Alone Directly Created?

For over seventy years, Witnesses have denied that Christ ought to be even called a co-creator along with the Father.[1] Still, they insist that all other created things were made through him. And this coupled with the claim that he alone was directly made by the Father distinguishes the Son, who is accordingly God’s only-begotten Son, from all other creation, and in particular the other angelic spirits. However, it is our contention that within Witness theology this distinction breaks down because every other of God’s spirit sons were as directly made by the Father as much as the Son was.

One of their publications states that “the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, p. ?) And they speak of the Son as having a “share in the creative works” of God. (Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 918) But what does this mean? In particular, does the Son have an intrinsic power to produce these other creatures, is it something innate to his nature? It is not something that the Son innately possesses. “The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit or active force.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, p. ?) This distinguishes the Witness view from the ancient Homoian Arian doctrine that: “At the Father’s will and command, but by his own power, he made heavenly and earthly things, visible and invisible things, bodies and spirits, to exist out of non-existing things.” (The Arian Sermon, no. 3)[2]

Now, if the Son lacks an intrinsic ability to create, then it is false to say that he is the only creature to be directly made by the Father. Every other angel, for instance, would have been made directly by the Father at the point of contact, so to speak, that is, when these beings were made out of nothing. The only way to safeguard the distinction that Witnesses make is to say that the Son made all things by his own innate power, that is, by exercising a capacity that is intrinsic to him. But this would introduce an instability into Witness theology, which prides itself on being unitarian. For, if the Son can create out of nothing by his own innate power, how can he at the same time be a mere creature? Hence, they must avoid it.

That the claim that it is God’s spirit that actually makes everything undermines the claim that Christ alone was directly created by the Father can be seen by the following comparison. Scripture teaches that Elisha raised the dead. But this power is not something that he had intrinsically, since it is not something that is proper to human nature. Rather it was God who raised the dead. Yes, the prophet spoke, prayed, or performed some other action. And we can say that he raised the dead in a certain extended sense. But ultimately the prophet contributed nothing to the actual revivification of those persons whom he is said to have raised, except the occasion on which God raised the dead to life. The prophet requested and God obliged him. Yet God’s giving of life to these (in Witness theology, non-existent) dead was no more mediated than when he gave life to the previously non-existent Adam when our father was first formed.

Might a Witness respond by saying that in this case, Elisha was given the reins, so to speak? Sure, the power was not intrinsic to him, nor was it part of him (as they say that the holy spirit is part of God), but he was the one who decided when it was exercised. If so, might they similarly suggest that Jesus was the one who decided when the spirit would be used to create all other creatures. If this is so, might they conclude that the Son had enough of a share in the creation of the other angels that he alone can be said to have been directly created by the Father (while also not being even a co-creator)?

We think not. First, no creature can command the holy spirit; hence what the spirit does is not up to a creature’s will. Nor can a creature be the one who calls the shots. Consider that if it is merely up to the prophet who to revive and when, this amounts to the prophet commanding the spirit. Now, since the spirit is itself not alive nor a person in Witness theology, it may not appear to be problematic to them that a mere man should, in effect, command the spirit. The spirit just is a force, power in action, so that a rational being should direct it, though he be a creature, poses no theological dilemma. This line of reasoning may appear to be strengthened by their claim that the Spirit is inferior, at least to the Father and Son.[3] “Nor can the holy spirit claim equality with either God or Christ.” (February 15, 1955 Watchtower, p. 119) “Nowhere in the Bible is the holy spirit mentioned with God and Christ as being equal to them.” (June 1, 1988 Watchtower, p. 14) Yet, we would argue that even within Witness theology a creature’s commanding of the spirit should be deemed problematic since the spirit just is part of the Father. Therefore, to genuinely command the spirit would be to command the Father; and would any Witness ever say that the Father could be commanded by another?

Witness theology really holds that the spirit is part of Father; it is God in a similar manner to how my right arm is me.[4] It is not all of me, but it is not something extrinsic to me. And from this it follows that the spirit cannot be directed except by will of God, who is obligated to no one, but who rather does as he pleases. It would be impossible, therefore, for the prophet Elisha to utilize the spirit except if, in fact, it were God himself utilizing his spirit merely on the occasion of the prophet’s prayer or action.[5]

Since the things that are made through the Son are made by the spirit, the Son’s role in creation resembles the prophet’s raising of the dead. He may be involved in some way. Perhaps he suggested some specifics about the sort of creature to be made, for instance, or it is upon the occasion of his asking that such and such a creature be made that God made it. But the Father himself is the only one who produces the creature out of nothing by the direct exercise of his own power. That the Son is involved somewhere along the way in some rather limited way is not enough to say that he alone is directly created by the Father. They are different claims altogether.

Nor would it suffice to say that if the power passes from the Father and, in a way, became localized in the body of the Son and from there was used to make all other creatures, that God did not directly create these creatures. Once we have established that the spirit is a part of God, nothing alters the fact that to say the spirit does X is to say that the Father himself does X. So, if we say that the Son uses the spirit to make Gabriel, this really amounts to saying that the Father himself makes Gabriel by his own proper part, the spirit – and that according to his own good pleasure, really.

We would also suggest that the Witness aversion to calling Christ either Creator or co-creator is an implicit admission that their distinction between the Son’s direct creation and the other angel’s supposedly indirect creation is not all that profound. For if it is just God’s spirit, ever under God’s control as his own proper part, that does the heavily lifting in making the angels – if, in other words, it is what makes the angels out of nothing – it would make no sense to call Christ Creator or co-creator. Only if he himself did the work (as even the Homoians claimed) would it be intelligible to call him Creator or co-creator.

Conversely, since the Father alone is called Creator in their theology, they grant that it is he himself alone that makes a thing to exist out of nothing. And this just is direct creation. To say that if the spirit first goes to the Son and then from the Son is put to use to produce a creature out of nothing means that the Father did not directly create this creature is like saying that if a man were to stretch out his arm as far from the rest of his body as he can so that it first rests on the shoulder of another and then touch something rather than touching it with his head or torso that he did not directly touch it. Or it would be like supposing that since the water passes through a channel that it is not the water itself that directly nourishes the plants.

        The Son would remain the first and best creature; he had some role in the creation of everything else. But they can no longer talk of him being the only directly created spirit or creature. This supposed fact of his history no longer distinguishes him from other creatures. But this puts them in an awkward place. They call him the only-begotten because they say he alone was directly created. They thereby reveal that they are aware that there is a truly unique causal relationship between the Father and the Son. But their theology is not actually able to cash it out. They must look elsewhere in order to do so. And then they may recover the true doctrine of the Son’s eternal generation from the essence of the Father and reject any notion of him being from nothing or there being a time when he was not or his being anything other than God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.

[1] Though, as late as 1951 they did refer to him as co-creator. “It could refer to Jehovah God and his co-creator and only-begotten Son, the Logos.” (January 15, 1951 Watchtower, p. 63) However, in our opinion this does not indicate a significant change into what they say about Christ’s role in creation. Rather it is but a clearer acknowledgement that in their theology Christ does none of the leg work in creation.

[2] For this and other reasons we sometimes pejoratively refer to Witness Christology or Triadology (i.e., the doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) as subpar Arianism. For these ancient heretics, despite falling short of sound doctrine, were yet more faithful to Scripture in what they attributed to Christ than are Witnesses, even if Witnesses are more internally consistent in denying what the Scripture says and accordingly assigning to Christ even less glory than did the ancient Arians. In particular, we would note that Scripture is clear that Christ is Creator and that he has innate power to create; and the Homoians recognized this. This is shown when the Apostle says that creation is preserved by the word of his (that is, Christ’s) power. (Hebrews 1:3) This is made equally clear, if not more clear, when the same Apostle says that Father says to the Son, “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heaven are the works of your hands.” (Hebrews 1:10) He thereby calls them the creatures of the Son and ascribes to the Son the intrinsic power to create and preserve them in existence. Of course, it beggars belief to imagine that a being that was himself created could make out of nothing everything else that exists by his own power. For which reason, therefore, the Arians were not as self-consistent in making these scriptural ascriptions to Christ while denying him his co-equal Divinity and full honor. And yet, again, they were truer to the Word of God than are the Witnesses, who are loathe to refer to Christ as either “our God” or “Creator” and show him even less honor than did the ancient Arians.

[3] We do not know of any instance where Witness literature says that the spirit is or was made inferior to prophets or apostles; though, this is something that one Witness confidently asserted to me did in fact happen as is supposedly evidenced by the fact that the apostles could perform miracles.

[4] We argue for this premise elsewhere. And for what it is worth, at least two Witnesses with whom we have discussed the point have agreed that the spirit is, indeed, part of God.

If the spirit was not God, but something that God created, then several absurdities follow. First, the Son would not be directly created by the Father, but only by the created spirit. Second, if the spirit is God’s power in action and a creature, it would need to be prior to itself. God would have to first create the spirit by his power in order to use it to create anything at all. But that is an impossibility. Nor could it be thought to be neither a part of God nor a creature but instead some secret third thing. Hence, within Witness theology, the spirit must be thought of as part of God and as merely his power when used.

[5] We are arguing that, in effect, the Witness view of creaturely miracles resembles the philosophical position of occasionalism. The creature has no true causal power to raise the dead, God himself does it simply when (on the occasion that) the prophet “does” it (i.e., prays or performs some other relevant action).