UP

"Father" and "Son" in the Trinity:
Answering Jehovah's Witnesses

March 3, 2017
Copyright © 2011, Ronald W. Leigh
Most Bible quotations are from the New International Version,
some are from the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses, 2013).

—————————————— Contents —————————————— A. Introduction B. Names of the three members of the trinity C. The full deity of the Son D. The humiliation of the Son E. The correct translation of John 1:1c F. Word studies - cautions G. The meaning of "son" H. The meaning of monogenēs I. In what sense was Christ the "firstborn"? J. Does Jehovah refer to the Father, Son, or all three? K. Translating and interpreting Philippians 2:5-8 L. Interpreting John 17:3 M. Roles N. Eternal generation O. The Jehovah's Witnesses' trinity booklet P. Conclusion    Annotated bibliography —————————————————————————————————

A.  Introduction

This paper is a follow-up to the paper The Trinity: Understanding the Structure.  In that paper, which should be read first, we defend the fact of the trinity and explain the structure of the trinity.  In this paper we focus on the relationship between the first and second persons of the trinity by asking questions such as:

• Do the biblical names "Father" and "Son" and the adjective "firstborn" imply that the Son was created by the Father and is therefore inferior to the Father?
• Does John 1:1 say that the Word was merely "a god," without full deity?
• Should the Greek word monogenēs be translated "only begotten"?
• Does Jehovah refer strictly to the Father?

The status of the Son is of crucial importance and has been debated throughout the history of Christianity.  The following table identifies various views ranging from a low view of Christ at the bottom to a high view of Christ at the top.

The Bible says that Jesus Christ was both fully man and fully God, the second person in the trinity.

Jehovah's Witnesses say that Jesus Christ began as a created angel, who could rightly be called "a god" (lower case "g") but not "God."

Muslims say that Jesus Christ was merely human, but was a true prophet.

Liberals say that Jesus Christ was merely human but was a good moral teacher.  He was neither confused nor deceptive about his identity (he knew that he was merely human and never said otherwise).  However, his followers were either confused or deceptive when they claimed he was God.  (We have dealt with this view in the paper Jesus' Claim of Deity.)

Many in our culture say that Jesus Christ was a mere human.  Despite having some good moral teachings, he was confused about being God.

In this paper we will focus on the relationship between the Father and the Son, as described in the Bible.  At times we will focus specifically on the Jehovah's Witness view, in the hope that, as Jesus said,

all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.  (John 5:23)

We will also deal with the various arguments presented in the Jehovah's Witnesses booklet, Should You Believe in the Trinity? (published by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1989, 32 pages).

If you are a Jehovah's Witness, you might want to begin by reading section "J" on the question, "Does Jehovah refer to the Father, Son, or all three?"

In a nutshell, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there is only one God, Jehovah.  This one God consists of only one person, the Father, as opposed to three persons in the Christian doctrine of the trinity.  They claim that the Father, as his very first creation, created an angel who later became Jesus.  This angel (the pre-human Jesus), being a creature, is inferior to God and is called "a god" in the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation of the Bible.  The pre-human Jesus then created everything else.  The notion that the Father existed before, and created, Jesus (a "god") directly contradicts Isaiah's record of the Lord's claim that

Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.  (Isaiah 43:10)

Since Jehovah's Witnesses believe in only one God, they are sometimes called strict monotheists.  Yet, they have one God (Jehovah) and one god (Jesus).  Thus, it may be more accurate to label them henotheistic rather than monotheistic.

In our evaluation of Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs, one thing that should help us is the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses claim to respect the Bible as the source of truth.

… God wants us to know him and his purposes accurately, in conformity with divine truth. And God's Word, the Holy Bible, is the source of that truth.  (Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 30)

So, theoretically, the evaluation process should be simple.  We should be able to go to the Bible and focus our discussion on the meaning of the relevant passages.  One hitch in this process, however, is the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses have their own translation of the Bible, the New World Translation (Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 2013), which we will refer to as the NWT.  In many key New Testament passages the NWT contains a unique translation which favors Jehovah's Witness beliefs, which we will note in the following sections.  This will require that we dig a little deeper and look at the Greek grammar and definitions behind the translation of certain passages.  (See the bibliography at the end of this paper for a link to the online version of the NWT.)

B.  Names of the three members of the trinity

Consider the names of the three members of the trinity:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  The first two names focus on relationship, while the third name focuses on character and nature.

What if the scriptures had revealed only names expressing relationship, such as one of these sets of names?

• Father, Mother, Son, or
• Father, Son, Daughter, or
• Father, Son One, Son Two, or
• Brother One, Brother Two, Brother Three

Or, what if the scriptures had revealed only names expressing character or nature, such as one of these sets of names?

• Eternal Spirit, Powerful Spirit, Holy Spirit, or
• Wisdom, Might, Love

Or, what if the scriptures had revealed only names expressing function, such as one of these sets of names?

• Creator, Redeemer, Helper, or
• Creator, Counselor One, Counselor Two

Using the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or any imagined set of names listed above), it should be obvious that any particular name serves only to identify one member of the trinity as distinct from the other members.  It does not serve as a complete description of that member's nature, character, or relationships.  For example, the third person of the trinity is called the Holy Spirit.  But, of course, both of the other persons in the trinity are also holy, and both are spirit (the Son being spirit before his incarnation, spirit-in-body after his incarnation).  Similarly, even though the first member of the trinity has the name Father, there is certainly a fatherly aspect to the character and actions of both the Son and the Spirit.  Indeed, Isaiah says the coming Son will be called "Everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6).  Also, Jesus described the coming Holy Spirit as "another" (αλλος, allos, another of the same kind).  So we should not expect any one of the names to limit that member of the trinity in any way.  Nor should we expect any one of the names to be a complete description of that member of the trinity.  When you begin to list the names for God found in the Old Testament, you quickly see that no single name is adequate for a complete description, only for an identifier.  Thus, the name "Son" should focus our minds only on his relationship to the Father.  It should not determine his relationship to anyone else or anything else, and certainly should not limit our understanding of who he is.  In particular, we should not expect the name "Son," by itself, to establish the idea that there was a time when the Son was not yet in existence, nor a time when the Father was not yet a father.

One of our goals in this paper is to examine the sense in which Jesus is the Son of the Father.  Jehovah's Witnesses claim that this Father-Son relationship implies a begettor-begotten relationship, with obvious implications for the origin of the Son.  Is this correct?  Or, is the Father-Son relationship intended to imply something about the character or nature of the Son?

C.  The full deity of the Son

We have dealt with the full deity of Jesus Christ in other papers, such as

• The Trinity, especially the section entitled "Biblical Evidence that God is Three"
• Jesus' Claim of Deity, especially the sections entitled "The deity of Jesus according to his followers" and "Jesus' own claims of deity"

Here we will cite some of the key passages that establish the full deity of Jesus Christ and compare them with the NWT.

Reference	New International Version	Comments	New World Translation (2013) Significant differences are overscored and red
Isaiah 9:6	For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.	When Isaiah predicted the incarnation of the Son, he said his names would include "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father."  Certainly the name "Everlasting Father," for the Son, should answer the question we raised earlier about a time before the Son existed.	For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Hebrews 1:8	But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom."	The writer of Hebrews quotes God addressing the Son and using the title "God."	But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness."
John 1:1, 18	In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. … No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.	John refers to Jesus as the Word and identifies him as God.	In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. … No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father's side is the one who has explained him.
John 8:58	"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"	John records that Jesus identified himself as God by using God's special name "I am" from Exodus 3:14.  Here, the Greek for "I am" (εγω ειμι, egō eimi) is in the present tense.	Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”
John 5:17-18	Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.	John claims that, by calling God his Father, Jesus was making himself equal with God.  This passage makes it obvious that the relational name "Father" speaks of nature, not of beginning.	But he answered them: “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” This is why the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.
John 5:22-23	Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.	John quotes Jesus stating that the Father's intent is that all should honor the Son as they honor the Father.  According to this passage, if we honor the Father as eternal, we should also honor the Son as eternal.	For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.
John 20:28	My Lord and my God!	John records that Thomas declared this after seeing the risen Christ, still with visible wounds.	My Lord and my God!
2 Peter 1:1	… through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ	Peter starts his second epistle applying the name God to Jesus.	through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ
Romans 9:5	the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!	Paul calls Jesus Christ "God over all."	from them the Christ descended according to the flesh. God, who is over all, be praised forever. Amen.
Titus 2:13	the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ	Paul applies both "God" and "Savior" to Christ.	glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ
Philippians 2:6	Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped	Paul asserts that Jesus Christ had equality with God (but that fact did not keep Jesus from humbling himself).	who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God
Colossians 2:9	For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form	Paul asserts that Jesus Christ has the fullness of deity.	because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.

 

D.  The humiliation of the Son

As important as it is to understand Jesus Christ's full deity, it is also important to understand his humiliation, that is, the period of time from his incarnation to his return to heaven.

Even though the above diagram is an oversimplification, it will help visualize the stages explained below.

Stage 1 – Glory with the Father

The Son existed eternally in the past with the Father and shared his glory.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God  (John 1:1)

… the glory I had with you [Father] before the world began (John 17:5)

Stage 2 – Humiliation among men

A – Incarnation and earthly life

B – Spiritual death (substitution), physical death, and burial

C – Resurrection and appearances

Stage 3 – Glory with the Father

Shortly before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed and spoke about his soon-coming glory with the Father, which would be a return to his original glory.

Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.  (John 17:5)

Jesus is now exalted and crowned with glory and honor at the right hand of God the Father, with a name above every name, and worthy of all worship.

… we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor  (Hebrews 2:9)

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.  (Hebrews 12:2, compare Ephesians 1:20-21)

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.  (Philippians 2:9-11)

Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!  (Revelation 5:12)

Failure to recognize the humiliation

In attempting to show that Jesus has always been less than God, the Jehovah's Witnesses use verses that pertain to Jesus' humiliation and try to apply them to his eternal status.  For example, they quote as a proof text John 14:28 where Jesus said, "the Father is greater than I."  Of course, at that time Jesus did have less glory than the Father.  That was during his humiliation, as described above, when he had emptied himself and had become a servant (Philippians 2:6-8).

E.  The correct translation of John 1:1c

1.  Different translations of John 1:1c

Below are two different ways of translating the third clause of John 1:1.

Various Standard translations  —  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
New World Translation  —  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

A few of the translations which agree with the first line above include:

• King James Version
• American Standard Version
• New International Version
• New American Standard Bible
• New Revised Standard Version
• NET Bible (net.bible.org)
• Holman Christian Standard Bible
• English Standard Version

In contrast, the NWT makes a very significant alteration in the third clause:  the Word was "a god" rather than "God."

In this section we will verify the legitimacy of the common translation and show why the Jehovah's Witness translation is incorrect.  However, first we need to discuss a few points of grammar and a few differences between Koine Greek and English.

2.  Grammar

Everyone who understands English grammar knows that the case of a noun or pronoun indicates its relation to the verb and thus to other words in the sentence.  In English there is the nominative case (subject), the objective case (direct and indirect objects), and the genitive case (possession).  In Greek there are additional cases.

In English, a noun's case is indicated by word order.  For example, in the clause, "Bill sees Alice," the subject (Bill) is placed before the verb and the direct object (Alice) is placed after the verb.  This word order indicates that Bill is the subject and the one doing the seeing, not the other way around.

However, in Greek a noun's case is determined by inflection, that is, by different word endings.  Since the word ending identifies the subject, the subject does not need to be first.  Thus, in Greek, word order can be used for emphasis.

Before we return to John 1:1, consider one more aspect of grammar.  A verb can be either an action verb or a linking verb.  Of course, the verb to be is a linking verb.  When a linking verb is used, both nouns that are being linked will be in the nominative case.  In English, the noun that appears before the verb is the subject and the noun that appears after the verb is the predicate nominative.  But in Greek, when you have a predicate nominative (that is, both nouns are in the nominative case), the subject is indicated by the use of the definite article in front of the noun.

3.  Grammar applied to John 1:1c

Here is the original Greek of John 1:1c with both the English transliteration (in parentheses) and the equivalent English words:

θεοσ (theos)	ην (ēn)	҅ο (ho)	λογος (logos)
God	was	the	Word

Both theos and logos are in the nominative case.  The definite article, ho, appears in front of logos making logos the subject.  Since English places the subject first, the correct English translation is "The Word was God."

Now consider the fact that no definite article appears with theos.  In English there is both the definite article (the) and the indefinite article (a, an).  However, in Greek there is no indefinite article.  The lack of the definite article in Greek should not be equated with the inclusion of the indefinite article in English.  In other words, the lack of the definite article with theos serves merely to indicate which of the two nouns is the subject since they are both in nominative case.  The lack of the definite article with theos does not justify the wording "a god."

It is worth noting that theos, coming first in the clause, is in the emphatic position stressing essence or quality.  It does the same thing in Greek that we do in English when we use italics or underscoring to emphasize a word, such as "The Word was God" or "The Word was deity".  If John had wanted to say that the Word was "a god," he could have placed "God" in the usual predicate position, ho logos ēn theos.  This could then be translated "the Word was a god."  But that is not what John wrote.

For Daniel B. Wallace's grammatical explanation of this passage, see William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, Zondervan, 2009, pages 27-28.

Below is a graphic copy of John 1:1, along with its footnote, from an interlinear New Testament produced by Alfred Marshall in 1958.  (The graphic is taken from Greek-English New Testament, Christianity Today, 1975. p. 265.)  Notice that Marshall's footnote succinctly summarizes the reason for the translation "the Word was God."

And the translators of the NET Bible (net.bible.org) provide the following note:

The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, "the Word was with God"); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence. (NET Bible, John 1:1, note 3)

In contrast, the Jehovah's Witness booklet on the trinity argues that

when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context (Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 27).

This "rule" is debatable.  However, for the sake of argument we will assume that the rule is true.  Of course, the rule makes the context the determining factor.  When Jehovah's Witnesses look at the context, they focus on the preceding clause ("the Word was with God," John 1:1b) and, according to the various statements on page 27 of the booklet, they reason as follows:

1. Major premise:  Someone who is "with" another person cannot also be that other person.
2. Minor premise:  The Word was with God.
3. Conclusion:  The Word cannot be God, he must be different than God.

(The booklet does not present the argument in the above form.  Nevertheless, the above syllogism is a valid summary of the argument being presented on page 27.)

Notice that there is a significant switch between the two premises and the conclusion.  The two premises are talking about persons, but their conclusion is about nature.  To reason properly you would have to keep the focus on persons and conclude that the Word (the second person of the trinity) cannot be the same person as God (the first person of the trinity).  Obviously, this is the standard, historic trinitarian claim, three distinguishable persons, but only one essence.  The only reason you might switch from persons in the premises to nature in the conclusion is if you had already concluded that there could only be one person who has the nature of God.  But to do so is to assume your conclusion as the basis of your conclusion – pure circular reasoning!

Nor can this line of argumentation start with a focus on nature.  In other words, it would be ridiculous to have as the major premise, "Someone who is with another person cannot be the same nature as that other person."

So the whole argument on page 27 falls flat, and John 1:1c should be translated "the Word was God."

F.  Word studies - cautions

Our discussion of John 1:1 in the previous section focused on grammar.  The next several sections, however, focus on the meanings of certain key words.  Before we begin those discussions we should consider the proper place of word studies, procedures, and pitfalls.

1.  Roots and etymology

Should a word's roots or its etymology be used to determine its meaning?  Carson answers:

One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology, that is, by the root or roots of a word. …  In the preface of The New King James Bible (Nashville, Nelson, 1982, p. iv), we are told that the "literal" meaning of μονογενης (monogenēs) is "only begotten." …  All of this is linguistic nonsense.  We might have guessed as much if we were more acquainted with the etymology of English words.  (D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed., Baker Books, 1996, p. 28)

Carson then presents the often cited example, the English word "nice," whose etymology can be traced back to a Latin word meaning ignorant.  But in current usage, the word means something entirely different.  We could also point out the word "fond," which originally meant foolish.  Carson also presents two of Louw's examples (from his Semantics of New Testament Greek, p. 27), namely "butterfly" and "pineapple," which should not be broken down into their components in order to determine their meaning.  We could also mention such compound words as "barnstorm," "moonshine," and "gangway."  Carson's point is that meaning is always determined by current usage (at the time of writing), not by former usage (etymology).

2.  Current usage

Rather than appealing to a word's etymology to find its meaning, we need to look at its current usage.  Carson agrees when he points out the inappropriateness of citing a word's usage from the classical Greek period, hundreds of years before the time of the New Testament.

…we should be a trifle suspicious when any piece of exegesis tries to establish the meaning of a word by appealing first of all to its usage in classical Greek rather than its usage in Hellenistic Greek  (D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed., Baker Books, 1996, p. 37)

When comparing different examples of current usage of a particular word, some examples would be of a higher grade (more helpful) than others.  Examples at the top of the following list should be considered more determinative than examples at the bottom, and all of the following grades should be considered more determinative than etymology.  (Of course, this list is incomplete and could never be applied mechanically because each instance of usage needs to be evaluated individually.  The list is meant only to suggest some of the relative factors involved in evaluating different examples of current usage.)

Grade 1 – Same author, in the same work
Grade 2 – Same author, in different works (perhaps to different audiences, at different times)
Grade 3 – Different authors, from the same region, during the same time period
Grade 4 – Different authors, from different regions, during the same time period
Grade 5 – Different authors, from closely adjacent time periods

3.  Context, that is, statements

There is another very important hermeneutical principle involved here, which we must be very careful not to violate.  Remember that doctrine is built, not on the words of Scripture (that is, the words in isolation), but on the statements of scripture.  Of course, the statements are made up of words, so a study of words is important.  But words often have a range of meanings or shades of meanings, which can only be narrowed down by the context.  This is the reason we cited statements (clauses and sentences) earlier when discussing the full deity of Christ.  Such statements verifying the full deity of Jesus Christ are considerably more valuable than any word study alone.

Carson makes a similar point.  Although he is discussing different Greek words for "love," his point about deriving teachings from words versus sentences is still valid.

… the content of God's love is not connected on a one-to-one basis with the semantic range of any single word or word group. What the Bible has to say about the love of God is conveyed by sentences, paragraphs, discourses, and so forth; that is, by larger semantic units than the word.  (D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2d ed.,Baker, 1996, p. 53, footnote 65)

4.  Analogy of scripture

In addition to current usage of a particular word, and context, the larger context (the "analogy of scripture") as it pertains to any given topic must come into play.  In other words, it is not enough to do the first two aspects described below.  You must also do the third aspect.

• You use the lexicon and find the current range of meanings of a particular word.
• You examine each passage that uses the word, allowing the context of that passage to guide your understanding of the word's "local" meaning.  You rely on the statements found in the various passages, not just the isolated words.
• You integrate these statements with other statements on the subject (including ones which don't necessarily use the particular word).  This step makes use of the "analogy of scripture."

These aspects, of course, cannot be neatly separated into ordered steps.  In practice they overlap and are interrelated.  For example, finding the current range of meaning involves examining each word's usage in each context where it is found.  This responsibility lies both with the lexicographer, and with you.  Also, the interpretation of any given passage will consciously or unconsciously involve possible interpretations gleaned from parallel passages and other places where a certain word is used.  The point is that all aspects need to be included and respected.

In summary, our procedure will certainly include word studies, but they should focus on the current use of a given word, not its former use.  Words have to be examined as parts of sentences and larger units of context.  And since we often find that the passages relevant to any given topic are spread throughout the scriptures, we will work at integrating the various statements.  And in the process we will allow the clearer and more direct statements on the topic to govern the interpretation of the more ambiguous passages.

G.  The meaning of "son"

The principal Hebrew word for son is ben.  What is its range of meaning?  Obviously, the word often refers to a physical son.  But does ben always imply a beginning?  a begetting?  a birth? 

… in Hebrew usage, "son of" is used metaphorically, as often as not, to indicate something about the position, condition or nature of an object of discussion rather than its origin.  (Robert Culver, Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical, Mentor / Christian Focus Pub., p. 113)

Culver then points out that ancient Hebrew is similar to modern Arabic, in which words for father, mother, and son

are used daily for relationships which may have nothing to do with derivation, physical or otherwise, but describe a whole range of relationships  (loc. cit.)

As an example of metaphoric usage, Culver calls attention to Genesis 7:6.  The first part of this verse is translated "Noah was six hundred years old," but a more literal rendering would be

Noah was a son of six hundred years  (loc. cit.)

The Hebrew-English interlinear of Lint and Horton gives the following literal rendering of the same passage:

Noah son of six hundreds of years  (The Complete Biblical Library: Old Testament Study Bible, World Library Press, 1994)

The fact that ben has a wide range of metaphoric meanings is further illustrated by the following examples:

Reference	Literally	Meaning
Nehemiah 3:8	Hananiah son of the perfume-makers	a member of that guild
Nehemiah 12:28	the sons of the singers	the group of singers
Ezra 2:1	sons of the province	inhabitants
1 Samuel 25:17	son of Belial	a worthless, ill-natured, or wicked man
1 Samuel 14:52	son of valor	a valiant or brave man

The principal Greek word for son is υ҅ιος (huios) and there is a similar breadth of meaning for this word in the New Testament.

Reference	Literally	Meaning
Luke 10:6	son of peace	a peaceful man
Acts 4:36	son of consolation	counselor or encourager
Mark 3:17	sons of thunder	thunderous men

Culver makes the following application to the New Testament's use of the phrase "Son of God" for Jesus.

The people of Jesus' time understood Son of God to mean a divine person, not the offspring of God. So when Jesus accepted the accolade the Jew[s] took up stones to stone Him for blasphemy (John 5:18), since they understood His claim but rejected it. 'Son of God' in such a context means simply, divine person, a person who is God.  (loc. cit.)

Jesus is called both "Son of man" and "Son of God," and the intended meaning is that Jesus is both human and divine – he is the God-man.  "Son of man" does not imply that he had a human father; and "Son of God" does not imply that he was created by God the Father.  It is interesting that the writer of Hebrews uses the phrase "Son of God" right in the middle of an emphasis on eternality.

Melchizedek ... without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.  (Hebrews 6:20 - 7:3)

H.  The meaning of monogenēs

The Greek word μονογενης (monogenēs) has caused considerable confusion in the determination of the nature of Jesus Christ.  The word is found five times in the New Testament referring to Christ and is translated differently in various translations, as shown in the following table.

	King James, 1611	New American Std. Bible, 1995	New International Ver., 1984	New Revised Std. Ver., 1989
John 1:14	the only begotten of the Father	the only begotten from the Father	the One and Only, who came from the Father	a father's only son
John 1:18	the only begotten Son	the only begotten God	God the One and Only	God the only Son
John 3:16	his only begotten Son	His only begotten Son	his one and only Son	his only Son
John 3:18	the only begotten Son of God	the only begotten Son of God	God's one and only Son	the only Son of God
1 John 4:9	his only begotten Son	His only begotten Son	his one and only Son	his only Son

The NWT translates monogenēs with "only-begotten."  Below we will show that "only begotten" is a very unfortunate mistranslation.

The term monogenēs is also found four times in the New Testament referring, not to Jesus Christ, but to other individuals, as shown below.

	Identity of individual
Luke 7:12	the deceased only son (not named) of a widow in the town of Nain
Luke 8:42	the only daughter (not named) of Jairus
Luke 9:38	the only child (son, not named) of a man in the crowd
Heb 11:17	Isaac, Abraham's "only son" (discussed in next section)

The three passages in Luke are helpful in thinking through the meaning of monogenēs.  In a human family, an only son or daughter has both a physical characteristic and a spiritual characteristic.  First, regarding the physical characteristic, since we are talking about a human family, the parents are physical (flesh and blood) and they produce a physical (flesh and blood) child.  When we are talking about a human family, the concept of the child coming into existence after the parents is obvious.  Second, regarding the spiritual characteristic, because the child is an only child, there is a unique relationship between the parents and the child.  This was especially significant in the ancient Jewish culture, where the first born son had special privileges of rank and inheritance.  However, when we use the names Father and Son to refer to spirit beings, only the second (spiritual) characteristic applies.  Keep in mind that we are thinking here of the Father and the Son before there was any physical creation.  It would make no sense to think of the spiritual Father fathering a spiritual Son in any manner similar to what occurs now with a physical father and son.  Yet, this is exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses claim.  Referring to the phrase "Son of God" in John 20:31, the authors of the Jehovah's Witness trinity booklet say that

it meant "Son" in a literal way, as with a natural father and son, not as some mysterious part of a Trinity Godhead.  (Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 29)

The automatic assumption, since one member of the trinity is named Father and one is named Son, that the Father must have produced the Son, is simply foreign to the concept of a spiritual Father and Son.  After all, it is common to apply the terms "father" and "son" in situations were the link is a spiritual or emotional bond rather than physical, such as when a young person says, "He has been a father to me," or an older person says, "I love him like a son," not to mention adoption and foster families.  So the terms "father" and "son" often focus on relationship rather than propagation.

1.  A mistaken approach – roots

Some have taken the approach that a word's meaning is found by looking at the etymology, or past usage, of its root.  (By "past usage" we mean usage prior to the time of writing.)  In the case of monogenēs, since it is a compound word, this approach would be concerned with the roots of both parts.  Of course, it must be recognized that the very act of declaring a word a compound word and breaking it into its parts is a statement of etymology.

This emphasis on etymology has given rise to two different views of the meaning of the Greek word monogenēs.

View 1  —  Some have understood monogenēs to be a combination of the two root words μονος (monos, only) and γενναω (gennaō, to beget).  This was the understanding of the translators of the King James version, NASB, and the NWT, so they used "only begotten," as shown in the five passages listed earlier in the table.  This is also the view defended in the Jehovah's Witness booklet on the trinity.

View 2  —  Others have understood monogenēs to be a combination of the two root words μονος (monos, only) and γενος (genos, kind or race).  This accounts for the use of "only" and "one and only" in the NIV and NRSV as shown in the table, as well as many other modern translations.

As early as 1889 Thayer listed the roots of monogenēs as monos and genos, thus supporting view 2.  (See the entry under μονογενης in Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Joseph Henry Thayer, Zondervan, 1972, p. 417.)  According to Thayer, the combination of monos and genos results in a meaning of "single of its kind, only," which contains no hint of the concept of begetting or generating.  (Also see the discussion of monogenēs in W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Revel, 1966, under "only begotten.")

Moulton and Milligan explain that

μονογενης is literally "one of a kind," "only," "unique" (unicus), not "only-begotten," which would be μονογεννητος (unigenitus), … applied in a special sense to Christ in Jn 1:14,18, 3:16,18, 1 Jn 4:9, where the emphasis is on the thought that, as the "only" Son of God, He has no equal and is able fully to reveal the Father.  (Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, Original one-volume edition © 1930 Hodder and Stoughton, London, © 1997 Hendrickson Publishers, p. 416)

Here is Buswell's explanation of the meaning of monogenēs from earlier times in church history to the present.

It seems that the church fathers of the fourth century, in the heat of the Arian controversy, took this word as somehow connected with the root of the verb gennao, which means generate or beget. Thus our English words, "only begotten," are derived from fourth century usage. When the orthodox church fathers were challenged by the Arians, who said that Christ was a created being and who pointed to the word monogenes for their evidence, the orthodox fathers did not have the facilities to prove that the word has nothing to do with begetting, but they knew that in the light of other Scriptures, Christ was not created; "There never was a time when he was not." They therefore accepted the word "begotten" but added the words "not created." ["begotten, not made" from the Nicene Creed, A.D. 325 and 381] … Careful lexicographical studies prove beyond a question that the word monogenes is not derived from the root gennao, to beget or generate, but is derived from gennos, kind or class. The word therefore means "in a class by himself," "the only one of his kind," or in other words "unique."  (James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 2d ed., Zondervan, 1962, vol. 1, p. 110-111)

2.  The evidence from Hebrews 11:17

Besides the opinions found in the lexicons, we get some additional help from the book of Hebrews.  The usage of the word monogenēs in the book of Hebrews would be an example of current usage at grade 3 or 4 as listed earlier.  Although they likely have different authors, John and Hebrews were probably written within two decades of each other.

In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is referred to as Abraham's only son (monogenēs).  However, Isaac was not Abraham's only physical son.  Fourteen years earlier, according to Genesis 16 and 21, Abraham had become the father of Ishmael by Hagar.  (Also, depending on the timing of the events in Genesis 25:1-2, Abraham may have had several additional sons.)  Nevertheless, the Hebrews passage gives us an important clue regarding the usage of the term monogenēs.  The passage's statement, that Isaac was Abraham's only son, cannot be true if the meaning of monogenēs is limited to the idea that Isaac was the only son physically fathered by Abraham.  But the statement is true if monogenēs refers to the unique relationship Isaac had to Abraham as his only son of promise.  This raises the possibility that a similar meaning for monogenēs might be intended in certain other passages as well.  While this observation does not require that this concept of a special relationship (or son of promise, or unique son) be the only meaning of monogenēs, it does require that this concept be one meaning in a range of several meanings of the term monogenēs.

Surprisingly, the authors of the Jehovah's Witness booklet on the trinity argue that Hebrews 11:17 proves that

in Isaac's case, he was only-begotten in the normal sense, not equal in time or position to his father  (Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 16)

But such a view completely ignores Ishmael, and thus misinterprets the real meaning of monogenēs.

I.  In what sense was Christ the "firstborn"?

In several passages we find the word "firstborn," which is a translation of the Greek word πρωτοτοκος (prōtotokos), applied to Jesus Christ.

In Revelation 1:5 John calls Jesus "the firstborn from the dead."  A similar phrase appears in Colossians 1:18.  Both of these are obviously references to Christ's resurrection and contain absolutely no suggestion that he was created by God.

However, Hebrews 1:6 says that the Son is God's "firstborn."  What does this word mean?

Immediately before the exodus, all the Egyptian firstborn males (both animals and men) were killed, but the Israelites were spared.  This was the original Passover.  In honor of God's deliverance, firstborn males in Israel were considered consecrated to God.  Firstborn animals were sacrificed, but firstborn men were redeemed by other sacrifices  (Exodus 13:2;  34:19-20).  After the Law was given, the Levites were supported, in part, by a tax on the firstborn sons.  A firstborn son had a special status in Israel.  Upon his father's death the firstborn son became head of the family and inherited a double portion.

Does "firstborn" also have a non-physical, metaphorical meaning?  Yes.  Israel the nation is called God's firstborn.

This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, "Let my son go so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go, so I will kill your firstborn son.  (Exodus 4:22)

Keep in mind that Israel the person (formerly Jacob) was the physical son of Isaac, and that Israel the nation (the twelve tribes) are properly called the children of Israel.  But what does it mean that the nation of Israel is God's "firstborn"?  In this context, "firstborn," as applied to the nation Israel, obviously refers to a special, protective relationship.

David is also called God's firstborn.  It is interesting that this status is appointed, and is also coupled with the idea of being exalted.

I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.  (Psalm 89:27)

So prōtotokos, like monogenēs, can focus primarily on relationship rather than generation.  Passages which call Christ firstborn are not saying that he was created.

But what about Colossians 1:15, where the Son is said to be "the firstborn over all creation."  First, we should note that the word "over," which appears in the NIV, is not required in the translation.  Many other translations have "the firstborn of all creation."

There are two ways to interpret this phrase in Colossians 1:15.  One interpretation would be to consider "firstborn" to mean first created.  In this case the phrase would indicate that the Son, in fact, was created, but of all things that were created, he was created first.  A second interpretation would be to consider "firstborn" to focus on relationship rather than beginning.  In other words, in the same sense that the nation Israel was God's firstborn, and David was God's firstborn, the Son is God's firstborn with a special status, privilege, and honor.  That this second interpretation is correct is easily seen from the following verses in Colossians 1, which contain such accolades for the Son as

1. all things (including all invisible things and things in heaven) were created by him and for him  (verse 16)
2. he is before all things, and in him all things hold together  (verse 17)
3. he is the head of the church  (verse 18)
4. he is the firstborn from among the dead (he has the most significant and prominent resurrection)  (verse 18)
5. he deserves the supremacy in all things (verse 18)
6. all God's fullness dwells in him  (verse 19)

In light of numbers 1, 2, and 6, it seems impossible to maintain the notion that the Son is a creature.

J.  Does Jehovah refer to the Father, Son, or all three?

Our English word Jehovah was derived in a very interesting way from the Hebrew YHWH (or YAHWEH)

The older Hebrew manuscripts were consonantal, that is, consisting of consonants only.  One of the names of God is known as the Hebrew tetragram, YHWH.  For several centuries before and after Christ, when Jews were reading aloud from the scriptures and came across this name, they would substitute ADONAI (Lord) out of fear of taking God's name in vain (Exodus 20:7).  Certain signs of this practice have carried over to the present.  For example, in Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Eerdmans, n.d.), at the entry for Lord (yahweh), Robert Young adds the note, "(read adonai)."  Also, consider the Jewish version of the Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one."  This statement serves as a basic Jewish confession of their monotheistic faith and is often displayed on Jewish websites as "Sh'ma Yis'ra'eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad" even though both instances of Adonai represent Yahweh in the original Hebrew (for example, see jewfaq.org/prayer/shema.htm or hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Torah/The_Shema/the_shema.html).

When the Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes added the vowels to the Hebrew consonants, they combined the consonants from YHWH with the vowels from ADONAI, which eventually led to our English word Jehovah.  Different translations have used different methods of representing the Hebrew YAHWEH.

• Most English translations have used "LORD" ("ORD" in small caps), including the KJV, RSV, NEB, NIV, Berkeley, NASB, TANAKH (Jewish Publication Society), ESV, NRSV
• A few have used "Yahweh," such as The Jerusalem Bible
• A few have used "Jehovah" such as the ASV and the NWT

Here is the question we must deal with in this section.  In the Bible, does Jehovah (Yahweh/LORD) refer only to the Father, or can it also refer to Jesus Christ, or perhaps to all three members of the trinity?  This is an important question in light of the Jehovah's Witness claim that only the Father is God (that Jehovah refers to the Father alone).

1.  Use of Jehovah, Example 1

God commanded Moses and Israel,

Do not worship any other God, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.  (Exodus 34:14, compare Exodus 20:1-6)

Notice the use of "LORD" indicating that Jehovah (YAHWEH) is found in the Hebrew.  The above passage says that only Jehovah is to be worshiped.  Yet, speaking of the Son, God commanded the angels,

Let all God's angels worship him.  (Hebrews 1:6, that "him" refers to the Son, see verses 3-6)

There is no conflict here; certainly God would never contradict one of his own commands.   When you worship the Son, you are not disobeying the command to worship only Jehovah.  We are not saying that the Son is the Father.  Rather, we are saying that scripture indicates that it is appropriate to think of both the Father and the Son as Jehovah.  A person's response to the Father should always be the same as his response to the Son  (Luke 10:16;  John 13:20; 15:23;  1 John 2:22-23, and 2 John 9).  When you worship and glorify one, you also worship and glorify the other.  This corresponds perfectly with Jesus' own teaching that

He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.  (John 5:23)

and his request to the Father,

Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.  (John 17:1)

2.  Use of Jehovah, Example 2

Isaiah tells us that he saw the Lord.

I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted …  (Isaiah 6:1)

This Lord is identified as the "LORD" (Jehovah) in verses 3 and 5.  Afterward, Isaiah is told by Jehovah to preach to the Jews even though they would not listen and believe (verses 9-10).

When John records the similar failure of the Jews to listen and believe in response to Jesus' ministry (John 12:37-41), he says that this fulfills what Jehovah had said earlier to Isaiah, paraphrasing Isaiah 6:10.  It fulfills the Isaiah passage in the sense of being parallel to it.  (For an explanation of the word "fulfill" used in this parallel sense, see the paper "Fulfill," Matthew 1:22 and Isaiah 7:14.)  Then John adds:

Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.  (John 12:41)

By the way, where the NIV has the name "Jesus" here in verse 41 ("Jesus' glory"), the Greek has only the pronoun ("the glory of him").  The wording "his glory" appears in most other translations.  However, the NIV is correct in making this pronoun refer to Jesus, as can be easily seen in the context.  In verse 37 (immediately before the quotation from Isaiah), and again in verse 42, "him" obviously refers to Jesus.

The point is that Isaiah says that he saw the Lord (who was Jehovah), and John says that Isaiah saw Jesus.  The Jehovah which Isaiah saw was actually the pre-incarnate Son.

3.  Other examples of the use of Jehovah

In the first two examples above, we see the New Testament writers taking an Old Testament passage about Jehovah (Yahweh) and applying it to Jesus Christ.  This practice is fairly common.  Consider these following additional examples.

Psalm 102:25-27 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.

Explanation The exact same description that the psalmist applies to Jehovah, the writer of Hebrews applies to the Son.  (That the Psalms passage applies to Jehovah, see verses 21-22.  That the Hebrews passage applies to the Son, see verse 8).

Hebrews 1:10-12 In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.

Isaiah 28:16 So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed. Joel 2:32 And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved.

Explanation The sovereign Jehovah ("LORD") gives the promise that anyone who trust in him will never be dismayed (or put to shame) and that everyone who calls upon him will be saved.  Paul gives the same promise to to those who believe in and call upon Jesus, and refers to the Isaiah and Joel passages as his scriptural support.

Romans 10:9-13 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. … As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile – the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Isaiah 40:3 A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.

Explanation Isaiah predicts that the way will be prepared for Jehovah ("LORD").  Mark applies Isaiah's prediction to John the Baptist, who prepared the way for Jesus, who is therefore Jehovah.

Mark 1:1-4 The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" – "a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.' " And so John came ….

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another …

Explanation The glory of Jehovah ("LORD") belongs only to him.  But the angels around the heavenly throne ascribe glory to the Lamb (Jesus) as well.

Revelation 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!

Isaiah 44:6 This is what the LORD says – Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Explanation Jehovah ("LORD") claims to be the first and the last, and also claims to be unique.  Jesus makes the same claim for himself.  (That Jesus is speaking in the Revelation passage, see verse 16.)

Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Isaiah 45:23 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.

Explanation According to Isaiah, Jehovah claims the right to receive universal worship.  (That this passage refers to Jehovah, see verses 21 and 24.)  Paul applies this same right to receive universal worship to Jesus, which, rather than competing with the Father, glorifies the Father.

Philippians 2:10-11 … 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.

From these examples we can conclude that the name Jehovah can legitimately be applied to Jesus Christ, the Son.

By the way, there are some writers who have taken the above examples, and others, to indicate that the Jehovah of the Old Testament is exclusively the Son of the New Testament.  We are not talking about modalism here, but about a view which identifies Jehovah strictly with the Son.  In this view, each theophany in the Old Testament, where the "LORD" or the "angel of the LORD" appeared (where Jehovah is identified), would be a Christophany.  In other words, it would be a temporary human appearance of the second person of the trinity before his incarnation.  This may be one legitimate way to understand these passages.  And, it is interesting that there are no more theophanies recorded in the Bible after the incarnation of Christ.

Nevertheless, it may also be possible that the name Jehovah, rather than being exclusive and indicating only one member of the trinity, is either inclusive of all three members of the trinity, or can be applied to any one of the three.  Thus, the name Jehovah is a name which assigns character or nature rather than individual identity within the trinity.  Also keep in mind that the word Yahweh is gramatically connected to the Hebrew equivalent of our verb to be.  In this sense the name Jehovah would certainly distinguish the self-existent God from all other so-called gods which do not really exist, but it would not distinguish one member of the trinity from another.

So, what about those Old Testament theophanies?  Even though Jehovah is named in a given passage, the member of the trinity who is appearing is not specified.  It seems possible, then, that any given theophany might be the appearance of any one member of the trinity, while another theophany could be the appearance of a different member of the trinity.  It may even be possible that all three members of the trinity appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18.  (Augustine discusses these possibilities in his On the Trinity, Book 2, Chapters 7 - 18.)  Many have claimed that such appearances cannot include the Father because "no one has seen the Father" (John 6:46).  However, John 14:9 may indicate that seeing the Father is a deeper concept than mere visibility.

K.  Translating and interpreting Philippians 2:5-8

Verse	NIV	NASB	NRSV	NWT
5	Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:	Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,	Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,	Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus,
6	Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,	who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,	who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,	who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
7	but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.	but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.	but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,	No, but he emptied himself and took a slave's form and became human.
8	And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross!	Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.	he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross.	More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake.

In verse 6, where the NWT has "seizure," the NIV and NRSV have "something to be grasped" or "exploited."  Here are the two contrasting views:

1. The NWT states that Jesus existed only in such a form of God that he was less than God, which leaves open the possibility that he might seize equality with God (which Jesus did not even consider).
2. The NIV states that Jesus existed in the very nature of God, and the NRSV treats his equality with God as something which he already had and could therefore exploit (although Jesus did not regard his equality as something he should exploit).

As we will see, the meaning of grasping (whether it is exploiting or seizing) is somewhat debatable when the word is examined in isolation.  However, if we examine the rest of the verse, the meaning becomes very clear.  Below is verse 6 with three key Greek words identified.  (We use the NASB here since it is the most neutral of the four translations.)

1.  hyparchōn

First, consider the word hyparchōn (҅υπαρχων).  Buswell translates this word "remaining," and according to Wallis,

the participle huparchon does not merely indicate "being in the form of God," but rather "continuing to subsist in the form of God."  (quoted in Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Zondervan, 1962, vol. 2, p. 21, italics in original)

Vine concurs.

the present participle of huparchō, to exist, … always involves a pre-existent state, prior to the fact referred to, and a continuance of the state after the fact.  (W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, under "BEING")

Morey also concurs.

The verb ҅υπαρχων is a present active participle and means that Jesus was "the essence of God" not only before His incarnation but after it as well. At no point before or after his incarnation did Jesus cease to be the essence of God.  (Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, World Bible Publishers, 1996, p. 336-7, italics in original)

2.  morphē

Next, consider the word morphē (μορφη).  The NIV suggests two possible translations:

• In the text it provides this rendering:  "being in very nature God"
• In a footnote it provides this alternate rendering:  "in the form of God"

By the way, morphē is used again in the next verse, with the NIV offering the same two alternatives, "nature of a servant" or "form of a servant."

What is the best translation of morphē?  Mounce, in his commentary on this verse, states that

morphē, form, in verses 6 and 7 denotes a permanent expression of essential attributes, while schēma, fashion (v. 8), refers to outward appearance that is subject to change.  (Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Pfeiffer and Harrison, Moody Press, 1962, p. 1324)

Mounce also provides this expanded paraphrase of verses 6.

Though in his pre-incarnate state he possessed the essential qualities of God, he did not consider his status of divine equality a prize to be selfishly hoarded.  (loc.cit.)

Davidson offers this helpful explanation.

Note that in this passage there are three graded ideas: 'essence' (Gk. hyparchōn, Lat. essentia); 'form' (Gk. morphē, Lat. forma); 'fashion' (Gk. schēma, Lat. figura). Essence, existence, or being is fundamental and must exist in some form and when once adopted always keeps to the same form. Every being has its own form. Form is the permanent expression of existence. Thus we have the form of God, the form of an angel, the form of man, and the form of a beast; all of which are immovable manifestations of being or existence.  (Francis Davidson, commentary on Philippians in The New Bible Commentary, 2nd ed., Eerdmans, 1954)

3.  harpagmos

Finally, consider the word harpagmos ( ҅αρπαγμος), "a thing to be grasped" (referring to equality with God).

Without considering the context, this word could be understood in two different senses:

1. something seized – something not presently possessed is grasped in order to obtain it
2. something held – something already possessed is grasped in order to retain it

Notice in the above table that the NIV and NASB are both noncommittal in rendering this word.  The NRSV favors the second option, while the NWT favors the first option.

Some lexicographers favor the second option above.  For example, Thayer provides this explanation of verse 6.

who, although … he bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God …, yet did not think that this equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained  (Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, Zondervan, 1898, see entry on morphē, p. 418)

By the way, the above explanation is extremely interesting in view of the fact that Thayer was a unitarian.

But not everyone agrees with Thayer, and thus lexical studies do not conclusively settle the issue.  Here, for example, is the opinion found in the Louw-Nida lexicon, which labels the second sense a presumption.

Since ҅αρπαγμος may mean not only 'to grasp something forcefully which one does not have' … but also 'to retain by force what one possesses,' it is possible to translate Php 2.6 in two quite different ways. This second interpretation of ҅αρπαγμος presumes the position of Jesus prior to the incarnation and hence his willingness to experience the kenosis or 'emptying' of his divine prerogatives. In any translation of Php 2.6 it is important that both possible renderings be clearly indicated, one in the text and the other in the margin.

This is exactly the point at which the limitation of word studies, as mentioned earlier, becomes apparent.  When a word has a range of meanings, it is up to the context to narrow down the meaning.  So let's look more closely at the context – in particular, the three phrases which come immediately before harpagmos.

• At his incarnation, the Son remained (hyparchōn) in …
• What he remained in was the very nature (morphē) of God
• Which is also spoken of as equality with God

With this immediate context in mind, only the second option for harpagmos makes sense – something already possessed is retained.

Also, notice the larger context – what this section about Christ is actually exemplifying.  Verse 3 contains an exhortation to believers: "in humility consider others better than yourselves."  But how can equals really consider others better than themselves?  All believers are one in Christ, and there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female (Galatians 3:28).  And, since Christ is used as the example (verse 5), we have to ask, thinking of his actual person and position, how Christ could ever say that we are better than he is.  But we can consider serving others more important than serving ourselves.  And this is how Christ considered us "better" than himself.  Not only did he wash the disciples feet (John 13), which is a perfect example of the master serving the servants.  But also, of much greater significance, he decided to humble himself and serve us in his incarnation and suffering for our sins.  Verse 7 says that Christ "made himself nothing" (literally: emptied himself), taking the very nature (or form) of a servant.  Here is the point.  Coming to earth as a servant would be a very significant humbling (emptying, becoming "nothing") if the pre-incarnate Christ already possessed full deity.  But if he were merely a creature, even the highest of all creatures, then he was already a servant, and his becoming a servant is far less significant.

So the interpretation of Philippians 2:6 is actually quite straight forward and certain.  Christ did not need to seize what he already had.  The NWT is incorrect here just as it is incorrect in other key Christological passages.  The idea of "seizure" comes directly from Jehovah's Witnesses theology, not from the passage, and illustrates their willingness to violate the text of scripture in order to promote their false beliefs.

L.  Interpreting John 17:3

Shortly before Jesus' death he prayed to the Father, saying

... this is eternal life: that men may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3)

This is one of the favorite verses of Jehovah's Witnesses.  They believe that it teaches that Jesus was not fully divine, because he referred to the Father as "the only true God."  They reason as follows:  if the Father is the only true God, Jesus cannot be God.  But their argument fails for several reasons.

First, if we insist on a mechanical approach to the words "the only true God" in John 17:3 (taking it to mean that Jesus is not God), then we create serious problems when we apply that same mechanical approach to other passages.  For example, in Mark 10:18 Jesus tells a man that "No one is good – except God alone."  Does "God" refer strictly to the Father, so that Jesus is saying that he himself is not good?  No one would agree with that, not even the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Certainly Jesus should be included in "good."  Also consider Jude 4 which calls "Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."  Should we exclude the Father from the categories of Sovereign and Lord?  Here again, the Jehovah's Witnesses would object. The Father should be included.

Second, based on the word "true" in John 17:3, if we reason like the Jehovah's Witnesses want us to reason, we would have to say that Jesus is a false god.  Here again, not even the Jehovah's Witnesses would want to say that.

Third, remember that Jesus said "I and the Father are one"  (John 10:30).  The word "one" is in the neuter form in the Greek indicating oneness of nature.  So when Jesus referred to the Father as the only true God, it makes perfect sense that he was including himself, and at the same time restating the oft repeated biblical claim that

• God is one  (Deuteronomy 6:4)
• there is no god besides me  (Deuteronomy 32:39)
• he is God alone  (Isaiah 45:5-6)
• there is no God but one  (1 Corinthians 8:4)

Fourth, remember that John 17:3 states that eternal life is both knowing the Father "and Jesus Christ."  This corresponds with what John says about eternal life elsewhere, for he labels Jesus "the eternal life."  Consider the following statements of John.

In the beginning ... the Word was with God, and the Word was God … and in him was life  (John 1:1, 4)

The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. (1 John 1:2)

When it comes to the topic of eternal life, John's intent is not to contrast the Father and Jesus, but to link them together.

When we consider the above reasons, we must include God the Son with God the Father as the only savior.  And this conclusion fits very well with the fact that "the Word was God" (John 1:1), the fact that Jesus made himself "equal with God" (John 5:18), and the fact that Jesus had "equality with God" (Philippians 2:6), as well as all those other passages cited earlier under the section "The full deity of the Son."

M.  Roles

Are there unique role assignments within the trinity?  In other words, is the normal operation of the Father different from that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?  We are not asking about differences in essence, merely differences in function (what some have called "economic" roles).

Some theologians have tried to generalize the roles and have suggested something like the following.

• The Father is the planner.
• The Son is the redeemer, who came to earth and died for our sins.
• The Holy Spirit is the one who applies redemption by convicting sinners and regenerating those who believe.

Parts of the above list may apply to redemption, but other parts are questionable.  Was the Father the only one who planned redemption?  Was the Son the only one who redeemed?  (Both the Father and the Son are explicitly called "Savior" in Titus 3:4-6.)  The more we examine the various actions of God, the more we realize that any brief list is an oversimplification.  In addition, some roles, rather than being unique to one member of the trinity, involve all three as shown below.

	Father	Son	Holy Spirit
Creation	Isaiah 64:8	John 1:3 Colossians 1:15-17	Genesis 1:2 Job 33:4
Birth of Christ	John 3:16 Hebrews 10:5	John 1:14	Matthew 1:18-20 Luke 1:35
Resurrection of Christ	Acts 2:32;  13:30 1 Corinthians 6:14 1 Thessalonians 1:10	John 2:19;  10:17-18	1 Peter 3:18
Giving eternal life	Romans 6:23	John 10:28	Galatians 6:8
Indwelling believers	John 14:23	John 14:23;  17:26 Romans 8:10 Colossians 1:27	John 14:17 Romans 8:11 1 Corinthians 6:19
Sanctifying believers	1 Thessalonians 5:23	Hebrews 2:11	1 Peter 1:2

In spite of such shared roles, there is one situation which requires very distinct roles, namely, providing the basis of our salvation.  The principal consequence of our sin is our separation from God.  God is holy and just.  We sin against God and thus must suffer the consequence of our sin.  That consequence is spiritual death, or spiritual separation from God.  But God is also love, and his solution to our alienation, the plan of salvation, is based on substitution: God taking our punishment.  But substitution requires unique roles.  One of the members of the trinity must identify with man and, as our substitute, suffer both physical death and the spiritual death (separation from the other members of the trinity) that we deserve.  Obviously, this role of becoming a man in order to die for our sins is unique to the second person of the trinity, the Son, our great savior.

These specific roles may well be part of the explanation of certain passages in which the Father sends the Son and the Son obeys the Father.  Such obedience comes, not out of a difference in nature, but merely out of mutually agreed roles.  Such voluntary obedience does not necessarily imply either a hierarchy within the trinity, nor any required submission of the Son (or the Holy Spirit) to the Father.

But some theologians have gone beyond roles into the quicksand of eternal generation.

N.  Eternal generation

Unfortunately, some theologians have spoken of an eternal generation of the Son from the Father, and of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son and the Father.  The advocates of eternal generation include the adjective "eternal" in order to differentiate eternal generation from any chronological or historical generation, begetting, or procession.

Eternal generation is an obscure concept, expressed differently by different writers.  For example, Augustine, speaking of the Son, wrote:

What wonder, therefore, if He is sent, not because He is unequal with the Father, but because He is "a pure emanation (Latin: manatio) issuing from the glory of the Almighty God"? For there, that which issues, and that from which it issues, is of one and the same substance. For it does not issue as water issues from an aperture of earth or of stone, but as light issues from light.  (Augustine, De trinitate (On the Trinity), translated by Arthur West Haddan, book 4, chapter 20)

McChesney states:

… the Son of God has the ground of his existence eternally in the Father  (E. McChesney, article on "Sonship of Christ" in Unger's Bible Dictionary, Merrill f. Unger, Moody Press, 1960, p. 1039)

Finlayson speaks of the Father as "the font of deity" and of the Son as "eternally begotten"  (R. A. Finlayson, article on the Trinity, The New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, Eerdmans, 1962, p. 1300)

Jonathan Edwards states it this way:

The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, unoriginated, and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God's understanding, or having an Idea of himself and subsisting in that idea.  (Essay on the Trinity, edited by Fisher, p 110-116, quoted in A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Revell, 1907, p. 342)

But such concepts have not always been accepted.  For example, Calvin referred to the idea of eternal generation as "an absurd fiction"  (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Beveridge, Eerdmans, 1957, book 1, chap. 13, par. 29).  And Edwards A. Park, even though he was a disciple of Jonathan Edwards, referred to the doctrine of eternal generation as "eternal nonsense"  (quoted in A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 342).

The notion of eternal generation is not supported at all from the mere facts that (1) the Father sent the Son (the incarnation) and (2) the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit  (John 14:16;  15:26:  16:7).  For one thing, this is sending, not generation or procession.  Also, such sendings are temporal events and do not provide any basis for the idea that there is some sort of eternal generation or procession.

Some have suggested that certain passages support the notion of eternal generation.  For example, some appeal to the following passage:

You are my Son (margin: son), today I have become your Father (margin: have begotten you).  (Psalm 2:7)

This psalm was almost certainly written by David, according to Acts 4:25.  It refers to God's promise to the anointed king of Israel to protect him from, and give him victory over, the plotting heathen nations.  The basis of this promise is found in the special relationship between God and the king of Israel, cited in verse 7, the Father-son relationship.  By the way, those who use this verse as support for the concept of eternal generation of the Son within the trinity must overcome two obstacles.  First, they must apply the passage to Jesus rather than the ancient king of Israel.  Second, they must deal with the word "today" and somehow make it mean eternal.  So Psalm 2:7 itself lends no support to a concept of eternal generation.  But what about those New Testament passages where Psalm 2:7 is quoted?

Paul cited Psalm 2:7 in his message to the Jews in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:32-33).  First, notice that Paul states that it was a promise to "our fathers" (the ancient kings of Israel).  It was not a promise to first century Jews or to us.  But Paul also says that it was "fulfilled for us."  This is another example of a fulfillment in the sense of a parallel.  Paul applies it to the resurrection, which follows the same logic he used in Romans 1:4, where Christ's resurrection proves his Sonship.  In other words, Acts 13:32-33 is not teaching eternal generation.

In Hebrews 1:5 the writer refers to Psalm 2:7, applying the ultimate Father-Son relationship to God the Father and Jesus Christ.  This sort of usage of an Old Testament historical passage is similar to Matthew 1:23 where Matthew uses the promise given in Isaiah 7:14-16.  The original promise was that God would give a sign to king Ahaz, that before a virgin had a son who could grow up to tell right from wrong, the two nations Ahaz feared would be laid waste, and for that reason the boy would be called Immanuel (God with us).  And, of course, the birth of Christ was the ultimate example of "God with us."  Similarly, Hebrews 1:5 is highlighting the Father-Son relationship within the trinity, which is the ultimate example of the Father-son relationship mentioned in Psalm 2:7.  Again, these passages, while they do teach an eternal Father-Son relationship, do not teach eternal generation.

Hebrews 5:5 is subject to a similar analysis.  The Father-son relationship which God has with all his people, and which he had especially with his obedient kings, he has in its ultimate expression with Jesus Christ.

Here is Buswell's opinion of the doctrine of eternal generation, which he contrasts with the notion of eternal Sonship.

… we can say with confidence that the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about "begetting" as an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. … If we drop eternal generation, what then shall we say of eternal Sonship? That is an entirely different matter. There can be no doubt – and we have presented sufficient evidence above for the meaning of the phrase "Son of God" – that "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" are words intended by the writers of the Scriptures to indicate eternal relationships within the Triune Godhead.  (James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 2d ed., Zondervan, 1962, p. 111-112)

The notion of eternal generation is highly questionable and may be dangerous.  Even Calvin, in spite of the fact that he called the idea of eternal generation "an absurd fiction" as noted above, still came extremely close to that fiction when he explained:

We say, then, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, and without reference to person, is also of himself; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God.  (Institutes, book 1, chap. 13, par. 25, italics added)

If you have any doubt that this notion of eternal generation has spawned many "strange and wonderful" ideas, read A. H. Strong's discussion which includes many more puzzling quotations  (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 340-343).

O.  The Jehovah's Witnesses' Trinity booklet

The Jehovah's Witness booklet, Should You Believe in the Trinity (bibliography in the introduction), states that

The Bible is consistent in revealing Almighty God, Jehovah, as alone Supreme, Jesus as his created Son, and the holy spirit as God's active force.

In this final section we briefly respond to some of the claims of the booklet that we have not already covered.

The booklet appears to be aimed specifically at Roman Catholic teachings.  In the first two pages alone (pages 3-4) there are over a dozen references to Roman Catholic sources, with many more throughout the booklet.  Keep in mind that Roman Catholicism and biblical Christianity are not identical.  See the book on Roman Catholic Teachings Compared with the Bible.

By the way, the Jehovah's Witness view of Jesus, and their resultant denial of the trinity, is not new.  This view has many similarities with the teachings of Arius of Alexandria, which was condemned in AD 325 at the Council of Nicea.

1.  The section, "How is the Trinity Explained?" (pages 3-5)

This section uses many quotations from people who believe in the trinity, stating that the idea of one God in three persons is "hard to follow," "confusing," "beyond the grasp of human reason," "mysterious," etc. The point is then made that God would not reveal such an inexplicable doctrine, so it must be false.  But the idea of one God in three persons is actually a very simple and common concept involving one class, deity, and three individuals within that class (as explained in the paper The Trinity).  Unfortunately, it is true that theologians through the centuries have muddied the waters and misrepresented the biblical doctrine of the trinity.  But that fact is a very weak basis for dismissing the clear biblical teaching on the subject.

2.  The next section, "Is it Clearly a Bible Teaching?" (pages 5-7)

This section begins with a very good reminder that the scriptures are the basis for our beliefs.  But, the rest of this section is an utter failure.  It states that the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible, which everyone who believes in the trinity readily acknowledges.  The important point, of course, is whether the basis of the trinity is found in the New Testament.  The doctrine of the trinity is in some ways a derivative doctrine, inferred in part from the doctrine of the deity of Christ (and, of course the doctrine of the deity of the Holy Spirit).  As shown above, the doctrine of the deity of Christ is abundantly supported by the New Testament.  The Jehovah's Witness Trinity booklet attempts to explain away some of Jesus' many claims to deity (discussed in Jesus' Claim of Deity), as well as the many claims of Jesus' deity by his disciples and Paul (some of which are quoted in section "C" above).

It is curious indeed, that this section of the trinity booklet appeals to the writings of several early church fathers, especially after starting with a reminder that we need to get our doctrine from the scriptures.  Some of these quotations are not even against the doctrine of the trinity.  But even if they were, their views are to be judged by scripture, and thus are relatively unimportant.

Near the end of this section there is a quotation from Alvan Lamson, in which he says that the early church fathers did not speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as "one numerical essence." This wording reveals a complete lack of understanding of the basic idea of the trinity, which has never involved numerical oneness, only oneness of essence and purpose.  The conclusion that "the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter" (page 7) is utterly erroneous.

3.  Pictures of ancient traids (p. 10)

Over the next several pages the claim is made that the Christian doctrine of the trinity had a pagan source.  Page 10 displays a time line of ten different "trinities" from various regions and religions. Given the booklet's claim that the Christian doctrine of the trinity was not formalized until A.D. 325, only the first three could have any relevance to such a source argument.  But even those first three are not real trinities. They are merely arbitrarily selected trios or triads.  In fact, the religions represented in these first three examples are all polytheistic.  The only thing they have in common with the biblical trinity is that each sculpture shows three gods.  The "systems" of gods represented in the examples on page 10 bear little or no similarity with the biblical trinity.

For example, consider the first example shown, the Egyptian triad of Osiris (the brother-husband) and Isis (the sister-wife) and Horus (the son or brother).  The booklet fails to inform the reader that in the Egyptian religion (or, more accurately, the Egyptian mythology) these three are not alone.  Osiris and Isis are the children of the gods Geb and Nut, who are part of a group of nine gods originally created by the one god Ra.  And this group of nine is only one of various other groups of various sizes.  Altogether the Egyptians had over a hundred gods, with various collections of gods more prominent during different dynasties and in different regions.  So the Egyptian religion is hardly the place to borrow the concept of the trinity.  The same could be said for the second example, the Babylonian triad.  Documentation of the large Egyptian and Babylonian pantheons is easy for anyone to find.

And the story is the same for the third example, the Palmyra triad.  Archeologists have unearthed hundreds of alters dedicated to many different deities in the city of Palmyra.  As with the first two examples, the arbitrary selection of a sculpture showing three gods is a gross oversimplification of this ancient religion.  To show this "triad" and the others, along with the claim that they somehow account for the rise of the Christian trinity, is to grasp at straws.

In fact, it would be easy to fabricate a similar line of argument against the Jehovah's Witnesses.  It is well known that various ancient religions (including Gnosticism) believed in emanations and demiurges.  And, according to Ireneaus, many of the gnostic writers taught that angels made the world and everything in it (see, for example, Against Heresies, 1,24,1).  So we could easily claim that Gnosticism was the pagan source for the Jehovah's Witnesses belief that Jesus is a created lesser god who, in turn, created everything else.  The similarities between Gnosticism and Jehovah's Witnesses are far greater than any suggested similarities between ancient polytheistic religions and biblical trinitarianism!

4.  Misunderstanding and misrepresenting the trinity

Repeatedly throughout the Jehovah's Witness booklet on the trinity, the authors reveal that they do not really grasp the basic distinction between persons and essence, which is crucial to a correct understanding of the trinity.  For example, while discussing the occasional Old Testament use of plurals referring to God, they comment that

… if you were to say, 'Let us make something for ourselves,' no one would normally understand this to imply that several persons are combined as one inside of you (p. 14)

This reveals that the authors of the booklet are confused.  They think that trinitarians believe that three persons are one person or that several persons can be combined in one person.  And they reveal the same misconception a few lines later when they discuss the temptation of Jesus.

… what test of loyalty would that be if Jesus were God? Could God rebel against himself?  (p. 14)

Again, the authors reveal their misunderstanding of the doctrine of the trinity.  In the trinity there are three distinguishable persons.  All three are God (in other words, all three have full deity).  So the real question should be, not whether one person could rebel "against himself," but whether one person could rebel against a different person.

The same misconception is displayed when the writers, discussing Jesus as the mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5), state that

Since by definition a mediator is someone separate from those who need mediation, it would be a contradiction for Jesus to be one entity with either of the parties he is trying to reconcile.  (p. 16, italics added)

Here again, the authors of the booklet show their lack of comprehension.  They seem to think that "Jesus is God" must mean "Jesus is the Father."

This same misconception of the trinity appears over and over in the booklet.  Below are a few more obvious examples.

Discussing Jesus' baptism and the Father's approving statement, "This is my Son, whom I love …"  (Matthew 3:17), they ask

Was God saying that he was his own son, that he approved himself, that he sent himself?  (p. 18)

Discussing Jesus' prayer before his crucifixion, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup …"  (Luke 22:42), they ask:

To whom was he praying? To a part of himself? No, he was praying to someone entirely separate, his Father, God …  (p. 18)

Discussing Jesus' cry from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34), they ask

To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself or to part of himself? … by whom was he being deserted? Himself?  (p. 18)

Discussing the passage which states that Christ entered heaven "to appear for us in God's presence"  (Hebrews 9:24), they ask

If you appear in someone else's presence, how can you be that person?  (p. 19)

Repeatedly the authors reveal that they think the Christian doctrine of the trinity involves Jesus being the same person as the Father.  No wonder they argue against the doctrine of the trinity.  They don't understand it!

5.  Misrepresenting salvation

Under the heading "How Much Was the Ransom?", the booklet's authors show that they do not understand the substitutionary nature of Christ's death.  They claim that

The perfect human life of Jesus was the "corresponding ransom" required by divine justice – no more, no less.  (p. 15)

They then argue that a member of the Godhead could not pay the ransom price because that would have been infinitely higher than God's law requires.  However, the constant teaching of the New Testament epistles is that it is the substitutionary death of Christ that is the payment for our salvation.  The booklet's authors talk as though Christ's life (rather than his death) was in some way the ransom payment.

6.  The trinity leads to veneration of Mary?

On page 31 is a picture of a sculpture showing three figures in the background and one in the foreground, with this caption:

Belief in the Trinity led to veneration of Mary as the "Mother of God"

Of course, their point is that the trinity must be a bad idea if it leads to such improper veneration of Mary.  But keep in mind that, while this veneration does take place within the Roman Catholic Church as well as within various Orthodox Churches and some branches of Protestantism, the rest of Christendom has not followed this same error, showing that the doctrine of the trinity does not necessarily lead to veneration of Mary.

Also, consider the poor logic involved.  While many things can be misused and thus lead to error or evil, that does not mean that all those things are erroneous or evil in themselves.  For example, the Bible can be misused, but the problem is with those who misuse it, not with the Bible.  As another example, grace can be misused (Romans 6:1-2), but that does not cancel the doctrine of grace.  So the fact that some groups which accept the trinity also wrongly venerate Mary reflects negatively, not on the trinity, but on those groups.

P.  Conclusion

The answer to every one of the questions raised at the beginning of this paper is "No."

There is absolutely no hint anywhere in the Bible that Jesus Christ was created by the Father.  All such ideas come from people's imaginations, not from the Bible.

Jesus Christ is truly God, the second person of the trinity.  (See the paper Jesus' Claim of Deity.)  Jesus Christ, as the second person of the trinity, came to earth to die for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).  This is the true gospel, and Jesus Christ is the true savior.  He is worthy of our full trust.  He is worthy of our full worship.

---

Annotated bibliography

The trinity

Jehovah's Witnesses sources

About Jehovah's Witnesses