03. The Triune Godhead

CHAPTER THREE THE TRIUNE GODHEAD THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY, in the book Make Sure Of All Things calls the Trinity “a false, unbiblical doctrine.” Let God Be True book says, page 100: “Such a doctrine, with its attempted explanation, is very confusing.” Page 102 remarks: “When the clergy are asked by their followers as to how such a combination of three in one can possibly exist, they are obliged to answer, ‘That is a mystery.’”

First of all, let us consider that disputed passage, 1 John 5:7. The Watchtower will fight to the end in their attempt to prove that it is spurious. Naturally, there are two sides to every story. The Watchtower tells only their side, so we will now go to the other side and see what we find. The Works of John Wesley, Volume VI, page 200, subject, On the Trinity:

I dare not insist upon any one’s using the word Trinity, or Person. I use them myself without any scruple, because I know of none better. But if any man has any scruple concerning them, who shall constrain him to use them? I cannot . . . I would insist only on the direct words, unexplained, just as they lie in the text: “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one.” As they lie in the text: But here arises a question: Is that text genuine? Was it originally written by the apostle, or inserted in later ages? Many have doubted of this; and, in particular, that great light of the Christian Church, lately removed to the Church above, Bengelius, -the most pious, the most judicious, and the most laborious, of all the modern commentators on the New Testament. For some time he stood in doubt of its authenticity, because it is wanting in many of the ancient copies. But his doubts were removed by three considerations:

(1) That though it is wanting in many copies, yet it is found in more; and those copies of the greatest authority.

(2) That it is cited by a whole train of ancient writers, from the time of St. John to that of Constantine. This argument is conclusive: For they could not have cited it, had it not been in the sacred Canon.

(3) That we can easily account for its being, after that time, wanting in many copies, when we remember that Constantine’s successor was a zealous Arian, who used every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arianism throughout the empire; and, in particular, the erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into his hands. And he so far prevailed, that the age in which he lived is commonly styled, Seculum Arianum,-”the Arian age;” there being then only one eminent man who opposed him at the peril of his life. So that it was a proverb, Athanasius contra mundum: “Athanasius against the world.”

Matthew Henry’s Commentary on I John states:

We are stopped in our course by the contest there is about the genuiness of 1 John 5:7. It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not; nor do they sufficiently inform us of the integrity and value of the manuscripts they peruse. Some may be so faulty, as I have an old printed Greek Testament so full of errata, that one would think no critic would establish a various lection upon. But let the judicious collators of copies manage that business. There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading.

If we admit 1 John 5:8, in the room of 1 John 5:7, it looks too like a tautology and repetition of what was included inI John 5:6 . . . This does not assign near so noble an introduction of these three witnesses as our present reading does.

It is observed that many copies read that distinctive clause, upon the earth: There are three that bear record upon the earth. Now this bears a visible opposition to some witnesses elsewhere, and therefore we are told, by the adversaries of this text, that this clause must be supposed to be omitted in most books that want 1 John 5:7. But it should for the same reason be so in all. Take we v. 6, This is he that came by water and blood. It would not now naturally and properly be added, For there are three that bear record on earth, unless we should suppose that the apostle would tell us that all the witnesses are such as are upon earth, when yet he would assure us that one is infallibly true, or even truth itself.

Following is a table of Scriptures showing the similarity of the work and acts of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit:

The Jehovah Witness will be ready to point out Deuteronomy 6:4, where we read: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” This, he believes, will disprove the idea of a triune Godhead, who changes not (Malachi 3:6).

We find a similar passage appears in John 10:30, where Jesus said: “I and the Father are one,” not one numerically, but one in composite unity. The word one at Deuteronomy 6:4 is the same as that used in Genesis 2:24, where Adam and Eve were said to be one flesh. Yet they were not one numerically but one in unity. At Exodus 6:3 we read: “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty (EL SHADDAI).” The first Hebrew letter in this name is SCHIN. It has three strokes joined as one. This letter the Jews used on top of their phylacteries; it was a symbol of the Godhead, having three strokes joined together as one. The favorite text to “prove” Jesus a creature (Colossians 1:15) has already been explained. For further enlightenment, consider the following taken from The Interpreter’s Bible: The phrase first-born of all creation is likewise a title of dignity and function; it has nothing to do with relations of time. It certainly does not imply that Christ is himself a part of the creation, even the first part; the ancient church fathers rightly insist that he is called prototokos (first-born), not protoktisis (first created). The word is undoubtedly to be interpreted in the light of the royal Psalm, “I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth” (Psalms 89:27); and more generally, in the light of the idea of the primacy of the first-born (Exodus 4:22, Jeremiah 31:9); the first-born is the heir and destined ruler of all. As first-born of all creation, Christ is accorded in respect of the created universe that place of honor and of sovereignty that belongs to the eldest son in the household or in the kingdom.

Jehovah’s Witnesses object to the doctrine of the Triune Godhead because it does not conform to their reasoning. They will quote Isaiah 1:18 where we read: “Come, now, let us reason together, saith the LORD.” Apparently this is all they know of the text, so there they stop! Let us look at the subject of the invited reasoning, completing the verse: “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” The Witnesses ignore the latter part of the text, because the offer of salvation full and free through the shed blood of Jesus Christ is not part of their doctrine.

Other translations of the above-quoted text read:

- “Then come-let our controversy be brought to issue, saith the Lord” (Thomson’s translation of the Septuagint).

- “Come, let me put it thus, the Eternal argues” (Moffatt, 1935). There is no talking back in defiance of Jehovah.

“For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?” (Romans 11:34). A triune invocation is given to God at Revelation 4:8. Here the Vatican Manuscript #1209 has “holy” nine times- that is, “Holy, holy, holy” for each Person of the Trinity. Note also the three titles of God at Revelation 22:13. As for the expression “My Father is greater than I,” which the Witnesses use to “prove” Jesus’ “inferiority” to the Father, note the following: Php 2:5-11 shows that Jesus was obedient unto death on the Cross. After that His subjection is gone. Prior to His death and resurrection He had divested Himself of all His heavenly glory and, playing the part of man, was subject to the Father. Afterward He again had His equal status with the Father.

We must now take note of the following, taken from Let God Be True book, page 109:

However, the Trinitarian teachers will have several embarrassing questions to answer on this text, such as, Whose voice came from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son”? Jesus’ own voice? And where, till then, had the “Holy Ghost” or holy spirit been, seeing that first now it descended upon Jesus? And were not the heavens open to Jesus, if God, during the previous thirty years of his earthly sojourn? If he was God or part of a trinity and equal in power, substance and eternity with God, he would always have access to the heavens. These and other equally embarrassing questions have convinced the clergy that it is far better to say it is all a great mystery. The final paragraph in the chapter sums up by saying: “No, there is no trinity!” To answer the first question we say: It was the voice of God the Father speaking from heaven. He spoke to God the Son. The Father was in heaven while the Son was upon earth. Where was the Holy Spirit until then? Please note that it does not say that this was the first “meeting” of Jesus and the Spirit. It was a rare visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The Trinity was fully evident there, the second and third Persons being visible.

Jesus did not need the Holy Spirit to descend upon Him in the Witness sense of need in order to begin His public ministry. He did NOT say He needed the Holy Spirit in order to become born again, as the Watchtower Society claims He did! He was not weak and unendowed with the Holy Spirit as any mere sinner. As for Heaven opening, note that it does not say that it opened for Jesus, but rather, for the Holy Spirit! “The heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended” (Luke 3:21-22New World and Weymouth translations). Where was God while Jesus was in His grave? Jehovah (God the Father) in His glory never vacated the heavenly throne. Jesus (God the Son), was divested of His glory while upon earth. Hence Mary could exclaim, “My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour,” while the Saviour was yet in her womb! (Luke 1:46).

We have already mentioned Isaiah 48:16. An examination of the context ( Isaiah 48:12-16) will disclose to any Jehovah’s Witness the fact that he knows absolutely nothing about the Jehovah mentioned therein! He knows a Watchtower Jehovah, but not the Bible Jehovah. According to Bagster’s Septuagint, verse 16 reads: “And now the Lord God (KURIOS KURIOS) has sent me and the Spirit there.” In our Hebrew texts the expression KURIOS KURIOS is ADON YAHWEH, or “The Lord Yahweh (Jehovah).” The Witness will look at Isaiah 48:1-22 and say that it is Isaiah who is speaking. If he does this, he then makes Isaiah “the first and the last” who “laid the foundation of the earth!” (verses 12 and 13).

Note the terms used in baptism. It is in the name (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that we are to be baptized. Php 2:9 says the name Jesus is above every other name! The only early “church father” whom Jehovah’s Witnesses will accept is Arius. H. G. Wells’ Outline of History, Vol. I, page 546 says: “Arius, for example, is accused of adopting heretical opinions because he was not appointed Bishop of Alexandria . . . Most of the barbarian invaders of the empire were Arians probably because their simple minds found the Trinitarian position incomprehensible.”

Since comment by the Watchtower Society on Scriptures as those used above are rare indeed, the Witness will be forced to interpret them himself, and this he is not prepared to do! He has only one other alternative: He may reject the Scriptures, since they do not conform to his Watchtower theology. He moves away from the Bible and back to the Society; back to the fear of the ruling body; back to Watchtower organization-mindedness.

It is plain that the Bible and The Watchtower Society are at extreme opposite sides in this issue. We have seen the deceitful mistranslation of the Watchtower Bible translation exposed in its attempts to keep the truth from the people. We have likewise exposed the’ deceitful writings of The Watchtower publications, designed to keep the people from studying the Bible itself, that is, without the necessity of Watchtower books designed to influence their thinking.

Millions of people have been deceived into believing that this is an honest, upright, straight- forward Bible publication Society! We shall have more to say about this later on. The Jehovah’s Witness is so impressed by the organization that he will not give it up, not even when faced with this array of evidence against it. Why? Fear! Fear of the organization! The Jehovah’s Witness so fears the organization that he believes if he leaves it, all recourse to God will have been cut off. He believes it is his only opportunity to work out his salvation. He believes that if he leaves the organization he will have no further access to “truth.” The Society long ago talked him out of finding truth in the Bible alone. They made him seek it from the organization alone, and he still does. That is the pitiful state of one who has had all individuality destroyed. He sees and thinks organization only. The following chapter now delves into the system of organizational works versus salvation, full and free. The Jehovah’s Witness is never told the price of salvation. This is to keep him on the Watchtower treadmill, working for a salvation that he never gets. But now for a complete discussion, let us move on into the next chapter.