Decepto-Meter

Satanic quote: trinitarian

The Watchtower commits every offence with Haenchen's work. They selectively quote to make Haenchen appear to say something opposite to what he is actually saying. They overlook the fact that Haenchen comes right out and says Jesus is not a creature. They again confuse modalism with trinitarian theology. They redefine Haenchen's words like "divine" in a way that Haenchen himself would object to. Finally, they rely on a sloppy translation by Funk, who takes some liberties, that Haenchen would not.

Watchtower
Magazine

Watchtower Magazine, December 15, 1985, p 25.

How the Watchtower quoted the source

"John 1:1, however, tells of something that was sin existence already in time primeval; astonishingly, it is not 'God'. The hymn thus does not begin with God and his creation, but the existence of the Logos in the beginning." (Ernst Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar, 1984, John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, pages 108-10, translated by Robert W. Funk., as quoted by the Watchtower, December 15, 1985, p 25)

"John 1:1: 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos. ... "In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that theos' and ho theos' ('god, divine' and 'the God') [note: the foregoing text in red, was inserted by Funk and is not in the original] were not the same thing in this period. Philo has therefore written: the Logos means only theos ('divine') and not ho theos ('God') since the logos is not God in the strict sense. Philo was not thinking about giving up Jewish monotheism. In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is 'God,' but only that the logos is 'divine.' In fact, for the author of the hymn [in John 1:1], as for the Evangelist, only the Father was 'God' (ho theos) ; 'the Son' was subordinate to him. But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other. ... It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ. . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities, and to that personal union corresponds the church's rejection of patripassianism." (Note: Watchtower omitted this important end to Haenchen's sentence without using an ellipse because it contradicts the point JW's deceptively try to make: ["and to that personal union corresponds the church's rejection of patripassianism."]" (Ernst Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar, 1984, John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, pages 108-10, translated by Robert W. Funk., as quoted by the Watchtower, December 15, 1985, p 25; Note: patripassianism is the heresy that teaches that God the Father died on the cross. Patripassianism is a form of Modalism)

What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:

• Haenchen comes right out and tells us that Jesus IS NOT a creature: Of John 1:1a he says that the Logos, "existed before the creation and was not therefore created; it shared the highest of all distinctions with 'God, the Father' himself: the 'Logos' is eternal." (Ernst Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar, 1984, John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, pages 108-10, translated by Robert W. Funk)
• Haenchen explains that the subordination he is talking about IS NOT one of class of being, but of rank and order. Just like a husband and wife share the same class of being yet the husband has rank over the wife, so too with the Father and the son. Haenchen says: "But there was no rivalry between the Logos as theos and as ho theos (in English the distinction is expressed by "divine" and "God"); the new (Christian) Faith does not conflict with the old monotheistic faith. That becomes clearer in verse 1c: "and divine (in essence) was the Logos." In this instance, the verb "was" (en) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: theos is not the same thing as ho theos ("divine" is not the same thing as "God".) That contains a Christology of the subordination of the son, albeit still covertly. It is precisely for this reason that the believer sees the Father in the son: the son does not speak his own words, he does not do his own works, he does not effect his own will, but subordinates himself entirely to the words, work and the will of the Father." (Ernst Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar, 1984, John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, pages 108-10, translated by Robert W. Funk)
• The Watchtower deliberately omitted the very next sentence of Haenchen's article because it is damaging to their misrepresentation of him. Jehovah's Witnesses deliberately mislead the reader into thinking that Haenchen was commenting on John 1:1c (and the Word was God), rather than what Haenchen was actually commenting on, namely John 1:1a (In the beginning was the Word). Haenchen is refuting modalism again, not the trinitarian view. Haenchen said, "John 1:1, however, tells of something that was sin existence already in time primeval; astonishingly, it is not 'God'. (The very next sentence is very damaging text to Jehovah's Witnesses and was satanically omitted by the Watchtower: "The hymn [Haenchen regards John 1:1-18 as a hymn] thus does not begin with God and his creation, but the existence of the Logos in the beginning." (Ernst Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar, 1984, John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, pages 108-10, translated by Robert W. Funk., as quoted by the Watchtower, December 15, 1985, p 25

Our comment

1. Haenchen comes right out and tells us that Jesus IS NOT a creature: Of John 1:1a he says that the Logos, "existed before the creation and was not therefore created"
2. When Haenchen said, "John 1:1, however, tells of something that was sin existence already in time primeval; astonishingly, it is not 'God'." He was refuting Modalism. A simple reading of Haenchen's comments reveal that what he was saying is that Jesus is not the same person as GOD THE FATHER. Haenchen never denies that Jesus is God and does deny that Jesus is a creature. Haenchen is refuting a modalistic interpretation (specifically, patripassianism) not a trinitarian interpretation. Jehovah's Witnesses, through selective satanic quoting, mislead the reader to conclude that Haenchen is arguing in favour of the Watchtower's Arian view of Jesus as a lessor created god. Jehovah's Witnesses have no idea what the difference is between modalism and trinitarian theology. The constantly confuse one for the other as a further deception amongst themselves.
3. The Watchtower article quotes Haenchen and then asks, "Does that sound as if scholar Haenchen discerned in the Greek some distinction between God and the Logos, or the Word?" (Watchtower, December 15, 1985, p 25) Again this is deceptive, because Jehovah's Witnesses and Trinitarians agree that Jesus and the Father are distinct. It is modalists that deny the distinction between Father and Son, not trinitarians! The Watchtower deceives the reader into thinking that a distinction between the Father and Son refutes the trinitarian view when in fact, it is one of the key points emphasized by trinitarians! Because Jehovah's Witnesses have no idea about the difference is between modalism and trinitarian theology, the Watchtower succeeds in deceiving their own blind followers!
4. Haenchen's original words in German are: "und Gott (von Art) war der Logos." This would literally translate: "and God (in essence) was the Logos" or converted syntactically into English, "and the Logos was (in essence) God." Funk took considerable editorial liberty in changing this to read: "and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos." However, Funk still did not view "divine" as a lessor category than that of the Father himself. Jehovah's Witnesses, redefine the term "divine" to mean a lessor class of being than the Father. Such is the deception of wickedness when they define the term divine, in a manner Funk and Haenchen would both violently object to. Remember, Haenchen flat out said in the same article, that Jesus is not a creature! This proves the Watchtower uses deception beyond any doubt!
5. Funk inserted these words in brackets that are not in the Haenchen's original text. "In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that theos' and ho theos' ('god, divine' and 'the God')" Funk has taken some liberties here, that Haenchen would not have. Haenchen has already come right out and stated that Jesus is not a creature. Funk likely added the "god" because there are texts where "theos" can refer to "a false god".
6. Such redefining of words is a trademark of all cults. The result is that a Christian reads, "Jesus was divine" and concludes this phrase means that Jesus is not a creature. Jehovah's Witnesses read the phrase, "Jesus was divine" and automatically conclude the phrase means Jesus is a creature, a lessor than the Father, type of deity. Jehovah's Witnesses are polytheistic in that they view an entire "henotheist" system of created gods, ranging from Jesus to angels, to men.

Deception Exposed:

The Watchtower commits almost every offence with Haenchen's work. They selectively quote to make Haenchen appear to say something opposite to what he is actually saying. They overlook the fact that Haenchen comes right out and says Jesus is not a creature. They again confuse modalism with trinitarian theology. They define Haenchen's words like "divine" in a way that Haenchen himself would object to. Finally, they rely on a sloppy translation by Funk, who takes some liberties, that Haenchen would not.