ON JESUS AND THE TRINITY – Responding to the Jehovah’s Witnesses

A presbyter by name Arius had started to preach that there was a time when Jesus, the Son, did not exist – in other words, the Son was a created being and not eternal with the Father.  This implied that the Father was God but Jesus couldn’t be. Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, at the time,rejected this teaching and asked Arius to recant which he refused. Constantine wrote a letter, not as an Emperor decreeing, but in his own words, as a ‘fellow-servant’ ‘righteously’ advising them to solve their differences. Evidently this did not yield any results. The dissension grew to the point that it was no longer just an issue between heads of churches but was now among ordinary members. To prevent this tension from turning into a full blown instability in the empire, Constantine called all the Bishops in the Empire to meet in Nicaea to agree and outline what was Christian belief in the year 325 AD. Note that by this time Constantine had already come to faith in Christ and had received some education in the faith. As a result, he felt a certain brotherhood with the Church and felt that this disagreement was a disgrace, apart from the likelihood of it causing civil unrest. Constantine attended the meeting on the day of the final solution. The meeting had actually lasted for more than two months.

With this background, let’s come back to the Awake Magazine. The article says that the Emperor suggested they should insert the expression “of one substance with the Father.” This point is very true, but the Bishops did not add it without vigorous discussions as to what that expression meant.  The final Creed at the end of the meeting read as follows (which is a bit different from what we currently recite in our churches, which is from the council of Constantinople in 381 AD):

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:— And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is,from the Substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, very God from very God, begotten, not made, One in substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead. “‘And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say, “Once He was not,” and “Before His generation He was not,” and “He came to be from nothing,” or those who pretend that the Son of God is “Of other subsistence or substance,” or “created,”or “alterable,” or “mutable,” the Catholic Church anathematizes.

The word ‘anathematizes’ implies the Church curses those who say the sort of things listed in the last few lines which go against the heart of the creed. This shows how strongly they felt about preaching correct doctrine. Again, as Eusibius, a Bishop present at the Council recounts,they did not accept the expression ‘of one substance with the Father’ without vigorous discussion:

On their dictating this formula[referring to the Creed], we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced ‘of the substance of the Father,’ and ‘one in substance with the Father.’ Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed that the phrase ‘of the substance’ was indicative of the Son’s being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did,that the Son was from the Father, not, however, a part of His substance. On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term ‘One in substance,’ peace being the object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the orthodox view.

It can be clearly seen that the Council was not about inventing new ideas but about stating in clearer terms, what was an existing view. And this they did. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, would have us believe that it was this expression, ‘of one Substance with the Father’, which in their view erroneously makes Jesus God, that laid a false foundation for what we call Trinity today. Thus since Trinity is based on this idea of Jesus’ oneness with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Christians have erred. The article goes onto say that “… Jesus never claimed to be equal with God.” (p.13) According to the article this is what the Bible says:

1. “My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”John 14:28 KJV
2. “I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God” John 20:17 KJV
3. “To us there is but one God, the Father.”1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV
4. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 1:3 KJV
5. “These things saith the Amen [Jesus],… the beginning of the creation of God” Revelations 3:14 KJV

[Notice where they place their emphases, in italics]

If these were really the only verses in the New Testament, then obviously the Church Bishops erred gravely. But you see, the issue of who Jesus is has always been more complex than this simplification by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Jesus Christ is the ‘Son of Man’ (his humanity), yes, but he is also the ‘Son of God’ (his divinity). But the Jehovah’s Witnesses are ignoring this and saying Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. This is not a strong argument. The fact that Jesus did not, in direct words, claim to be God or equal to God does not establish that he did not claim so indirectly. When he forgave the sin of the paralyzed man in Luke 5:20 what was he communicating. He was pointing out the fact that he had the same authority of God to forgive sins. Further he promised his disciples (John included) that he will ask the Father to send them another Helper who is the Spirit who reveals the truth about God. And in the beginning lines of the gospel according to John (this is after the Holy Spirit had come and was leading them into all truth), John reveals Jesus’ divinity in clear terms, “In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God. …The Word was in the world, and though God made the world through him, yet the world did not recognize him.” John 1:1-10 GNB. If this does not expressly speak to the Godhood of the Son, Jesus Christ, I don’t know what does.

Don’t the Jehovah Witnesses think that the Bishops at Nicaea were aware of these things as well as verses like:

1. “The Father and I are one” John 10:30
2. “Fora long time I have been with you all; yet you do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. Why, then do you say, ‘show us the Father’? Do you not believe, Philip, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?” John 14: 9-10
3. “Nor does the Father himself judge anyone. He has given his Son the full right to judge so that all will honour the Son in the same way as they honour the Father. Whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.” John 5:22-23

This just shows the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ one-sided shallow study of the Bible, their intentional bias in selecting scriptures that support a preconceived idea and their wilful blindness to the entirety of Scripture.  When we want to get to truth, we must weigh all the evidence available, not just what suits our fancy. If Jesus did not claim equality with God, then why did he place himself on the same level of authority in the baptismal formula which he gave to his disciples?:  “… baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, …” Matthew 28:19. Also think of the Apostolic blessing used in 2 Corinthians 13:13, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” It shows how the first century apostles saw Jesus.

Trinity, as a word, may not be in the Bible, in fact it is not in it, but the concept that it captures is too uncomfortably visible in the Bible to be ignored. We see three persons (yet not separate) in the one God. This strikes us out of our wits. Mysterious, if you ask me. There is distinctness and a three-ness, yet a real indivisibility and a unity – a oneness in this God of the Bible. A tri –unity, a Trinity!

* Unless otherwise stated all scripture quotations are from the Good News Bible, Second edition © 1994