Dear Posterity,
With 7.8 million active members engaging in one-hour evangelizing sessions per week (ironic, considering Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that only 144,000 are chosen), throughout 115,000 world-wide congregations, in 239 countries/territories, with an average of 20 million in attendance of their mandatory annual memorial feast, the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) are indeed a significant impact on the world today. [1] According to one calculation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) spend approximately 1.2 billion hours working in the field to proselytize converts each year. [2] This is a natural byproduct since Jehovah’s Witnesses are required to share their beliefs with non-believers one hour each week. [3] However, this is particularly concerning in light of the glaring reality that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not only a religious cult, but altogether wrong in the conclusions they’ve drawn from the Bible—that is, their version of the Bible, called the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—and extrabiblical publications such as The Watchtower and Awake! Couple that concern with the fact that The Watchtower published their 20 billionth piece of literature by 1999, aggressively translating their publication into over 124 different languages (as of 2015), as well as Awake!, which is available in 240 different languages and distributed door to door to the hefty count of 53 million printed copies a month (making The Watchtower and Awake! larger than the largest ten printed publications combined), and the implications are grave: millions of people are being deceived daily. [4]
However, what exactly constitutes a cult? And how do the Jehovah’s Witnesses fall underneath that category in the first place? Some classic traits that define cults can include the following, as posited by Dr. Sten Erik Armitage, one professor at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) [6]:
- Exclusivity.
- A singular, charismatic leader.
- Questionable authority: when a Messiah-like, dogmatic individual or organization claims that all truth solely comes from him/them, and if not, then it’s not truth.
- Negation of core doctrines: considered the “heartbeat of a cult,” when a cult is often indistinguishable from the mainstream belief/tradition yet they deny core doctrines. In this case, the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the deity of Christ as well as the Holy Trinity.
- Exclusive salvation of members: salvation is only possible via the teachings of this organization or “prophet”; thus, “this extra-creedal, extra-biblical, revelatory authority that we’re putting on, it’s only through this that you’re saved.”
- A central place in eschatology.
- A “new” understanding. [7]
While there can be many characteristics of a cult, the defining mark of a cult for the sake of this post is defined as the following: “A cult of Christianity is a group of people who, claiming to be Christian, embrace a particular doctrinal system promoted by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which denies one or more of the essential doctrines of the faith taught in the 66 books of the Bible.” [8]
The Jehovah’s Witnesses approach to their own publications underscores their status as a cult: “Those who are convinced that The Watchtower is publishing the opinion or expression of a man should not waste time in looking at it at all. Those who believe that God uses The Watchtower as a means of communication to his people, or of calling attention to his prophecies, should study The Watchtower,” states one Watchtower article. [9] Therefore, the Jehovah’s Witness assert that The Watchtower is not simple opinions but the inspired Word of God. Additionally, as Dr. Sten Erik Armitage states, “They explicitly claim that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is the one and only true religion, and the only basis for correct Bible doctrine. You will not be able to understand the New World Translation of the Bible without the lens of The Watchtower.” [10]
When considering where to begin in systematically disproving the bankrupt religion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I found myself at an impasse. As JW doctrine is replete with false claims and absurd proof texting due to the isolation of Scripture, and built on a disturbing history of immoral practices and beliefs…where was I to begin? Similar to the Christian author G.K. Chesterton, who found the task of defending Christianity too impossible to begin as a result of incalculable evidence, I found myself almost helpless in pinpointing a strategy with which to begin. Chesterton writes:
This type of accuracy makes it difficult to describe the accumulation of truth. It’s hard for a man to defend anything of which he’s entirely convinced. It’s easier when he’s only partially convinced. A man is not convinced of a philosophic theory when he finds that something proves it, but rather when EVERYTHING proves it. The more converging reasons that point to this conviction, the more bewildered he is if asked suddenly to sum them up. Thus, if one asked an ordinary intelligent man, on the spur of the moment, “Why do you prefer civilization to savagery?” he would look wildly round at object after object, and would only be able to answer vaguely, “Why, there is that bookcase…and the coals in the fire…and pianos…and policemen.” The whole case for civilization is that the case for it is complex. It has done so many things. But that very multiplicity of proof which ought to make a reply overwhelming makes a reply impossible. There is, therefore, about all complete conviction a kind of huge helplessness. The belief is so big that it takes a long time to get it into action. This hesitation chiefly arises, oddly enough, from an indifference about where to begin. All roads lead to Rome; which is one reason why many people never get there. In the case of this defense of Christian convictions we could just as soon begin the argument with a turnip as we could with a taxi cab. [11]
I could begin with the Jehovah’s Witnesses classic accusation that the word “Trinity”—derived from the Latin term, trinitas, coined by Tertullian around AD 200, meaning, “three-in-one”—does not appear anywhere in the Bible: “Those who accept the Bible as God’s Word do not worship a trinity consisting of three persons or gods in one. In fact, the word ‘trinity’ does not even appear in the Bible. The true God is one Person, separate from Jesus Christ.” [12] And again: “The trinity doctrine was not conceived by Jesus or the early Christians. Nowhere in the Scripture is even any mention made of a trinity.…The plain truth is that this is another of Satan’s attempts to keep God-fearing persons from learning the truth.…No, there is no trinity.” [13] However, anyone could easily respond with, “Neither is the word ‘Bible’ in the Bible, yet there it is, sitting on my coffee table as plain as day.” Indeed, there is no word for “Bible” in the Bible, yet I can thumb through the entire canon of Scripture composed of 66 books, written by 40 different authors as they “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:20-21) over a span of 16 centuries every morning from the comfort of my living room. That is to say, the word “Trinity” serves as “a theological synthesis drawn from biblical data and the totality of God’s revelation,” as Dr. Scott Horrell, professor of biblical systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, succinctly points out. [13] In short, the word “Trinity” is derived from what the early church fathers clearly observed in Scripture but struggled to adequately summarize with doctrinal accuracy:
They aren’t able to articulate at this point what they are experiencing as God as Father and Son and Holy Spirit, so easily we can say the experience of the New Testament church was Trinitarian, but the articulation of something so outside the categories of what had ever been thought. The categories weren’t even there to put it together. It was working through: how do we be true to revelation and affirm God in the proper way? And so words like “Trinity” came to be invented to describe a far greater reality that they were seeing as true to Scripture.” [14]
Ironically, while Jehovah’s Witnesses decry the absence of the word “Trinity” in Scripture, they simultaneously turn a blind eye to the fact that “Jehovah” is nowhere in the Bible. Yet it has become synonymous with the “sole, true” name of God. How? Dr. Armitage explains:
It [came] about because of textual confusion and misunderstanding. In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures), there’s marginalia; there are these notes in the margin. And the “Jehovah” comes from taking this idea of yod he vav he, the Hebrew letters for Yahweh, and this Masorete vowel pointing, and then this German marginalia in the Septuagint gives you this pronunciation of “Yehovah” for that yod he vav he in Hebrew, the Yahweh, Yehovah. And it’s a misunderstanding; it’s a mistake. [15]
Yet the Witnesses remain adamant that the Father’s only true name is Jehovah. Horrell states, “The Society asserts that traditional Bibles were corrupted by scribes who did not faithfully translate the name Jehovah from the original Greek manuscripts to subsequent copies of the Christian Scriptures. Instead, scribes opted to replace God’s sacred name Jehovah with ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ —an error that needed correction with their new translation.” [16]
I could also begin with the evidence that the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses has a 100+ year track record of being consistently unworthy of spiritual, organizational, or academic trust. I believe that many Jehovah’s Witnesses are too smart, well-studied, and experienced in life to devote themselves to the Watchtower Society, which continually lies and condescends to its own members. The book, “Crisis of Conscience,” written by Raymond Franz (a life-long Witness and former member of the Governing Body), shows how the Society’s false information has prevented millions of Witnesses from living joyful lives. Specifically, the Governing Body’s trail of unworthiness is on display for all to see in publicly available records. Some of these examples include the following:
1. The Society is objectively unreliable regarding the chronology of Jesus’ return: After Joseph Rutherford emerged as the leader in the fight for power following Charles Russell’s death, the 05/01/1922 issue of The Watchtower stated: “Jesus clearly indicated that during his second presence he would have amongst the church a faithful and wise servant…the evidence is overwhelming concerning the Lord’s second presence, the time of the harvest, and that the office of ‘that servant’ has been filled by Brother Russell.” [17] Today, 99 years after its promulgation to the worldwide Witness congregation, it’s clear that this official Governing Body message was wrong about two significant prophetic events: Jesus’ second presence and the time of harvest. Russell was also notoriously wrong about his Trinitarian conclusions, incorrectly defining the Trinity as “three Gods in one God,” or “three Gods in one person” instead of the correct definition of three persons in one essence, one God who eternally exists in three persons. [18] Russell’s twisted view didn’t stop at his incorrect definition of the Holy Trinity but proceeded with incorrect history as well: “The origin of the trinity doctrine is traced back to the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians and other ancient mythologists…The obvious conclusion is, therefore, that Satan is the originator of the trinity doctrine.” [19]
Let’s leave those aside, however, and focus on the reliability of the third statement, regarding Brother Russell’s status as Jesus’ special servant, by evaluating his record of reliability. For brevity’s sake, we can start with this same issue of The Watchtower, issued under Rutherford’s leadership, which warned Witnesses that doubting the millenarian end-times dates that the Society had established for Jesus’ return and second presence – 1799, 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925 at that point – would bring “repudiation of God and our Lord Jesus Christ and the blood with which we were bought.” And how would one know that Jesus has begun his second presence? It appears clear that Jesus would, in the designated year, establish His earthly kingdom and end Satan’s reign of evil. Again, in The Watchtower (11/01/1922), Rutherford and the Governing Body confidently proclaimed that Jesus had returned in 1874 and “has been present; and during that time he has conducted a harvest and has gathered unto himself the temple class. Since 1914 the King of glory has taken his power and reigns…The kingdom of heaven is at hand; the King reign; Satan’s empire is falling; millions now living will never die.” [20]
That was in 1922, and while there are some people still alive from that time, it seems obvious that this confidently proclaimed Governing Body prophecy has failed to materialize using its self-reported criteria of signs about Jesus’ second presence. Fast forward a few years to 1925, when Rutherford’s Watchtower Society published these words in its Millions Now Living Will Never Die booklet: “We should, therefore, expect shortly after 1925 to see the awakening of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Melchisedec, Job, Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, John the Baptist, and others mentioned in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews…no doubt many boys and girls who read this book will live to see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Daniel, and those other faithful men of old, come forth in the in the glory of their ‘better resurrection.’” [21]
Let’s make the very generous assumption that every child in the world aged five or older could read, and further that every reading child in the world also read this particular Millions booklet (both of these assumptions are patently too generous, but we’ll allow them for argument’s sake). In other words, we’ll assume every single living person today aged 100 or more read Rutherford’s booklet in 1925. That population? 573,000 people, worldwide – far fewer than the predicted “millions,” even when we give the Society a scandalously liberal benefit of the doubt. Rutherford and the Society were dead wrong, and the many honest Witness followers who trusted the Society were let down on an epic scale as they delayed marriages, decided against children, and shelved educational and professional dreams. The Watchtower Society under Rutherford and Russell made the chronology of Jesus’ second presence a central tenet of the faith that they created, set numerous dates for that presence and the accompanying end of Satan’s lease on this present wicked world…and were dead wrong about each one. This practice continued through the century; when each date failed to show the signs that the Society leadership plainly predicted would occur, a new one arose.
1975 was one of those certain dates….remembering the upheaval that gripped America during those years from Vietnam and the Cold War’s proxy conflicts that continued at full strength through that decade and the following one—did it look like “Satan’s rule” in this present world came to an end? [22] If it didn’t, then Witness theology is wrong. These examples of objectively false teachings abound; Crisis of Conscience is just one source of examples, and they go well beyond wrongly timing Jesus’ second presence. Scriptures plainly state in Mark 13:32 that no one knows when Christ will return, but the greater point here is that Witness teaching is—in judicial terms—an unreliable witness.
2. The men that the Society presents as God’s chosen messengers on earth are untrustworthy organizational and spiritual leaders: I mention Russell and Rutherford so particularly since, as opposed to orthodox Christianity or any other endeavor (sciences, engineering, psychology, etc.) that features many scholars and practitioners laboring to find the right way, the Watchtower Society’s beliefs and practices have remained the brain-child of one man aided by a small group of overlords, the Governing Body, for its entire (short) history. As such, these two men loom large in Witness history, although we could continue painting this picture of Society deception until the present day under the leaders who have wholeheartedly picked up the Society leadership baton. Russell, Rutherford, Knorr, Franz, and their autocratic successors tell you that the chorus of Witness critics within Christianity should be disregarded since Witness orthodoxy strips away centuries of theological error. But how can this argument hold any weight when it comes from people who are so publicly, demonstrably wrong on fundamentals of their own belief system? Would someone go under the knife of a surgeon who assures him that his foot is actually a hand, or play football for a coach who believes the football field to be square? How much more damaging is it to rely on the Governing Body—which has proven itself untrustworthy on the very matters it deems most important—to derive assurance about a relationship with God? From a theological standpoint, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are selling themselves short by following the flawed teaching of these unworthy autocrats. Any squadron commanding officer or Pilot In Command would be relieved of duty for signs of unsuitability for service far less egregious than the Society’s leadership have consistently demonstrated; and yet, the Society and its faithful Witnesses relies on this chain of weak links as the supreme and sole trustworthy arbiters of true faith and accurate interpretation of Scripture.
3. The Society suppresses the joy of Witnesses, in contradiction to man’s God-given nature and the exhortations of Scripture: the Witnesses discourage participating in civic duty, pursuing higher education, and rendering salutes or honor to national flags and efforts. Joseph Rutherford, as Jesus’ “faithful servant,” a prime source and central architect of this movement, even suppressed the desire for normal family lives among Witnesses. This from a 1935 speech of his, entitled “Fill the Earth”: “Would it be Scripturally proper…to now marry and to begin to rear children? No, is the answer, which is supported by the Scriptures [my note: where?]…It will be far better to be unhampered and without burdens, that they may do the Lord’s will now, as the Lord commands, and also be without hindrance during Armageddon.” The full and accomplished lives of many Jehovah’s Witnesses speak loudly against some of the most important and well-known Witness teachings! Looking at the facts, to fight honorably for our country and represent our uniform and flag, or to earn a higher education, or to progress in a professional career, is contrary to Witness teachings. How many Witnesses have become senior military officers, clinical psychologists, expert pilots, authors, or successful business executives, etc.? Probably not many, if the Watchtower Society held much influence in their lives. One cannot live fully under the fear of a controlling, authoritarian religious splinter group and still achieve fulfillment. Here’s what Joseph Rutherford said in 1936 about the act of saluting the American flag: “The saluting of any flag by those who are in covenant with Jehovah God to do his will constitutes the breaking of that covenant with God, and such covenant breakers are guilty of death.” The Witnesses discourage and look suspiciously on involvement with non-Witnesses (even family members), so outsiders are thankful when Witnesses go against that caustic teaching to love. Contrasting a full, loving life with that of Joseph Rutherford, who was separated from his wife, Mary, for many years leading up to his and her death—years in which he controlled the Society and its Witnesses. When Rutherford died, the four people who attended his funeral did not include his wife or their only son, Malcolm (who wanted nothing to do with the Society). Rutherford preached that showing respect and deference to women was Satanic, calling them “a rag and a bone and a hank of hair” in a 1941 speech described by Barbara Harrison in her book Visions of Glory (assuming he practiced what he preached, I would have separated from him too if I was his wife). If Rutherford was just one more preacher showing human frailty, it wouldn’t be notable to assassinate his character…but he is a torch-bearer and one of the beloved patriarchs of the Witness system! The conclusion is only logical: central to the Witness system is the belief that Russell, Rutherford, and the other heads had unique insight into the Scripture that solved centuries of bad theology. If they were the single links in a chain of belief—and they are—the entire chain fails when any link does, just like an entire brain fails to function if any single lobe malfunctions. If Russell and Rutherford were bad links (and they were), they created what a mathematician might call “error carried forward,” rendering the entire organization devoid of credibility. In Christianity, human frailty of a leader is further proof of man’s insufficiency and need for Jesus’ saving grace; in the Society, frailty of a divine spokesman (as claimed by Witnesses themselves) like Rutherford should lead the honest inquirer to doubt the entire system.
While there are copious arguments to make against the Jehovah’s Witnesses, this post will set out to provide an apologetic defense of the primary doctrine in which the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny: the Holy Trinity. Why? Because:
The concept of Trinity is the expression of what brings together the rich complexity of God’s own revelation in Jesus Christ, in Scripture, in Christian experience, and in human and cosmic history. In a way, it’s all brought together in who– it makes sense in who God is. The doctrine of the Trinity is fundamentally true to God and true to everything in God’s creation. God as Trinity is the metaphysical reality that is the controlling absolute of the universe of all existence. [23]
Specifically, I will demonstrate the divinity of each distinct person of the Godhead via propositional revelation of the Bible and implicit evidence for the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Holding to the Scriptures, I will analyze the information to expose the false religion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Let’s dive in.
JESUS CHRIST AS GOD
Jesus is specifically described as God in Acts 20:28; Acts 10:36; John 1:1-3; John 1:18; John 8:58; John 10:30; John 14:9-11; John 20:28-29; Romans 9:5; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Philippians 2:5-7; Colossians 1:13-19; Colossians 2:9; Titus 1:3-4; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:2-3; and 2 Peter 1:1. Likewise, Jesus most forcefully speaks of His own deity in Matthew 26:63-64; Mark 14:61-62; Luke 22:67-70; and Matthew 28:19. [24] As astonishing as this is, Scott Horrell comments:
Remember that in each of these cases, Jesus could have diffused it real quickly. He could have said, “Oh, you misunderstand ἐγὼ εἰμί [ego eimi],” of course that’s the Greek. He was speaking almost certainly Hebrew, possibly Aramaic. “But you don’t understand. Here’s what I’m really trying to say.” Jesus could have easily diffused every one of these statements, and yet He let the strongest statement stand. He didn’t back out of that. In fact, that was the point as He reveals Himself here. So Scripture cannot be broken as He goes to the Old Testament and again backs this up. “I and the Father are one.” [25]
Another point of interest concerning John 10:30 is the Greek structure: when reading “I and the Father are one,” we read “I” before “the Father,” indicating the more prestigious member at the beginning:
Typically you don’t say, “I and the president,” or, “Me and the president, we’re gonna go out and do something”…Yet He says, “I and the Father are one.” One is a ἕν [hen]. It is a neuter term and not masculine. If it was masculine, He might be saying that I and the Father are the same person, but here, using the ἕν [hen] implies all the more in its context that Jesus is speaking about the nature of God, the essence of God, the Godness of God they share together. Now, “I and the Father are one,” and you are one and we are one with the Lord, so it is used in more than one way in John 17. But here our Lord says it, lets the strongest sense of the meaning stand. Almost certainly, then, this is a statement of His own equality of essence with the Father. [26]
Further scriptural evidence for Christ’s deity is found in His titles of divinity, including “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6; “Immanuel” in Matthew 1:23; “Yahweh our Savior” in Philippians 2:10-11, as well as the fact that the titles “Savior/Redeemer/Holy One” were exclusive to Yahweh in the Old Testament (Isaiah 40-66) but chiefly ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament; “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13-14; “God/Mighty God/Father of Eternity” in John 1:1, 18, 20:28, and Isaiah 9:6; “King of King and Lord of Lords” in Revelation 19:16 (applied to both the Father and to Christ) and 1 Timothy 6:14-15; and “Alpha and Omega” in Revelation 22:13). [27]
Additionally, Christ is consistently worshipped as God throughout Scripture by various individuals and groups, people who were well aware of the danger in praising anything or anyone other than God as it was forbidden; thus, their worship of Jesus indicates that He was worthy of the praise since He was God. The following people worshipped Jesus as God:
- The Magi: Matthew 2:8-11
- The disciples: Matthew 14:33
- The blind man: John 9:35-38
- The masses at the Christ’s triumphal entry: Matthew 21:14-16
- The women/disciples at the resurrection: Matthew 28:9 and 17
- Thomas: John 20:28
- The disciples at the ascension: Luke 24:52
- The early church: Colossians 1:15-18 and Philippians 2
- The angels: Hebrews 1:6
Combined with Christ’s many miracles, which were solely ascribed to God in the Old Testament, yet to Christ in the New Testament, the weight of scriptural evidence for Christ’s deity is impressive. The Jehovah’s Witnesses naturally attack the deity of Christ, a tendency that belies a hallmark trait of a religious cult. Typically, they do this in the following ways:
1. John 1:1-18. “Chief among several passages that assert His [Christ’s] deity and humanity, John’s prologue most directly and explicitly establishes that Jesus is eternal God who took on true humanity,” writes Nathan Holsteen and Michael Svigel. [28] The prologue of John establishes a structure for the rest of his gospel, the theological framework for the entire book. John’s language evokes the creation account of Genesis 1 in his use of “In the beginning,” but instead surpasses it by taking the reader to before here, in this beginning of beginnings, we learn that “The Word” is Jesus Christ, and He was “with God” and “was God.”
The term theos (meaning “God”) can either mean God the Father or “divinity” in general, and John applies the first meaning first (the Word was with God the Father), and then the second also (the Word was fully God). [29] Therefore, as Horrell states, “all the Godness of God—all that is God is shared by the λόγος [logos], the Word. So the Word is not only with God, but is God…All that the Father has in terms of his Godness is shared and shared equally by the Logos itself.” [30] The New World Translation—the Jehovah’s Witnesses version of the Bible—changes the translation of text to read: “In the beginning, the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God.” None of the other Scripture translations produced over the last half millennium of English Bible translations—except for Joseph Smith’s heretical Mormon translation—has added the indefinite article “a” to that section. These English translations are based on the earliest available Greek manuscripts, which do not contain the indefinite article. This unwarranted change alters the clear meaning of the passage found in the earliest source documents—the go-to documents when approaching this topic in an intellectually curious, academic way.
Just like John 1:1, the Creation story and the remainder of Scripture enforces Jesus’ co-equality with the Father, with God saying in Genesis 1, “Let us make men in our image,” speaking clearly about the Trinity. God would not have said let us make man in our image if the triune Godhead had not shared the same substance in relation to redemption (1:18), and in relation to reconciliation (1:20-22). Because no other translation of the Bible inserts the article “a” before God, the Jehovah’s Witnesses insist on reading the New World Translation. However, if we were to follow the JWs rule for inserting this article, we would quickly discover how inconsistent their own methodology is. Armitage argues:
If we do it the way that they want to in the New World Translation, “the Word was a God,” why would you translate only 16 of the 282 examples where this occurs in Scripture as “a God”? There are 16, but it’s the minority. So why would you do it that way? John 1:6 [for example]: “There came a man sent from a God whose name was John.” They don’t say that in the New World Translation. It’s the same argument, but they don’t say that. They say, “There came a man sent from God whose name was John.” And they do that throughout. The other places where this construction exists, they use it properly. But where it points to the divinity of Christ, they change it. So we could interpret God qualitatively; leave the article out. This translation [New World] stands alone…they consistently misuse Scripture. [31]
Indeed, only translating 16 of the 282 indefinite instances of the Geek word θεός [theos] as “a God” without an explanation—if a justifiable one existed—is a glaring reality of how the Jehovah’s Witnesses misuse Scripture. Following their methodology, we would see nonsensical texts such as John 1:6, “There came a man sent from a God whose name was John.” (Cf. also John 1:12-13 and 18). [32] This inconsistency is more formally known as the Granville Sharp Rule, which states:
When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle. [33]
In layman’s terms, the Granville Sharp Rule means that “when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word “and,” and the first noun has the article (“the”) while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same person.” [34] This semantic principle is true for all languages. For example, consider this sentence: “We met with the owner and the director of the theater, Mrs. Busybee.”
The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is called “The Word” because He serves as God’s Spokesman; however, this view is clearly inconsistent with Scripture. John 1:1 sets the scene for the rest of the New Testament by explicitly identifying Jesus as God: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” I believe many Jehovah’s Witnesses are intellectually curious, academically accomplished individuals, so I think if they look at the weight of academic research on that verse they’ll conclude that it contradicts Witness teachings. Jesus can’t have the kind of saving power we need for our eternally pernicious sins if He’s simply a “spokesperson” for God (a belief unique to Witnesses and, to a degree, Mormons). It would be ridiculous for us to place our eternal hope in the other spokespeople that God used throughout Scripture, such as the Hebrew judges, Moses, etc; spokespeople can’t save anyone, and the only way to atone for our sins is with a perfect sacrifice. Witness theology has equated Jesus with the other judges (Elohim) and prophets seen in the Old Testament, but none of them ever claimed divinity (in fact, they were offended when divinity was attributed to them). No one is perfect except for God, so Jesus must be God (as opposed to “a god”) in order for His sacrifice to mean anything. There are other areas where the New World Translation has been altered to fit the narrative of the very few motivated, modern-day assemblers of the Witness belief system – narratives which in turn were embraced by some loyal followers and then imposed on the early 19th century Bible Study students who eventually became known as Witnesses.
If someone believes that the New World Translation and Witness teachings offer the only correct translation of John 1:1, and the weight of Scripture pointing to the equality of Jesus within a triune Godhead—in contradiction to 1900 years of Greek Scripture scholarship and resulting English translations leading up to Charles Russell’s one-man crusade to create the Watchtower Society—then I urge him/her to consider the clear evidence posited in this post.
2. John 17:3: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” Jehovah’s Witnesses misuse this verse to claim that Jehovah is the only true God, not Christ. Horrell objects to this misuse:
But wait a minute. All that we read in John’s Gospel is fed out of the prologue, which makes it very clear that the Word is God as is the Father. Verse 18 again is actually the Son, the one and only God at the right hand of the Father. So John 1:18 directly must be understood as the preface, as what sets in place our understanding of God, and then a text like 17:3, “you are the only true God,” put into that place. He’s not excluding Himself. He’s putting Himself alongside. But the Son is the μονογενὴς θεὸς [monogenes theos], the one and only God at the Father’s side. So, the Son participates in that one and only Godness, though here it points to the Father…all the rest comes out of what John has set up as the correct understanding of our Lord. [35]
One of the things that makes John’s gospel so captivatingly beautiful is the way he departs from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), which are narrative and structured so as to begin with the humanity of Christ, then they steadily move toward His coequality with the Father. In contrast, John holds nothing back when launching into Christ’s divinity from the outset, moving to the Incarnation (John 1:17), then hovering above Jesus’ own claims of divinity to an ignorant and hostile world (John 5-8), culminating in His claim, “Before Abraham was born,” ἐγω εἰμι [ego eimi], “I am” (John 8:58). “Of course, when He says…‘I am,’” states Horrell, “There is the great Yahweh.” [36] He continues:
The I AM is the great statement of God. I AMs we see all the way through the Gospel of John, time after time—sometimes without modifier or without definition, other times, “I am the good shepherd. I am the door. I am the living water.” On and on from there, we see that repeatedly. “I am the resurrection and the life.” ἐγὼ εἰμί [ego eimi], ἐγὼ εἰμί [ego eimi], dozens of times early in the Gospel of John, some quite pointedly referring back to the Old Testament and identifying Himself with God. And yet ἐγὼ εἰμί [ego eimi] wouldn’t have been a rare terminology, but we see it particularly in John’s Gospel as those times when Jesus reveals more than people wanted to hear. [37]
John then climaxes with Thomas’ confession, (which does have the article involved) “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Of course, “No self-respecting Jew would call a human being his God, his θεός [theos],” states Horrell.
And yet again θεός [theos] and κύριός [kurios], of course, the term that translated יְהוָה [yahweh] from the Old Testament, and אֲדֹנָי [adonai], all of those are packed in there. Jesus Christ is Lord and God in the absolute sense. “Blessed are those who did not see and yet believe.” So Johannine literature, of course, it seems the Gospel of John is especially written that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, now defined in a much more exalted sense than usually thought in the intertestamental Jewish sense of “Son of God.” Now in the highest sense, this is the eternal Son of God. [38]
3. Colossians 1:15. The Jehovah’s Witnesses further misuse this pericope of Scripture to claim that Christ is the first creation of God according to the text, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” However, the Greek word used for “firstborn” here is πρωτότοκος [prototokos], and it correctly means “chief heir,” not someone who is created, born, or generated by God. [39] Armitage comments:
If we consider what firstborn meant in that context…that means the one who stands to inherit, the one who is preeminent above every aspect of creation. When we read it in the context of…Colossians as a book, [it] is about the preeminence of Christ, that He is first. He is to be preeminent in all things. He is the first of all creation. He is the firstborn, the one who inherits all things. [40]
The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus was created is an ancient heresy wrapped up in shiny new wrapping paper. The false claim that Christ was God’s first and greatest creation was a heresy called Arianism, and it was defeated at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325), and again at the Council of Constantinople (381). [41] Thus, as a result, the Nicaean Creed clearly states that Jesus is “begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through Him all things were made.” It’s important to remember that these councils were not a group of men sharing their opinions on the best theory on God’s identity and voting for which one was the best. Instead, “These councils were recognizing what was known, recognizing what is true. And when something comes up that stands against what is recognized, they clarify and tighten their theological language, so it can be demonstrated how that is not the recognized view of who God is.” [42]
Paul goes on to say that “all things were created through Him and for Him” (1:16), and Paul is careful to qualify “all” by repeating it four times and outlining what is meant by all: “both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him,” thus, all means all. Therefore, together with the Father, Christ is the purpose of creation. This is a crucial point because if Christ were created, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim, then according to Colossians 1:16 (and also Hebrews 1), Jesus would have had to create Himself…which is a ridiculous contradiction. [43] Additionally, John 1:3 makes the claim that Jesus was created simply impossible as well: “All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses reference Colossians 1:15-16 to claim Jesus had a beginning, and that He is the first born of every creature, but the problem with this claim is that Scripture itself does not support it. In fact, the entire book of Colossians is solely focused on Christology and how the fullness of the Godhead (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) is found in Christ. For example, Colossians 2:9-10 clearly states: “For in Him [Christ] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority.” The word “Deity” used here means Jesus is God; it does not mean He is divine (as in, an attribute of God), but that He is the very essence of God in human form, thus fully God and fully man. This the only possible way Jesus could have succeeded in not sinning (cf. John 3:16 and Romans 5:18-19) because He is God, and only God is perfect/holy, incapable of sinning. This is also why, in Hebrews 1:6, Jesus received the angel’s worship; if Jesus is not God, the angel’s worship would have been blasphemous since they would have been worshipping one of God’s mere creatures (Exodus 20:4-5, which is also why Jesus was neither the archangel, Michael, nor brothers with Lucifer, as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim). [44] Again, this is also how Jesus was able to receive Thomas’ worship when he cried out to Jesus “My Lord and My God!” in John 20:28. If Jesus was not God, He would have refused Thomas’ worship as blasphemy. It is no wonder Witness teachings venerate God’s “Jehovah” name to the exclusive extent they do: if the other names of God identified in Scripture were allowed in the New World Translation, readers would learn they’re all correctly associated with Jesus!
Witness “translations” insert “other” in the New World Translation six times in this Colossians passage (1:15-16), falsely suggesting Christ created all other things after He was created. However, the word “other” is not in the original Greek anywhere. What is in the Greek is the word prōtokos (meaning “firstborn” i.e. He preceded the whole of Creation, and He is sovereign over all Creation)…if Jesus had been the “first-created,” the Greek word would have been prōtoktisis. Holsteen and Svigel state:
But couldn’t this passage meant that Jesus is the first created being? No. First Paul has already described the Son as the invisible God’s visible image (Greek eikon). The second commandment (Ex. 20:4-6) prohibits the worship of images, yet here is one described as the living image of God in whom dwells “all the fullness of deity” (Col. 1:19; 2:9)—that is, He is fully incarnate. Therefore, to the Son all worship is due. Second, the Son cannot be partially god or any kind of firstborn angelic creature, “for in Him all things were created…” He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (1:16-17)…Furthermore, the Son not only precedes all things, He sustains all things. Only God does this…the Son is the Origin, Sustainer, and Ruler of all creation. He is absolute God. [45]
The overwhelming volume and weight of scholarship standing in stark contrast to Witness teachings is a good reason to give anyone pause.
4. Philippians 2:6: “…although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped…” is a favorite verse of Jehovah’s Witnesses to claim that Jesus did not try to be God and was not God since He didn’t consider equality with God something to be grasped. Again, the strategy employed by the Witnesses when interpreting Scripture is to isolate it from its correct context. When read in its context, the reader understands that Paul is exhorting the Philippian church to submit to one another in humility, and he is using Christ as the supreme example of how to do this: if God Himself [Jesus] humbled Himself by relegating His glory for a moment, then how much more should you, Philippians, follow His example? “Stop squabbling and serve one another,” is Paul’s message to the Philippian church. Therefore, if we removed Christ’s divinity, then Paul’s example of Jesus would make no sense. If Jesus was not God, then it wouldn’t matter much if He was not claiming equality with God. If He was God, then not claiming His rightful equality with the Father stands as the ultimate example to the church in how to behave toward one another: by serving one another in humility. Holsteen and Svigel write:
For us…the humility of the Son is the preeiminent example. If Jesus, “who, being in very nature God” did not go about flaunting His divine attributes for His own benefit—and He had every right to do so—then how dare we selfishly pursue our own way? Rather than performing magnificent proofs of who He was, Jesus, the incognito God, typically concealed His identity: “He made Himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (Phil. 2:7). [46]
THE HOLY SPIRIT AS GOD
For many Christians, the concept of the Holy Spirit is a vague, ambiguous blur. In fact, in a survey conducted by Lifeway Research including 3,000 American evangelicals, 59% responded that the Holy Spirit is a force and not a personal being. [47] R. A. Torrey made the following poignant statement concerning just what to do about the Holy Spirit:
It is of the highest importance…that we decide whether the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person worthy to receive our adoration, our faith, our love, and our entire surrender to Himself, or whether it is simply an influence emanating from God or a power or an illumination that God imparts to us. If the Holy Spirit is a person, and a Divine Person, and we do not know Him as such, then we are robbing a Divine Being of the worship and the faith and the love and the surrender to Himself which are His due. [48]
Considering that every New Testament book besides Philemon and 2 and 3 John mentions the Holy Spirit, it is important to make up our minds about Him. [49] Is the Holy Spirit God? Is He some kind of force? Identified as the “Other Counselor,” the Holy Spirit is indeed identified as God in several texts of the Bible, to include the following:
Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” The baptismal formula here is only one of at least 134 New Testament passages that speak of all three members of the Godhead together. [50] This baptismal formula “stands as the template for historic Trinitarian development” in that it includes all three distinct persons of the “Name” into which believers are commanded to be baptized. [51] “As the resurrected Christ readied Himself to ascend into Heaven, He declared that another should also be understood as sharing in the sacred name. If the divine Being includes the Father and the Son, then the Spirit too is a distinct person within the Godhead,” concludes Holsteen and Svigel. [52]
John 14:16: “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever.” Identifying the Spirit as “another Helper” indicates parallel status to Christ.
John 15:26: “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me.” If the Spirit proceeds from the eternal Father, then in turn that would mean the Spirit is eternal. The early church fathers were quick to recognize that based on this passage, Jesus had the authority to send the Spirit from the Father and thus, “If the Spirit is God, then the Son must be God in order to exercise such authority.” [53]
Acts 5:3-4: “But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.’” Peter equates lying to the Spirit as lying to God, establishing that the Holy Spirit cannot be separated from God.
1 Corinthians 2:13-14: “…which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.”
2 Corinthians 3:17-18: “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.” If ever anyone threw up their hands in frustration and cried, “Why doesn’t the Bible just come out and say that the Holy Spirit is God?!” then this verse would be the response. Scripture comes out and literally says the Spirit is God in this particular section.
Although Scripture reveals the divinity of the Holy Spirit in several texts—”The ‘word of the Lord’ of the Old Testament is seen to be the ‘word of the Holy Spirit’ in the New several times,” states Horrell—the Jehovah’s witnesses continue to deny the Spirit as a coequal member of the Triune Godhead and instead diminish Him to an impersonal force. [54] A 1957 issue of The Watchtower stated:
God’s Holy Spirit is not a God, not a member of a Trinity, not co-equal, and is not even a person. It is God’s active force, not Jehovah’s power residing within himself, but his energy when projected out from himself. It is not a blind, uncontrolled force like the forces of nature, lighting, hurricanes, and the like, but is at all times under his control, and therefore may be likened to a radar beam. [55]
According to the Witnesses, the Holy Spirit is just an impersonal force representing the finger of God. “So when the Spirit of God is upon you, it’s Jehovah poking you. It’s not a person,” says Horrell. [56] However, the Bible clearly reveals a deeply personal Spirit of God working throughout Scripture rather than a “radar beam.” Evidence for the Holy Spirit’s personhood includes the following: He speaks (Acts 8:29; 13:2), guides (John 16:13), instructs (1 Cor. 2:13), intercedes (Rom. 8:27), and convicts (John 16:8-11), which are all personal acts. Christians can insult, lie to, and even grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30; Acts 5:3, 9; Heb. 10:29; cf. Isa. 63:10). Clearly, God’s Spirit is not an impersonal radar beam but rather an intelligent third member of the Godhead who shows emotion and declares a distinct will. “It’s hardly surprising then,” writes Holsteen and Svigel, “That all the divine attributes belonging to the Father and the Son are also ascribed to the Spirit.” [57] They continue:
The Spirit acts in creation (Gen. 1:2; Isa. 40:12), restrains sin in the world (Gen. 6:3), breathes out the Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16), facilitates the incarnation (Luke 1:35), and works powerfully in the salvation and maturing of every Christian (John 3:5-7; Rom. 8:1-16). From all angles, the Spirit is God and is a person distinct from the Father and Son. [58]
That the Spirit shares coequality with the Father and the Son is sharply evident in Jesus’ words concerning the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit: “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31-32). The most serious of all sins, speaking against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable. “The conclusion then here must be the Holy Spirit is God in the same sense as the Son and the Father,” declares Horrell. [59] Indeed, ignoring the preeminence of the Holy Spirit would be unwise.
In addition to explicit Scripture affirming the deity of the Holy Spirit, there is indirect evidence for the third member of the Triune Godhead. First, many of the divine attributes of God are remarkably the same attributes of the Spirit: omniscience (Isa. 40:13-14 cf. 1 Cor. 2:10-13); omnipotence (Isa. 40:15-17); omnipresence (Psalm 139:7-9); holiness (Eph. 4:30; Rom. 1:4); truth (John 14:17; 16:13); life (Rom. 8:2, 10); grace (Heb. 10:29); glory (1 Pet.4:14); and eternity (Heb. 9:14)…all attributes that define God. [60]
Second, the divine titles of the Holy Spirit illustrate His deity. Approximately 40 biblical titles demonstrate the Spirit’s divinity, including “Spirit of God” (Rom. 8:9); “Spirit of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:11); “Spirit of Jesus” (Acts 16:7); “Spirit of the Lord” (Luke 4:18); “The Spirit of your Father” (Matt. 10:20); “The Spirit of His Son” (Gal. 4:6); “Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:19), etc. [61] These titles begin to add up, revealing that it is in the Spirit that believers experience God.
Third, the divine activities of the Spirit parallel those of the Father and the Son: the Holy Spirit convicts of judgement, righteousness, and sin (John 16:8-11); the Spirit gives life (Job 33:4); the Spirit restrains sin in the world (Gen. 6:2); inspires the Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21), and many times the Spirit’s word is said to be “the word of the Lord” in the New Testament (Isa. 6:9-10 in Acts 28:25-27; Ps. 95:7-11 in Heb. 3:7-11; Jer. 31:31f in Heb. 10:15-17); inspires worship (Phil. 3:3), etc. [62] “If no one comes to the Father except through the Son, and if no one comes to the Son except through the Spirit, then the deity of the Spirit is implicit,” writes Horrell. [63]
Gordon Fee, in “Paul and the Trinity,” from The Trinity by Gerald O’ Collins and others out of Oxford, puts it this way: the Spirit literally is the personal presence of God “sent into our hearts” and into the church. This is evident in the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19, in the language of 2 Cor. and how it ties it all together pretty well, resulting in the Athanasian Creed: “The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord, but not three lords but one Lord.” [64]
If the Holy Spirit is God, then why did it take so long for the church to declare such? Thanks to Arianism, the church was largely preoccupied with the deity of the Son throughout the Nicene Council years (AD 325-381). Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the Cappadocian fathers in the East put it this way:
The Old Testament preached the Father openly and the Son more obscurely, while the New [Testament] revealed the Son and hinted at the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit dwells in us and reveals Himself more clearly to us. For it was not right, while the deity of the Father had still not been confessed, to preach the Son openly and, before the deity of the Son had been acknowledged, to force us to accept the Holy Spirit. [65]
Therefore, “there is a progressive revelation from Father to Son to Spirit…it is God’s revelation of who He is to His people as time flows on and as we look back and study the Scriptures, which give us sufficient evidence,” states Horrell. [66] Additionally, because the Holy Spirit rejoices in glorifying the Father and the Son rather than Himself, His personal deity is partially obscured. [67]
THE FATHER AS GOD
Because it is relatively uncontroversial that the Father is fully God, the Father has been called the “forgotten” member of the Holy Trinity. [68] As the person who is “mostly ignored,” the Father does not even have a category or term for study like the Spirit and Christ simply because He has been largely assumed. [69] Added to the dearth of scholarship on the Father is the argument that the Son and the Spirit are the ones who reveal knowledge about the Father: Jesus responds to Philip’s request to “show us the Father” by saying, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:8-9); and “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children” (Rom. 8:15-16). In short, the neglect shown to the Father can be summarized in four reasons posited by Scott Horrell:
- God’s relatively secure place in non-Christian religions.
- Nineteenth-century backlash to theological liberalism.
- Studies that minimize the Father’s place but expound the divine attributes.
- The claim that knowledge only comes via the Son and Spirit. [70]
“Forgetting” the Father is inexcusable. God is the Father to all believers (Rom 8:14-16, Gal 4:4-7, Eph 3:14-15). God is the Father to angels (Job 1:60, glory (Eph 1:17). God is the Father to the fatherless (Ps. 68:5). Even more so, God is the Father “of all” (Eph 4:6). The implications of God as Father run deep:
It is especially by the Father that we are called to salvation (Rom. 8:28f). It is by the Father we are, in particular, forgiven (John 3:16). It doesn’t mean not also by the Son and the Spirit, but the texts line up. By the Father, we are now seen clothed with Christ. We are justified (Rom. 3:24; 4:24f). We are seen—as our sin is imputed to Christ, so His righteousness is imputed to us—in that sense, justified. We are made sons and daughters, not of the Son, not of the Spirit directly. We become sons and daughters of the living God (John 1:12). Over and over that is said. We are adopted as heirs (Gal. 4:6). We’re adopted by the Father as mature heirs—now with all the rights that come with that—co-heirs, in fact, with Christ. But it’s the Father who has adopted us. It is with the Father that we are brought into fellowship and service again and again (2 Cor. 5:17f). So this is profound benevolence, isn’t it? [71]
This truth is indeed a “profound benevolence” from the Father. The title “Father” is used only 13-15 times in the Old Testament, and usually in a general sense (e.g. Father of Israel, etc.) but more specifically beginning with the Davidic Covenant in 2 Samuel 7 (God will be the a Father to the Son of David). [72] When we come to the New Testament, Scripture describes God as “Father” more than 250 times. [73] Yet it is the Gospel of John that solidifies the believer’s language today of God as Father since he uses the title 122 times (about half the entire New Testament’s uses of the term). [74] Jesus introduces us to His “Father” as normative in various sections of Scripture, one of which is the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:6-14). [75]
The deity of the Father “appears so obvious that it needn’t be questioned,” writes Horrell, who outlines the presumption of God’s deity based upon His titles: “God the Father” (John 6:27); “God our Father” (Rom. 1:7); “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:3; cf. Rev. 1:6); “one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all in all” (Eph. 4:6; cf. 1 Tim. 2:5). [76] As the term “God” denotes the Father around 1,350 times in the New Testament. [77] Although the Father’s divinity stands alone, there are still explicit verses that identify the Father as God, to include:
John 17:5: Jesus addressed His Father as “the only true God.”
Corinthians 8:6: “There is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and now for whom we live.”
Ephesians 1:3-14: It is the Father who decrees and predestines the elect.
Ephesians 1:17: He is the “Father of glory.”
Romans 16:27: He is “the only wise God.”
James 1:17: He is “the Father of Light.”
Hebrews 1:1-2: It is the Father who has spoken “at many times and in various ways…”
1 Peter 1:1-2: God the Father has chosen His elect according to His foreknowledge.
Revelation 1:5, 8: God the Father is the Almighty, the one “who is, and who was, and who is to come.”
Classic theology declares the Father to be the preeminence of all things, “the divine source of all creation and of all human life,” without exception. [78] Thus, the Father largely “constituted a given” throughout church history. [79] In summary:
It is God the Father who establishes the plan of redemption (Eph. 1:3-14), calls us to salvation (Rom. 8:28-30); 1 Cor. 1:9), forgives sinners (John 3:16), justifies the guilty (Rom. 3:24-26; 5:1-2), adopts newborn believers (Gal. 4:6-7), and makes us a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). In all of this, the Bible directs us to God the Father as the one who loves the world, reconciles the alienated to himself, and calls believers to carry on the task of reconciliation as spokespersons of God’s grace in Jesus Christ. [80]
Oh what a Father we serve!
Conclusion
The concept of Trinity is the expression of what brings together the rich complexity of God’s own revelation in Jesus Christ, in Scripture, in Christian experience, and in human and cosmic history. In a way, it’s all brought together in who– it makes sense in who God is. The doctrine of the Trinity is fundamentally true to God and true to everything in God’s creation. God as Trinity is the metaphysical reality that is the controlling absolute of the universe of all existence. [81]
In conclusion, I say that Jehovah’s Witnesses are more valuable as mother, fathers, spouses, and men and women than the Witness organization will allow them to be. And so does the triune God of the Scriptures, who in Jesus made the perfect atonement for sins in a way that only God could. I say that Jehovah’s Witnesses have every right to be as successful as many have become—living out the sense of adventure and gifts that God gave to them, and I’m grateful that many of them have violated core Witness doctrines to achieve that full life. What reason could there be for living such an adventurous life, if marriage and education and achievement are worthless in the face of an Armageddon that has been calculated and placed on the Witness calendar (…in error, as the latest of many such wrongly-predicted dates, that is)?
By denying the Holy Trinity, Jehovah’s Witnesses miss God’s beautiful design for His creation:
The Trinity is so evangelistically helpful to a secular world. Why? Because the Trinity—what we believe as Christians, is that God is relationship. Not “has relationships,” not “wants to have relationship with you,” God Himself, in Himself, forever and ever has been relationship. God is a society. God is a community. Not “fosters community,” God Himself is community. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, eternally forever. And God wants to bring you into His community. God is relationship, and He wants to bring you into His inter-Trinitarian relationships. That’s enormously attractive to people who are feeling alone, individual, and lonely in this increasingly secular world focused on individuality. [82]
Scrutinizing Scripture to evaluate its own claims on the divinity or the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit has revealed s consistent defense of the Holy Trinity. As Gregory of Nyssa (the youngest of the Cappadocians) said, “We are not told that the Father does anything by Himself in which the Son does not cooperate; or that the Son has any isolated activity apart from the Holy Spirit…every activity originates from the Father, proceeds through the Son, and is brought to perfection in the Holy Spirit.” [83] Each Witness is more valuable and loved by God than the Society could ever imagine or would ever allow. And like every full and adventurous life, theirs will come to an end; I can only pray that they shed the bonds of this false way of teaching and life and turn to the only Jesus who is God, and who offers hope—the Jesus of Scripture, not the Jesus of a Society that has proven its unreliability.
With every esteem and respect,
Calamity Greenleaf
[1] Dr. Sten Erik Armitage, “Christian Cults—Jehovah’s Witness, Part 1,” lecture DTS 07/19/2021.
[2] Dr. Sten Erik Armitage, “Christian Cults—Jehovah’s Witness, Part 1,” lecture DTS 07/19/2021.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Scott Horrell elaborates: “a cult in our sense is marked by extra-biblical and extra-creedal source of authority; maybe the book of Mormon or it may be the writings of the Watchtower Society, as we’ve heard earlier. There is the negation or redefinition of Trinity, which is usually the case. We see that with Oneness Pentecostalism, for example. A devaluation of Christ, and typically compromise on the side of two natures, on the side of His deity or His humanity, usually that He is less than fully God. Claims of exclusive salvation of its members. The groups that we’ve looked at have, to varying degrees, argued that they alone are the ones that are finally right, perhaps even the ones who will be with God in the kingdom of God in the eschaton. So, that fifth part is important as well: the central place in their own eschatology of themselves.” (class lecture, “Christian Cults—Mormonism,” 07/19/2021
[8] Dr. Sten Erik Armitage, “Christian Cults—Jehovah’s Witness, Part 1,” (class lecture DTS 07/19/2021). Armitage uses the definition from Dr. Ron Rhodes.
[9] The Watchtower, January 1, 1942 as referenced by Dr. Sten Erik Armitage, “Christian Cults—Jehovah’s Witness, Part 1,” lecture DTS 07/19/2021.
[10] Dr. Sten Erik Armitage “Christian Cults—Jehovah’s Witness, Part 1,” lecture DTS 07/19/2021.
[11] G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, (New York: John Lane Company, 1909), 82.
[12] Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life, (Brooklyn NY: Watchtower, 1995), 31. Sten Erik Armitage, “Historical Timeline of Significant Figures, Adoptionism and Modalism,” lecture DTS 07/19/2021. Although Tertullian coined trinitatis around AD 200, the concept of the Trinity extended before then, with Theophilus and Athenagoras using the same language as early as AD 170, and Justin Martyr around AD 150, argued by Scott Horrell, “The Divinity of the Trinity in Scripture,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Semiary) 6/29/2021.
[13] Watchtower, “Let God Be True,” rev. ed. (Brooklyn, NY: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1952) 25. 82 Ibid., 111. See also “The Trinity: Divine Mystery or Pagan Myth?” (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, n.d.).
[14] Scott Horrell, “Chapter One: Revelation and History—Approaching the Doctrine of the Trinity,” (class notes, 05/28/2021).
[15] Scott Horrell, “God’s Persons in Community,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 6/29/2021.
[16] Sten Erik Armitage ,“Christian Cults—Jehovah’s Witness, Part 1,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 07/19/2021.
[17] Close to Jehovah (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 2014), 8–9; and “Principles of Bible Translation,” Appendix A1, in New World Translation (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 2013), 1720–21. For a helpful listing of the Watchtower’s doctrines, see Robert M. Bowman, Jr. “What the Watchtower Society Teaches,” October 24, 2014, https://wit.irr.org/what-watchtower-societyteaches#_irr_end15.
[18] The Watchtower, 05/01/1922 issue.
[19] Charles Taze Russell, Studies in the Scriptures, 7 vols. (rev. ed. Brooklyn NY: Intl Bible Students Association, 1912-17) 1:26.
[20] Charles Taze Russell, Let God be True, (rev. ed., Brooklyn NY: Watchtower, 1952) 101.
[21] The Watchtower, 11/01/1922 issue
[22] Millions Now Living Will Never Die, (Brooklyn, N.Y.: International Bible Student Association, 1920).
[23] Sten-Erik Armitage, “Christian Cults—Jehovah’s Witness, Part 1,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 07/19/2021
[24] Scott Horrell, “Trinitarian Worldview 8: All Glorious,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 07/30/2021.
[25] Scott Horrell, “Explicit Evidence of Christ’s Deity in the Gospels, Pt. 1,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 06/21/2021.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Scott Horrell, “Indirect Evidence of Christ’s Deity,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 06/21/2021.
[29] Nathan D. Holsteen and Michael J. Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 2014), 157.
[30] Scott Horrell, “God Made Flesh,” (class notes, Dallas Theological Seminary), 18.
[31] Scott Horrell, “Explicit Evidence of Christ’s Deity in the Gospels, Pt. 1,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 06/21/2021.
[32] Sten Erik Armitage, “Christian Cults—Jehovah’s Witness, Part 2,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 07/19/2021.
[33] Sten Erik Armitage, “Christian Cults—Jehovah’s Witness, Part 2,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 07/19/2021.
[34] Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 3.
[35] James White, “General Apologetics: Jehovah’s Witnesses,” 01/01/1991, https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-apologetics/granville-sharps-rule/ retrieved 08/04/2021.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Scott Horrell, “Explicit Evidence of Christ’s Deity in Acts/Epistles,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 06/21/2021.
[38] Scott Horrell, “Explicit Evidence of Christ’s Deity in the Gospels, Pt. 1,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 06/21/2021.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Sten Erik Armitage “Christian Cults—Jehovah’s Witness, Part 2,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 07/19/2021
[41] Rick Brannan, ed., Lexham Research Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Lexham Research Lexicons (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020).
[42] Sten Erik Armitage “Christian Cults—Jehovah’s Witness, Part 2,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 07/19/2021.
[43] Scott Horrell, “The Person of Jesus Christ: One Personal Consciousness, Two Natures,” (class notes, Dallas Theological Seminary), 06/22/2021.
[44] Sten-Erik Armitage, “The Arian Controversy,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 07/09/2021.
[45] Nathan D. Holsteen and Michael J. Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 2014), 159.
[46] Sten Erik Armitage, “Christian Cults—Jehovah’s Witness, Part 2,” (class lecture, DTS 07/19/2021.
[47] Nathan D. Holsteen and Michael J. Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 2014), 160.
[48] Ibid, 162.
[49] Jeremy Weber, “Christian, What Do You Believe, Probably a Heresy About Jesus,” CT 10/16/2018, 1.
[50] R.A. Torrey, The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, (London, James Nisbet, 1910), 7.
[51] Scott Horrell, “The Other Comforter: The Divine Person of the Holy Spirit,” (class notes, Dallas Theological Seminary), 22.
[52] Scott Horrell, “Appendix Three: Trinitarian Passages of the New Testament,” (class notes, Dallas Theological Seminary), 05/28/2021.
[53] Nathan D. Holsteen and Michael J. Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 2014), 166.
[54] Ibid, 166.
[55] Ibid, 165.
[56] Scott Horrell, “The Divinity of the Trinity in Scripture,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 06/29/2021.
[57] Ibid.
[58] The Watchtower, 07/15/957, 432-33, as quoted by Scott Horrell in “The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 06/24/2021.
[59] Scott Horrell in “The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 06/24/2021.
[60] Nathan D. Holsteen and Michael J. Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 2014), 165.
[61] Ibid, 165.
[62] Scott Horrell, “The Divinity of the Trinity in Scripture,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 6/29/2021.
[63] Scott Horrell, “The Other Comforter: The Divine Person of the Holy Spirit,” (class notes, Dallas Theological Seminary), 28.
[64] Ibid, 30.
[65] Ibid, 29.
[66] Ibid, 29-30.
[67] Scott Horrell, “The Holy Spirit is God,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 06/28/2021.
[68] Gregory of Nazianzus, Orationes theologicae, Orations 31, 5.25.
[69] Scott Horrell, “The Holy Spirit is God,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 06/28/2021.
[70] Gerald Bray, The Doctrine of God, (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 246 and Thomas Smail, The Forgotten Father, (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000), 20.
[71] Fred Sanders, “Listen In as Four Theologians Discuss the Trinity Debate,” 07/24/2016, http://booksataglance.com/blog/listen-four0theologians-discuss-trinity-debate/.
[72] Scott Horrell, “The Father Who Draws Near,” (class notes, Dallas Theological Seminary), 7.
[73] Scott Horrell, “The Father’s Character and Role,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 06/14/2021.
[74] Scott Horrell, “The Name, Father,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 06/14/2021.
[75] Nathan D. Holsteen and Michael J. Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 2014), 156.
[76] Ibid, 157.
[77] Scott Horrell, “The Name, Father,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 06/14/2021.
[78] Scott Horrell, “The Father Who Draws Near,” (class notes, Dallas Theological Seminary), 7.
[79] Ibid.
[80] Ibid, 8.
[81] Ibid.
[82] Ibid, 22.
[83] Scott Horrell, “Trinitarian Worldview 8: All Glorious,” DTS lecture 07/30/2021
[84] Dr. McDermott, “Jesus and God in World Religions,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 07/19/2021.
[85] Dr. Scott Horrell, “Twelve Issues in Modern Trinitarianism, Part Three,” (class lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary), 7/19/2021.
