Who will you trust more, the one who says “I will tell you the truth, even if it hurts me,” or “I will tell you the truth, except when it hurts me?” Or, “I will follow the evidence even if it shows I’m wrong,” or “I will only trust the results if I win.” Or, “I will show you the evidence, except when it hurts me.”
The passage in Col 1:15-20 is one of the most egregious mis-translations that exist in the NWT. Despite knowing full well that it has absolutely no manuscript support, they have nonetheless added a word 5 times that changes one of the central doctrines in Scripture. Since the early 1870’s Charles Russell adamantly denied the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. When the Organization decided to create their own “translation” they made sure that one of Christendom’s central doctrines would find no support in their translation. And, of course, it is much easier to defend your own unique doctrines if you edit the document which you tell your followers to investigate to see if that is what the Bible actually teaches.
Charles Russell had a high view of the value of the original biblical manuscripts. In Zion’s WT Aug 1, 1896 he wrote: “But the originals are what we desire, or translations as near to them and their purity as we can obtain.”
Today, the WBTS has a more utilitarian view of the manuscripts. When the manuscript evidence supports their teachings, the WBTS calls attention to the fact that their translation follows the oldest manuscripts. But when it doesn’t support their position, it quietly ignores this principle hoping no one will notice. This can be seen in multiple places, such as the insertion of the word “Jehovah” 237 times in the NT, and the addition of the word “other” 5 times in Col 1:15-20. This is an example of special pleading: “If X, then Y, except when it hurts us.” Or to put it another way: “We follow the highest principles, the oldest manuscripts (Sotto voce: Except when they work against us”).
It is interesting to note how Charles Russell argued about the importance of following the earliest manuscripts in determining what should be translated. When the manuscripts supported his interpretation then he was quick to call attention to those facts. But later, when the organization decided to produce their own version of the Bible in 1950, this commitment to the value of the original manuscripts was put to the test. When the NWT was produced, this attitude was quietly ignored when it worked against their doctrines. Here is what Charles Russell said about the lack of manuscript support for the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8) and how it reads in the KJV:
Studies in the Scriptures Vol 5, Study 2, 1899 p. 55
“There is one statement found in the Scriptures, and only one1, which seems in the slightest degree to even imply the doctrine of a Trinity of Gods; and that passage is now admitted by all scholars to be spurious--an interpolation. It is therefore omitted from the Revised Version of the New Testament, although the translators of that Revised Version, so far as we are aware, were every one of them Trinitarians. While they would have liked to retain this passage, as the only Scripture support (and then very imperfect in statement), they could not retain it conscientiously.2
Nor were the translators of our Common Version of the Bible blameworthy for inserting this interpolation, because at the time of that translation it was impossible to know of its spurious character. Since its translation hundreds of old Greek manuscripts have been found3, but none of these of earlier date than the seventh century contains this clause4, which favors the Trinity. It is therefore not denied by scholars, without respect to denominational proclivities, that the spurious words were inserted to give support to the doctrine of the Trinity, at a time when the discussion of that doctrine was rife in the Church, and when the advocates of the doctrine of the Trinity were perplexed before their opponents, because they had no Scriptural evidence to bring in substantiation of their theory.5 The spurious words were no doubt interpolated by some over-zealous monk, who felt sure of the doctrine himself, and thought that the holy Spirit had blundered in not stating the matter in the Scriptures: his intention, no doubt, was to help God and the truth out of a difficulty by perpetrating a fraud.6 But all such suggestions, to the effect that God has not given us a complete revelation, “sufficient that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished,” and that it needs adding to, are of the Adversary, as was this suggestion that it would be proper to commit a wrong, a forgery, for the sake of doing good, and rectifying the mistake of the Almighty. The monk-scribe or priest who committed this forgery, apparently about the beginning of the seventh century, has much to answer for, in his addition to the Word of God, and the evil influence which it has exerted over God’s people, who, seeking for the truth on this subject, were misled by his forgery.” [Emphasis added]
They admitted in a 1970 article that they inserted the word “other” in Col 1:15-20 for doctrinal reasons:
*** w70 4/15 p. 255 Questions From Readers ***
In considering this matter it is well to note that Bible writers often took for granted that certain things would be understood, just as writers in our day do. For example, the apostle Paul states, as we read at Colossians 1:16, that by means of Jesus Christ all things were created in the heavens and on earth. But since we know from Revelation 3:14 that Jesus himself was also created, the New World Translation adds the word “other,” which clearly is what the apostle had in mind.7 But even here, it might be added, that, were it not for the prevalence of the trinitarian teaching that Jesus was not created, it would not have been necessary to add the word “other.” 8 [Emphasis added]
Comments to the numbers above:
So how can we detect if a translator has added his own convictions to his translation? Well, the WBTS has actually answered that question for us quite well already.
A Watchtower book ( Reasoning from the Scriptures 1989, p. 64 qv. Bible) correctly observes that:
“It is true that some translations of the Bible adhere more closely to what is in the original languages than others do. Modern paraphrase Bibles have taken liberties that at times alter the original meaning. Some translators have allowed personal beliefs to color their renderings. But these weaknesses can be identified by comparison of a variety of translations.” [Emphasis added]
Then in the same book, p. 277 par. 5 qv. New World Translation they state:
“Some verses may not read the same as what a person is accustomed to. Which rendering is right? Readers are invited to examine manuscript support cited in footnotes of the Reference edition of the New World Translation, read explanations given in the appendix, and compare the rendering with a variety of other translations. [Emphasis added]
In the brochure “Should you believe in the Trinity?” they accuse certain translations of being biased: From the foregoing it is apparent that the translators of versions such as the Douay and the King James are bending the rules to support Trinitarian ends. [Emphasis added]
Logically, when you compare a variety of translations, then the weakest one will be the outlier among the translations. How many other translations have added the word “other” to this passage? Doesn’t that let us see which translation has the weakest rendering?
So far we have looked at external evidence, namely the lack of manuscript support for the NWT choice to add “other” to this passage. Are there also internal reasons why their translation is wrong? Internal reasons can include the immediate context as well as possible contradictions with other passages.
JWs will claim that the first creator is actually mentioned in this passage. They will say that in Col 1:15 the word “firstborn” (Greek: πρωτότοκος) actually means “first created,” thus claiming that is where the text implicitly refers to the first creator, who would be Jehovah God, the Father. This, in their minds, justifies the adding of the word “other” 5 times. However, a word meaning “first created” would require a completey different word in Greek.
| Greek | Transliteration | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| πρῶτος κτισθείς | prōtos ktistheis | first created (aorist passive participle of κτίζω, “to create”) |
| πρῶτον κτισθέν | prōton ktisthen | first created (neuter participle form) |
| πρωτόκτιστος | prōtóktistos | first-created (a compound adjective) |
If the word “firstborn” in verse 15 means “first created,” does it mean that also in verse 18, where Christ is called “the firstborn from the dead?” Can we understand “the dead” as having “first created” (produced?) Christ? How can he be created “first” by both: creation and the dead? (The Watchtower actually teaches that the dead don’t even exist, so how could something that doesn’t exist produce Christ?) JWs will probably respond that the term “firstborn” can also refer to the honour and prominence of the “firstborn” being given to someone who was not literally “born first.” Exactly! They will point to other verses where this is obviously the meaning, such as: Gen 48:14; Psa 89:27; Jer 31:9. But if that is the case for verse 18, is it also used that way in verse 15 as well?
Well actually, that is what the context supports. Verse 18 ends with a summary statement: “so that he might become the one who is first in all things.” Which things does Paul mean by saying: “all things?” Did he give any examples? Well, he just mentioned three specific things: firstborn of creation, the head of the church and the firstborn from the dead. In these three examples Christ has the same honour and prominence as that which is given to the firstborn. Then he extends it by saying: “so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything” (Col 1:18). By using the phrase “so that” Paul ties the three examples he mentioned to his summary he then provides. So rather than the term “firstborn” meaning literally “born first” but actually meaning “the first one created” in one verse and then 3 verses later having a different meaning, they both mean having the position of honour of a “firstborn” because that is exactly what Paul is saying in verse 18. He gives three examples of where this esteemed position applies to Christ, and then asserts that it applies to “all things.”
| 3 Examples |
in order that |
Purpose or Result |
|---|---|---|
|
ἵνα (hína) “in order that”, “so that”, indicates purpose or result | (NASB) He Himself will come to have first place in everything. (NWT) he might become the one who is first in all things; |
| NET | He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he himself may become first in all things. |
| NIV | And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. |
| NASB | He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. |
| ESV | And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. |
| NLT | Christ is also the head of the church, which is his body. He is the beginning, supreme over all who rise from the dead. So he is first in everything. |
| BBE | And he is the head of the body, the church: the starting point of all things, the first to come again from the dead; so that in all things he might have the chief place. |
| NKJV | And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. |
| NRSV | He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. |
| KJV | And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. {in...: or, among all} |
| NWT | and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things; |
When your translation creates a contradiction with passages elsewhere then you know that you have made a mistake! When the NWT translators added the word “other” (πᾶς = pâs) 5 times to this passage they actually created a contradiction with several other verses in the New Testament. These are the verses which use the adjective “all” in reference to Christ’s creative activity: John 1:3; 1Co 8:6; Col 1:15-17; Heb 1:2-3. If the NWT translators really want to erase the evidence from the NT that Christ is the creator of all things then they need to adjust all of these other verses as well. Other verses need more “other.” The passage John 1:3 is especially difficult to reconcile with the NWT rendering of Col 1:16, because John uses both a positive expression as well as a negative one to help delineate what he means. First, he gives us a positive statement that the Word created all things, then he adds a negative qualifier to prevent any misunderstandings of what he actually meant: “and apart from him not even one thing was made” by anyone else. If he is the creator of all things, without exception, then he is not a created being, but the eternal, self-existing, Almighty Creator.
Doctrine should be formed by scripture; scripture should not be changed to support doctrine.
The use of ἵνα (hina) in Colossians 1:15–20 is particularly significant because it occurs within one of Paul’s most exalted Christological passages. The hymn describes Christ’s supremacy over both creation and the new creation, and the single occurrence of ἵνα (v. 18) serves as the climactic purpose statement that ties the entire passage together.
Here is the relevant section:
“...He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων.”
“...that He might become preeminent in everything.” (ESV)
Or more literally:
“...in order that He might become the one holding first place in all things.”
The Greek reads:
ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων
Breaking it down:
ἵνα — in order that, so that
γένηται — might become, might come to be (aorist subjunctive of γίνομαι)
ἐν πᾶσιν — in all things
αὐτός — He Himself
πρωτεύων — holding first place, being preeminent
Notice that the verb is subjunctive because it follows ἵνα.
The preceding verses describe Christ as:
the image of God (v.15)
firstborn over creation
Creator of all things
before all things
the One in whom all things hold together
head of the church
firstborn from the dead
Then Paul reaches the purpose clause:
ἵνα...
Everything just described has a purpose.
The purpose is:
that Christ should have first place in everything.
The ἵνα clause is therefore not introducing another description of Christ. Rather, it gives the divine purpose behind His resurrection and headship.
Notice the immediate flow:
He is the beginning...
🡳
firstborn from among the dead...
🡳
ἵνα He might have first place in everything.
Paul is saying that Christ’s resurrection inaugurates the new creation with a specific goal: His universal supremacy is now openly established.
Discourse analysts often note that this hymn builds in stages.
1. Christ and creation (vv. 15–17)
image of God
Creator
Sustainer
🡳
2. Christ and redemption (v.18)
head of the church
firstborn from the dead
🡳
3. ἵνα clause
purpose
climax
theological goal
🡳
4. Explanation (vv.19–20)
Because all the fullness dwells in Him,
God reconciles all things through Him.
Thus ἵνα functions as the hinge between Christ’s work and God’s purpose.
Some readers wonder whether γένηται (“might become”) suggests Christ was not preeminent before.
Not necessarily.
The verb γίνομαι often means:
come to occupy
come to be recognized as
enter into a new phase
become manifested as
Paul has just affirmed that Christ created all things (vv. 16–17), so he clearly does not mean Christ lacked inherent supremacy before the resurrection.
Instead, the resurrection marks the historical inauguration and public manifestation of His supremacy over the new creation.
In other words:
Creation already testified to Christ’s supremacy.
Resurrection establishes His supremacy over redeemed humanity as well.
The next verses begin:
“Because (or ‘for’) all the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him...”
This explains how Christ can occupy first place.
The logic is:
Christ created everything.
Christ rose from the dead.
ἵνα He might have first place in everything.
Because God’s fullness dwells in Him.
Because through Him all things are reconciled.
Thus the ἵνα clause is the theological centerpiece of the paragraph.
Paul could simply have written:
“Christ is preeminent.”
Instead, he writes:
“...the firstborn from the dead, ἵνα He might have first place in everything.”
This shifts the emphasis from a static description to God’s redemptive purpose. The resurrection is not merely another event in Christ’s story; it serves the divine aim that Christ’s supremacy be realized and displayed in every sphere of reality.
Many commentators therefore regard ἵνα in Colossians 1:18 as the teleological climax of the Christ hymn. The entire sequence—from creation (vv. 15–17), through resurrection (v. 18), to reconciliation (vv. 19–20)—moves toward this goal: that Christ Himself should hold the place of absolute preeminence in all things.