I used to have theological conversations with my mother, but they would quickly get heated, and it got to the point that we wouldn’t talk. So, I have kept a theological distance from her, which she also wanted. I always want the door to be open to my mom if/when the time comes, by the Lord’s grace, that she finally sees him as God’s Word declares him: Lord, Savior, and the true God of Creation. But as my daughter has gotten older and has grown in her faith, the Holy Spirit has been convicting her to have a conversation with my mom about her beliefs. So, a few days ago she sent her a text asking her about why she doesn’t believe in the Trinity. It was polite and caring. And my mom responded in like kindness, letting her know that she believes the Bible doesn’t teach it. She also gave her a link to the Watchtower Society’s website (JW.org). The link specifically took her to a web page called, Should You Believe in the Trinity?. It is the digital version of a popular printed publication that the Society wrote.
I was very proud of my daughter. And I was so glad the Lord open this door again. Ellie gave me the link to review. We looked over it together. As we looked it over, she noticed all the citations and quotes from various sources that seemed to support what my mother believes. However, one thing I have taught her is that we must read everything in context. Being honorable Christians means we don’t want to misread or misrepresent another person’s words. If we deliberately misrepresent someone’s words/writings to persuade others to believe our views, then we are guilty of deception. And because of my experience in engaging discussions with JWs and reading their literature, I have come to see that the Watchtower Society has a pattern of misrepresenting its sources to substantiate its theological views. And the post to follow is my examination of a handful of its claims published on the webpage, with a detailed review of the sources used to support its assertions.
I hope and pray that this article is eye-opening for my mother, for any other Jehovah’s Witness, and anyone unfamiliar with the Watchtower Society.
Is the “Trinity” in the Bible?
The Watchtower Society[1] (WS from here on out) in its publication, Should You Believe in the Trinity?, asks the question: “Do theologians and historians themselves say that [the Trinity] is clearly a Bible teaching?”[2] The WS is emphatic that the Trinity is not. And to support its position, the WS quotes from Protestant and Roman Catholic sources, giving the impression its view is widely accepted.
The WS’s intention is to refute the claim that the Trinity is a biblical teaching. Its primary tactic is to dismiss it because the word Trinity is not found in the Bible. To do so, the WS references various authoritative sources[3] from the Protestant and Roman Catholic traditions, which, on the surface, seem to support its conclusions. With that said, the WS is correct, in that the word Trinity is not found in Scripture. However, does that mean the doctrine itself is not taught in Scripture? Remember, the question it asked was if the Trinity is clearly a Bible teaching, not whether or not the word is found in the Bible. [4]
The WS’s intention is to refute the claim that the Trinity is a biblical teaching. Its primary tactic is to dismiss it because the word Trinity is not found in the Bible. To do so, the WS references various authoritative sources[3] from the Protestant and Roman Catholic traditions, which, on the surface, seem to support its conclusions. With that said, the WS is correct, in that the word Trinity is not found in Scripture. However, does that mean the doctrine itself is not taught in Scripture? Remember, the question it asked was if the Trinity is clearly a Bible teaching, not whether or not the word is found in the Bible. [4]
In my examination, I will review the literature[5] that the WS references to support its claims. And it will be shown that the WS mishandles its sources in order to do so.[6] When read in context and in their entirety, these sources actually invalidate the WS’s argument, in that they affirm that the Trinity is taught in Scripture.
________________
The WS writes:
________________
The WS writes:
When we look at the first quote from The Illustrated Bible Dictionary[7] in its context, the intention of its author is to explain how the Trinity is derived from the Bible even though the term/word is not found in the Bible. In the very next sentence from the original source (following what the WS cited), the author writes, “It [the Trinity] is, however, the distinctive and all comprehensive doctrine of the Christian Faith.” That is an astonishing claim. One has to ask, if this doctrine is not a biblical teaching, why would the author emphasize the central importance of it in the Christian Faith?
In the next paragraph, he begins to explain how the doctrine is derived from Scripture. He writes: “Though [the Trinity] is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the OT and explicit in the NT.” And what he means by that statement is that “we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the Trinity in the OT, yet once the substance of the doctrine has been revealed in the NT, we can read back many implications of it in the OT.” This method of interpretation, reading the OT through the lens of the NT, is modeled after the New Testament writers, who, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, were able to expound Old Testament texts providing a fuller meaning.[8]
The WS writes:
In the next paragraph, he begins to explain how the doctrine is derived from Scripture. He writes: “Though [the Trinity] is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the OT and explicit in the NT.” And what he means by that statement is that “we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the Trinity in the OT, yet once the substance of the doctrine has been revealed in the NT, we can read back many implications of it in the OT.” This method of interpretation, reading the OT through the lens of the NT, is modeled after the New Testament writers, who, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, were able to expound Old Testament texts providing a fuller meaning.[8]
The WS writes:
In the entry on the Trinity from The Catholic Encyclopedia, the author provides a brief survey on how the word itself came to be used in the Christian tradition. In reference to the scriptural teaching of the divine persons, its first appearance is found in the writings of second-century apologist, Theophilus of Antioch, who writes, “the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom.”[9] And, as the WS noted, we see the word “trinity” more expressly used by later writers of the Early Church (and eventually the whole of Christendom). While my commentary echoes what the WS stated, the important point to observe is that the WS overlooks that the term is used to signify what the Bible teaches—there is One God, manifested/instantiated in three distinct fully divine persons; it is not a word associated with pagan teachings that the Early Church Fathers and writers inserted into the Bible. Rather, the word trinity is unique to the Christian faith if understood in its proper use.
Let’s look at the WS as an example, attempting to follow this same method. The WS asserts that the Holy Spirit as an “invisible energizing force.”[10] But nowhere in Scripture do we find a reference to the Spirit as an “energizing force.” But the WS concluded that the Spirit is an energizing force based upon its reading of what the Bible teaches about the Holy Spirit.[11] As mentioned in a footnote earlier, the WS needs to apply the same standards of scrutiny to its own theological positions. If so, can the WS honestly say that it can identify a consistent strand of thought in the historic Christian tradition that agrees with its view of the Holy Spirit, as an energizing force?
The Early Church wanted to be careful not to bring heretical views in through the doors of the Church, so it was a process spanning 300 years in order to ensure care and precision in rightly dividing the Word of God (2 Tim 2:15). The Church Fathers were simply trying to develop (not create) a doctrine of God with the biblical data, which remained faithful to God’s breathed Word, even if it stretched beyond what we can grasp. In the Church’s articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, what was being sought after was grammar, not logic.[12]
In its reference to the word trinity in the writings of Tertullian, the WS tries to show that Tertullian’s use of the word didn’t imply that he taught the doctrine. When reviewing the original source, a brief theological dictionary article about Tertullian, what we find is alarming. Below is the full statement from which the WS quoted, in bold.
When reading this excerpt, is the author claiming what the WS claims about Tertullian? No. As a matter of fact, the author defends Tertullian against the accusation, advanced by the well-known German liberal historian Adolf von Harnack, that he held to tritheism. We have to remember that Tertullian was a second century writer, with ideas about the Trinity that were not as clear and precise, as developed in the later writers (i.e., Augustine and the Cappadocians). So, we must be able to forgive or look past expressions that seem to imply otherwise. In Tertullian’s defense, the author writes:
So then, can we conclude with the WS that Tertullian did not teach the doctrine of the Trinity? No. In looking over the statement from the author (from the section that the WS quoted) the author is merely stating that Tertullian did not apply the words “consubstantialis and consubstantivus” to Trinitarian theology, not that Tertullian did not teach Trinitarian theology, which is clearly observed in his own writings quoted in the article.
Below is another claim from the WS:
Let’s look at the WS as an example, attempting to follow this same method. The WS asserts that the Holy Spirit as an “invisible energizing force.”[10] But nowhere in Scripture do we find a reference to the Spirit as an “energizing force.” But the WS concluded that the Spirit is an energizing force based upon its reading of what the Bible teaches about the Holy Spirit.[11] As mentioned in a footnote earlier, the WS needs to apply the same standards of scrutiny to its own theological positions. If so, can the WS honestly say that it can identify a consistent strand of thought in the historic Christian tradition that agrees with its view of the Holy Spirit, as an energizing force?
The Early Church wanted to be careful not to bring heretical views in through the doors of the Church, so it was a process spanning 300 years in order to ensure care and precision in rightly dividing the Word of God (2 Tim 2:15). The Church Fathers were simply trying to develop (not create) a doctrine of God with the biblical data, which remained faithful to God’s breathed Word, even if it stretched beyond what we can grasp. In the Church’s articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, what was being sought after was grammar, not logic.[12]
In its reference to the word trinity in the writings of Tertullian, the WS tries to show that Tertullian’s use of the word didn’t imply that he taught the doctrine. When reviewing the original source, a brief theological dictionary article about Tertullian, what we find is alarming. Below is the full statement from which the WS quoted, in bold.
“The great African fashioned the Latin language of the Trinity, and many of his words and phrases remained permanently in use: the words Trinitas and persona, the formulas ‘one substance in three persons,’ ‘God from God, Light from Light.’ He uses the word substantia 400 times, as he uses consubstantialis and consubstantivus, but hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology. He had a Stoic background, not the decided forensic ideas Harnack thought.”[13]
When reading this excerpt, is the author claiming what the WS claims about Tertullian? No. As a matter of fact, the author defends Tertullian against the accusation, advanced by the well-known German liberal historian Adolf von Harnack, that he held to tritheism. We have to remember that Tertullian was a second century writer, with ideas about the Trinity that were not as clear and precise, as developed in the later writers (i.e., Augustine and the Cappadocians). So, we must be able to forgive or look past expressions that seem to imply otherwise. In Tertullian’s defense, the author writes:
Tertullian has been accused of tritheism by Harnack, whereas J. Tixeront, a historian of dogma, thought that he was already expounding the consubstantial. There is little doubt about the meaning of these assertions [quoting Tertullian]: “Two we specify the Father and the Son, and then three with the Holy Spirit, from the principle of the economy which gives the number.”[14] “And the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and each is God.”[15] “The second person is his Word (sermo) and the third the Spirit in the Word.”[16]
So then, can we conclude with the WS that Tertullian did not teach the doctrine of the Trinity? No. In looking over the statement from the author (from the section that the WS quoted) the author is merely stating that Tertullian did not apply the words “consubstantialis and consubstantivus” to Trinitarian theology, not that Tertullian did not teach Trinitarian theology, which is clearly observed in his own writings quoted in the article.
Below is another claim from the WS:
The WS misrepresents Fortman. Below is the full excerpt (with the WS’s first reference in bold), which accurately represents his views (notice the portions in red):
“What does the Old Testament tell us of God? It tells us there is one God, a wonderful God of life and love and righteousness and power and glory and mystery, who is the creator and lord of the whole universe, who is intensely concerned with the tiny people of Israel. It tells us of His Word, Wisdom, Spirit, of the Messiah He will send, of a Son of Man and a Suffering Servant to come. But it tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
“What does the Old Testament tell us of God? It tells us there is one God, a wonderful God of life and love and righteousness and power and glory and mystery, who is the creator and lord of the whole universe, who is intensely concerned with the tiny people of Israel. It tells us of His Word, Wisdom, Spirit, of the Messiah He will send, of a Son of Man and a Suffering Servant to come. But it tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If we take the New Testament writers together, they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word, Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned. They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission, but they present in their own ways the ideas that are behind these terms. They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated.”[17]
For the second reference, again the WS misrepresents Fortman. Below is the full summary, with the section that the WS quoted in bold. When reading Fortman’s statement in its entirety, he clearly affirms that the doctrine of the Trinity is a biblical teaching (see his conclusive statements in red):
“To the Old Testament writers God is a God of life, love, wisdom, and holiness, a God of righteousness, a God both immanent and transcendent, a God of power, glory, and majesty, the one and only God, the creator and lord of the universe.
Sometimes they call Him Father. especially of Israel. They give the title ‘son of God’ not only to Israel collectively but also to the king, to the judges, to the upright Jew, and perhaps to the Messiah. There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a divine paternity and filiation within the Godhead.
They write of the word of God and regard it as revelatory and creative, as instructive and illuminative. If at times they seem to show a slight tendency to hypostatize the word of God, nowhere do they present the word of God as a personal divine being distinct from Yahweh.
They write much of the wisdom of God that was created before all things and is the ‘worker of all things.’ But to the people of the Old Testament the wisdom of God was never a person to be addressed but only a personification of an attribute or activity of Yahweh.
The spirit of Yahweh is a creative force, a saving power, a spirit of judgment, a charismatic spirit. a spirit of life and of inward renewal, a prophetic spirit. Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person.
Many of the sacred writers spoke of a Messiah who was to be Yahweh’s agent in establishing the kingdom of Yahweh in the messianic age. However, they regarded the Messiah not as a divine person but as a creature, a charismatic leader, a Davidic king.
Sometimes they call Him Father. especially of Israel. They give the title ‘son of God’ not only to Israel collectively but also to the king, to the judges, to the upright Jew, and perhaps to the Messiah. There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a divine paternity and filiation within the Godhead.
They write of the word of God and regard it as revelatory and creative, as instructive and illuminative. If at times they seem to show a slight tendency to hypostatize the word of God, nowhere do they present the word of God as a personal divine being distinct from Yahweh.
They write much of the wisdom of God that was created before all things and is the ‘worker of all things.’ But to the people of the Old Testament the wisdom of God was never a person to be addressed but only a personification of an attribute or activity of Yahweh.
The spirit of Yahweh is a creative force, a saving power, a spirit of judgment, a charismatic spirit. a spirit of life and of inward renewal, a prophetic spirit. Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person.
Many of the sacred writers spoke of a Messiah who was to be Yahweh’s agent in establishing the kingdom of Yahweh in the messianic age. However, they regarded the Messiah not as a divine person but as a creature, a charismatic leader, a Davidic king.
Thus, the Old Testament writings about God neither express nor imply any idea of or belief in a plurality or trinity of persons within the one Godhead. Even to see in them suggestions or foreshadowing or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. Perhaps it can be said that some of these writings about word and wisdom and spirit did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable to Jews. However, these writers definitely do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity of persons.
Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit. And their way of understanding these words helps us to see how the revelation of God in the New Testament goes beyond the revelation of God in the Old Testament.”[18]
Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit. And their way of understanding these words helps us to see how the revelation of God in the New Testament goes beyond the revelation of God in the Old Testament.”[18]
Conclusion
While there is more that could be examined, the pattern is clear. The WS, I believe, deliberately quotes sources out of their original contexts, to support its view that the Bible does not teach a Trinity doctrine. Now, I did not offer a positive argument for the Trinity derived from Scripture; that wasn’t my purpose. My intentions aimed at demonstrating that the WS is dishonest. It misrepresents the authors it quotes, and it cites the sources in a manner that makes falsification quite difficult, maybe impossible for some. If the WS is confident in its views, it should be able to locate a stream of thought throughout the history of the Church that aligns with its views, making it readily available for those seeking to substantiate the WS’s claims.
~ Romans 11:36
___________________________________
[1] The Watchtower Society is the organization of the Jehovah’s Witness. The terms can be used synonymously, but I reference the Society because I see it as the authoritative designation for the religion as a whole, responsible for disseminating its publications.
[2] Unless otherwise stated, all references from the Watchtower will be cited directly from: “Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY,” accessed November 10, 2020, https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989302#h=11.
[3] Authoritative does not indicate divine authority as Scripture; rather, it means that these teachings are representative of the Protestant and Roman Catholic traditions.
[4] One could make the same argument against the WS, stating the terms Theocratic Kingdom, Jehovah’s Organization, and Kingdom Hall are nowhere found in Scripture, therefore these are not biblical teachings. Obviously, the WS would never affirm as such. The WS demonstrates it is inconsistent because it doesn’t apply the same standards of scrutiny by which to test the validity of its theological claims.
[5] The WS doesn’t cite the page numbers or editions of the works referenced in its publication, thus making locating the actual quotes a challenging task. That is another indication that the WS deliberately misused its sources because it impedes one’s ability to look up the sources in order to substantiate the WS’s claims.
[6] Because there are so many, I merely review a few from its webpage, just to demonstrate the pattern of misrepresentation by the WS.
[7] “Trinity,” by Finlayson, R.A., in J. D. (James Dixon) Douglas et al., New Bible Dictionary (Leicester, England : Inter-Varsity Press ; Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1982). The New Bible Dictionary has the same content as the Illustrated Bible Dictionary referenced by the WS, just without the illustrations.
[8] Ps. 110 is a great example, in that it is the most often quoted or alluded OT text in the NT (33 times), whereby the biblical writers, especially Jesus himself, used this as a designation of the Messiah. And in the new context, the implications of the expression reveal that the Messiah cannot just be the son of David, since David himself calls him Lord (Mark 12:35–7). Rather, the Messiah would surpass David’s lineage because the text shows the LORD (= God) speaking to the Lord (= Messiah). Who then is the Messiah? He is not just the son of David; he is God’s Son, who alone sits at the right hand of God. You must also ask, when does God ever refer to a creature as Lord? What then are the implications of that affirmation? We must conclude that the Son of God is divine; otherwise, the designation of “Lord” is blasphemy and idolatrous. And that is why it was baffling to those Jesus addressed. In the OT this understanding was concealed; in the NT it has been revealed.
[9] Theophilus, Autol., 2.15, “Theophilus to Autolycus.” In Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, translated by Marcus Dods. Vol. 2. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 101.
[10] “Holy Spirit — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY,” accessed November 10, 2020, https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001077140.
[11] A view that the Christian tradition does not hold.
[12] Stephen R. Holmes, The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 109.
[13] “Tertullian,” in Michael O’Carroll, Trinitas: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity (Liturgical Press, 1987), 208.
[14] Tertullian, Adv. Prax., 13.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid., 12.
[17] Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999), xv–xvi.
[18] Fortman, 8–9.
Comments