Home

For an introduction, explanation and links to the entire work, click here.

We have demonstrated Bible teaches that both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are God. We have also shown that the Ante-Nicene Fathers we have examined are in agreement with this. We have also discovered that the Ante-Nicene Fathers taught that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father, that is to say of lower rank. These men taught this in ways that most Trinitarians find disconcerting. Is their teaching Biblical? Or is it under the undue influence – and we must say undue because Christianity is never totally free from the culture around it – from outside of the faith?

Traditional Arian (we’ll give the term “Watchtower” a rest because we know the Witnesses are tired of us using it) attacks on the Trinity usually assume that the Trinitarian(s) believe that the three persons of the Godhead are equal to one another. They then proceed to use any Bible passage that even hints of the subordination of the Son and the Spirit to prove that Jesus Christ is not God. Trinitarians are thus faced with having to explain a lot of Scripture that doesn’t really deal with the issue of Christ’s divinity, only his place in the Godhead. In the original debate (that’s a mild way to put it; theological war is closer to what it was) Trinitarians has a broader arsenal because the Bible, although authoritative, was not interpreted or viewed as it is now. There was more latitude to employ concepts from Greek philosophy to explain the Trinitarian position, and the church had the rapidly developing magisterium to back it up.

In the present time, with the organisational fragmentation of Christianity, it is more difficult to make formulae based on the same kind of concepts active during the original debate to “stick.” People are wont to take the Bible out of context to prove their idea, be it in real concord with the Bible or not. Moreover one would like to think that our ability to understand the Scriptures, freed from the need for allegorising or ecclesiastical interpretation, would improve; otherwise put, we should be able to face the facts of the Bible in the face.

The Arians are in a more serious dilemma for two reasons. The first is that they, in denying the fact that Jesus is God, denigrate the author and finisher of our faith to the point where it is hard to see the point of Christianity under such conditions; we have explored this relative to the subject of false “gods” already, and will return to it again. The second is that the Arians, having defined their position on many passages of Scripture based on an opponent who believes in three equal persons of the Godhead, are at a serious loss if their adversary abandons that part of the position. Their position is made worse because such opponents, having kicked out a leg from under their table, are in a position to use the Bible passages the Arian formerly took comfort in against them. This is in fact what we see frequently in the Ante-Nicene Fathers; verses that Arians have used for years to weaken the concept of the deity of Christ suddenly don’t mean what Arians thought they used to.

In recognising the possible validity of the subordination of the Son and the Spirit in the Godhead, the advocate of such a position is, along with everyone else, in a difficult spot. We must recognise that subordinationism was, until the Arian controversy, the accepted belief of Christianity; it had to come from somewhere, and that “somewhere” was, as we will see, the Bible itself. During the original controversy Arians of all shades were able to use the same Greek philosophy in parallel with their Trinitarian opponents to ultimately force them to abandon subordinationism and thus avoid confusion with Arianism. But same belief was dropped from normative Christianity in order to defend a more important idea, the deity of Christ, a necessary prerequisite to real redemption, which was the whole nature of Christ’s mission here in the first place.

Christians, however, who believe in the authority of God’s written Word and desire to interpret it in a fashion that recognises the original meaning of the text have to face a simple fact: if the Bible teaches something, then we are obligated to follow it, and afterwards set ourselves to explain and understand it in a manner that is both makes sense and is consistent with where we started. We can and should use the tools of philosophy, science and other disciplines to help us in our quest. But we ultimately have to start with the truth, and that truth comes from God through an authoritative revelation.

At this point we run the risk of being repetitious with the beginning of our work; let us proceed to examine some passages from the Scriptures that in fact discuss the relationship of the Son and the Spirit with the Father. We will set forth these passages with some comments, although our plan is to expand on these topics later.

…These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning (arche) of the creation by God…” (Revelation 3:14)

“…has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he as appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. He is the reflection of his glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places.” (Hebrews 1:2,3)

He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creations; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.” (Colossians 1:15,16)

We want to start this with the “transitional” topic between the two issues, i.e., the fact that through and by Jesus Christ all things were created. In looking at these verses Arians claim that these verses demonstrate a number of things that show that Jesus Christ is not God.

The first obviously is that Jesus Christ is depicted as part of the creation. Arians have traditionally maintained that, since the Son is a creature, he cannot be God, as he comes from God’s (the Father’s to be exact) creative power. Now it needs to be admitted that these verses show that the Son came forth from the Father, otherwise he could not be “the exact representation of his very being” or “the first born of all creations.” But we have shown that this event took place outside of the boundaries of finite time, and this sets the Son apart from the rest of the creation.

The second is that Jesus Christ is depicted as the “beginning” of creation, merely the first in a long series of creative products of the Father. But the Bible is stronger in its depiction of the “beginning” than just being first in line; he described as being the creations arche; this eliminates interpreting “beginning” strictly as a time or place event. Moreover these verses show that the creation is dependent on the Son for its existence; this is underscored by a follow up verse, “Also, he is before all other things and by means of him all others things were made to exist.” (Colossians 1:17) The creative power of the Son as God is implicit in this idea[1].

So these verses are an excellent way to start our subject; we see that the Son is a Son to the Father but at the same time creative God.

“He said to them: ‘You will indeed drink my cup, but this sitting down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (Matthew 20:23)

This is a clear indication of the fact that the Son is subordinate to the Father in that there are certain things that the Father has reserved for himself, at least at certain points in time. We make that qualification in light of Matthew 28:18: “And Jesus approached and spoke to them saying: ‘All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.’” It is not reasonable that the Father give “all authority” to a mere man, but with God the Son this delegation makes sense.

“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matthew 24:36)

The usual Arian inference from this is that the Son could not be God if there is something he does not know. But there are more reasonable explanations of this.

First, it could be referring to the Son’s human knowledge, which is of necessity finite, especially in view of the bodily state he was in at the time he said this.

Second, if we look at this from a subordinationist standpoint, we can see that it is proper for the Father to reserve certain things for himself in view of Jesus’ objectives. It is evident that the disciples were very interested in “setting their watches” for Jesus’ return; it simplifies things if Jesus does not know the hour of his return rather than having to put up with the disciples badgering him for the answer. It is an interesting thing to think about if we consider that the Watchtower, having denied the Son his divinity, has gone on to claim that they knew the hour of his return on more than one occasion. We now know that the Watchtower does not in fact know something that “the greatest man who ever lived” did not either.

“Again, for the second time, he went off and prayed, saying, ‘My Father, if it is not possible for this to pass away except I drink it, let your will take place.” (Matthew 26:42)

“I cannot do a single thing on my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my will, but the will of him who sent me.” (John 5:30)

These verses, and others like them, are used to show that Jesus could not be God because he conforms to the Father’s will. But this is absurd; whether we assume or not that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, the Father and the Son must be one in will and purpose. If this means subordination, then so be it; the way in which Jesus explained it certainly would indicate that kind of relationship.

“For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself.” (John 5:26)

This is frequently interpreted by Arians as saying that, since the Father granted the Son’s life to him, the Son is inferior to him and cannot be God. What this verse is saying, however, pertains to the subject of the nature of the life of God. We have seen that Jehovah God is “He who is” and his existence is moreover self-sustaining and not dependent on anything or anyone else. This verse certainly tells us that the Son obtained his life from the Father; however, it also says that the Son, having obtained that life from the Father, has life “in himself” that is as self-sustaining and independent as the Father. Since this type of life is unique to God, what we have here is yet another affirmation of Jesus’ divinity. It is in light of this verse that the following be understood: “Just as the living Father and I live because of the Father, he also that feeds on me, even that one will live because of me.” (John 6:57)

“If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28)

This is yet another statement that the Father is superior to the Son; what we don’t see is a denial of Jesus’ divinity. It is very important here to note that Jesus states that the Father is “greater” not “better” than Jesus. This implies a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one. It is crucial to make this distinction in understanding both the fact that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “of one substance” (the “substance” of God) while at the same time the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father.

“This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3)

This verse puts forth two issues at once; the issue of Jesus praying to his Father, and the issue of Jesus’ acknowledgement of the Father as “the only true God.”

It should be obvious that, in view of the fact that the Father and the Son are different persons (hypostases as the Greeks would say) that there should be some kind of communication between them. It should also be obvious that, as Jesus Christ was both divine and human, that his human nature – his soul, if you please – should have need of communication with the Father. Finally, since we have the text of this, what is really part of “the real Lord’s prayer” in John 17, since it was spoken by Jesus it was heard by the disciples and John in particular; the contents were as much for their edification (and ours) as they were for the Father.

Turning to the question of “the one true God,” this is another place where our teacher from Alexandria and our friends from Brooklyn agree, but still go in a different direction when it comes to the Son. If we consider the fact that the Father is the arche of the Son, this concept makes sense, at least to the Son.

But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will be also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.” (1 Corinthians. 15:28)

This is another affirmation of the future subjection of the Son to the Father, which again is not really a clear denial of the deity of the Son. The final phrase “all things to everyone” is a curious translation; the KIT puts it “all (things) in all.”

“Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took on a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men. More than that, he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake. For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly have him the name that is above every [other] name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:5-11)

We have cited this passage in this entirety because there is a great deal to note here, both things that concern our present subject and things that do not.

• The phrase “in God’s form” should be understood in terms of such passages as Hebrews 1:2,3. It is rather silly to say that someone is not God just because he is “in God’s form;” what form should Jesus Christ be in to be God?
• There are a number of ways to deal with the phrase “consideration to a seizure.” The first would be to say that the Son is subordinate to the Father to begin with; the Son knowing this, he gave no thought to achieving equality with the Father. The KIT offers another solution; if we consider the phrase “who in form of God existing not snatching, he considered the to be equal (things) to God,” we could say that he was in the form of God not by theft but by right, and he is considered to be God’s equal, namely that he was and is God.
• The phrase “obedient as far as death” indicates that the Son is under the Father’s authority, especially in the matter of the Son’s mission to redeem humanity and the agonising consequences that it brought.
• It is beyond the scope of this work to discuss the matter of the cross versus the “torture stake,” but the concept of the perfect man being put to death on what was in the ancient world frequently used as a phallic symbol (an upright pole) seems to be a very strange way of improving our idea of redemption.
• The idea of exalting the Son must be understood in terms of “in front of humanity,” thus “And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life.” (John 3:14,15) Jesus’ death on the cross was humiliating immediately and exalting in the long term.
• It is frequently the custom of the NWT to translate the Greek “Kurios” as “Jehovah” in their zeal to restore the divine name. It would thus make sense to translate “Jesus Christ is Lord” as “Jesus Christ is Jehovah” but this is not done.

Conclusion

We have seen in this section that Jesus showed us that he was in some way subordinate to the Father while still being God; those verses that show the former do not deny the latter. At the point for many the discussion is at an end, because all theology is conceived as piling up one proof text upon another and thus settling the case.

However, as we said at the outset, for those who do not accept the Bible as authoritative, this is not enough. Additionally much of the debate surrounding this subject – historically at least – has had reference to concepts not explicit in the Scriptures. This is true for both sides of the debate. It is our task now to enter into a different type of examination of our subject. In doing this we look for our understanding of it to increase and for us to realise something that many Christians overlook: that God’s ways are not only correct, but that they are rational and make sense.

For an introduction, explanation and links to the entire work, click here.

Having set forth the positions of the Ante-Nicene Fathers on the subject of the deity of Christ, we need to turn to those “God-breathed” scriptures to see if our position has foundation in inspiration. It is our purpose here to show that the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ the Son of God is God and likewise the Holy Spirit is God. In doing this we want to say that this is the only thing we are trying to show; at this point we are not attempting to establish the hierarchical relationship (if there is one) of the Father with the Son or the Holy Spirit. This is a frequent point of confusion both with Arians and Trinitarians, because both feel an uncontrollable urge to lump the two questions together. If we establish that the Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is God then we are obligated to take this as fact first and then proceed to the other question.[1]

We now proceed to examine the relevant passages of the Scriptures.

In beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word. (John 1:1, KIT)

Since this is the most important passage dealing with this question, we need to consider it first.

The transliterated Greek for this verse is, “En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.” Since we are using the interlinear translation, each Greek word corresponds exactly with the verse in English as given above.

The key to understanding this verse lies in the term arche. It is the Greek word from which we get our word “architect.” Virtually all English translations render this “beginning” but this is inadequate because we first associate this in the context of the first point in time for something; the Greek word has a much fuller meaning. The word arche can be understood in one of six ways:[2]

1. In space. It refers to the starting point of something in space, i.e., its starting location. When we map out a car trip, for instance, the beginning “in space” is the point from which we start, where we get in the car and leave from It can refer to a place in an area or on a object that can be considered a key point on the object, thus: “…and behold heaven opened and some sort of vessel descending like a great linen sheet being let down by its four extremities (archais) upon the earth” (Acts 10:11) It can also refer to the starting point of a method or procedure, such as the beginning of a recipe. For example, if we are making “Aggie Oxtail Soup,” our first step is “Take one ox.” (The second and third are, “Cut tail off,” and “Discard ox.”) This can also refer to the start of a book or other work; thus, at the start of Mark’s Gospel, “The beginning (arche) of the good news about Jesus Christ.”[3] (Mk. 1:1)
2. In time or priority. This is the starting point in time. When we say that “The meeting starts at nine o’clock,” we mean that the meeting has its beginning at that time. It can also refer to those at the top of an authority structure, such as the government: “But when they bring you in before public assemblies and government officials (archas), do not become anxious about how or what you will speak in defense or what you will say.” (Lk. 12:11)
3. Of Substance. This refers to the stuff out of which a thing comes. Returning to our hapless Aggie who is making oxtail soup, the ox’s tail is the substance (along with any other ingredients he might see fit to add, such as water) are the substance out of which the soup will come.
4. Of Type and Copy. This is where the architect comes in; the arche is the model after which the final work or product is made. Thus, in designing a building, the architect (or engineer depending on the nature of the building, or both) prepares a set of plans and the building is then built, the plans are the arche of the building. Such a “type” is not restricted to something on paper; if, for instance, one wants to “reverse engineer” a product to copy and produce one just like it, the copied product becomes the arche.
5. Of Elements. These refer to the elements out of which something is made. Thus, when one assembles something together, the parts are an arche. Such parts were referred to in the following: “For, indeed, although you to be teachers in view of the time, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements (arches) of God; and you have become such as need milk, not solid food.” (Hebrews 5:12).
6. Of Design And Execution. Since we have spoken of arche as pertaining to the original plans, it can also be applied to these plans as they are used in the execution of the work. It is used in this sense as follows: “…and you according to the beginnings, (archas) Lord, the earth you founded, and works of the hands of you are the heavens;” (Hebrews 1:10, KIT)

Now that we have set forth the various meanings of the word arche, we should proceed to ask the next question: the beginning of what? The verse itself provides the solution: “the Word was toward the God,” or with God. This concept of being next to the Father is repeated a little later: “No man has seen God at any time: the only-begotten god who in the bosom with the Father is the one that has explained him.” (John 1:18) Since “the beginning” is in reality that of God, and specifically God the Father, we need to see how the various uses of the word arche could be applied to the Word.

If we attempt to locate the Word with the Father “in the beginning” with respect to time or space, we run into one serious problem: God has neither a beginning in time nor a specific location. We will discuss later the matter of time with God, but to locate a specific, finite time and location where God has his arche is simply not possible. This means that, since the Word was both “in the beginning” and “with God” then the Word is eternal and not constrained by space.

This point is underscored by the absolutely last usage of the word arche in the Christian Greek Scriptures: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning (arche) and the end.” (Revelation 22:13) Here Jesus Christ, the Son and the Word, underscores his place as eternal both in the past and in the future. Jesus has already been identified as the Word earlier: “…and he is arrayed with an outer garment sprinkled with blood, and the name he is called is the Word of God.” (Revelation 19:13) The Son is also referred to as the arche in Colossians 1:18: “…and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, (arche) the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things.” Furthermore the lack of a finite beginning is emphasised by the fact that the verb “to be” is used in this verse in the imperfect tense, indicating continuing action.

Moreover we should consider “…to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:24) Now God, in his eternity, has had both power and wisdom from eternity past; therefore, for Christ to be either or both, he would have to be co-eternal with the Father. This is what is meant by the verse “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements long ago.” (Proverbs 8:22) The beginning of Jehovah’s way is obviously eternity past, since God is eternal. And, if that weren’t enough, the Son as “the wisdom of God” also fits the use of the word arche with respect to both type and copy and design and execution very well, because without divine wisdom this creation would be impossible, especially if we consider its complexity combined with its harmony. It also can be shown that this wisdom was applied directly to the creative act by the Son himself: “…who (Christ) is image of the God the invisible, firstborn of all creation, because in him it was created the all (things) visible and the (things) invisible, whether thrones or lordships or governments (archai) or authorities; the all (things) through him and into him it has been created.” (Colossians 1:15-16, KIT)

So now we have established that this verse teaches the eternity of the Word. As we will see later, this sets him apart from the creation around him. But now we must turn our attention to the last part of the verse, “…and God was the Word.” There are two ways we can look at this matter, both of which involve a grammar lesson.

The first is to consider the nature of sentences and the verb to be. In our exposition on the word arche, we have transliterated all of the occurrences of this word in the passages cited. The reader will note that the ending of the word varies from one verse to the next. This is because Greek was an “inflected” language, which means that, instead of (or in addition to) sticking various prepositions in front of a word, a different ending would be placed at the end. Thus, if English were done this way, instead of saying “of something” we would change the ending of “something” and omit the “of.” Latin shares this same idea[4]; however, most of the Indo-European languages that exist today (such as English, French, Spanish, etc.) have gotten away from this; important exceptions are Russian and Ukrainian, which still are inflected.

Having said this, a complete sentence has at least two words: a subject and a verb.[5] The case of a noun (the inflected form) for a subject is the nominative case; the verb is in whatever tense it needs to be, but it agrees in number and gender with the subject. Many sentences have objects of the verb, either direct or indirect; but these are not in the nominative case. So if we have a sentence such as “the dog ate the newspaper,” the dog is the subject and thus in the nominative case, ate is the verb, and the newspaper is the direct object and thus would be in the accusative case.

An important exception to this pattern is a sentence with the verb “to be” in it. In such a sentence there is no direct object and both of the nouns directly relating to the verb are subjects; thus, in the sentence, “the dog is a newspaper-eater,” both the dog and the newspaper eater are essentially subjects, both in the nominative case, and both are equivalents to each other.

In the phrase “God was the Word,” this is exactly what we have. Both “God” and “the word” are subjects, in the nominative case, and made equivalents to each other by the verb “to be” (in this case was.) So on the face of it nothing could be simpler; the Word, the Son Jesus Christ, is God.

However, the presence of the article with the first mention of God in this verse (the Word was toward the God) and the lack of it in the second (and God was the Word) has indicated to some that there is a distinction between the “two Gods” in this verse. This is a favourite point of Watchtower theology; they spend a lot of time on this verse and this distinction. They are not alone; Origen makes the same kind of distinction, even in the face of unpopularity:

We next notice John’s use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so “the Logos” is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true God; “but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is “The God,” and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. We drew this distinction between Him and them that we showed God the Word to be to all the other gods the minister of their divinity. To this we must add, in order to obviate objections, that the reason which is in every reasonable creature occupied the same relation to the reason who was in the beginning with God, and is God the Word, as God the Word occupies to God. As the Father who is Very God and the True God is to His image and to the images of His image–men are said to be according to the image, not to be images of God–so He, the Word, is to the reason (word) in every man. Each fills the place of a fountain–the Father is the fountain of divinity, the Son of reason. As, then, there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, so there are many logoi, but we, for our part, pray that that one logos may be with us who was in the beginning and was with God, God the Logos. For whoever does not receive this Logos who was in the beginning with God, or attach himself to Him as He appeared in flesh, or take part in some of those who had part in this Logos, or whoever having had part in Him falls away from Him again, he will have his portion in what is called most opposite to reason.[6]

Here we see an interesting situation. Both Origen and the Watchtower regard the Father as “the only true God.” (John 17:3) Both have recourse to the absence of the article in front of “God” in John 1:1 to help them demonstrate the point. But Origen believed not only that Jesus Christ is God, but that the Son has always been. How can this situation arise?

In a sense the answer to this is the object of this present work, and we will deal with the technicalities later, but the basic issue revolves around the nature of God. Now the Watchtower tells us that the Bible uses the term “god” to refer to beings other than the true God. This is illustrated in passages such as “Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?” (Jn 10:34) and “among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers…” (2 Corinthinans 4:4) Their idea is that Jesus Christ the Son of God is god in this same sense, which means that he is not a real god, but a man, albeit a perfect one.

The whole idea of reducing Jesus to the level of Satan or the Pharisees should put a stop to this kind of thinking, but perhaps a more modern illustration will make this clear. A few years ago I made my first visit to what was then the Soviet Union; while there my business associates and I got into a discussion with our Russian host about the contribution of various figures in Russian history such as Peter the Great, Stalin, and others. When the conversation got to Lenin, our host ended it quickly by making the statement, “Lenin is God for us.” Now we – and when I say we I mean both those of us who believe in God and the atheistic Communists (the few that are left) – agree that Lenin cannot in a proper sense be called God, but he was made out to be same because of his enormous power and influence both while he was living and after he was gone. But the Watchtower would have us believe that Jesus Christ was God in the same sense that Lenin was.

It should be apparent by now that Jesus Christ the Son, who is here described as with the Father from the beginning (arche), who is shortly described as “the true light that gives light to every sort of man” (John 1:9) and whose glory is “such as belongs to an only-begotten son of a father” (John 1:14) is certainly above Lenin or Satan or the Pharisees, who are “gods” only by analogy, and not real gods. We will spend a lot of time on this subject later, but to eliminate the distinction between “God” and “the gods” the Watchtower’s only recourse is to posit that there are many beings that are “god” in the true sense, as the Mormons have done. This is not only patently unbiblical; it is their idea of debasing divinity so as to exalt humanity, and both end up the poorer for the bargain.

We should close this discussion by noting a Biblical distinction of “God” and “the gods.” In discussing the resurrection with the Sadducees, Jesus reminded them “‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.’ He is God, not of the dead, but of the living.” (Matthew 22:32) Paul made a distinction between the dead and the living: “Furthermore, you though you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you at one time walked according to the system of things of this world…But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love with which he loved us, made us alive together with the Christ, even when we were dead in trespasses…and he raised us up and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus.” (Eph. 2:1-2,4-5,6) The true God is the God of the living; those who follow Satan or Lenin or the Pharisees are in reality dead already. This verse proclaims Jesus as God; as he gives life, so he is really God.

“On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.” (John 5:18)

“Said to them Jesus, Amen amen I am saying to you, Before Abraham to become I am.” (John 8:58 KIT)

Sometimes when we approach the Scriptures, their meaning is difficult: “Philip ran alongside and heard him reading along Isaiah the prophet, and he said: ‘Do you actually know what you are reading?’ He said, ‘Really, how could I ever do so, unless someone guided me?’” (Acts 8:30-31)

In both of the verses we see clear cases of when the Bible “interprets itself.” In both cases the Jews interpret his words by seeking to kill him for what he said; in the first verse the reason is spelled out in the verse, in the second it follows shortly: “Therefore they picked up stones to hurl at him…” (John 8:59) This wouldn’t be the last time they would do this; we see this again: “Answered to him the Jews, About fine work not we are stoning you but about blasphemy, and because you man being you are making yourself god.” (John 10:33, KIT) The Jews were very clear about the distinction between God and man and calling oneself God when one was not was blasphemy. The Jews, in concert with the Watchtower, obviously believed (and still do, unless they are Messianic) that Jesus’ claims to divinity were false, thus they were blasphemy. Jesus’ claim to be God was abundantly clear to the Jews, if not to the Watchtower.

One thing that may need some explanation is the matter of the title “I am” being a claim to being God. This goes back to Moses’ encounter with God at the burning bush: “Nevertheless, Moses said to God, ‘Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you’, and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?’ At this God said to Moses: ‘I shall prove to be whom I shall prove to be.’ And he added: ‘This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I shall prove to be has sent me to you.’” (Ex. 3:13,14) Now “I shall prove to be” is the hard way to translate the Hebrew, which is more literally and simply rendered “I am,” and thus the first phrase is more naturally rendered, “I am who I am.” Jehovah God made it clear to Moses that other gods were identified by what they did or their personality, but the true God would be known just by his existence. This is another point for further discussion; suffice it to say now that existence is the most fundamental attribute anyone or anything can have; if they don’t exist, they just aren’t real. As a result of God’s proclamation from the burning bush, the Jews were clear on what “I am” really meant, especially in the context of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This connect also puts a whole new meaning on the “titles of Christ” such as “I am the living bread that came down from heaven,” (John 6:51) “I am the resurrection and the life,” (John 11:25) “I am the light of the world,” (John 8:12) “I am the door,” (John 10:9) and of course “I am the way and the truth and the life.” (John 14:6)

“’I am the vine, and my Father is the cultivator. Every branch in me not bearing fruit he takes away, that it may bear more fruit.’” (John 15:1,2)

This verse has been used to show that the Father is in the business of correcting the Son; thus, the Son cannot be God. However, the “branches” are explained shortly: “I am the vine, you are the branches.” (John 15:5) Thus those that are being pruned are the disciples, and by extension us (ouch!)

“…in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth.” (John 17:21)

This is not the only time Jesus proclaims that he and the Father are one (cf. John 10:30), but the Watchtower seizes on the fact that Jesus desires that his disciples – and in this case that includes us – should be one as the Father and the Son are one. They tell us that we cannot be one with the Father (and presumably the Son) in the same way as Jesus can if Jesus is God, since we are only human.

We have mentioned an idea where humanity is exalted through the debasement of divinity, and this is another example of this kind of thinking. The fact is that the only way in which we can be one with God is if God lives in us after the new birth; in our human state such unity is impossible. Paul talks about this in Ephesians 3:16-17 (KIT): “…in order that he might give to you according to the riches of the glory of him to power to be made mighty through the spirit of him into the inward man, the Christ to dwell through the faith in the hearts of you in love; having been rooted and having been founded…” Unless we participate in the divinity from God, we are neither in unity with him nor pleasing to him. Obviously the level of unity is vastly different between the Father and the Son on the one hand and our unity with the Father and the Son, but the kind is basically the same, which this verse proclaims.

In answer Thomas said to him: My Lord and My God! (John 20:28)

This, of course, is where this work gets its name; it is as clear a proclamation of Jesus’ state as God as one could want. It is noteworthy that this came from a sceptic. The usual reply to this is that Jesus was “god to Thomas” but we have examined the subject of relative gods already.

For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

And it will certainly occur in that day that those remaining over Israel and those who have escaped of the house of Jacob will never again support themselves upon the one striking them, and they will certainly support themselves upon Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, in trueness. A mere remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God. (Isaiah 10:20,21)

…the One exercising loving-kindness toward thousands, and repaying the error of the fathers into the bosom of their sons after them, the [true] God, the great One, the mighty One, Jehovah of armies bearing his name,… (Jeremiah 32:18)

These are all messianic prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and they all proclaim that the Messiah would be God. This is an important point, not only for the Watchtower, but for Jews as well.

“Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements long ago.” (Proverbs 8:22)

No discussion of the deity of Christ with an Arian is complete without mention of this verse. We have mentioned it earlier in connection with John 1:1 but we need to expand on this.

As we have said before, the beginning of Jehovah’s way is eternity past; thus, this verse underscores the fact that Jesus Christ the Son has always been and always been with the Father. This also guarantees that the Son, who is Wisdom, is the “earliest of his achievements.” The usual problem with this verse is that it implies that the Son is merely created. But all other creation – the creation that was brought into being through the Son – came into being at a definite, finite time in the past. The Son’s eternity is an important distinguishing feature, one that cannot be overlooked.

It is also noteworthy that the word translated here as “produced” or “created” here (qaanaaniy) is both usually translated as “possessed” or “acquired” and is different from the word used in Genesis 1:1 (“baaraa”, created.) Most of the panic created by this verse has come from the Septuagint, which translated both into Greek with the same word.

All this actually came about for that to be fulfilled which was spoken by Jehovah through his prophet, saying: Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Immanuel, which means, when translated, “With us is God.” (Matthew 1:22-23)

This relates the fulfilment of Isaiah 7:14; the name “Immanuel” is given to no one else in the Scriptures. This is a fairly clear indication that Mary’s son was also God’s Son, and God as well. One could object to this by saying that anyone who is sent from God brings God’s presence with them, but if we consider this in its totality – the giving and fulfilment of prophecy, the virgin birth, the name “With us is God” should make clear that Jesus was unique; taken in context with what we have said before, this should settle the real meaning of this verse.

“…because in him is dwelling down all the fullness of the divinity bodily” (Colossians 2:9 KIT)

This is a clear statement of the Incarnation; Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, where “all the fullness of the divinity” dwelt.

“..while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and…Savior of us, Christ Jesus.” (Titus 2:13)

“the righteousness of our God and…Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Peter 1:1)

“…of whom the fathers, and out of whom the Christ, the (thing) according to flesh, the one being upon all things, God blessed one into the ages; Amen.” (Romans 9:5 KIT)

In each of these passages Christ and God are identified as one by apposition, i.e., two words or groups of words in the same case put together as equivalents. The Watchtower translations attempt to both obscure this and explain it away, but their case is unconvincing.

…toward but the Son The throne of you the God into the age of the age, and the staff of the straightness staff of the kingdom of him. (Hebrews 1:8, KIT)

This identifies by apposition the Son with “the God.” This puts into a better perspective the whole business of God with and without the article.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says Jehovah God, “the one who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8)

And, look! I am coming quickly. Happy is anyone observing the words of the prophecy of this scroll.” … “Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” … “’I, Jesus, send my angel to bear witness to you people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.’“ (Revelation 22:7,12,13,16)

We have spent some time on the subject of the Son being the “Alpha and Omega,” but we see here also that this is applied to the Jehovah God as well. Such a connection at least precludes the lack of eternity of the Son.

“On this account I say to you, Every sort of sin and blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven. For example, whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things or in that to come.” (Matthew 12:31,32)

We now turn to the demonstration that the Holy Spirit is likewise God. The verse above is our first evidence of this; the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is meaningless unless a) the Holy Spirit is God and b) the Holy Spirit is an individual personality. As we have seen with the Son, blasphemy is directed against God; moreover the Son and the Spirit are separated as two distinct entities as well. The high penalty that Jesus ascribes to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit should give pause to those who would deny his divinity and personality.

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan emboldened you to play false to the holy spirit and to hold back secretly some of the price of the field? (Acts 5:3)

This underscores the personality of the Holy Spirit; Ananias could not have lied to an inanimate something in a meaningful way.

As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Of all persons set Barnabas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called them.” (Acts 13:2)

Another demonstration of the personality of the Spirit, who spoke to the believers.

Conclusion

In these passages we have demonstrated that the Bible teaches the following (the fact that the Father is God was implicitly agreed to at the start):

• Jesus Christ is God
• The Holy Spirit is God
• Both are distinct personalities within the Godhead

It is now our task to investigate the relationship of these persons as it appears in the Scriptures.