Here I share what first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote concerning some of the supernatural signs and omens that occurred before and during the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, including heavenly signs seen by the populace as the Temple was being destroyed.

The following excerpt is from Joseph’s The Jewish War, Book 6 (Josephus: Of the War, Book VI). All emphasis will be mine.

Chapter 5.

The great distress the Jews were in upon the conflagration of the holy house. Concerning a false prophet; and the signs that preceded this destruction.

1. While the holy house was on fire, every thing was plundered that came to hand; and ten thousand of those that were caught were slain. Nor was there a commiseration of any age, or any reverence of gravity; but children, and old men, and profane persons, and priests, were all slain in the same manner. So that this war went round all sorts of men, and brought them to destruction; and as well those that made supplication for their lives, as those that defended themselves by fighting. The flame was also carried a long way, and made an echo, together with the groans of those that were slain. And because this hill was high, and the works at the temple were very great, one would have thought the whole city had been on fire. Nor can one imagine any thing either greater, or more terrible than this noise. For there was at once a shout of the Roman legions, who were marching all together; and a sad clamour of the seditious, who were now surrounded with fire and sword. The people also that were left above were beaten back upon the enemy; and under a great consternation; and made sad moans at the calamity they were under. The multitude also that was in the city joined in this outcry with those that were upon the hill. And besides, many of those that were worn away by the famine, and their mouths almost closed, when they saw the fire of the holy house, they exerted their utmost strength, and brake out into groans, and outcries again. Perea (13) did also return the echo: as well as the mountains round about [the city:] and augmented the force of the intire noise. Yet was the misery it self more terrible than this disorder. For one would have thought that the hill it self, on which the temple stood, was seething hot; as full of fire on every part of it, that the blood was larger in quantity than the fire, and those that were slain, more in number than those that slew them. For the ground did no where appear visible, for the dead bodies that lay on it; but the soldiers went over heaps of those bodies, as they ran upon such as fled from them. And now it was that the multitude of the robbers were thrust out [of the inner court of the temple] by the Romans; and had much ado to get into the outward court, and from thence into the city. While the remainder of the populace fled into the cloister of that outer court. As for the priests, some of them plucked up from the holy house the spikes (14) that were upon it; with their bases, which were made of lead; and shot them at the Romans, instead of darts. But then, as they gained nothing by so doing; and as the fire burst out upon them; they retired to the wall, that was eight cubits broad; and there they tarried. Yet did two of these of eminence among them, who might have saved themselves by going over to the Romans, or have borne up with courage, and taken their fortune with the others, throw themselves into the fire, and were burnt, together with the holy house. Their names were Meirus, the son of Belgas; and Joseph the son of Daleus.

2. And now the Romans, judging that it was in vain to spare what was round about the holy house, burnt all those places; as also the remains of the cloisters, and the gates: two excepted: the one on the east side, and the other on the south. Both which however they burnt afterward. They also burnt down the treasury chambers; in which was an immense quantity of money, and an immense number of garments, and other precious goods there reposited. And, to speak all in a few words, there it was that the intire riches of the Jews were heaped up together: while the rich people had there built themselves chambers [to contain such furniture]. The soldiers also came to the rest of the cloisters that were in the outer [court of the] temple: whither the women, and children, and a great mixed multitude of the people fled in number about six thousand. But before Cæsar had determined any thing about these people, or given the commanders any orders relating to them, the soldiers were in such a rage, that they set that cloister on fire. By which means it came to pass that some of these were destroyed by throwing themselves down headlong; and some were burnt in the cloisters themselves. Nor did any one of them escape with his life. A false prophet was the occasion of these peoples destruction: who had made a publick proclamation in the city, that very day, that “God commanded them to get up upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance.” Now there was then a great number of false prophets, suborned by the tyrants, to impose on the people: who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting; and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes. Now a man that is in adversity does easily comply with such promises. For when such a seducer makes him believe that he shall be delivered from those miseries which oppress him, then it is that the patient is full of hopes of such his deliverance.

3. Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself. While they did not attend, nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretel their future desolation. But like men infatuated, without either eyes to see, or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star, resembling a sword, which stood over the city: and a comet, that continued a whole year. (15) Thus also before the Jews rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crouds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, [Nisan,] (16) and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar, and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time. Which light lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskilful: but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also an heifer, as she was led by the High-priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb, in the midst of the temple. Moreover the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple,⁹ which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor; which was there made of one intire stone: was seen to be opened of its own accord, about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it: who then came up thither: and, not without great difficulty, was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy: as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord: and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publickly declared that this signal foreshewed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable; were it not related by those that saw it; and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals. For, before sun setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost; as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple,¹⁰ as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said, that in the first place they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise: and after that they heard a sound, as of a multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.” But what is still more terrible; there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian, and an husbandman, who, four years before the war began; and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity; came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (17) began on a sudden to cry aloud, “A voice from the east; a voice from the west; a voice from the four winds; a voice against Jerusalem, and the holy house; a voice against the bridegrooms, and the brides; and a voice against this whole people.” This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his; and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes. Yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him: but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man; brought him to the Roman procurator. Where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare. Yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears: but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem.” And when Albinus, (for he was then our procurator;) asked him, “Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words?” he made no manner of reply to what he said: but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty: till Albinus took him to be a mad-man, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens; nor was seen by them while he said so. But he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow: “Woe, woe to Jerusalem.” Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food: but this was his reply to all men; and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years, and five months; without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith. Until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege; when it ceased. For as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, “Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house.” And just as he added at the last, “Woe, woe to myself also,” there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately. And as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

4. Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind; and by all ways possible foreshews to our race what is for their preservation: but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves. For the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four square: while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, that “then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four square.” But now what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle, that was also found in their sacred writings; how “About that time one, from their country, should become governor of the habitable earth.” The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular: and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian: who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate: although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure; and some of them they utterly despised: until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city, and their own destruction.

(13) This Perea, if the word be not mistaken in the copies, cannot well be that Perea which was beyond Jordan; whose mountains were at a considerable distance from Jordan, and much too remote from Jerusalem to join in this echo at the conflagration of the temple: but Perea must be rather some mountains beyond the brook Cedron; as was the mount of olives, or some others, about such a distance from Jerusalem: which observation is so obvious, that ’tis a wonder our commentators here take no notice of it.

(14) Reland, I think, here judges well, when he interprets these spikes, of those that stood on the top of the holy house, with sharp points: they were fixed into lead, to prevent the birds from sitting there, and defiling the holy house. For such spikes there were now upon it; as Josephus himself hath already assured us: V.5.6.

(15) Whether Josephus means that this star, was different from that comet which lasted a whole year, I cannot certainly determine. His words most favour their being different one from another.

(16) Since Josephus still uses the Syro-Macedonian month Xanthicus, for the Jewish month Nisan, this 8^th, or, as Nicephorus reads it, this 9^th of Xanthicus, or Nisan, was almost a week before the passover, on the 14^th. About which time we learn, from St. John, that many used to go out of the country to Jerusalem, to purify themselves, John 11:55, with 12:1, in agreement with Josephus also: V.3.1. And it might well be, that in the sight of these this extraordinary light might appear.

⁹ [Inner court of the temple:] The court of Israel.

¹⁰ [Inner court of the temple:] This here seems to be the court of the priests.

(17) Both Reland and Havercamp, in this place, alter the natural punctuation and sense of Josephus; and this contrary to the opinion of Valesius, and Dr. Hudson: lest Josephus should say, that the Jews built booths or tents within the temple, at the feast of tabernacles: which the later Rabins will not allow to have been the ancient practice. But then, since it is expressly told us in Nehemiah 8:16, that in still elder times, the Jews made booths in the courts of the house of God, at that festival, Josephus may well be permitted to say the same. And indeed the modern Rabbins are of very small authority in all such matters of remote antiquity. [In the courts of the temple isn’t the same thing as in the temple. Josephus usually distinguishes. In the absence of scriptural or other evidence to back up Whiston’s view, perhaps the authority of the Rabbins ought to be accepted on this point.]

In John’s Apocalypse, we find both God and the risen Christ declaring themselves to be the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End:

“Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’… When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.” Revelation 1:7-8, 17-18

“And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.’” Revelation 2:8

“And he said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water without price from the fountain of the water of life. He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son.’” Revelation 21:6-7

“‘Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end… I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.’… He who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” Revelation 22:12-13, 16, 20

These titles are intended communicate the fact that God is an uncreated Being who endures forever, and has therefore been there from the very start of creation and will remain with each subsequent generation till the end of age. To put it simply, these divine appellations describe God as the uncaused Cause of all creation who sovereignly guides and sustains everything that exists.  

This is precisely how the book of Isaiah interprets the phrase “the First and Last”:

“Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord, the first, and with the last; I am He.” Isaiah 41:4

“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. Who is like me? Let him proclaim it, let him declare and set it forth before me. Who has announced from of old the things to come? Let them tell us what is yet to be. Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.” Isaiah 44:6-8

“Hearken to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am He, I am the first, and I am the last. My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.” Isaiah 48:12-13

As such, that Christ refers to himself in this manner means that the risen Jesus is claiming to be the uncaused Cause of all created existence, the One who along with the Father is sovereignly overseeing and preserving the entire creation!

In other words, these divine ascriptions affirm that both the Father and the Son exist as the one true Almighty God who has no beginning and whose existence never ends!

Even the renowned agnostic/atheist textual critic of the New Testament and best-selling author Bart D. Ehrman admits that this is how God and Christ are being portrayed in the Apocalypse. He writes:

“In any event, John is on Patmos, where he has his first vision, of Christ himself. John indicates this happened while he was ‘in the Spirit’ on ‘the Lord’s Day’ (1:10). This is the first time in Christian literature that Sunday is called the Lord’s day–named that because it is the day the Lord was raised from the dead. Being in the Spirit may indicate that he was deep in prayer or had even gone into a kind of trance. John hears a voice of telling him to write letters to the seven churches and turns to ‘see the voice’–an odd expression (how do you see a voice?), but not unprecedented. On turning, he sees seven golden lampstands and ‘one like a son of man’ walking among them. This is a clear reference to Christ, who in the early Christian tradition was identified as the ‘Son of Man,’ in reference to a passage found in John’s visionary predecessor, Daniel (Daniel 7:13-14; see Daniel 10:5-9).    

“The vision of Christ in 1:13-16 is quite stunning. Right off the bat we encounter an amazing array of images. He is clothed in a long robe with a large golden waistband; later in Revelation, this will be the attire of mighty angels who bring destruction on the earth (Revelation 15:6). His hair is white as wool or snow, showing he is ancient; his eyes are like a flame of fire, showing his piercing judgment. His feet like fine bronze, showing his magnificence. His voice is like a rushing river or waterfall, showing the power of his speech. In his hand are seven stars, which I will explain later. And from his mouth comes a two-edged sword, an image used elsewhere in early Christian literature to denote the word of God (see Hebrews 4:12). His face shines with the brilliance of the sun.   

“John’s response to this startling vision is what you might expect. He faints. Christ restores him with a touch and tells him there is no reason to be afraid. He, Christ, is the “first and the last” (a phrase later used of God himself), the one who was alive even though he died, who now has the power over Death and Hades, the realm of the dead…” (Ehrman, Armageddon: What the Bible Really Says About the End [Simon & Schuster, New York, NY 2003], pp. 29-33; bold emphasis mine)

• First, Christ identifies himself by one of the images used elsewhere in the book, saying, for example, that he is the one who holds the seven stars and walks among the seven lampstands, or that he is the first and last, who came back to life from the dead. (Ibid., p. 33; bold emphasis mine)

Despite what is sometimes said, it is a mistake to think that Christ first appears in Revelation as the Lamb, as if this were the guiding image of the narrative. On the contrary, Christ first appears as the cosmic judge of the earth, the “one like a Son of Man” (1:13), whose coming in Scripture leads to the destruction of the enemies of God and their rule (Daniel 7:13-14). In John’s opening vision of Christ (1:12-16), he is dressed in a white robe and gold sash, just as the mighty angels who will later pour out the bowls of God’s wrath (15:6). But he is FAR MIGHTIER than these earth destroyers. His hair is white, not to show that he is old and decrepit, but to reveal that he is the One who has ruled FROM ETERNITY PAST (see Daniel 7:9), the “alpha and the omega” (22:13). Most important, he has a two-edged sword coming out of his mouth. I noted earlier that this may represent him as the one who speaks the Word of God, but for John this Word is not a peaceful, soothing communication to calm the souls of those on earth. It is the word “judgment.” Later Christ tells the Christians they should repent or “I will make war against them with the sword of my mouth” (2:16). (Ibid., pp. 160-161; bold and capital emphasis mine)

“And not only at the book’s end. The idea that God AND HIS CHRIST HOLD ABSOLUTE POWER permeates the book from the very beginning. In the opening lines, Christ is described as ‘the ruler of the kings of the earth’ (1:5), who by dying received the ‘glory and dominion forever and ever’ (1:6). With his own first words, God proclaims his universal dominance: ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty’ (1:8). The English word ‘Almighty’ is a bit weak for the Greek term used here: Pantokrator, a rare word, or at least it was before the book of Revelation. The word almost never appears in Greek before the New Testament and only once in all the other twenty-six books of the New Testament (2 Corinthians 6:18). But John uses it nine times. It means something like ‘the one who exercises his power over all things.’ That is, of course, what ‘Almighty’ means, but that more common word gets used so often that its force has been tamed. The Pantokrator is more powerful than anything in existence… Thus, the book of Revelation is all about levels of domination. God the Father is Pantokrator (All-mighty). Christ who implements God’s will is the conqueror of earth, the Lord of lords and King of kings…” (Ibid., pp. 192-193; bold and capital emphasis mine)

The views expressed by Dionysius struck a chord with many church leaders in the east–not surprisingly, since they were reading the books of the New Testament in Greek. (The west mainly used Latin). It was well over a century before the book came to be accepted more widely as a part of Scripture. This acceptance was driven by several factors. For one thing, Revelation proved useful for orthodox thinkers during the great theological controversies of the fourth century. The most significant debate involved the nature of Christ: Was he a divine being who was subordinate to God the Father, a second-level divinity who came into existence at some point in eternity past? Or was he completely equal to God the Father in power and fully eternal? The latter position eventually won out, and the book of Revelation PROVED USEFUL TO THAT END. As I have noted, God identifies himself as “the Alpha and Omega” twice in the book (1:8 and 21:6). But Christ does as well: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (22:13). If both God and Christ claim to be the beginning and end of all things, they are, then, EQUAL AND BOTH FULLY ETERNAL, at least in the argument of the orthodox theologians. (Ibid., p. 198; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Ehrman is not alone in holding this view.

I now quote from noted Evangelical scholar Michael F.  Bird, who concurs with Ehrman that Jesus in Revelation describes himself as the Alpha and the Omega. However, Bird makes some interesting observations related to specific NT texts that deal with Christology, which are worth citing at length:

To begin with, Jewish language for God made much of a distinction between the one God and “all things,” which is based on an ontological distinction of Creator and creation that found its way into the New Testament (1 Cor 8.6; Rom 11.36; Heb. 1:2-3; 2.10; Col. 1.16-17; John 1.3).⁴³ Paul does not consider Greco-Roman deities/daemons to have a “nature” (physis) or “being” (ousin) comparable to God (1 Cor. 8.4; 10.20; Gal 4.8). He contrasts idols with the “true and living God” (1 Thess 1.9; 2 Cor 6.16) and the images of mortal humans and animals with the “immortal God” (Rom 1.24; cf. 1 Tim 1:17).

In addition, Paul makes what are effectively ontological claims about Jesus by stating that Jesus exists in the “form of God” and is “equal to God” (Phil 2.6).⁴⁴ Udo Schnelle believes such a text marks “the beginning of thinking of God and Christ as equals.”⁴⁵ Adela Collins takes Phil 2.6 to “mean that he [Christ] was god-like in appearance or nature, that is, a heavenly being as opposed to a human being.⁴⁶ Put differently, Jesus exhibits the outward display of God’s being and glory, which itself expresses the inner reality of God’s nature.⁴⁷ Or, in Plutarchian language, the divine offspring is an image (eikon) and copy (mimema) of the divine being (ousia/ontos).⁴⁸ Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.190-91; 248) connects God’s form (morphe) with God’s “nature” (physis) and “magnitude” (megethos). Philo and Justin believed that the “form of God” expresses the divine nature, which makes human deification and idol worship utterly inappropriate (Philo, Legat. 80, 95, 97, 110-11; Justin, 1 Apol. 9.1). It should be remembered that across Phil 2.6-11 is a combined affirmation of Christ’s preexistence, his divine being in terms of possessing the “form” and “equality of God,”⁴⁹ and inclusion of Christ within the monotheistic rhetoric of Isa 45.23. That Jesus exercises divine functions and receives a form of worship is merely the window dressing to the more astonishing claim that he shares in what sets Yahweh apart from other gods and creation: he shares in the divine name and exclusive monotheistic devotion. There is a Verbindungsidentität (shared identity)⁵⁰ between God and Jesus only because there is also a Verbindungwesen (shared being)…

An absolute sense of divinity seems present in other parts of the New Testament and early Christian literature. John the Elder refers to Jesus Christ as “true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20), which postulates Jesus Christ as possessing an absolute form of divinity. The terminology “true God” came to influence the later church, for whom “true God” designated absolute deity apart from demons and lesser deities (see Justin, Dial. 55.2; 1 Apol. 6:1; 13.3; 53.6; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.8.1; 4.20.1; Minucius Felix, Oct. 26; Athanasius, Inc. 16.1; 45.4; 47.3; 55.5). The author of Hebrews delves into ontological categories with his vivid description of the Son as “the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Heb 1.3). Jesus is ontologically different from the angels as one who is above them as a divine being while also below them as a human being (Heb 1–2). The author later declares that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb 13.8; cf. 1.8–12), and this amounts to language about the future eternity of a true God. If the language of divine sonship and begottenness (Heb 1.2, 5, 8;4.14; 5.5) is combined with preexistence and eternality (Heb 1.1–14; 7.3, 28;13.8), it yields something analogous to eternal generation. (Bird, Jesus Among the Gods: Early Christology in the Greco-Roman World [Baylor University Press, Waco, TX 2022], I. Jesus and Ancient Divinity, 2. The Search for Divine Ontology, pp. 59-62; bold emphasis mine)

And:

John the Evangelist portrays Jesus as the preexistent Word (John 1.1-2; 17.4-5), set apart from “all things” as the instrument of creation (1.3), sent by the Father (5.26-27; 8.16-18), from heaven (3.13; 6.33, 38, 50-51), who takes on human flesh (1.14), becoming the “son of Joseph of Nazareth” (1.45), who is “one” with the Father to the point of mutual indwelling (10.30, 38; 14.8-11, 20; 17.11, 21-23), equal to God (5.18), possesses “life in himself” (5.26), makes himself God (10.33-34), who returns to the “glory” that he had with the Father before the creation of the world (17.5, 24; 20.17), who is honored as the Father (5.23), worshipped by a supplicant (9.38), and confessed by Thomas with the honorific acclamation of “my Lord and my God” (John 20.28). True, the accent falls on an economic Christology whereby the “only true God” is known exclusively in the mediatorship of the “only begotten” Son (1.14, 18; 17.3), with emphasis on Jesus as the agent of revelation (1.18; 15.15; 17.6, 26) and salvation (3.16; 4.42; 5.24, 34; 12.47) par excellence. However, the journey from divine arche to inhabiting flesh in the world, and then going back to heaven is couched as a narrative of messianic revelation as much of ontological transformation of a divine being into human existence. Indeed, the jarring Johannine combination of divine oneness, creator-creature distinction, preexistence, perichoresis, begottenness, messianic testimony, incarnation, glorification, receiving worship, divine functions of judging and saving, presses into a theological and ontological direction that makes the Johannine Jesus’ divinity absolute if one is to describe who Jesus is and how he is divine.⁵⁹ According to Frey, the language describes “the Logos/Son sharing in the ‘quality’ and ‘divinity’ of the one God⁶⁰ and the Logos possesses ‘divinity in the sense that the Logos CLEARLY BELONGS TO THE REALM OF THE CREATOR, UNCREATED. He is divine in the sense THAT HE IS UNCREATED.”⁶¹ Or, as Ruben Buhner puts it, “the first two verses of the Gospel of John deal with the Beginning before beginning. The Logos itself thus appears separate from the works of creation, as absolutely pre-existing, THAT IS UNCREATED.”⁶² (Ibid., pp. 63-64; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Once more:

John the Seer’s apocalypse contains two strategically placed announcements where the Lord God says of himself: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” the one “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty,” and “the beginning and the end” (Rev 1:8; 21:6). Quite amazingly Jesus later refers to himself with the same theophanic language, saying “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Rev 1:17; 22:13). This is allusive of Isaianic monotheistic rhetoric, such as “I am the first and the last; besides me there is no god” (Isa 44:6; cf. 41:6 [sic]; 48:12). Similar sentiments were extant in Hellenistic Judaism, where God “is the beginning and end of all things” (Josephus, Ant. 8.280; Ag. Ap. 2.190; Philo, Plant. 93). It is reminiscent too of the Derventi papyrus (ca. 350 BCE) containing a person declaring that “Zeus is the beginning, Zeus is the middle, all things are filled by Zeus,” and Plato’s remark that “God … holds the beginning and the middle and the end of all things” (Plato, Leg. 4.715e; cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 3.25.5; Hippolytus, Ref. 19.6; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.22; Origen, Cels. 6.15; Sib. Or. 8:375-76).⁶⁷ By using these words, the Seer stresses the absolute sovereignty and power of both God and the risen Jesus,⁶⁸ but also identifies Jesus with the God “who transcends time [and] guides the entire course of history because he stands as sovereign over its beginning and its end.”⁶⁹ (Ibid., p. 65; bold emphasis mine)

And finally:

“… Nonetheless, the identification of Jesus as the mediator of creation is incredibly significant. Greco-Roman philosophers could speak of a divine creator, yet the supreme gods, Zeus and Jupiter were not ordinarily attributed a creative function; they were progeny of the old gods, Kronos and Saturn. The Olympian gods were not creators of the world as much as the most powerful forces permeating the world. While very few intermediary figures were attributed a demiurgical role or a mediating function in creation, it was not unprecedented. Wisdom and angels were sometimes given creative role, as was Plato’s demiurge with the young gods and Philo’s Logos. Even the Babylonian deity Marduk is among divine beings who create. Yet even these creator-gods and demiurgical figures are themselves created beings, and that is the difference. To attribute a creative function to Christ would not itself make him species unique or require his promotion within a divine hierarchy. However, when Christ is considered eternal, placed above angels and powers, and attributed a creative function, that is the telling point. Thus, when the early Christians confessed Jesus as the one by or through whom ‘all things’ were made (1 Cor 8.6; Col 1.15-18; Heb 1.2; Odes Sol. 16.19; John 1.3; Rev 3.14; Keryg. Pet. 2; Herm. 3.4; 91.5; Diogn. 7.2; Justin, 1 Apol. 6.3; Irenaeus, Haer. 4.11.1), with absolute preexistence and EVEN ETERNALITY (John 1.1-2; 17.5; Pol. Phil. 14.3; Diogn. 11.5), and differentiated him from and above intermediary figures (1 Clem. 36.2; Mart. Pol. 14.1; Herm. 59.2; Ascen. Isa. 4.14; 9.28; Irenaeus, Haer. 1.22.1; 3.11.1-2; 4.7.4; 5.18.1; Epid. 10; 40; 94; Gos. Pet. 39-40; Athenagoras Leg. 10.2, 5; 24.2; Diogn. 7.2-4; Justin, 1 Apol. 52.3; Tertullian, Carne 14.1-2; 6.3; Ps.-Clem. Rec. 1.45; 2.42; Hom. 18.4; Origen Cels. 5.4-5), they were placing him ON THE SIDE OF THE UNCREATED CREATING GOD in distinction from created creator-deities and their creation. (Ibid., pp. 385-386; bold and capital emphasis mine)

All scriptural references taken from the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE).

FURTHER READING

The Church Fathers on Jesus as the Almighty God Who is Overall

JESUS CHRIST: THE ETERNALLY PRAISED GOD

JESUS CHRIST: THE ETERNALLY PRAISED GOD PT. 2

In this post I quote noted Evangelical scholar and professor Michael F. Bird’s comments on the 2^nd century Christian apologist Justin Martyr’s Christological views. All bold and capital emphasis will be mine:

There is an intensification of Logos Christology among the early apologists, including Justin martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, and Epistle to Diognetus.

Justin makes no explicit mention of the Fourth Gospel, but it is far more likely than not that he knows of it and alludes to it,⁹⁰ and his Logos theology is best understood in light of its Johannine heritage.⁹¹ Justin’s Logos is God’s instrument of revelation to humans (Dial. 128.2). The whole world came into being by a “Word of God” (Dial. 84.2; 1 Apol. 59.5; 64.5; 2 Apol. 6.3).⁹² The Logos goes under various names from Scripture such as “Glory of the Lord,” “Son,” “Wisdom,” “Angel,” “God,” “Lord,” “Logos,” and “Commander” (Dial. 61.1; cf. 126.1; 128.1). The Logos is the seed of reason⁹³ by which philosophers and barbarians were able to know the truth (1 Apol. 5.4; 44.10; 46.1-6; 2 Apol. 13.3-6). The “divine Logos” moved the prophets to prophesy (1 Apol. 36.1). Jesus as the Logos is, then, that “rational power” (Dial. 61.1) or “rational principle” (2 Apol. 10.1), who “acquired physical form and became a human being” (1 Apol. 5.4; 23.2; 63.10) by taking on “flesh” (1 Apol. 32.10; 66.2; Dial. 45.4; 84.2; 100.2).⁹⁴ Trypho sums up Justin’s view of God become human: “You say that this Christ existed as God BEFORE THE AGES, then that he submitted to be born and become man” (Dial. 48.1). Justin writes that Christ was “born from God … as Logos of God” (1 Apol. 22.2), born in a special manner from a virgin (Dial. 63-70; 1 Apol. 21.1-2; 22.2; 23.2; 32.10-33.9; 46.5; 63.16).     

The center of gravity in Justin’s Christology is to argue for a God beside God the Father, a first Power, the firstborn and only begotten Son of unbegotten Father, the Logos who is Christ (Dial. 61.1-3; 1 Apol. 13.3; 21.1; 22.1-2; 23.2; 32.10; 46.2; 53.2; 60.7; 63.4, 10, 15; 2 Apol. 10.3, 8). To that end, we can detect a very strong sense of divinity attributed to the Logos. The “Logos is divine” ([ho logos theios] 1 Apol. 10.6; 36.1); he was preexistent before creation, and “already existed as God” (Dial. 61.1; 62.1-4; 87.2; 129.3; 2 Apol. 6.3). The Logos is “the son of the true God” (1 Apol. 13.3), and is worshipped (Dial. 38.1; 1 Apol. 6.2; 13.3-4; 2 Apol. 13.4). Even so, the Son is not the Father, but the “first-born of God, is also God” (logos prototokos on tou theou kai theou hyparchei; 1 Apol. 63.15). Justin’s analogies for Christ’s divinity vis-à-vis God the Father are like a thought from a mind or a fire kindling fire. Jesus is begotten from the Father, not an excision (apotome) of his essence (ousia; Dial. 61.2; 128.3-5). Jesus is distinct in number, but not in substance (Dial. 56.11; 128.4; 129.3), Eric Osborn summarizes Justin’s thought well enough: “The word is God’s first-born, GOD HIMSELF, second to him in number, but one with him IN ESSENCE.”⁹⁵

Yet Justin also implies a certain subordination because God is unbegotten and everything after him is begotten and corruptive (Dial. 5.4), and the Son holds “second place” with the prophetic spirit “in the third rank” (1 Apol. 13.3-4; 60.7).⁹⁶ Justin argues that the Logos is “another God and Lord under the Creator of all things, who is called an Angel, because he proclaims to man whatever the Creator of the world–above whom there is no other God–wishes to reveal to them” (Dial. 56.4; cf. 55.1; 56.17; 61.1; 128.4; 129.4). This angel is “called God, is distinct from God the Creator; distinct, that is, in number, but not in mind” (Dial. 56.11). A God beneath God is supported by way of citations to Ps 45:6-7 and 110:1 (Dial. 56.14). Justin identifies God with the Angel of the Lord, and this Angel with the pre-incarnate Christ, who appeared to Moses in the fire (Dial. 57-60; 127. 4; 1 Apol. 62.3-4; 63.7-8, 17).⁹⁷ (Bird, Jesus Among the Gods: Early Christology in the Greco-Roman World [Baylor University Press, Waco, TX 2022], pp. 149-151)

⁹⁵ Eric F. Osborn, Justin Martyr (BZHT 47; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973), 28. Cf. Bousset (Kyrios Christos, 401), who summarized the apologists this way: “The Christians do not worship a man but the incarnate Logos, who belongs altogether to the very essence of deity.”

⁹⁶ L. W. Barnard (Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967], 100) points out: “It was inevitable that his unsystematized language about the derivative nature of the logos should later be capable of an Arian interpretation. Yet it is equally clear that Justin believed in THE FULL DIVINITY OF THE SON.” Grillmeier (Christ in Christian Tradition, 1:110) sees Justin’s subordination in far more stark terms: “There is a deus inferior subordinate to the theos hypsistos” (italics original).

⁹⁷ Justin frequently cites Gen 19:24 (LXX): “The Lord rained down fire from the Lord out of heaven,” in Dial. 56.23; 60.5; 127.5; 129.1. (Ibid., p. 151)  

FURTHER READING

JUSTIN MARTYR ON THE NAMELESS GOD

Justin Martyr’s Witness to Christ’s essential and eternal Deity

AN ORTHODOX’S MISREADING OF JUSTIN

Revisiting Shabir Ally’s Distortion of Justin Martyr Pt. 1

Ante-Nicene Witness to Jesus’ Deity

CHRIST WORSHIPED AS GOD ALMIGHTY

WATCHTOWER, EARLY CHURCH & THE TRINITY

The following is a post I share from an article that is no longer available online. It refutes the lies, distortions and misinformation of the Jehovah’s Witness booklet/magazine Should You Believe in the Trinity?.

Should You Believe in the Trinity?

A few years ago the Watchtower Society published a brochure entitled. . . Should You Believe in the Trinity? In it, the  Watchtower Society has constructed quite a show of supposed “Scholarship”.

BUT. . . Is it scholarship or a collection of deceptive misquotations designed to give an impression of scholarship?

The following is an excerpt from the book by Christy Harvey called, YES… You Should Believe in the Trinity!!!

What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught “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.” Should You Believe in the Trinity?p.7

In order to establish a basis for their existence, every heretical group which claims to be  “true Christianity” asserts that Christianity as we know it today has become so apostate and full of paganism that unless one disassociates himself from his religion and joins their  group, he cannot be saved. Note the following statements found in various issues of The Watchtower:

“And while now the witness yet includes the invitation to come to Jehovah’s organization for salvation….”
The Watchtower, November 15, 1981, p. 21

“Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do.” The Watchtower, December 1, 1981, p. 27

“Such thinking is an evidence of pride ….If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: ‘Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would  we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization?Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s organization?’No, we cannot! ” The Watchtower,  January 15, 1983, p. 27

---

While the Mormon church claims that their prophet Joseph Smith was called to “restore” true Christianity to the earth as it was uniquely revealed to Joseph through revelations and visions, the  Watchtower Society teaches that although the majority of Christianity apostacized, Jehovah God has always sustained a remnant of true followers on earth throughout the centuries. Thus, the  Watchtower Society maintains that their Governing Body is comprised of member of this “remnant”  class who serve as God’s “mouthpiece” and “channel of communication” to His people on earth.  Endeavoring to validate their teaching that the majority of Christianity apostacized, the Watchtower Society seeks to find support for their doctrines in the teachings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers. By claiming that these Fathers taught Watchtower doctrine, the Society maintains that although historic Christianity possessed pure doctrine at the time of the apostles,  within four centuries, Christianity adopted “pagan” doctrines such as the doctrine of the Trinity. They then conclude, “Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.” Are these  claims credible? Note the following Scriptural passages which clearly articulate God’s preservation of the Church throughout history:

“…I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. “Timothy 3:14

“…upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” Matthew 16:18

“to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.”
Ephesians 3:21

“…I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was  once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 3

With this assurance of preservation, how could the Church have apostacized to the point of  becoming pagan and needing to be “restored”? How could the Church which is “the pillar and support of truth” have crumbled, when Jesus promised that the gates of Hades would “not  overpower it”? If the church truly apostacized, how could it have given glory to God throughout “all  generations”? Due to the fact that it was in response to heresy that many doctrines of Christianity  were formulated into creeds, the doctrine of the Trinity was not officially formulated until the fourth century. However, this does not in the least imply that this doctrine was not understood or taught  prior to this time. Contrary to the Watchtower Society’s claims, the Ante-Nicene Fathers did uphold Trinitarian doctrine as is clearly revealed in their writings.

---

JUSTIN MARTYR (165 C.E.):
The Watchtower’s Trinity brochure states that Justin Martyr “called the prehuman Jesus a created  angel who is ‘other than the God who made all things.’ ” However, far from teaching that Jesus was  “a created angel,” Justin Martyr actually taught that Christ was “the Angel of God” who spoke to  Moses out of the burning bush and revealed Himself as the Jehovah God who stated, “I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers.” He also  understood the Scriptural term “first-begotten” of God to mean that Christ is of the same nature as God the Father. Note the following excerpts taken from his writings:

“For at that juncture, when Moses was ordered to go down into Egypt…our Christ conversed with him under the appearance of fire from a bush….and the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of  fire out of the bush, and said, ‘I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers’….the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the  first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets….in order to prove that Christ is called  both God and Lord of hosts ….Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: ‘God went up with a shout….’ And Trypho said,….’For you utter many  blasphemies, in thatyou seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud…and ought to be worshipped .’…And  Trypho said, ‘We have heard what you think of these matters….For when you say that Christ existed as God before the ages …this appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also  foolish.'”-The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 184, 212, 213, 219

---

IRENAEUS (200 C.E.):
The Society claims that Irenaeus “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.’ ” This assertion on the part of the Watchtower Society is deceitful because Irenaeus did not contrast Christ with the “One true and  only God” but actually contrasted the true God with the lesser gods of Gnostism. In reality, Irenaeus taught the following concerning Christ:

“Very properly, then, did he say, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ for He was in the Son; ‘and the Word was with God,’ for He was the beginning; ‘and the Word was God,’ of course, for that  which is begotten of God is God.” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 328

---

 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (215 C.E.):
The Society’s booklet declares that Clement “called Jesus in his prehuman existence ‘a creature’….He said that the Son ‘is next to the only omnipotent Father’ but not equal to him.” This assertion is not only erroneous but is quite deceitful for Clement actually taught the opposite of what  the Society insinuates. Note the following excerpts taken from Clement’s writings which not only reveal the deception of the Society claims, but also the fact that as far back as the second century,  the early Church Fathers articulated and defended the concept of the Trinity:

“…the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God….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.” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 202, 468

---

TERTULLIAN (230 C.E.):
The Trinity brochure states that Tertullian “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.’ ” Concerning this last statement, “there was a time when the Son was not,” Robert Bowman comments:

“Actually. the expression ‘there was a time when the Son was not’ was not used by Tertullian himself. Rather, this was an expression used by a modern scholar to summarize a statement made  by Tertullian, who argued that God was always God, but not always Father of the Son: ‘For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous to sin.’ Since elsewhere  Tertullian makes clear that he regard the person of the Son as eternal, in this statement Tertullian is probably asserting that the title of ‘Son’ did not apply to the second person of the Trinity until he  began to relate to the ‘Father’ as a ‘Son’ in the work of creation.” Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, p. 31

In his writings, Tertullian was very explicit in his articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

“He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God….so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is made a second in manner of existence in position, not in nature….and made  flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united…. by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other….they contend for the identity of the  Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction ; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being…. when  all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in, (the Persons of) the Trinity ….In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance in the way of distinction, not of division. But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons) ….” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pp. 34-35, 603, 606-607.

---

HIPPOLYTUS (235 C.E.):
The Society claims that Hippolytus “said that God is ‘the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,’ who ‘had nothing co-equal [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.” Here again, when one examines what Hippolytus actually taught, one uncovers another  example where the Society misrepresents the facts. Note the following statements found in Hippolytus’ writings:

“God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world….Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality ….And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I sayanother, I do not mean that there are two Gods….Thus, then, these too, though they wish it not, fall in with the  truth, and admit that one God made all things….For Christ is the God above all. ….He who is over all is God ; for thus He speaks boldly, ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father.’ He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man,He is (yet) God for  ever….And well has he named Christ the Almighty .” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pp. 227, 153, 225

---

ORIGEN (250 C.E.):
The Watchtower’s booklet states that Origen taught “‘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.'” While  it is true that Origen was not orthodox on all his teachings about the Trinity and was eventually regarded by the Church as a heretic (although this was not on the basis of his view of the Trinity), he  did teach certain aspects of the Trinity.

“This is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul, when demonstrating that the power of the Trinity is one and the same….From which it most clearly follows that there is no difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through the Son, and operated  by God the Father….Having made these declarations regardingthe Unity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ….And who else is able to save and conduct the soul of man to the  God of all things, save God the Word…inasmuch as He was the Word, and was with God,and was God?” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, pp. 255, 604

Concerning Origen’s orthodox and unorthodox views of the Trinity, Robert Bowman comments:

“Origen was unorthodox in other aspects of his teaching on the Trinity. He tended to view the three  persons more or less as three Gods, though without ever putting it just so, and (inconsistently) held that the Son and Spirit, though far superior beings to any creatures, were inferior to the Father. He  thus also denied that worship or prayer should be addressed to the Son or the Spirit. In sum, Origen’s view of God had similarities both to orthodox trinitarianism and the JW’s doctrine of God. Unlike the Witnesses, Origen believed that the Son was eternal and uncreated, and he definitely regarded the Spirit as a person. But, like the Witnesses, he regarded the Son as a second,  inferior God next to Almighty God.” Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, p. 34

---

Pages 7-12 HOW DID THE TRINITY DOCTRINE DEVELOP? “AT THIS point you might ask: ‘If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching,  how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?’ Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did  assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was  no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune God.” –Should You Believe in the Trinity? p.7.

Amid the fires of debate generated on account of the heresy of Arius spreading within Constantine’s  empire, on June 19, 325 A.D., the Council of Nicaea began with Eusebius of Caesarea the “first church historian” recording the events. The issue of debate focused on the person of Christ and His  relationship to God the Father. Around 318 A.D., Arius began teaching that Jesus is a created being who is of a different substance (Greek: heteroousios) than the Father. Prior to this, as already noted  in the discussion on the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Christians held to the view that God is a Trinity which consists of three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Arius’ heresy struck at the very  heart of this doctrine; for by insisting that Jesus had to be created, he was teaching that Jesus could not be the one true God, but was rather an inferior god who was in some sense only “divine”.

THREE VIEWS OF CHRIST DISCUSSED AT THE COUNCIL

DOCTRINE   LEADERS  VIEW OF CHRIST   Arianism   Arius  Different substance as the Father- heteroousios   Orthodox  Alexander, bishop of Alexandria; Hosius, bishop of Cordova; Athanasius, who eventually became bishop of Alexandria   Same substance as the Father –homoousios   Eusebian   Eusebius of Caesarea  Similar substance as the Father –homoiousios

Fearing that the term homoousios could be misunderstood to advocate the heresy of modalism  (promoted in earlier centuries by Sabellius and others who taught that Jesus and the Father are the same person), Eusebius and his proponents favored the term homoiousios feeling that this would  avoid the heresy of Sabellius and at the same time refute Arianism. As the Council proceeded, each group shared its views, seeking to come to an agreement on what the Scriptures teach and how best  to communicate this truth. As the Orthodox group expressed their position that by using the term homoousios , they were not compromising the teaching of the distinctions in the persons of the  Trinity, but were rather endeavoring to defend the Deity of the persons, the Council eventually came to an agreement with all but Arius and two bishops signing the following creed:

“We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God,  begotten, not made,of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, through Whom all things were made….”

The Watchtower Society argues that the doctrine of the Trinity was not totally formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. because there was no mention of the Holy Spirit at this council.  While it is true that the person of the Holy Spirit was not discussed at this time, the council did affirm  Trinitarian doctrine not only in the fact that it acknowledged that Christ is of the same substance as the Father, but the Nicene Creed states: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty , Maker of heaven and earth…And in one Lord Jesus Christ…And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and  Giver of Life.” The reason the person of the Holy Spirit was not discussed at the Nicene Council is due to the fact that the issue of controversy concerned the Son-not the Holy Spirit.

---

Constantine’s Role at Nicaea “Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later inlife, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: ‘Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun;…his  conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace…It was a military matter.’ “- Should You Believe in the Trinity? p. 8

The Society’s Trinity brochure twists the quotes from Chadwick’s book The Early Church in order  to give the impression that he was teaching that Constantine was not a Christian. Note the context from which these quotes are derived:

“Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun [page 122]…The conversion of Constantine marks a turning-point in the history of the Church and of Europe.[page 125]…But if his  conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace, neither was it a cynical act of Machiavellian cunning. It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was  never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians….He was not baptized until he lay dying in 337, but this implies no doubt about his  Christian belief. It was common at this time (and continued so until about A.D. 400) to postpone baptism to the end of one’s life , especially if one’s duty as an official included torture  and execution of criminals. Part of the reason for postponement lay in the seriousness with which the responsibilities of baptism were taken. Constantine favoured Christianity among the many religions  of his subjects, but did not make it the official or ‘established’ religion of the empire.” –The Early Church, pp. 122, 125, 127

It appears that Constantine “worshipped the Unconquered Sun” prior to his conversion. Also, in context, it seems like Chadwick felt that Constantine’s conversion was genuine. However, he admits  that “if” Constantine’s conversion was not genuine, it should be interpreted as “a military matter.”  Nevertheless, the fact that Constantine was not baptized until the end of his life “implies no doubt  about his Christian belief. It was common…to postpone baptism to the end of one’s life.” While it is true that Constantine was the one who officially called the Nicene Council, he did not force his  views upon the Council. This can be seen by his willingness (in subsequent years) to abandon the Nicene position in order to enhance his political position. He was not a theologian, but was primarily  interested in unity; for he realized how disunity on these issues threatened his empire.

Although the Council of Nicaea rejected Arianism, this was by no means the end of controversy.  For nearly five decades from 332-381, Arianism seemed to reign. Emperors generally preferred Arianism (which taught that Jesus was a “divine” creature) as the more attractive religious system  due to the fact that it advocated that a creature could be a god, and they felt it was easier to rule if  their subjects thought of them as being somewhat “divine”. Constantine’s successor, his second son Constantius, ruled the East and allowed Arianism to flurish under his rulership. Eusebius of  Nicomedia, Arians and semi-Arians endeavored to overturn Nicaea. Under Constantius, regional councils met at Ariminum, Seleucia, Sirmium, forcing many leaders to subscribe to Arian and  semi-Arian creeds. Athanasius who became bishop of Alexandria shortly after the Council of Nicaea was removed from his position five times, and even Hosius who was now nearly 100 years  old, was threatened. Despite the pressure to compromise, Athanasius continued to fight, remaining firm in his conviction that Scripture remains supreme, and thus giving rise to the phrase, “ Athanasius contra mundum -Athanasius against the world.” Although Athanasius did not write the Athanasian  creed, it was named after him due to his perseverance and uncompromise stance on the issue of the Deity of Christ.

---

Finally at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., the Trinity was reaffirmed, and (contrary to the claims of the Watchtower’s Trinity brochure), from this point on throughout history until now, it has  been widely accepted. Soon after this council, Arianism died out with internal fighting among its advocators, and throughout subsequent years, the doctrine of the Trinity continued to be clarified as  it was codified in creeds. As The Encyclopedia Americana notes, “The full formula of baptism…marks a further stage of advance in the direction of clarity and precision [of the  doctrine of the Trinity]…The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and  psychology….”

Apostasy Foretold “THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time.…Accurate  knowledge of God brings great relief. It frees us from teachings that are in conflict with God’s Word and from organizationsthat have apostatized….By honoring God as supreme  and worshiping him on his terms, we can avoid the judgment that he will soon bring on apostate Christendom.”-Should You Believe in the Trinity?, pp. 9, 31

As foretold in the Scriptures, throughout history as well as in our day, there are groups of people  who were at one time considered within orthodox “Christianity” but have subsequently turned away from the truth found in God’s Word and have instead decided to follow after heretical teachers who  have been teaching what these people want to hear. Nevertheless, simply because some of the people of Christianity have turned away into heresy, this does not imply that Christianity as a whole  has become apostate. As has already been noted, Jesus and his apostles foretold that the Church would endure and give glory to God “throughout all ages.” Thus, one must conclude that Christianity  could not have become apostate as the Watchtower booklet claims. Notice that at 1 Timothy 4:1  while Paul speaks of an apostasy that is to come in the last days, he states that “some,” not all, “will fall away.”

For more information on this topic please contact
Christy Harvey at: witforjesus@kktv.com