The Arian heresy, against which the Church has fought for decades and which was condemned by two Ecumenical Councils (in 325 AD at Nicaea and in 381 AD in Constantinople), represents the essence of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ dogma. Arianism emphasised the Father as the only true God, although it did not like to use the Old Testament name of God, Yahweh (which Jehovah’s Witnesses read as Jehovah), and certainly did not falsify the biblical text as Jehovah’s Witnesses are doing today. The Arians, just like Jehovah’s Witnesses, regarded the Son of God as a created being – “there was a time when He was not,” as Arius had claimed. Jehovah’s Witnesses today maintain the same. The Pneumatomachi or Spirit-fighters, who were condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council, came as a natural consequence of Arianism (they rounded off the Arian heresy) – they denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, they denied that the Holy Spirit was even a being, a hypostasis. For them, the Holy Spirit was merely a created force resulting from God’s action. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach the same today. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their effort to support this extreme anti-Trinitarian heresy, have even altered and adapted the text of the Holy Scriptures.
We will now examine certain passages from the Gospel of John that speak to the divinity of Christ and which also mention the Comforter, the Holy Spirit.
In Chapter 10 of the Gospel of John, Christ speaks of Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says, among other things: “…I lay down my life, that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again” (John 10:17-18). Christ speaks of having authority over this matter – over life and death. In the Greek original, the word “ἐξουσία” (exousia) clearly denotes “authority” or “freedom of decision-making”. In the 2006 translation by Jehovah’s Witnesses, the word “authority” is used, but in the revised 2019 edition, the phrase “I have authority” has been changed to “I have the right.” Admittedly, in the footnote, they do clarify that the word “right” means “literally: authority.” It is evident that Jehovah’s Witnesses interpreted the word “authority” in this context as “right”, in order to obscure the origin of Christ’s authority-namely, His divinity. Because having a right implies receiving that right from someone who has authority. That someone who has authority is certainly greater than the one who is given the right. Therefore, “I have the right” instead of “I have authority” diminishes Christ, reducing Him solely to His created (human) nature, thus obscuring His divine identity – His divine nature, by which He has authority over life and death. That this authority points directly to Christ’s divinity will be seen later on in the context of this Gospel passage.
Speaking of His relationship with the Father in the economy of salvation, Christ says: “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (John 10:28-29). We see that the Lord equates His hand with the Father’s. The reason is clear. Immediately after these words, He adds: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). This short phrase of Christ’s is one of the pillars of subsequent patristic theology. In this phrase lies the essence of the triadological dogma (the doctrine of the Holy Trinity). Namely, “we are one” points to the unity of the divine essence in the Trinity (one), but also to the trinity of divine persons or hypostases (we are). “We are one,” therefore, indicates the reality of divine persons – the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father – but it also points to the one indivisible divine essence common to them. Thus, the Father and the Son are not one person, but one essence – they share one divine essence, but they are distinct, concrete divine persons.
Jehovah’s Witnesses translate John 10:30 correctly, but in the footnote they interpret “we are one” as “we are united.” While it is not incorrect to say that the Father and the Son are “in unity,” this interpretation does not convey accurately the meaning of Christ’s words “we are one”. Because it is not the same to be “in unity” and to “be one.” For Christ’s divine and human natures, we say that they are united in His person, but those two natures are not one; rather, they remain two natures, unconfused and indivisible, even though Christ is one person. Being “in unity,” therefore, indicates multiplicity, whereas “being one” indicates the oneness and the indivisibility of the nature or essence. It is understandable why Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret “we are one” as “we are united.” They, like their heretical predecessors, the Arians, essentially separate the Father from the Son by distinguishing the divine nature of the Father from the created nature of the Son. “In unity” can only apply to essentially different or divided beings, while “one” can only apply to beings of one indivisible nature or essence. Thus, “we are one” means the same as the adjective “consubstantial” (with the Father, through whom all things were made) for the Son from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Son is, therefore, of one essence, one divine nature with the Father.
That Christ’s words “we are one”, refer to the one divine nature of the Father and the Son is confirmed by the reaction of the gathered Jews after hearing these words: “The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?’ The Jews answered him, ‘It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God” (John 10:31-33). Therefore, it was clear to the Jews that the above words of Christ referred to His divine nature. Jehovah’s Witnesses here write the word “God” with a lowercase letter when it refers to Christ, while when blasphemy against God is mentioned, the same word is written with a capital letter – God. In doing so, they intend to strip the word “God,” which refers to Christ, of its essential meaning, i.e., they deny that it refers to the divine nature (the difference between “God” and “god”, which Jehovah’s Witnesses sneakily introduce here, we have already explained in our first article, when interpreting John 1:1). However, Christ’s explanation in the latter part of the text of this Gospel passage speaks precisely in favour of the fact that “I and the Father are one” means that there is one and the same divine nature, or essence in the Father and the Son. Namely, Christ says: “…that you may know and believe that the Father is in me and I am in the Father” (John 10:38). Jehovah’s Witnesses brutally falsify this part and translate it as follows: “…that you may understand and believe that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father.” The “translation” of Jehovah’s Witnesses states that two essentially different beings, God and His first creation (“god”), are in unity. The original Greek text says that the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father on the level of the essence of being – the complete divine nature is in the Father, and that same complete divine nature is in the Son. This is the meaning of the original Gospel words: ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί – in me is the Father, and I am in the Father. The Jews certainly understood these words of Christ correctly – that He claimed to be God, and because of this, they took up stones to stone Him for His “blasphemy”.
Returning to the topic of stoning due to Christ’s words and His claim to be God, let us revisit Chapter 8 of the Gospel of John. Preaching in the temple in Jerusalem, Christ says to the gathered Jews: “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” And the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So, they picked up stones to throw at him… (John 8:56-59). The Jews, of course, viewed the Lord Jesus Christ as a man, a teacher of faith. The question they posed to Him is perfectly logical from that perspective. After all, Abraham lived about 2,000 years before Christ, so it is impossible for a young man in his thirties, living 2,000 years after Abraham, to have seen Abraham himself. Christ’s answer is astonishing: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” This certainly does not refer to Christ’s human nature, but to His divinity – this is precisely why the Jews took up stones, because they believed that He was blaspheming by representing Himself as God. And indeed, He did so. Not only because He claimed that He existed before Abraham, but precisely because of these words – “I Am”. The Jews recognised this rightly as the name of God from the revelation given to Moses on Mount Sinai – I Am that I Am (Exodus 3:14).
Jehovah’s Witnesses “translate” these words of Christ as follows: “I existed before Abraham was born.” This is consistent with their Arian Christology, which teaches that the Son of God was the first created being of God and that He existed before everything else was created. However, the original Greek text does not say that the Son of God existed before Abraham, but that He IS before Abraham – πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί (before Abraham was, I Am). The words ἐγὼ εἰμί mean “I Am” and not “I existed”. The translation by Jehovah’s Witnesses is not only linguistically incorrect, but also theologically blasphemous. The ancient Greek verb ὑπάρχω (hyparcho) means “to exist”, “to be present.” On the other hand, the verb εἰμί , which is found in this Gospel passage, is the first person singular of the present tense of the verb “to be”. We see that Jehovah’s Witnesses have replaced both the verb and the tense – instead of the present tense of the verb “to be,” they have used the perfect tense of the verb “to exist.” This linguistic blunder certainly hides an ulterior theological motive – to distort Christ’s clear revelation of His divinity, to obscure the Sinai –revealed name of God by which He presents Himself here – I Am that I Am. The Jews would certainly not have stoned him if He had claimed to be 2,000 years old; they would simply view him as delusional. But they took up stones because of the “blasphemy,” as they clearly understood that He was claiming to be God, i.e. the One Who is – the name of God, well-known to the Jews.
When it comes to the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Jehovah’s Witnesses not only reduce Him to a mere created being, but they also deny His very Being, His hypostasis. This is why, in their translation of the Bible, we will find that they always write “Holy Spirit” with a lowercase letter. Of course, in the time of the ancient Fathers of the Church, in their writings, as well as in ancient biblical codices, there was no distinction between uppercase and lowercase letters. However, in our time, an uppercase initial letter denotes a proper name, behind which, in this specific case, stands a living divine person – the Holy Spirit. If we were to write “spirit” with a lowercase letter, it would then signify some general spiritual nature, and not a specific, real person. This is precisely what Jehovah’s Witnesses desire. By writing the name of the third person of the Holy Trinity with a lowercase letter, they deny both His divine nature and His hypostatic nature (His being, His personhood). For them, the Holy Spirit is merely the force of God’s action. In other words, the “holy spirit” is “Jehovah’s” action, not a specific divine person, not even a person at all. The inconsistency they fall into awaits them in the biblical text itself. Let us give two examples. Christ commands the apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). In the text of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it says: “…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” When it says “in the name,” it refers to a real hypostasis, a person, not someone’s power or action. Moreover, if the ”holy spirit” is merely the Father’s, or Jehovah’s force and action, why would Christ mention the Father’s power separately, when He had already mentioned the Father? It makes no sense. The next example concerns Christ’s words about sending the Comforter: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:26). Jehovah’s Witnesses translate the Greek word παράκλητος (parakletos) as “helper”, which is not necessarily incorrect, although “Comforter” is a better translation in this context. The rest of the sentence is the same as in our translation, except that, as mentioned earlier, they write “holy spirit” with lowercase letters. Again, if the “holy spirit” is merely the Father’s action, why does Christ not say that the Father Himself will teach and remind them? He does not say that the action or power of the Father will teach and remind them. No, Christ says that the Holy Spirit, whom the Father sends in His (Christ’s) name, will teach and remind them. The very construction of the sentence clearly indicates that the Holy Spirit is a specific being, a hypostasis, and not merely some obscure divine power or Jehovah’s action. After all, we never say that an action or power does something, but we say that the One whose action or power it is, does it. For example, we say that Samson defeated the lion. Of course, Samson did so with the strength given to him, but we never say that the strength defeated the lion; rather, we say that Samson himself defeated the lion. The action is always performed by a specific subject (a hypostasis, a person), and not by some action in and of itself. Considering that Christ does not say that the Father will teach and remind the apostles with His action, but that He will send the Holy Spirit to do so, it is clear that this action refers to a specific divine person – the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father sends through His Son.
Beware that you are not deceived. (Luke 21.8) Deacon Dr. Aleksandar Milojkov
