Jesus’ status to the highest created being in order to highlight it. When Athanasius sought to correct this idea without denying Jesus’ distinct personality, yet proclaiming His co-equality of essence with the Father, a battle ensued. Arius and those who followed managed several times to have Athanasius exiled (5 times, in fact, in 335, 339, 356, 361, and 363 A.D.). Yet eventually his arguments convinced the majority of the church’s leaders. Constantine, who presided over the first council that rejected Arius’s views, was later persuaded to restore Arius’s views, and Arius then had enough power to banish Athanasius. Constantine died before the issue was ever settled and played relatively little role in the final outcome of the argument.

It is a shame that so much fighting has taken place over this issue from both sides. I wish I could meet with you and express to you that I do not hate Jehovah’s Witnesses because of their views. I am dismayed, though, that such a view is so strongly propounded and that, to me, it takes from the glory due my Lord, Jesus Christ. But the Lord is able to fight His own battles. I believe He wants me to witness to His majesty and glory and to tell the world that forgiveness of sins, of all our sins, past, present, and future (Colossians 2:13) is available in Him through faith only, not by works (Ephesians 2:8-10). I would enjoy any response from you to this lengthy and complex letter. I hope it is not too confusing. But frankly, if God were someone I could completely understand, around whom no mystery existed, all aspects of whose being were completely intelligible to me, He would not be the infinite God whose thought are higher than mine.

Thank you for receiving my letter,

Randall Johnson

[What follows is Christie’s response]

Dear Randall,

Thank you for taking time to write me such a lengthy and detailed letter. I’m sorry that it has taken me so long to respond but I have received so much literature from my Aunt Marjorie that it has taken me some time to sort through it all.

Your letter was very informative and quite involved. But you answered my question in the second and the final paragraphs of your letter when you wrote:

The church was forced to consider who Jesus was and when they decided that He was indeed God they were forced to explain how that harmonized with the teaching of one God. What eventually resulted was the doctrine of the Trinity.

This is what I wanted clarified: Is the trinity a bible teaching or a church teaching? I believe in the bible and I believe it is God’s word. When something is unclear, I turn to God’s word as brought out in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness that the man of God may fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

I couldn’t find the word “trinity” in any bible translation and your letter brings out that it is indeed a church teaching.

I was raised a Catholic and the Catholic Church doesn’t encourage bible study, so when I began studying the bible on my own (even before I came across Jehovah’s Witnesses), the trinity doctrine seemed confusing and difficult to understand. But the bible brings out that Jehovah is not a God of confusion. 1 Corinthians 14:33:

For God is (a God), not of disorder, but of peace.

Jehovah is a God of peace. I agree with you, it is a shame there has been so much fighting over this issue. Organized religion, in particular the Catholic Church, has persecuted people over this issue for centuries. But as Catholic theologians and both Catholic and Protestant encyclopedias bring out, the trinity doctrine is not a bible teaching. If only religions would follow the bible counsel at 1 Corinthians 4:6:

…Do not go beyond the things that are written, in order that you may not be puffed up individually in favor of the one against the other.

And John 15:17:

These things I commend you, that you love one another.

Regarding Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Trypho, where can I find this? I think that Justin was trying to prove that Jesus was Lord, the Messiah. But I would like to read from your source. The sources listed on page 7 of the Trinity pamphlet I sent, bring out that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus did not support the trinity doctrine.

Using “Lord” does not always mean Jehovah. Depending on the Hebrew or Greek form being translated, “Lord” could mean Jehovah, Jesus, or it could be a title of respect as in 1 Peter 3:6. I’m enclosing literature on the use of God’s name in the scriptures. I’m sure you will find it interesting. I would appreciate your comments, especially insight into why God is called Jehovah in the King James Version at Psalm 83:18.

Also, you mention in your letter that some of the passages you referred to have been retranslated in the New World Translation. Translations vary from bible to bible. I use many different bibles in my research including the King James Version, the Living Bible, and the Revised Standard. The New World Translation does restore Jehovah’s name to its proper place but the King James, as well as other bibles, uses God’s name also.

There is a translation you made of Romans 9:5 that I couldn’t find in any bible:

From them (the Jews) is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!

Even the Living Bible renders the end of that verse, “Praise God forever!” which has quite a different meaning. Please tell me what bible contains your translation.

You also mentioned that it is through faith we are saved, not by works. I agree. But the bible also brings out in James 2:26:

Faith without works is dead.

Please know that I do accept Jesus Christ as my Savior, the Son of Jehovah God. Even the American Heritage dictionary makes this distinction.

Than you again for taking interest in me. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Christie 

[My response]

Dear Christie,

I apologize first of all for misspelling your name. I thank you, however, for sending a letter to tell me of your thoughts about what I wrote.

I am a little discouraged that you did not respond to what I consider the heart of the letter. Far from intending to suggest that the church decided on the doctrine of the trinity apart from the Word of God, I tried to show that it was precisely because of the testimony of the New Testament to who Jesus is that the church was forced to explain His relation to God. And the evidence I sought to present was for the full deity of Jesus the Messiah. I would greatly appreciate your sincere consideration of this matter.

I have read the booklet you sent with great interest. I will comment just briefly.

If there is anything we do know it is that Jehovah is definitely not the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. Yahweh is certainly closer if not exactly correct. But we cannot even say that we know it is exactly correct for certain. Yet the logical end of the kind of reasoning given in this booklet about how concerned God is that everyone use His personal name correctly would certainly lead us to abandon the use of Jehovah and at least move closer to the correct form with Yahweh.

We should certainly not retain Jehovah because it has “currency and familiarity” (p. 9). But the point is that God is not giving brownie points to whoever uses His name exactly right or He would have ensured that the correct vocalization would have been preserved. As the booklet pointed out when it quoted Dr. Walter Lowrie (p. 29), we cannot know God if we know Him “only as an impersonal force.” But having God’s name in its exact vocalization is not necessary to knowing Him as the personal God who loves us and gave Himself for us on the cross.

As the booklet further explains, the way to really honor God’s name is to live in a way that brings glory to Him (pointing others to the kingdom, obeying His law, etc.). God is not the kind of God who is so insecure that He takes offense when we don’t properly pronounce His name. He is the God who is “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14), the one whose grace increases where sin abounds (Romans 5:21).

It seems to me that the issue this booklet is trying to assert does more to create the kind of fighting we have both regretted seeing. The real issue is, “Who is Jesus?” Please carefully review the evidence I recounted, Christie, and let me know your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Randall

[Her response]

Dear Randall,

I received your reply to my letter and I too am discouraged. You write you did not intend to suggest that the church decided on the doctrine of the trinity apart from the Word of God, but that is exactly what the early church did. All my research, including writings by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, shows that the trinity doctrine was developed apart from scriptural teachings and was influenced by paganism. Your letter is sprinkled with “the church has chosen to understand,” “the church concludes,” and “the early church fathers writing after the apostles.” You might not have intended it, but your letter shows the trinity doctrine was a conclusion of the church. (Hundreds of years after the bible was written!)

If the trinity doctrine is a doctrine of the bible, why isn’t it clearly stated in the scriptures? Why isn’t the word “trinity” in the bible?

You cited a great many scriptures in trying to show that Jesus is Almighty God. I will respond to a few of them:

You wrote if John 1:1 was translated “the Word was a god,” we would be expected to believe that John would call Jesus “a god” who was formed after Jehovah (which contradicts Isaiah 43:10). But calling Jesus “a god” is not calling him Almighty God – which is what Isaiah is referring to. For indeed many “gods” were formed (by human hands) after Almighty God. But these were pagan gods and not Almighty. I am in no way comparing Jesus with pagan gods – I’m just commenting on the use of the word “god.” When John 1:1 is translated “the Word was a god,” it highlights the divine, godlike quality of the Word. It is not calling Jesus Almighty God. “This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus here called ‘the Word’ in his role as God’s Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.” (Trinity booklet, p. 27)

You cite Isaiah 42:5-8 and say the church concluded, “This is talking about Jesus.” Let’s examine that scripture: This is what God, Jehovah, says – he who created the heavens…” (Then you commented, “Hey, that’s what John said about Jesus”) – But John 1:3 said all things were made through Jesus. As “wisdom” in his pre-human existence, Jesus says he was “by his (God’s) side, a master craftsman” (Proverbs 8:30). “It was by means of this master worker, his junior partner, as it were, that Almighty God created all things. The Bible summarizes the matter this way: ‘For us there is one God, (not a triune God), the Father, from whom are all things…and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things’ – 1 Corinthians 8:6 RS Catholic edition.” (Trinity booklet, pg. 14)

Let’s continue with Isaiah: “I, Jehovah, have called you in righteousness; will make you to be a covenant for the people…to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.” Then you comment, “Hey, wait a minute, that sounds like Jesus, too! How could Jesus be talking to himself?” But it isn’t Jesus talking to himself (as would be the case if God was a trinity). It’s Jehovah talking to Jesus in his pre-human (John 17:5) existence.

Isaiah continues: “I am Jehovah; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.” Then you comment, “But Jesus seems to be given such glory when John says, ‘We beheld his glory.’” Jesus indeed was given glory (John 17:5; Rev. 5:11,12) but he was not given the glory that was exclusively Jehovah’s (my glory, my praise).

You also cited Isaiah 44:6 where Jehovah says, “I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.” Then you cite Revelation 1:17,18 and conclude it is Christ speaking in Isaiah. But in Isaiah “I am the first and the last,” describes Jehovah’s Godship. Jehovah was making a statement about his unique position as the true God. He is God eternal and besides him there is indeed no God (1 Tim. 1:17).

In Revelation, Jesus is presenting himself by the title “the First and the Last,” he is not claiming equality with Jehovah, the Grand Creator. He is using a title given to him by God – this title calls attention to Jesus’ unique resurrection. Jesus was “the First” human to be resurrected to immortal life (Col. 1:18). Jesus is “the Last” to be resurrected by Jehovah personally. So, Jesus becomes “the living one…living forever and ever.” He enjoys immortality. In this, he is like his immortal Father, who is called “the living God” (Rev. 7:2; Psalm 42:2). For all others of humanity, Jesus himself is “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25). In harmony with this, Jesus says to John: “I became dead but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades” (Rev. 1:18b). Jehovah has given Jesus the authority to resurrect the dead. That is why Jesus can say that he has the keys to unlock the gates for those bound by death and Hades (Matthew 16:18). [See Revelation, It’s Grand Climax at Hand! Pp. 27-28]

You cited many other scriptures, but for me to take time to address each one would take several pages. However, I am willing to do that. Please tell me which scripture you want me to address.

In your letter, you stated in presenting specific scriptures you sought to show the full deity of Jesus the Messiah, and that you would greatly appreciate my sincere consideration of this matter. You concluded in your letter: “The real issue is, ‘Who is Jesus?’” After reading your letter, researching various secular sources and studying with Jehovah’s Witnesses, I have come to this conclusion:

Jesus is the Son of God (Matt. 3:16,17; John 3:16).

Jesus had a pre-human existence (John 3:13; Genesis 1:26).

Jesus is the Messiah (John 1:41; 4:25,26).

Jesus was sent by God to offer his life as a ransom that everyone might gain everlasting life (Matthew 20:28; 1 Peter 1:18,19).

Jesus is the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5; 2 Cor. 1:20; Hebrews 7:25).

Jesus is God’s subordinate servant, not God’s equal (1 Cor. 11:3; John 14:28; Luke 22:42; Matthew 20:23).

Now I would ask you to again give careful consideration to pages 14-20 of the “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” booklet. And the question I leave with you – which I consider the real issue – “Who is Jehovah?”

Thank you for your letter. I hope to hear from you and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Christie

[My response on 9/12/90]

Dear Christie,

I must take exception to your conclusion that the church decided on the doctrine of the trinity apart from the Word of God. Whether or not you agree with the interpretations of key passages that I wrote about in my letter you must acknowledge that the passages are the source of our beliefs, not pagan sources. To suggest such a thing is an evasion of the historical evidence. You may assume outright that anything other than your view is pagan but it is just that, an assumption. The fact is that there were plenty of pagan sources for the idea of a created son of God (that’s what all the old myths are about) but there is no pagan doctrine that ever comes close to envisaging the existence of the tri-personal God. SYBT’s pretense at this, accomplished by showing triads of pagan gods, ignores the fact that these pagan concepts were nothing like the Christian concept of God and so in no way a real claim to trinity as defined in the doctrine of the church.

The absence of the word “trinity” from the Bible is a meaningless argument. The concept can exist without the name and that is what I have been seeking to show – that indeed Jesus is identified as equal to Yahweh and yet a distinct person or personality who willingly submits Himself to the Father’s will. Whether you call it trinity or something else is irrelevant as long as it is Scripturally substantiated. Come on Christie, you are obviously very intelligent and can see through logical fallacies.

I know this sounds harsh but don’t you see, Christie, that it is this kind of unfairness to opposing views that leads to continued misunderstanding and unnecessary bickering. It also prevents honest consideration of the opposing views. Whatever you have read of Justin or Irenaeus it must be admitted that they nowhere address the issue of the origin of the doctrine of the trinity and so nowhere indicate that it is from an unscriptural source. Instead, what we must evaluate is what they said about who Jesus is and who the Father is. WE may decide that they make no clear statement one way or the other about Jesus’ deity or that they clearly deny or affirm it. But that does not logically lead to the view that such a doctrine as the church later affirmed is therefore pagan in origin.

But let me also repeat the evidence from these church fathers that I included in my first letter.

The early church fathers writing after the apostles express this same belief. Ignatius (lived 30-107 A.D.), in his epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 1, could talk of “the blood of God” when speaking of Jesus’ sacrifice. In chapter 7 he could describe Christ as “one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh” and in 18 as “our God, Jesus Christ.” He could also say, in his epistle to the Magnesians, chapter 7, “The Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him,” and then, that “there is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent.” And to the Trallians, chapter 7, he commands, “Continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God,” and again to the Smyrnaeans he refers to “Christ our God” (chapter 10).

In his dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr (114-165 A.D.) includes a lengthy argument attempting to prove to Trypho, a Jew, that Jesus is God. Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.) writes at length about how “neither the prophets nor the apostles did ever name another God, or call him Lord except the true and only God” (Against Heresies, ch. 8), whereas, of course, Irenaeus and all the writers of the New Testament called Jesus Lord repeatedly.

Of course, Justin and Irenaeus are well-respected witnesses to early church history, but they are, after all, fallible witnesses. Let’s look again at the Scriptures involved. Isaiah 43:10 says, “Before me no God was formed, nor will there be one after me.” Was Yahweh “formed?” No, there are two contrasts here. Yahweh is the only true God and not formed but eternally existent. The gods others worship were formed, according to the pagans, by the primal gods or forces of the universe. Any “formed” god is automatically not the true God, but God is in fact saying there are no formed gods with real existence after all. But if John is saying that Jesus is, in fact, a god (formed, according to Jehovah’s Witnesses, by God Himself) then John contradicts Yahweh. To say that this is John’s way of highlighting Jesus’ “divine, godlike quality” does not satisfy. Nothing created is divine. None who bear the title god is ever viewed in Scripture as other than a pretender to godhood, a false god. To anyone in John’s day who was an adherent of Scripture, the idea of Jesus being a god who was with God and was creator of all things would be abhorrent.

Admittedly, to declare that Jesus was God is also difficult. But it can be harmonized with Isaiah 43:10. Jesus is not a god formed or created after the God. He is God Himself who yet is a distinct personality from the Father (which is why John could also say that Jesus was “with” God in the beginning). It is not the case, as you say, that if God is a trinity, then Jesus talks or relates to Himself. The doctrine of the trinity clearly asserts that though God is one as to His essence, yet He is three as to personality. Each person, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, shares the one, undivided essence as a unique person able to relate to the others. Thus the Bible can affirm that there is only one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Tim. 1:17; etc.) and yet also affirm that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also God (e.g., John 1:1 and Acts 5:2-4).

On this view of God He is not lying then when He says He will not share His glory with another (Isaiah 42:8). To share it with Jesus would be to validly attribute it to God alone because Jesus shares that deity with the Father. If, however, Jesus is a created, obedient subordinate who is not equal to God, not infinite, eternal and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth, then to encourage praise and honor for Him (Jesus) like that encouraged for the Father, would be idolatry.

And yet, the writers of the New Testament consistently give the glory due the Father to Jesus, as well. In every greeting Paul makes in his letters he always conveys “grace and peace…from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 1:7, et al). How could Paul equate the grace and peace that comes from God the Father with that of a created, obedient subordinate? If this is not what he is doing he is certainly not making that clear by his wording. How could John or the other writers of the Gospels even make Jesus the focus of their books without encouraging readers to share their praise of the Father with Jesus, also? How could John say he wrote his Gospel so that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing we might have life in Jesus’ name (20:31)? How could life ever be in the name of one who is a created, obedient subordinate of God?

How could John the Baptist be declared the messenger who would come ahead of Christ to prepare His way when in Malachi Yahweh says, “See I will send My messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly Yahweh you are seeking will come to His temple” (Malachi 3:1)? Isaiah 40:3 says, “In the desert prepare the way for Yahweh; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God” and yet Mark uses these references in his Gospel to introduce and explain the coming of Jesus. Admittedly it could be argued that Jesus’ coming is, by extension, Yahweh’s coming through His representative. But Yahweh had always and often “come” through created representatives before. This new coming was supposed to be personal. It is if Jesus is God Almighty. It is not if He isn’t. And He gets far too much acclaim by the Gospel writers for any created subordinate to receive since it is the acclaim for glory due God alone.

And when Paul explains that Jesus was given a name above all names so that everyone would bow to Him and confess that He is Lord (Philippians 2:9-11), that could not be to the glory of God the Father if Jesus were a created being. Because God said in Isaiah 45:23,24 that before Him every knee would bow and by Him every tongue would swear. In other words, His name would be above all names in the eyes of every person. They would be forced to admit that “in Yahweh alone are righteousness and strength.”

If your view of Jesus is correct then John is again doing us a disservice when he records the inhabitants of heaven ascribing praise to God by saying,

You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things. (Revelation 4:11)

Then, in 5:11, the inhabitants of heaven say basically the same about Jesus (except they use even more words to extol Him), saying He is worthy to receive “power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise.” Then he represents them praising the Father and the Son in the same breath with the same ascription in 5:13,

To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power for ever and ever!

John should explain that Jesus doesn’t really deserve praise here in the same way the Father does because, as a created subordinate, God will not share His glory with him who is less than the true God. But that is the whole point. Jesus is not less than the true God and deserves the same praise and glory the Father does. And so heaven rejoices saying, “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb” (7:10).

Of particular poignancy in this regard is the statement by John in his Gospel that Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about Him (12:41). John is explaining why many in Jesus’ day did not believe Him and paraphrases Isaiah 6:10,

He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so that they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn – and I would heal them (John 12:40).

He says Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory (in the Greek text it says “he saw his glory” but the context makes it evident that John means Jesus because it is failure to believe in Jesus that is at issue, and seeing the Father’s glory would not be a reason in John’s mind for Isaiah explaining why the Jews were blinded to Jesus). Isaiah, of course, saw Yahweh’s glory and heard the angels proclaim three times that Yahweh was “holy” (Isaiah 6:3).

Other passages in which it appears God does share His own glory with Jesus include 2 Corinthians 4:6,

For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

And 2 Peter 3:18 says,

But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen. (Compare this with Hebrews 13:21; 2 Timothy 4:18; 1 Timothy 6:15,16; 1:17; etc.)

Just as an aside, the phrase “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” is constructed in the Greek New Testament this way: “the (only article) Lord of us and savior Jesus Christ.” The general rule is that if there is only one article it governs both titles and indicates both refer to the same person. This is the same construction found in Titus 2:13: “the great God and savior of us Jesus Christ.” If translated the same way it should read, “Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” The New International Version uses this translation. 2 Peter 1:1 is an identical construction.

Revelation 1:5,6 says, “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father – to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.” Then in 1:8 the Father Himself speaks and says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” In 1:17 Jesus says, “I am the First and the Last,” concepts which are synonymous. My interpretation of this passage related this to Yahweh’s claim to be the First and the Last in Isaiah 44:6. Your view that Jesus meant He was the first to be resurrected and the last to be resurrected by Jehovah personally is unsupported by a later context, Revelation 22:12-16. This is a direct message from Jesus through an angel (v. 16) in which he declares, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” The first description the Father used of Himself, the last defines the meaning of the first two. The same description used of the Father and the Son most likely indicates that they are the speaking of the same concept. And we would certainly be wrong to say of the Father that He is the first and last to be resurrected.

If you want to make comment on any additional Scriptures referred to in my first letter I would appreciate your view of Hebrews 1:8-12. This is a section in which the author contrasts Old Testament references to angels with those of the Son. I am aware that some would prefer to translate Psalm 45:6, “God is your throne” rather than see Jesus referred to in “Your throne, O God” and that is technically possible in both Hebrew and Greek. But Hebrews 1:10, quoting Psalm 102:25 is clearly addressing a remark to Jesus that in the Psalm is addressed to God.

I would also appreciate comment on my interpretation of Colossians 1:15 in the first letter. And a passage I did not mention, but would like to see your response to, is Isaiah 9:6.

Yours Sincerely,

Randall Johnson

[Christie’s response of November 26, 1990]

Dear Randall,

I apologize for the long delay in my response. October was a very busy month for me and your letter was long and detailed and I wanted to respond to a number of things.

First of all, I don’t consider any view other than mine is pagan. What I meant by pagan are beliefs that find their source in ancient Babylon such as belief of multi-gods. To the Babylonians and other pagans their gods were personal and their rituals and literature reveal this.

Secondly, I don’t agree that the absence of the word “trinity” from the bible is a meaningless argument and I don’t believe the concept of trinity even exists in the bible. But you are entitled to your own opinion. What I take exception to is what you repeatedly refer to as “opposing views that lead to continued misunderstanding and unnecessary bickering.” I don’t see the free exchange of ideas (even when there is no agreement) as bickering. 1 Timothy 6:3-4 shows us we are to avoid arguing over words. It was not my intention to argue but to carefully examine the Scriptures as to whether these things (in this case the trinity doctrine) were so, Acts 17:11.

Also, your wrote, according to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus was formed by God himself. This is not a personal interpretation. This is what the scriptures reveal to us: Colossians 1:15 Jesus is called “the firstborn of all creation.” In Revelation 3:14, Jesus is called the beginning of creation of God.

You write John 1:1’s use of “a god” to highlight Jesus’ divine, godlike quality does not satisfy. That is your opinion. I think it not only satisfies but it is also in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures.

You write, “Nothing created is divine.” But Jesus was created (Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22) which is another reason he can’t be Almighty God. But Jesus can have divine qualities, grace and truth – John 1:14. You wrote, “none who bear the title ‘god’ is ever viewed in Scripture as other than a pretender to godhead, a false god.” But Jesus is called “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6 (note: not Almighty God). At Psalm 82:1,6 “gods” is used of human judges in Israel. Similarly, Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and Pharaoh – Exodus 4:16. You further reason, if Jesus was created then to encourage praise and honor for Jesus would be idolatry. I disagree. By his entire life course of integrity to God, including his sacrifice, and by his resurrection from the dead to life as a heavenly Son of God, Jesus was “declared righteous in spirit” (1 Timothy 3:16) and heavenly creatures proclaimed him “worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing” (Revelation 5:5-13).

You asked for my view of Hebrews 1:8-12 and which translation of Hebrews 1:8 (“God is your throne” or “Your throne, O God”) is in harmony with the context. The preceding verses show that God is speaking, not that God is being spoken to. The next verse (Hebrews 1:9) uses the expression “God, thy God.” This shows that the one spoken to is not Almighty God but a worshiper of Almighty God. Hebrews 1:10 quotes Psalm 102:25-27 which is addressed to God. But Hebrews 1:10-12 applies to the Son because the Son is the one through whom God “laid the foundations” of the earth and made the heavens. See Colossians 1:15,16; Proverbs 8:22,27-30.

Also, Hebrews 1:5 – a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Just because the first application is to Solomon and the later is to Jesus doesn’t mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon – Luke 11:31 (Reasoning From the Scriptures).

In response to your interpretation of Colossians 1:15 in your first letter, I agree the word “firstborn” could be used as “a metaphor for one who had the priority of position over others.” But, in these verses, Jesus is shown to be “the firstborn of all creation” as well as “the firstborn from the dead” – not just the most distinguished in relation to those created or those resurrected but the first one actually created and the first raised from the dead to endless life (Colossians 1:15,18; Revelation 1:15; 3:14).

In regards to Isaiah 9:6, you probably want me to respond to “Mighty God.” As I’ve already noted, this is not Almighty God. Also, the Living Bible reads: “…These will be his royal titles: Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” None of these were given as “names” when Jesus was born to Mary, nor when he took up his ministry. They were all prophetic “title-names” by which Messiah would be identified. “Jesus lived up to the meaning of these names in every respect, and that is the sense in which they were prophetically given, to show his qualities and the good offices he would perform toward all those accepting him as Messiah.” (Insight Into the Scriptures)

In my last letter, I stated whom I believed, based on the scriptures, Jesus is. And I asked you why the King James Version uses God’s personal name Jehovah. I am glad to see you use the Hebrew form “Yahweh.” At least you recognize that God has a personal name.

Now I would like to continue examining what the Scriptures say about Jesus in relation to God. Job 2:1,2 and 6 shows that Satan knows who God is, Satan knows who the sons of God are and Satan knows God is more powerful than Satan. Matthew 4:1 brings out that Satan tries to tempt Jesus. Satan knows God can’t be tempted but the sons of God can be tempted and can sin (Jude 6). And that’s who Jesus is – not God, but the Son of God. Satan knows Jesus is not God (Matthew 4:3). At Matthew 4:4, Jesus is saying he is a man. And Jesus sets the Scriptural formulae on how to determine the truth. So at Matthew 4:5, Satan quotes scripture – he knows how to twist the meaning of Scripture. In reply at Matthew 4:7, Jesus shows how Scriptures have to blend with the rest of the Scriptures. Scriptures can’t be taken out of context. If Jesus is God, how can Satan offer him all these kingdoms at Matthew 4:8? And Matthew 4:9 shows again that Satan knows Jesus is not God.

Are Jesus and the Father equal? At John 14:28 the answer is clear – no. Did Jesus care who people thought he was? Matthew 16:13-17 shows Jesus was concerned with what his true disciples thought. They would be responsible to teach who he is. No one thought Jesus was God. And Jesus blessed Peter for giving the correct answer: the Son of the living God.

You wrote, “To anyone in John’s day who was an adherent of Scripture, the idea of Jesus being a god who was with God and was creator of all things would be abhorrent.” This is not what I wrote. Again, I suggested the use of “a god” in John 1:1 highlighted Jesus’ divine qualities and the Scriptures clearly state Jesus was with God before coming to the earth and it was through Jesus all things were created, but Jesus is not the Creator. Genesis 1:26; Proverbs 8:22,30; John 1:2,3.

And finally, why were all the Scriptures in John written? To support the trinity doctrine – which is the corner stone to many “Christian” religions? No, but that “you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”

The testimony of God (Matthew 3:17), Jesus, and the true disciples is unanimous: Jesus is the Son of God.

Thank you again for your letters. I look forward to your response and I would appreciate your insight on another matter. With all that is happening in the Middle East, what is your view on Christians participating in man’s wars? – John 13:34,35; 1 John 3:10-12; John 18:36; Romans 12:17-21.

Sincerely,

Christie

It was apparent to me after this letter that our correspondence was getting us nowhere. I wrote a letter in response to Christie letting her know that we were not communicating and that I would not continue corresponding. She seemed unwilling to really consider the arguments for their merit but would rather quote other Jehovah’s Witnesses publications. She seemed unable to interact with the Scriptural explanations given, but was pre-disposed to see things from the limited perspective of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It has occurred to me since that I took a completely wrong approach to interacting with Christie. To engage her on only a doctrinal or Biblical basis communicated that I only saw her as a one-dimensional person. It seemed that if I just gave her enough “powerful” information she would have to see the light. What I failed to do was engage her on a personal level, developing a friendship of trust. I didn’t know what was really motivating her to follow this viewpoint. I didn’t understand her as a full person. I hope I won’t make that mistake in the future.

Randall Johnson