Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Arians? A Historical Comparison

After studying the subject for several years. I have a fair understanding of Arianism, but my information about Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) theology comes from AI and, as we know, AI makes mistakes. Therefore, I would gladly accept correction.

The term “Arianism” is often used loosely for any theology that denies the Trinity and regards Christ as subordinate to the Father. Historically, however, fourth-century Arian and semi-Arian movements held a variety of views. Therefore, before asking whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are Arians, we must identify which features of classical Arian theology are essential:

“‘Arianism,’ throughout most of the fourth century, was in fact a loose and uneasy coalition of those hostile to Nicaea in general and the homoousios in particular” (Williams, Rowan, Arius, Heresy & Tradition, (2002/1987), p. 166).

Specifically, ‘Arianism’ is not what Arius taught. The term ‘Arian’ was a polemical label, intended to associate one’s opponents with a person already in disrepute. But to describe the anti-Nicenes as ‘Arians’ is a complete misnomer. They did not follow him, did not regard him as an important writer, never quoted him in support of their views, but opposed some of Arius’s views. Ayres describes the so-called ‘Arians’ more precisely as ‘Eusebians’:

“Heresiological labels enabled early theologians and ecclesiastical historians to portray theologians to whom they were opposed as distinct and coherent groups and they enabled writers to tar enemies with the name of a figure already in disrepute. Most famously some participants in the debate described loosely related but clearly distinct thinkers as Arians. In fact, it is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent on Arius’ specific theology, and certainly impossible to show that even a bare majority of Arians had any extensive knowledge of Arius’ writing. Arius was part of a wider theological trajectory; many of his ideas were opposed by others in this trajectory: he neither originated the trajectory nor uniquely exemplified it” (Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its legacy (2004), p. 2).

“’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius” (Williams, p. 82).

For more such quotes, [Quotes]

Nevertheless, this article continues to use the label ‘Arian’ for the anti-Nicenes because that is the name most people know.

Table of Contents

Similarities

Distinct from God

Both JW theology and Arianism reject the Orthodox Nicene Trinity. Both describe the Son as distinct from God:

Not Eternal – God the Father (Jehovah) alone is eternal. The Son had existed for ages in heaven prior to his earthly birth, but He is not ‘eternal.’

Generated – God the Father alone is ungenerated. The Son is a generated being.

Subordinate – The Son is subordinate to the Father. The Son is “Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6), whereas Jehovah alone is “Almighty God.”

Not fully divine – “The Son is divine, but not equal to the Father in deity and not of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father.”

Distinct from other beings

In both Arian and JW theology, the Son is unique. There is no other being like Him:

God’s first creation – Jesus was God’s very first being brought forth by God.

Only being generated by God – Jesus is the only being generated directly by God. For that reason, He is called God’s “only-begotten Son.”

Creator – All other things (angels, humans, physical universe) were created by God through the Son.

Differences

Origin of the Son

Timeless vs In Time – In JW theology, the Son had a beginning point in time. In Arianism, although the Son is not eternal, He was begotten timelessly (before time).

Begotten vs Created – JW’s, like Arius, believe that the Son was created out of nothing. But ‘Arians’ generally opposed this view. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea, a prominent bishop often associated with the broader Arian or Eusebian movement, claimed that the Son was “put forth from the being of the Father, not by a partaking or a cutting or a division, but unspeakably and, for us, unexplainably” (Ayres, p. 58). Therefore, the Son was begotten from the Father’s being.

Nature of the Son

Similar vs different Substance – Fourth-century Arianism may be divided between:

- - - Homoiousians, who taught Jesus was of similar substance to the Father,
    - Homoians, who rejected all substance language, and
    - Heterousians, who claimed that the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s.

In JW theology, the Son is a distinct created spirit being. He shares the same fundamental type of existence (a spirit body) as the angels. Therefore, His substance is different from the Father’s. On the other hand, JWs generally do not use fourth-century substance categories at all.

“God” vs “a god” – Arians described Jesus as “God.” They spoke only of the Father, Son, and Spirit as divine. For JWs, in contrast, all angels are powerful, godlike, spirit creatures. Therefore, the Son, the highest angelic being, identified with Michael the Archangel, is the most ‘godlike’ of all angels, but He cannot be spoken of as ‘divine,’ as in Arianism. For example, the JW Bible renders John 1:1 as “the Word was a god”.

Creator of angels vs an angel – In JW belief, Jesus’s pre-human identity was Michael the Archangel. In Arian theology, the Son created Michael.

Worship vs honor – Arians allowed worship of the Son. JWs do not. They only honor the Son. However, the terms “worship” and “honor” are secondary. They merely describe the distinction between the Arians, who described the Son as “God,” and the JWs, who describe Him as “a god.” For the same reason, while Arians allowed prayer to the Son, JWs do not.

The incarnated Jesus Christ

Divine vs human – In Arian theology, the incarnated Christ is a divine Being in human form. In JW theology, Jesus was fully human rather than an incarnate divine being who retained a divine nature. Michael’s life force was transferred to Mary’s womb; he became a human man strictly. He ceased to be an angel during his earthly life and became a mere human being.

Holy Spirit

A distinct Being vs a power – Arians viewed the Spirit as a distinct hypostasis/person, created by and subordinate to the Son. But JWs reject the Holy Spirit as a person entirely. They view the Spirit as God’s impersonal active force.

Old Testament Appearances

The Son vs an angel – In the Old Testament, people saw God and spoke to Him. However, God is invisible (John 1:18, “No man has seen God at any time”). Many Arians interpreted Old Testament theophanies as manifestations of the pre-incarnate Son. In contrast, JWs believe that God, in these instances, was speaking and acting through an intermediary angel. In JW theology, the Son appeared only in the form of the Angel of the Lord, who is Michael the Archangel. Therefore, when the “Angel of Jehovah” led the Israelites through the wilderness or delivered primary revelations, this is the pre-human Son. [Quotes]

Conclusion

Jehovah’s Witnesses share certain important convictions with Arius, particularly regarding the Son’s subordination and non-eternity. However, Jehovah’s Witness theology differs significantly from most fourth-century Arian traditions. The identification of Jesus with Michael the Archangel, the denial that the Holy Spirit is a personal being, the rejection of prayer to Christ, and the view that Christ became merely human during His earthly life place Jehovah’s Witness theology outside the normal range of classical Arian thought. For that reason, it is more accurate to say that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Arian-like rather than simply Arian.