Responding to Arianism (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses)

The view briefly stated:¹

“Jesus had an existence in heaven before coming to the earth. But was it as one of the persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible plainly states that in his pre-human existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their creation …. to worship God on his terms means to reject the Trinity doctrine” (Watchtower, “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” [1989]: 14, 31).

Arguments Considered:

“Jesus is not God because Colossians 1:15 states that he is ‘the first-born of all creation,’ i.e. the first one to have been created by Jehovah.” To conclude that the term “firstborn” here has reference to the first to have been created is to ignore the biblical usage of the term. The Greek word is prototokos, which signifies priority or superiority (cf. Ex. 4:22; Deut. 21:15-17). The future tense of Psalm 89:27 shows that “firstborn” is a title of preeminence, not a reference to origin (applied here to David, the youngest son of Jesse). Ephraim is called the “firstborn” (Jer. 31:9), even though he was the youngest brother (Gen. 48:14). In Colossians 1:15 Christ is called “firstborn” because he is superior or preeminent to all created things (cf. Rom. 8:29). Why? “Because by him all things were created …” (v. 16). If Jesus had been created, yet he created all created things, he would have created himself! Further, Paul goes on to say that Jesus is “the firstborn [prototokos] from the dead” (v. 18b), not that he is the first to have ever risen from the dead (cf. Matt. 11:5; John 11:44) but “that in all things He may have the preeminence” (v. 18c; cf. Rom. 6:9).

“Jesus is a created being, not God, because Revelation 3:14 refers to him as “the beginning of the creation by God” (New World Translation).” This verse is mistranslated in the NWT. The instrumental “by God” is not the original wording of the text, rather the genitive “of God.” The term translated “beginning” is the Greek word archē, meaning “origin” or “first cause.” This passage actually says that Christ was the moving cause of God’s creation, which parallels John 1:3 and Col. 1:16. In Rev. 21:6 God is described as “the beginning [archē] and the end.”

“John 1:1 should be translated, ‘the Word was a god.’ When the Greek word theos appears with a definite article (‘the’), it should be rendered ‘the God’ or ‘God.’ Since there is no indefinite article (‘a’) in Greek, in the absence of the definite article, theos should be translated ‘a god.’” This is not a legitimate rule for the use of the article in the Greek NT.² Of the 282 occurrences of the anarthrous theos (without the article), the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is 94% unfaithful to their own rule. In the first chapter of John alone, theos appears five times without an article (vv. 1, 6, 12, 13, 18), yet the NWT translators render it “God” in every instance except in v. 1, where it clearly refers to Christ! Further, if the Bible teaches that there is only one God (Deut. 6:4) and if Jesus is “a god” (i.e. an additional one), the advocates of this view are advocating polytheism.³

“Jesus can’t be God or equal with God because he is inferior to God (John 14:28).” A fundamental error undergirding this and similar arguments is the false assumption that a subordinate role is equivalent to an inferior nature. All Christians have been directed to submit to one another (Gal. 5:13; Eph. 5:21; 1 Pet. 5:5) yet remain equal in essence or worth (Gal. 3:28). Despite this equality, however, different functions have been allocated to the various believers, e.g. wives submit to husbands (Eph. 5:22), members submit to leaders (Heb. 13:17), etc. There is a clear distinction between substance (equality) and function (subordination). The contrast within the Godhead is functional, not one of nature or essence. When the one we know as Jesus “became flesh,” he took on an inferior role and could thus say, for instance, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). The word “greater” refers to position, whereas the word “better” would be applicable to nature (cf. Heb. 1:4). All passages dealing with Christ’s subordination (1 Cor. 11:3; etc.) refer to his role in the flesh but do not detract from his divine essence. Moreover, his temptations, visibility, subjection to death, etc., merely relate to his subordinate role that began when he took on human flesh. The descriptive expression, “the Son of God,” signifies both subordination (of position) and equality (of nature). See John 5:17-18; 10:17-33; etc.

“Jesus cannot be God because he referred to the Father as ‘the only true God’ (John 17:3).” This statement, like all other scriptural affirmations of divine exclusiveness, is in contrast to the false gods of polytheism and has nothing to do with Jesus allegedly denying anything about himself. If there is no Savior besides Almighty God (Isa. 43:11), would the deniers of Christ’s deity dismiss Jesus as Savior? (Eph. 5:23; Phil. 3:20; 2 Tim. 1:10; etc.). If Jesus is the “one Lord” (Eph. 4:4; Jude 4), does this mean the Father cannot be Lord? (Matt. 11:25; Luke 1:32; Acts 1:25; 2:20, 25, 39; 4:24). These exclusive statements merely eliminate those outside, not within, the Godhead.

Further Observations:

     Jesus is called “My Lord and my God” in John 20:28. The designations “Lord” and “God” are translated from the Greek words kurios and theos, and whenever these words are used together in the NT, they are equivalent to the Hebrew terms Yahweh (“Jehovah”) and elohim (“God”) (Mark 12:29-30; Luke 1:68; 10:27; Acts 3:22; cf. Ex. 20:7) and always refer to the Supreme Deity (Acts 2:39; 4:24; 7:37). Moreover, the designation “the Alpha and the Omega” is a clear reference to God that is equally applied to Jesus (Rev. 1:8, 17-18; 22:12-13, 16; cf. Isa. 44:6).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Arianism is the view that Jesus the Son was created by God the Father and is therefore inferior in essence to God the Father. Arius of Alexandria (ca. 250-336) is the first on record to have espoused and promoted this view (thus “Arianism”). In modern times a form of this doctrine is held by religious groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and various Unitarian sects.

     ² In the Greek NT, word order is used for emphasis and the article distinguishes the subject from the predicate nominative. The only legitimate rendering of kai theos ēn ho logos in John 1:1 is, “and the Word was God.” The emphatic position of theos stresses essence or quality, and the absence of the article avoids the conclusion that the Word is the Person of God [the Father]; the word order shows that the Word has all the divine attributes of God. If the order and/or employment of the article were different, ho logos ēn ho theos (“the Word was the God”) = Sabellianism (Jesus is the Father); or ho logos ēn theos (“the Word was a god”) = Arianism.
    ³ The typical Jehovah’s Witness response is to point out Jesus’ words in John 10:34-35, where human judges are called “gods.” But this is the Lord’s response to antagonistic unbelievers, in stark contrast to passages like 1:1 and 20:28. Jesus is quoting Psa. 82:6, where the plural elohim (Hebrew) and the corresponding plural theoi (Greek) essentially refers to “mighty ones.” Nowhere in the New Testament is the plural theoi ever applied to God the Father or Jesus Christ. Moreover, Jesus’ customary approach when responding to his enemies was indirect and ambiguous (cf. 8:3-9, 21-29; 9:39-41; 10:1-6, 24; 18:19-21, 33-34; 19:9; also Matt. 12:1-8; 13:10-15; 21:23-27). In John 10:30-39 Jesus does not deny their inference but simply quotes scripture to show their inconsistency; he does not give in to their devious request to “tell us plainly” (v. 24). Neither John 1:1-3, nor 20:28, nor comparable passages, equate to the dispute in John 10.

Related Posts: The Triune Godhead, Responding to Anti-Trinitarian Arguments, Deity of Christ

Image credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Cima_da_Conegliano,_God_the_Father.jpg

Responding to Popular Anti-Trinitarian Arguments

     Clear and effective communication is possible only when those involved define, understand, and employ the same terminology in the same way. We therefore begin with clarifying some key words and concepts.

Definition of Terms:

     Monotheism is the belief in only one God, in contrast to the multiple gods of polytheism (cf. Ex. 20:3; Deut. 4:35, 39; 6:4; 1 Kgs. 8:60; 1 Chron. 17:20; Isa. 43:11; Zech. 14:9; Gal. 3:20; Jas. 2:19; etc.). However, there is significant disagreement among monotheists as to how God is to be understood and explained. Unitarianism is the view that God is a single Person or entity, the concept generally held by orthodox Jews and Muslims. Binitarianism is the idea that the one God is comprised of two divine Persons (the Father and the Son),¹ espoused by 7th-day Church of God groups such as the General Conference of the Church of God (7th day), United Church of God, Living Church of God, and a few splinter groups of the Worldwide Church of God. Trinitarianism is the belief that the one unified God is comprised of three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit)² and has been considered the orthodox view of most mainline believers throughout church history.

     Seeing that strict unitarianism is very difficult to harmonize with the overall teachings of scripture, it is no surprise that a wide variety of unitarian subgroups have proliferated. Sabellianism, named after the 3rd-century theologian Sabellius,³ is the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same Person, espoused by the United Pentecostal Church and various other so-called “Oneness Pentecostals” or “Jesus-Only Pentecostals.” Arianism, named after Arius of Alexandria (ca. 250-336), the first on record to have promoted this view, is the idea that Jesus the Son was created by God the Father and is therefore inferior in essence to the Father. A form of this doctrine is held by religious groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and various Unitarian sects. Socinianism is a view maintaining that Jesus did not exist until he was conceived by the virgin Mary.⁴ This theological concept is named after the 16th-century Italian theologian Fausto Sozzini (Lat. Faustus Socinus) and was popularized in Poland. Modern-day proponents of this view include the Unitarian Church of Transylvania (also Poland and England), the Christadelphians, and the Church of God General Conference.

Responding to Popular Anti-Trinitarian Arguments:

     1. “The word 'trinity' is not in the Bible.” Well, the word “Bible” is not in the Bible. Neither are terms such as "monotheism," "incarnation," “omniscience,” "omnipotence," and “providence,” but these words do convey biblical concepts. Irrespective of the descriptive terminology that might be employed for communicative purposes, the question should be whether or not the words convey biblical truth. Perhaps English terms such as Godhead, Divine Nature, Divinity, and Deity are to be preferred.

     2. “The concept of trinitarianism is at variance with the biblical doctrine of monotheism.” This is a false antithesis. The concept of trinitarianism conflicts with unitarianism but not with monotheism (see definitions above). Monotheism is the belief in only one God, which is a conviction held by both trinitarians and unitarians. The unitarian concept is God as a single entity, while the trinitarian concept is one God (the Divine Nature) consisting of three distinct personages (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) in perfect unity. Trinitarianism is not the same as tritheism (belief in three separate gods). Note one of the primary differences in the way in which certain passages of scripture are interpreted by unitarians and trinitarians. When unitarians read about “God,” they are thinking of one Person; when trinitarians read about “God,” they allow the context to determine whether one or more divine Persons are intended. When a unitarian imposes his view of God on the text, and reads it with a misconstrued idea of the trinitarian view, he makes nonsensical arguments like: “How could Jesus be his own father?,” or “Was God speaking to himself?,” etc.

     3. “The trinitarian doctrine originated in the 3rd–4th centuries along with other Roman Catholic heresies like transubstantiation, indulgences, maryolatry, etc.” This argument is similar to the sabbatarians’ accusation that Roman Catholicism (viz. Constantine) is allegedly responsible for changing the Sabbath to Sunday. It is a smoke-screen diverting attention from the real issue of what the Bible says. What about the history of the unitarian beliefs of sabellianism, arianism, and socinianism? If modern-day advocates of these teachings claim the Bible as the source of their beliefs rather than Sabellius, Arius, or Socinus, it is disingenuous to make shallow and misleading historical claims about the alleged origin of trinitarian beliefs.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Some have claimed that the 2nd-century Melito of Sardis held this view, but this is disputed. By the 381 Council of Constantinople, it was a topic of debate and its proponents (a.k.a. “semi-arians”) rejected both arianism and trinitarianism.

     ² This doctrine was affirmed in the 2nd-century writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Theophilus of Antioch, and in the 3rd-century writings of Tertullian of Carthage.

    ³ This idea has at times been attributed to Theodotus of Byzantium (ca. 190), but the first on record to have promoted it is Sabellius of Libya (ca. 215-220). He denied the concept of the triune Godhead and maintained that the designations Father, Son, and Holy Spirit merely denote different capacities or manifestations of the same divine being. The 16th-century Spanish Reformer Michael Servetus reaffirmed this teaching (resulting in his execution by Calvinists in Geneva), as did the 18th-century Swedish philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg.

     ⁴ This doctrine was espoused as early as the 4th century by the Pannonian bishop Photinus.

Related Posts: The Triune Godhead, Responding to Sabellianism, Responding to Arianism, Responding to Socinianism 

Image credit: http://www.relate4u.org/images/people.203.jpg