--- title: When 'Is' Becomes 'Means' url: https://jw-apologetics.app/arguments/is-to-means-broader-pattern/ markdown: https://jw-apologetics.app/arguments/is-to-means-broader-pattern.md type: argument perspective: Protestant (historic Nicene) response to Jehovah's Witness teaching topics: [NWT Translation] challenges: [The New World Translation Is the Most Accurate Bible] verses: [1 Corinthians 10:4, Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, Hebrews 11:17, Matthew 12:7, 1 Corinthians 11:24, 1 Corinthians 11:25, 1 Corinthians 12:27, 1 John 1:5, 1 John 3:4, 1 John 4:8, 2 Peter 1:1, Colossians 1:15-17, John 1:1, John 12:50, John 19:30, Philippians 2:6, Revelation 3:14, Romans 12:5, Titus 2:13, Proverbs 9:1, 1 Corinthians 1:24, 1 Corinthians 1:30] strength: Moderate tone: Good attribution: Bruce Metzger, 'Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ' (1953); Robert Bowman, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses; Kubo and Specht, So Many Versions?; bible-researcher.com; defendingthenwt.blogspot.com (JW response); CRI/equip.org added: '2026-04-26' last_reviewed: '2026-04-26' index: https://jw-apologetics.app/llms.txt --- # When 'Is' Becomes 'Means' *The NWT's Pattern of Paraphrasing the Greek Copula* ## Doorstep Question > "I noticed something in your New World Translation that I wanted to ask you about. The Greek verb estin — the ordinary word for "is" — gets rendered "means" or "meant" in a handful of places where the plain "is" would create a doctrinal problem. The Lord's Supper is the famous one: "This means my body" instead of "This is my body." But it shows up at 1 Corinthians 10:4 too — "that rock meant the Christ." Most translations there read "that rock was Christ." Is there a translation rule that decides where "is" gets turned into "means," or is it case by case?" ## JW Claim The Greek verb estin has a semantic range that includes "means," "represents," and "stands for." Greek lexicons (Thayer, Vine) and many respected translators (Moffatt, Barclay) acknowledge this. Where modern English clarity is served by rendering estin as "means" — to avoid wooden literalism that confuses readers — that is a translation decision, not a theological one. The NIV itself uses "leads to" for estin at John 12:50; the NIV Study Bible calls the eucharistic bread a "symbol." The NWT is simply choosing the right shade of meaning in context. ## Strategy Lead with two clean cases and let the question do the work — do not announce the conclusion. (1) Open the NWT to 1 Corinthians 10:4 and read it aloud: "that rock meant the Christ." Then ask the Witness to look up the same verse in any standard translation (BSB, NIV, ESV, NASB) — every one reads "that rock was Christ." The Greek is the imperfect of einai, the same verb family as estin. Ask: "What's the doctrinal pressure on this verse? If Paul says the rock was Christ, that's a strong identity statement linking the pre-incarnate Christ to Israel's wilderness journey. If the rock only 'meant' Christ, the identity is loosened to a symbol." (2) Then turn to the Last Supper — Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. Same Greek verb estin, same NWT move: "This means my body." Most translations read "This is my body." Ask: "What's the doctrinal pressure on the eucharist verses? If Jesus said 'this is my body,' the Catholic and Lutheran sacramental readings get a foothold. If he said 'this means my body,' the bread is reduced to a memorial symbol — which matches the Watchtower's annual Memorial doctrine." (3) Now widen the lens: the Watchtower's defenders cite Matthew 12:7 as proof that estin can legitimately be rendered "means." Acknowledge that the verb does have a semantic range — but ask: "Where the Greek estin could be rendered either 'is' or 'means,' the NWT consistently picks 'means' exactly where 'is' would support a doctrine the Watchtower rejects. Is that translation, or is that commentary written into the text?" (4) Close with the key question: a normal translation, working from semantic range, would scatter — sometimes "is," sometimes "means," determined by context. The NWT's choices align: every doctrinally loaded estin becomes "means" precisely where literal "is" would challenge Watchtower teaching. That alignment is what flags it as theology, not lexicography. ## Key Insight Greek estin has a semantic range — that is not in dispute. The question is where a translation picks "means" over "is." Normal translation scatters with context: sometimes literal, sometimes idiomatic. The NWT picks "means" exactly at the points where literal "is" would create doctrinal pressure — the Lord's Supper and 1 Corinthians 10:4 — and picks "is" everywhere else. That is not a translation decision driven by clarity; it is a doctrinal decision dressed as a translation decision. Translation choices that systematically favour one side of a centuries-old debate are not translation. They are commentary written into the text. The same doctrine-tracking pattern shows up beyond the copula. At Proverbs 9:1 the NWT flattens the feminine personification of Wisdom — "True wisdom has built its house... it has carved out its seven pillars" — in a chapter where standard translations preserve the figure ("Wisdom has built her house; she has hewn her seven pillars") and where Christian readers since the early church have heard the wisdom-Christ link Paul names at 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30. The translator's hand reaches wherever the doctrinal payload of the literal reading would press, whether the pressure point is a verb, a personification, or a personal pronoun. ## JW Responses & Counters ### Response 1 **JW says:** "The Greek verb estin can legitimately mean 'means' or 'represents.' Even Thayer's lexicon says so." **Counter:** Granted — the verb has a semantic range. The question is not whether estin can ever be rendered "means" but where the NWT chooses to render it that way. Compare the choices: at Matthew 12:7 ("if you knew what this means") most translations render the construction as "means" because the context demands it — Jesus is unpacking a quotation. At 1 Corinthians 10:4 the same family of verbs in the same kind of identity statement gets rendered "meant" by the NWT but "was" by virtually every other translation. The choice is not driven by lexical possibility — it is driven by what the verse implies about Christ. Lexical range explains why the option exists; it does not explain why the NWT consistently picks the option that lowers the Christological reading. ### Response 2 **JW says:** "Moffatt and Barclay also rendered the Lord's Supper verses as 'this means my body.' The NWT is in respectable company." **Counter:** Moffatt and Barclay are paraphrastic translations — they are not controversial because nobody treats them as the literal text. The NWT presents itself as the most accurate, most literal translation available and tells Witnesses to use it as their primary Bible. A paraphrase that calls itself a paraphrase is honest. A paraphrase that calls itself a literal translation, and that paraphrases precisely at the points where the literal reading would challenge its sponsoring organisation's doctrine, is something else. The Watchtower's own Kingdom Interlinear Translation prints the literal Greek under the NWT text — and at 1 Corinthians 10:4 the literal column reads "the rock was the Christ." The NWT column above it reads "meant." The Watchtower's own interlinear contradicts the Watchtower's translation. ### Response 3 **JW says:** "The NWT picks 'means' for clarity, not theology. Modern readers do not understand 'this is my body' as anything but the Catholic mass." **Counter:** Then the same clarity concern should apply across the corpus — and it does not. The NWT keeps "is" everywhere else where estin links a subject to a description. Romans 12:5 — "we are one body." 1 Corinthians 12:27 — "you are Christ's body." 1 John 1:5 — "God is light." 1 John 4:8 — "God is love." The NWT does not render these "we mean a body," "you mean Christ's body," "God means light," "God means love." The same translators who claim clarity requires "means" in the eucharist passages keep "is" where "is" does not threaten Watchtower doctrine. If clarity were the rule, the rule would scatter. The choices align doctrinally, which means the rule is doctrinal. ### Response 4 **JW says:** "The NIV uses 'leads to' for estin at John 12:50 — every translation paraphrases when context demands." **Counter:** That is true and it is not the issue. Every translation paraphrases occasionally; what makes a translation trustworthy is whether the paraphrases scatter randomly or align in one direction. The NIV's "leads to" at John 12:50 is not the NIV softening a verse to protect a doctrinal position the NIV's translators hold — there is no Christological pressure on John 12:50. The NWT's "means" at the eucharist and at 1 Corinthians 10:4 is at exactly the points where the literal reading would put pressure on Watchtower doctrine. The pattern is not "the NWT paraphrases." The pattern is "the NWT paraphrases on a doctrinal heat map." ### Response 5 **JW says:** "You are accusing the translators of bad faith. They were doing their best." **Counter:** We are not accusing anyone of bad faith. We are pointing out a pattern in the finished text that anyone with two Bibles open can verify. Bruce Metzger — the leading textual scholar of the twentieth century — wrote in 1953 that the NWT contains "several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek" and listed John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-17, Philippians 2:6, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, and Revelation 3:14. The Zondervan handbook So Many Versions? objected specifically to the NWT's "means" rendering at 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, writing that "the Greek verb is 'is' and should have been translated thus" — concluding that "concern for accuracy and literalism seems to be set aside whenever the literal text conflicts with their theological position." That is not a slur; that is published peer review by qualified Greek scholars. The translators were not on trial — the translation is. ## What to Avoid Do not overstate the pattern. The clean cases are the eucharist verses (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24-25) and 1 Corinthians 10:4. Hebrews 11:17 is a different kind of softening ("as good as offered" for the perfect tense of prospherō, not estin). John 19:30 ("It has been accomplished" for tetelestai) and 1 John 3:4 do not fit this pattern at all — the NWT keeps "sin is lawlessness." If you try to argue the pattern across half a dozen unrelated verses, the Witness will catch the overreach and the whole argument collapses. Stick to the verses where estin is clearly the underlying verb and the NWT clearly substitutes "means." Also avoid the broader charge that the NWT is a "fake Bible" — focus on the specific translation choice and let the Witness evaluate it. ## Homework Open the NWT and a standard translation (BSB, ESV, NASB) side by side for these passages. Note which translations use "is/was" and which use "means/meant": (1) 1 Corinthians 10:4 — "that rock ___ Christ." (2) Matthew 26:26 — "this ___ my body." (3) Mark 14:22 — "this ___ my body." (4) Luke 22:19 — "this ___ my body." (5) 1 Corinthians 11:24 — "this ___ my body." (6) 1 Corinthians 11:25 — "this cup ___ the new covenant." Then ask: in each case where the NWT picks "means," what would the literal "is" imply about Christ that the Watchtower would want to soften? Bonus: open the Kingdom Interlinear Translation on jw.org for 1 Corinthians 10:4 and read the literal Greek column under the NWT column. Note the contradiction. ## Next Moves - [This Is, Not This Means](https://jw-apologetics.app/arguments/this-means-my-body-eucharist.md) - [The NWT's One-Way Mirror](https://jw-apologetics.app/arguments/nwt-unidirectional-bias.md) - [The New World Translation — Anonymous and Unqualified](https://jw-apologetics.app/arguments/nwt-reliability.md)