The Watchtower
And The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers
By Michael
J. Partyka 11/14/2005
INTRODUCTION
http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_01.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_03.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_09.htm
Jesus himself said: "Eternal life is this:
to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
So our entire future hinges on our knowing the true nature of God, and
that means getting to the root of the Trinity controversy.
Various Trinitarian concepts exist. But
generally the Trinity teaching is that in the Godhead there are three
persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; yet, together they are but one
God. The doctrine says that the three are coequal, almighty, and uncreated,
having existed eternally in the Godhead.
If the Trinity is true, it is degrading
to Jesus to say that he was never equal to God as part of a Godhead.
But if the Trinity is false, it is degrading to Almighty God to call
anyone his equal. If the Trinity is false, it dishonors God to say,
"We worship one God in Trinity."
The ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged
to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after
Christ's birth. What they taught is of interest.
Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E.,
called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is "other than the God
who made all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never
did anything except what the Creator�willed him to do and say."
Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said
that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior
to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only
God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other."
Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215
C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called
God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that
the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.
Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught
the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father is different from the
Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from
him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent."
He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not�.Before all things,
God was alone." (The word "tri'as" appears in its Latin form of "trinitas"
in Tertullian. While these words do translate to "Trinity," this is
no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the doctrine of the Trinity.)
Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said
that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and
Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him�.But
he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what
had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus.
Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that
"the Father and Son are two substances�two things as to their essence,"
and that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light."
The testimony of history makes clear that
the Trinity was unknown for several centuries after biblical times.
Thus, those who believe in the Trinity are not "holding God in accurate
knowledge."
Soon, when God brings this present wicked
system of things to its end, Trinitarian Christendom will be called
to account. And she will be judged adversely for her God-dishonoring
actions and doctrines. By honoring God as supreme and worshiping him
on his terms, Jehovah's Witnesses can avoid the judgment that he will
soon bring on apostate Christendom.
So says the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
the official organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses
subscribe to Arianism, a belief that Jesus Christ is not fully God (as
the doctrine of the Trinity maintains) but is rather a created being,
made of a different substance from that of the eternal, uncreated substance
of God the Father.
While hopping around the Watchtower's official
web site looking for articles supporting their rejection of the cross
as a Christian symbol - Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was put
to death on an upright torture stake, not a t-shaped cross - I stumbled
across a series of pages (including the ones linked above) explaining
the Jehovah's Witnesses' rejection of the Trinity. When I got to page
three, I recall blinking several times furiously, because I literally
couldn't believe what I was seeing: The Watchtower was actually quoting
the early ante-Nicene Church Fathers, from Justin Martyr all the way
to Origen, in an attempt to disprove that early Christians ever subscribed
to the doctrine of the Trinity. Their final conclusion, as you can see
for yourself, is an incredibly bold statement: "The testimony of history
makes clear that the Trinity was unknown for several centuries after
biblical times."
Oh, really?
Well, speaking as somebody who's actually
read all or most of the extant writings of every single one of the ante-Nicene
Church Fathers cited, I can tell you with absolute certainty that these
ante-Nicene writers knew the doctrine of the Trinity - or at least some
of its key tenets - very well. In fact, some of the very first apologetic
defenses of the Trinity were written by these same Church Fathers!
So, not being one to let deliberate misinformation
go by, I decided to take a look back through all I'd read before of
the Fathers and see if I could find two things: (1) the source texts
for the "anti-Trinity" quotes which the Watchtower used on its web site
to support its anti-Trinity position, and (2) any evidence, preferably
from the same texts used by the Watchtower, which would show each Church
Father's support for the doctrine of the Trinity, or at least his support
for that critical tenet of the Trinity doctrine which says that Jesus
Christ is of the same substance as the Father (i.e., that Jesus is truly
God).
Before getting into the material from the
Fathers, however, I think it wise to say a little bit about the doctrine
of the Trinity itself.
The Watchtower's basic definition of the Trinity
doctrine is correct: "In the Godhead there are three persons, Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit; yet, together they are but one God. The doctrine
says that the three are coequal, almighty, and uncreated, having existed
eternally in the Godhead."
However, the Watchtower's presentation and
interpretation of the Church Fathers' quotes communicate to the reader
a couple of implicit misunderstandings about the Trinity doctrine and
about the language of the Fathers. It's extremely important to clear
up these misunderstandings before diving into the writings of the Fathers,
lest we enter into our study with false impressions.
First, whenever the Watchtower finds evidence
in the Fathers suggesting that Jesus is inferior or subordinate to God,
they take this as proof that Jesus is therefore not coequal with the
Father. On the surface, this conclusion seems appropriate - after all,
how can one be inferior to another and yet be equal to him? But let's
rephrase the question properly - how can one equal be inferior to another?
Answer: Easily! Consider the common, everyday relationship between employer
and employee. Both are human beings, so employer and employee are equal
in respect to their basic nature. However, the employee is under the
authority of the employer, which makes the employee inferior to the
employer by way of position. This same distinction exists within the
Godhead: The three persons of the Godhead are equal according to nature,
but when it comes to position, God the Father is superior to God the
Son and God the Holy Spirit.
So, it must be understood when reading the
Fathers that whenever the Church Fathers refer to Jesus as being inferior
or subordinate to God, they are speaking in terms of position only,
not of nature. This squares just fine with the doctrine of the Trinity,
which only maintains that God the Father and Jesus are equal in nature.
Second, whenever the Watchtower finds a Church
Father speaking of Jesus as a "creature," the Watchtower immediately
claims such a reference as a proof text for Jesus' being a created entity
rather than an eternal person of the Godhead. Likewise, there are some
rare instances, such as the quote from Origen about the Father and Son's
being "two substances" or "two essences," in which the Fathers seem
to clearly indicate a created nature for Jesus rather than a full sharing
in the eternal, uncreated substance of the Godhead. In these cases I
must remind the reader that the Council of Nicea, in which Christendom
made its definitive stand against Arianism, was still 100 to 200 years
away at the time of the Fathers' writings. Consequently, the language
of the Fathers was not always primed for battle against the claims of
Arianism, for Arianism had yet to make the scene. In those days, the
prevalent heresies dealt more with the issue of whether Christ was truly
man, not whether he was truly God, and thus the language of the Fathers
can get a bit "loose" at times concerning the deity of Christ. This
is why the quotes of the Fathers must be taken in context with the whole
of their writings, lest we take a couple of choice quotes from one particular
missal here or there and mistakenly base our whole conception of a particular
Father's views on that one unfortunate selection.
With all this in mind, I have tried to provide
as much information as I could from each of the Fathers cited by the
Watchtower, along with the appropriate citations in case the reader
would like to go back and look for himself or herself at the original
texts.
One last note before diving in: I would like
to say that I believe the Watchtower has gotten it right with regard
to how high the stakes are in this matter. As they have appropriately
put it, "Our entire future hinges on our knowing the true nature of
God, and that means getting to the root of the Trinity controversy.
If the Trinity is true, it is degrading to Jesus to say that he was
never equal to God as part of a Godhead. But if the Trinity is false,
it is degrading to Almighty God to call anyone his equal. If the Trinity
is false, it dishonors God to say, 'We worship one God in Trinity.'"
Those who stand on the wrong side of the Trinity
controversy will indeed "be called to account" and "will be judged adversely
for her God-dishonoring actions and doctrines." We must all strive to
"avoid the judgment that God will soon bring on apostates." It is with
this warning in mind that I have prepared this collection of quotations.
JUSTIN MARTYR
Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called
the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is "other than the God who made
all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything
except what the Creator�willed him to do and say.
Source
Quotes By Justin Martyr
IRENAEUS
Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that
the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior
to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only
God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other."
Source
Quotes By Irenaeus
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215
C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called
God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that
the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.
Source
Quotes By Clement of Alexandria
TERTULLIAN
Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught
the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father is different from the
Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from
him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent."
He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not�.Before all things,
God was alone." (The word "tri'as" appears in its Latin form of "trinitas"
in Tertullian. While these words do translate to "Trinity," this is
no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the doctrine of the Trinity.)
Source
Quotes By Tertullian
HIPPOLYTUS
Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said
that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and
Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him�.But
he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what
had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus.
Source
Quotes By Hippolyrus
ORIGEN
Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that
"the Father and Son are two substances�two things as to their essence,"
and that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light."
Source
Quotes By Origen
ANALYSIS: WAS THE TRINITY "UNKNOWN" TO
THE CHURCH FATHERS?
Now that you've had a chance to read the writings
of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers for yourself, let's recap the claims
of the Watchtower concerning the Fathers' beliefs about God and Jesus.
Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called
the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is "other than the God who made
all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything
except what the Creator�willed him to do and say."
Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that
the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior
to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only
God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other."
Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215
C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called
God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that
the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.
Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught
the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father is different from the
Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from
him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent."
He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not�.Before all things,
God was alone." (The word "tri'as" appears in its Latin form of "trinitas"
in Tertullian. While these words do translate to "Trinity," this is
no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the doctrine of the Trinity.)
Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said
that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and
Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him�.But
he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what
had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus.
Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that
"the Father and Son are two substances�two things as to their essence,"
and that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light."
The testimony of history makes clear that
the Trinity was unknown for several centuries after biblical times.
You've seen the evidence for yourself. What
do you think?
Was the Trinity "unknown" to Justin Martyr?
Justin says that "God begat before all creatures a Beginning, who was
a certain rational power proceeding from Himself, which was truly brought
forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures,
and the Father communed with Him." This squares precisely with the Nicene
Creed, which declares God the Son to be "begotten, not made." Justin
explains further that "this power is indivisible and inseparable from
the Father," and that the Son was "begotten from the Father, by His
power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father
were divided," which means that the Son is begotten from the very same
essence which the Father himself possesses - not dividing the Godhead
into parts, but rather allowing each divine person a full sharing in
the Godhead - which is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity maintains.
Was the Trinity "unknown" to Irenaeus?
Irenaeus' teaching that "the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and
the Father is God and the Son is God, since he who is born of God is
God, and in this way, according to His being and power and essence,
one God is demonstrated: but according to the economy of our salvation,
there is both Father and Son," couldn't be more Trinitarian.
Moreover, Irenaeus distinguishes the Son and
the Holy Spirit from created beings when he says, "The Word, namely
the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is
the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation....There
is therefore one God, who by the Word and Wisdom created and arranged
all things." So, according to Irenaeus, the Son and the Spirit are co-eternal
with the Father, just like the doctrine of the Trinity says.
Was the Trinity "unknown" to Clement of
Alexandria? Clement calls Jesus "the Divine Word, He that is truly
most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe"
as well as "God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father's
will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's
right hand, and with the form of God is God." And Clement is decidedly
adamant that "the Son of God, being, by equality of substance, one with
the Father, is eternal and uncreated." Jesus, according to Clement,
wasn't created, but "existed always, without beginning." Rather than
holding Jesus to be an inferior, created being, Clement clearly teaches
that Jesus is "co-eternal" and "co-existent with the Father." Isn't
this exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches?
Was the Trinity "unknown" to Tertullian?
On the contrary, Tertullian loudly proclaims, "Bear always in mind that
this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the
Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other,
and that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and
that They are distinct from Each Other." He continues, "All are of One,
by unity of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation distributes
the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons -
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, yet of one substance,
and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God."
He finishes, "All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and
distinction in, the Persons of the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with
our Rule of faith," and, "I must everywhere hold one only substance
in three coherent and inseparable Persons." To reproduce here all that
Tertullian says in support of the Trinity would probably take up another
page or two. Suffice it to say that in his declaration, "The Father
is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God," we have a nice,
simply-rendered summary of the Trinity doctrine.
Was the Trinity "unknown" to Hippolytus?
Hippolytus says, "The Logos alone of this God is from God himself;
wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the
world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God." So Hippolytus,
too, sets the Logos of God, a.k.a. Jesus, apart from all creation and
all created beings. He further declares of Jesus that "by nature He
is God," and that Jesus, "who was co-existent with His Father before
all time, and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory
proper to Godhead." According to Hippolytus, Jesus "was in essential
being with His Father" and "is co-eternal with His Father," just as
the doctrine of the Trinity says. And, with regard to the Trinity as
a whole, Hippolytus says, "We cannot otherwise think of one God, but
by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit," and, "Whosoever
omits any one of these, fails in glorifying God perfectly. For it is
through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed,
the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim
this truth." Clearly, Hippolytus is a Trinitarian.
Was the Trinity "unknown" to Origen?
Origen teaches, "God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was
born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any
beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time,
but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or
behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding. And
therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning
that can be either comprehended or expressed." Likewise, Origen says,
"We have been able to find no statement in holy Scripture in which the
Holy Spirit could be said to be made or created." He therefore concludes
that "all things which exist were made by God, and that there was nothing
which was not made, save the nature of the Father, and the Son, and
the Holy Spirit," and that "the Father generates an uncreated Son, and
brings forth a Holy Spirit, not as if He had no previous existence,
but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son or Holy Spirit,
and no anteriority or posteriority can be understood as existing in
them." Accordingly, "the Holy Spirit is reckoned in the Unity of the
Trinity along with the unchangeable Father and His Son." In all of Origen's
teachings we have, once again, the doctrine of the Trinity proclaimed
loud and clear.
So�was the Trinity "unknown" to the early
Church Fathers, as the Watchtower would have us believe?
Answer: Absolutely NOT!
The truth is that every one of the Church
Fathers cited by the Watchtower was a staunch defender of Trinitarian
doctrine!
THE CHURCH FATHERS' INTERPRETATIONS OF
CERTAIN KEY BIBLE VERSES
The Church Fathers, from Justin Martyr to
Origen, were very knowledgable about the Scriptures and quoted them
frequently in their writings. While I was poring over their works, I
noticed a couple of key verses that were being cited by them repeatedly.
Before concluding this paper, I thought it would be a good idea to briefly
discuss these key verses and why the Fathers' interpretation of these
verses is so important to the issue of the Trinity.
(Note: "KJV" means King James Version; "NWT"
means New World Translation)
Genesis 19:24 (KJV) - Then the LORD rained
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of
heaven.
Genesis 19:24 (NWT) - Then Jehovah made it
rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sod�om and
upon Go�mor�rah.
"When Scripture says, 'The Lord rained fire
from the Lord out of heaven,' the prophetic word indicates that there
were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold
the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on
earth, as He is Father and God; the cause of His power and of His being
Lord and God." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 129)
"Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord,
and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by
the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites,
the Scripture says, 'Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.' For it here points
out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received
power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness." (Irenaeus, Against
Heresies 3:6:1)
"Two are described as God�.But I find in Scripture
the name Lord also applied to them Both:�'Then the Lord rained upon
Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.'"
(Tertullian, Against Praxeus, Chapter 13)
According to the Watchtower, "Jehovah" is
the real name of God. Because the name essentially means "He Causes
to Become," the Watchtower insists that "only the true God could bear
such a meaningful name."* Even Jesus, they say, cannot bear the name
"Jehovah" (though Jesus' name in Hebrew does mean, "Jehovah is Salvation")**.
So, according to the Watchtower, whenever the name "Jehovah" is used
the the Bible, it is always used in reference to God the Father and
is never used to identify any other person, even Jesus.
However, consider what Justin Martyr says:
"When Scripture says, 'Jehovah rained fire from Jehovah out of heaven,'
the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number." Tertullian
confirms this: "Two are described as Jehovah. I find in Scripture the
name Jehovah applied to them both." So instead of reserving the name
"Jehovah" to one person only - God the Father - the early Church Fathers
had no reservations whatsoever about bestowing that name upon two persons
(at least).
Justin Martyr concurs that one of these two
persons to whom the name "Jehovah" is attributed is "Father and God."
But who is the other? "The Son," says Ireneaus, since it was the Son
"who had also been talking with Abraham" in the verses preceding the
key verse.
So, according to the early Church Fathers,
not only is the Father properly named "Jehovah", but the Son is properly
named "Jehovah" also, so one might actually translate Gen 19:24 as,
"Then Jehovah the Son rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone
and fire from Jehovah the Father out of heaven."
Two persons. One God. Add in the Holy Spirit
as the third person, and you have the doctrine of the Trinity.
John 1:1 (KJV) - In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1
(NWT) - In [the] beginning the Word was,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
As you can see, according to the Watchtower,
the correct translation of John 1:1 ends with "the Word was a god" rather
than "the Word was God". After all, to say that the Word was both "with
God" and "God" is blatantly Trinitarian, as it implies that two persons
are both God, co-equal and co-eternal.
But how did the early Church Fathers read
and interpret John 1:1? If one were to believe the Watchtower's claims
that none of the cited Church Fathers subscribed to the doctrine of
the Trinity, then it would be logical to assume that none of them would
have interpreted the last clause of John 1:1 to be "the Word was God,"
either. Instead, each of these Church Fathers should have understood
the last clause of John 1:1 to mean, "the Word was a god."
So, what do the Church Fathers really say
about John 1:1?
Justin Martyr is silent on the verse.
Irenaeus says nothing conclusive concerning
the verse directly, though he does echo the verse's Trinitarian interpretation
with his own words when he says in one place, "The sacred books acknowledge
with regard to Christ" that Jesus is "the Word of God, and God," and
in another place, "The Father is God and the Son is God, since he who
is born of God is God, and in this way, according to His being and power
and essence, one God is demonstrated: but according to the economy of
our salvation, there is both Father and Son."
Clement of Alexandria, however, sheds some
light on the proper interpretation of John 1:1 when, speaking of God
and the Word of God, he says, "Both are one - that is, God. For He has
said, 'In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God."
Like Ireneaus, Clement also echoes the Trinitaritan interpretation of
John 1:1 when he says, "Our Instructor is like His Father God, whose
son He is, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the
Father's right hand, and with the form of God is God." Moreover, Clement
actually refers to Christ in one place as "God the Word."
Now, if the preceding Church Fathers serve
to shed some light on the proper interpretation of John 1:1, Tertullian
shines upon the verse a brilliant spotlight of clarity, leaving no room
for misunderstanding, for he says, "The Word of God is he 'through whom
all things were made, and without whom nothing was made.' The Word of
God, then, is called the Son, who Himself is designated God. 'The Word
was with God, and the Word was God.' Now if He too is God, according
to John, who says, 'The Word was God,' then you have two Beings - on
the ground of Personality, not of Substance - for although the Word
was God, yet was He with God, because He is God of God." Consider indeed
how strong Tertullian's words are here, concerning the proper interpretation
of John 1:1: "'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God.' Now, since these words may not be taken
otherwise than as they are written, there is without doubt shown to
be One who was from the beginning, and also One with whom He always
was: one the Word of God, the other God although the Word is also God
."
Hippolytus, too, is crystal clear on the subject:
"The blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account
of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when
he says, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.' If, then, the Word was with God, and was also
God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall
not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and
of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost.
And we cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth
in Father and Son and Holy Spirit."
Finally, Origen, who himself wrote a commentary
on the Gospel of John, taught that "John says in the beginning of his
Gospel, when defining God by a special definition to be the Word, 'And
God was the Word, and this was in the beginning with God.'" Speaking
of John 1:2 in his commentary, Origen elaborates, "'He was in the beginning
with God.' By his three foregoing propositions the Evangelist has made
us acquainted with three orders, and he now sums up the three in one,
saying, 'This (Logos) was in the beginning with God.' In the first premise
we learned where the Logos was: He was in the beginning; then we learned
with whom He was, with God; and then who He was, that He was God. He
now points out by this word 'He,' the Word who is God, and gathers up
into a fourth proposition the three which went before, 'In the beginning
was the Word,' 'The Word was with God,' and 'The Word was God.'"
Thus, it is clear that none of the Church
Fathers, except perhaps Justin Martyr, understood the final clause of
John 1:1 to say anything other than, "The Word was God." (Of course,
in Justin Martyr's case we have his own declaration concerning Christ:
"He is God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God." So it's fair
to believe that Justin Martyr would have interpreted John 1:1 just like
his collegues did.)
CONCLUSIONS
Luke 16:10 (KJV) - He that is faithful
in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust
in the least is unjust also in much.
Luke 16:10 (NWT) - The person faithful
in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous
in what is least is unrighteous also in much.
Now that we've explored the testimony of the
ante-Nicene Church Fathers concerning the Trinity, what can we conclude?
First, given the overwhelming evidence, we
must conclude that the doctrine of the Trinity was not "unknown" for
several centuries after biblical times, as the Watchtower would have
us believe. We must additionally conclude that, contrary to the Watchtower's
implications, the ante-Nicene Church Fathers cited by them - Justin
Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and
Origen - were all Trinitarians, as all of them believed that Jesus is
of the same substance as God, thereby making him co-equal and co-eternal
with the Father.
Given these conclusions, it is now appropriate
to ask a critical question: Why would the Watchtower attempt to use
the writings of these Church Fathers to support their anti-Trinitarian
views? Did they simply not know that these Fathers were Trinitarians
- i.e., can the Watchtower claim ignorance for an excuse?
Let's look at some of the quotations selected
by the Watchtower and see if the excuse of ignorance holds up.
Justin Martyr�called the prehuman Jesus
a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things." He
said that Jesus�"never did anything except what the Creator�willed him
to do and say."
These quotes are taken from Chapter 56 of
Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, but, as we have shown above, this chapter
is the exact same passage in which Justin Martyr interprets Gen 19:24
to assign the name "Jehovah" to both God the Father and Jesus! Moreover,
just a few chapters from this one we see Justin say, "God begat before
all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding]
from Himself�. this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the
Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father
communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear,
that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before
all His creatures and as Offspring by God�.He [is] God, Son of the only,
unbegotten, unutterable God."
Irenaeus�showed that Jesus is not equal
to the "One true and only God."
This quote is taken from Section 3:8:1 of
Irenaeus' Against Heresies, and the full quote is, "�it is clearly proved
that neither the prophets nor the apostles did ever name another God,
or call [him] Lord, except the true and only God." But just a couple
chapters back Irenaeus says, "Therefore neither would the Lord, nor
the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely
and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would
they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father
ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father
over all creation�." And, within the very same chapter as that from
which the quote was taken, leading into the chapter just following,
he says, "He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His
Word, properly be termed God and Lord: but the things which have been
made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly
assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator. This, therefore,
having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still
more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the
Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God,
but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing
the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no
other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that
He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler
of all;-it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed,
their testimonies to this effect." Finally, just a few chapters forward
from this, we have Irenaeus saying, "�they who were the preachers of
the truth and the apostles of liberty termed no one else God, or named
him Lord, except the only true God the Father, and His Word, who has
the pre-eminence in all things�."
Clement of Alexandria�called Jesus in his
prehuman existence "a creature"�.
I myself was not able to find any verbatim
reference in all of Clement's writings in which he referred to Jesus
as a creature. However, I did find that in Book 5, Chapter 14 of his
work The Stromata he says, "Wisdom�was the first of the creation of
God." But, if the Watchtower were to claim this particular reference
as the source of their quotation, we would be obligated to ask them
how they could have possibly missed Clement's words in the very same
chapter: "And the address in the Tim�us calls the creator, Father, speaking
thus: 'Ye gods of gods, of whom I am Father; and the Creator of your
works.' So that when he says, 'Around the king of all, all things are,
and because of Him are all things; and he [or that] is the cause of
all good things; and around the second are the things second in order;
and around the third, the third,' I understand nothing else than the
Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the
Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will
of the Father."
Tertullian�observed: "The Father is different
from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different
from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent."
He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not�.Before all things,
God was alone."
The first quote is taken from Chapter 9 of
Tertullian's Against Praxeus: "Thus the Father is distinct from the
Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and
He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who
is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through
whom the thing is made is another." Ironically, Tertullian's Against
Praxeus is one of the first comprehensive apologetic defenses of the
Trinity in Christian literature, so it astounds me that the Watchtower
would choose to quote from such a source, especially seeing as how in
the very second chapter of the work we find Tertullian expounding, "We�believe
that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation�that
this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself,
by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made�. who
sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise,
the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those
who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost�. All
are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the
dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity,
placing in their order the three Persons-the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in
substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance,
and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from
whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
The second quote is taken from Chapter 3 of
Tertullian's Against Hermogenes, in which he says, "I maintain that
the substance existed always with its own name, which is God�.but He
has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having
always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the
Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither
sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute
the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father." A cursory reading of this
quote, devoid of context, would appear to provide us with a clear-cut
profession on Tertullian's part that there was a time that the second
person of the Trinity did not exist. However, if we take this quote
within the context of Tertullian's whole body of work, we find that
the topic at hand in this particular quote is the names of God, not
the existence of the Son. According to Tertullian, it was not until
Jesus proceeded forth from God to create the world that Jesus properly
took for himself the name "Son," and therefore it was not until the
creation of the world that God could be properly termed "Father." In
other words, the second person of the Trinity, according to Tertullian,
has always existed, only under names other than "Son" (e.g., "Reason,"
"Word," "Wisdom.") That Tertullian believed in the eternal, uncreated
existence of Christ is apparent from the opening chapter of Against
Hermogenes, in which he criticizes the heretic Hermogenes: "[Hermogenes]
does not appear to acknowledge any other Christ as Lord, though he holds
Him in a different way; but by this difference in his faith he really
makes Him another being - nay, he takes from Him everything which is
God, since he will not have it that He made all things of nothing. For,
turning away from Christians to the philosophers, from the Church to
the Academy and the Porch, he learned there from the Stoics how to place
Matter (on the same level) with the Lord, just as if it too had existed
ever both unborn and unmade, having no beginning at all nor end, out
of which, according to him, the Lord afterwards created all things."
Here Tertullian holds that Jesus is "ever both unborn and unmade, having
no beginning at all nor end."
The last quote from Tertullian selected by
the Watchtower is perhaps the most damning against any excuse they might
offer that their errors concerning the position of the Church Fathers
on the Trinity are based in ignorance. For the source of this quote
we return to Tertullian's Against Praxeus, Chapter 5 this time: "For
before all things God was alone - being in Himself and for Himself universe,
and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was
nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone;
for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say,
His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and
so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or
Consciousness) which the Greeks call 'logos', by which term we also
designate Word�.I may therefore without rashness first lay this down
(as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe
God was not alone, since He had within Himself�His Word, which He made
second to Himself by agitating it within Himself." Now, given that the
Watchtower use quotes from both Chapters 5 and 8 of Against Praxeus
to attempt to support their anti-Trinitarian views, I would think it
reasonable to presume that their researchers must have read Chapters
5, 6, 7, and 8 in their entirety. How in the world, then, did these
researchers miss these very Trinitarian propositions put forward by
Tertullian a mere two sentences away from the words they judiciously
selected to support their anti-Trinitarian views?
Hippolytus�said that God is "the one God,
the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who "had nothing
co-eval [of equal age] with him�.But he was One, alone by himself; who,
willing it, called into being what had no being before," such as the
created prehuman Jesus.
Both quotes come from Chapter 28 of Hippolytus'
Refutation of All Heresies: "The first and only (one God), both Creator
and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself; not infinite chaos,
nor measureless water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, not warm fire,
nor refined spirit, nor the azure canopy of the stupendous firmament.
But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created
things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He
willed to make them." Just one chapter following, however, we find Hippolytus
adding, "Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of
reflection, brought forth the Logos first; not the word in the sense
of being articulated by voice, but as a ratiocination of the universe,
conceived and residing in the divine mind. Him alone He produced from
existing things; for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the
being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced�.The
Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos
is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing;
wherefore it is not God; as also because this world admits of dissolution
whenever the Creator so wishes it."
Origen�said that�"compared with the Father,
[the Son] is a very small light."
Again I could find no verbatim quotation for
this particular reference. This may owe to the fact that Origen was
an incredibly prolific writer, so I was only able to get access to a
selection of his works. However, I did find a sort of parallel to the
above quote in Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 7 of Origen's De Principiis,
which reads, "According to John, 'God is light.' The only-begotten Son,
therefore, is the glory of this light, proceeding inseparably from (God)
Himself, as brightness does from light, and illuminating the whole of
creation. For, agreeably to what we have already explained as to the
manner in which He is the Way, and conducts to the Father; and in which
He is the Word, interpreting the secrets of wisdom, and the mysteries
of knowledge, making them known to the rational creation; and is also
the Truth, and the Life, and the Resurrection - in the same way ought
we to understand also the meaning of His being the brightness: for it
is by its splendour that we understand and feel what light itself is.
And this splendour, presenting itself gently and softly to the frail
and weak eyes of mortals, and gradually training, as it were, and accustoming
them to bear the brightness of the light, when it has put away from
them every hindrance and obstruction to vision, according to the Lord's
own precept, 'Cast forth the beam out of thine eye,' renders them capable
of enduring the splendour of the light, being made in this respect also
a sort of mediator between men and the light." I suppose that one might
look at this analogy and interpret it to mean that "compared with the
Father, the Son is a very small light." However, if one were to look
a mere four sections ahead, one would also find Origen having some rather
Trinitarian things to say about this "smaller light," such as, "�wisdom
is called the splendour of eternal light�.That is properly termed everlasting
or eternal which neither had a beginning of existence, nor can ever
cease to be what it is. And this is the idea conveyed by John when he
says that 'God is light.' Now His wisdom is the splendour of that light,
not only in respect of its being light, but also of being everlasting
light, so that His wisdom is eternal and everlasting splendour. If this
be fully understood, it clearly shows that the existence of the Son
is derived from the Father but not in time, nor from any other beginning,
except, as we have said, from God Himself."
So, what must we conclude from all this? We
see that for almost every quotation judiciously selected by the Watchtower
from the ante-Nicene Church Fathers, there is a wealth of material often
within the same book, sometimes within the same chapter, and in some
cases even within the same paragraph, which contradicts the Watchtower's
assertion that the doctrine of the Trinity was "unknown" to these Church
Fathers.
What are we supposed to think? That the Watchtower's
researchers took Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho and read Chapter
56 but not Chapter 61? That they perused Chapter 28 of Hippolytus' Refutation
of All Heresies but skipped Chapter 29? That they read a mere five sentences
into Chapter 5 of Tertullian's Against Praxeus and stopped reading there,
a mere two sentences before their anti-Trinitarian views could be refuted
by Tertullian's further teaching, miraculously choosing instead to skip
to Chapter 8 and pull another quote out of context?
It is, unfortunately, impossible to ascribe
either ignorance or carelessness to the Watchtower's research - unfortunate,
I say, because the only option left for us to believe is that the Watchtower
has selected these quotes from the ante-Nicene Church Fathers and placed
them on their web site in support of their anti-Trinitarian stance for
the sole purpose of deliberately misleading visitors to their web site
into thinking that the early Christians had no knowledge of the doctrine
of the Trinity, when in fact the ante-Nicene Church Fathers were Trinitarian
through and through.
You've seen the evidence. Now judge for yourself.
Is the Watchtower being honest concerning the views of the ante-Nicene
Church Fathers? And, if not, what else are they being dishonest about?
Remember, Jesus taught, "The person unrighteous
in what is least is unrighteous also in much." If we can't trust the
Watchtower to be honest in their presentation of the views of the ante-Nicene
Church Fathers, can we trust them with matters of larger importance
- for example, the translation of the Scriptures? We've already seen
how, in the case of John 1:1, the Watchtower's translating abilities
have been called into question by none other than the very same ante-Nicene
Church Fathers whose teachings the Watchtower deceptively attempted
to claim for their own anti-Trinitarian cause! Now, if the Watchtower
can be trusted with neither the writings of the early Church Fathers
nor the translation of the Scriptures, is there any reason to trust
them with the interpretation of the Scriptures, or with determining
the rules for Christian living, or, most importantly, with the salvation
of our very souls?
If you are a Jehovah's Witness, I beg you
to take this paper to your elders and ask them to explain the basis
of the Watchtower's misleading statements concerning the views of the
ante-Nicene Church Fathers. Take it all the way to the governing body
themselves if you have to. But please, please do not dismiss the evidence
you have just seen. The Watchtower's web site contains deliberate misinformation,
and, if you are a person of good conscience, then you cannot allow this
deliberate misinformation on the Watchtower's part to continue. The
ante-Nicene Church Fathers were not anti-Trinitarians, and the Watchtower
web site should not attempt to mislead people into believing that they
were.
More On Watchtower's
Misleading Claims
Appendix
1: Evidences Of The Cross
Part
B: Archaeological Evidence Of The Cross
{ Back
To Previous Page }
