I will focus my attention to the April 2012 edition of the Watchtower
magazine. I wish to show that Jesus is God. Now I am full aware that I cannot
answer every objection to the satisfaction of everyone; the reason is plain,
some people will rather die than put their most intimate convictions on trial
by God’s Word. I think we all are all guilty of this at one point.
There are two sections in the April edition of the
Watchtower that deal with the subject of Christ’s identity. On page 5 under the
title “Is Jesus really God,” the arguments against Christ’s deity in this
section can be summarized as follows: (1) Jesus was subordinate to God (2) Jesus
spoke as though he was “separate” from God. From these two arguments the
conclusion is drawn that Jesus cannot be God.
The passage Matthew 27:46 is cited where Jesus is on the
cross and yells in Aramaic, “My God, My God, Why hath thou forsaken me?” What
Christ said was clearly a direct quotation used from Psalm 22:1 as a witness to
all, he was the prophesied Messiah. But doesn’t this mean that Christ was
merely a man since he said “my God”? If he is God should not the very thing he
said be odd? Since Jesus said “my God” it seems he is subordinate to another,
namely God. For example, when an
employee speaks of his employer, he says “my boss.” This denotes subordination.
Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I (John 14:28).” It seems clear Christ
indicates he submits to the Father. What do we make of this argument? It seems
to me, there is unargued assumption that if one is subordinate to another this
entails an inferiority of nature. So this needs to be proven. Yet prima facie
this assumption is false. Reconsider the example of an employee and employer.
Is the employee inferior to the employer since he is subordinate? At best all
one can say is that the employer has a greater position than the employee but
this does not entail they are not equal in nature. That is to say both are
human with the same moral worth. The employer is no better than the employee.
This can be applied to Christ and the Father. Both are equal in nature but the
Father has a different role than the Son. Another example can be given when we
consider the marriage relationship. The Scriptures teach a woman is to be
subordinate to her husband. “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in
the Lord (Col 3:18 ESV).” Since a woman is to submit to her husband are we to
conclude she is inferior to her husband? If by inferior we mean in nature then
obviously not. Man and woman are equal before God. But the scriptures teach God
has given man a different role than woman to be the leader of the home. Notice
one can have a different role or position than another and yet be equal in
nature. Lets use this principle in practice. The Apostle Paul writes “But I
want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the
head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3 NASB).” What are we to exegete from this
passage? That man is inferior to Christ, Christ is inferior to God and that
woman is inferior to man? No! The context is Paul writing to the Corinthian
church to be orderly. Here he teaches them differences in function or roles.
But clearly difference in function or roles does not indicate inferiority of
nature.
The
next argument is that Jesus claims to be separate from the Father. Countless
passages can be cited where Jesus speaks about doing the Father’s will. Or him
telling Pharisees his teachings are from God. These passages are believed to
show Christ is separate from God. Precisely in what sense does one mean
separate? Ontologically? If Jesus is the Logos that took upon flesh and dwelt
among us as John 1:1 teaches, then he ought to speak of God as he does. If God
takes upon a human nature, he wouldn’t be an atheist. Christ being both fully
God and man he would have to refer to the Father as separate from his humanity.
That is to say if Christ as a single person has two natures, deity and
humanity, he would have to properly speak as he did. That is not to say however
that Christ was speaking about himself. It is wrongheaded to think that if
Christ is both God and man then theses verses imply his humanity is speaking of
his divinity. This assumes Unitarian monotheism and doesn’t consider
Trinitarian monotheism; plus it does not allow the text to speak for itself.
Christ constantly made a distinction between himself and the Father. And here I
take these verses are further illuminative in showing the distinction between
the Son and the Father as persons. But it does not however show Jesus and the
Father are ontologically separate.
Jesus said at one point that authority was given to him. It
is argued that if Jesus were God he would already have all authority. In John
1:1,14 and Philippians 2:6-9 it is taught that Christ being God took upon
flesh. Lets focus on Philippians 2:5-11 to establish this point. Many scholars
identify these verses in Philippians as an early hymn. It is called the Carmen
Christi. The context of these verses is Paul teaching the Philippians to have
humility of mind as Christ. Humility as such can be characterized by verse 4 as
possessing certain rights but giving those up to serve others. Now Christ is to
be our example of true humility and we are to imitate him. The passage says,
“…He [Christ] existed in the form of God….” The term “form” comes from the
Greek word morphe. It means the “outward display of the inner reality or
substance. Here it refers to the outward display of the divine substance, i.e.,
divinity of the preexistent Christ in the display of his glory as being in the
image of the Father.”[1]
Hence most translations render this “God by nature.” This means not merely the state of being God but divine
existence as the preexistent Christ. Paul goes on. He says He who (eternally)
existed in the form of God did not “regard equality of God a thing to be
grasped”(NASB). Some interpret this phrase, as Christ did not grasp after
equality with God implying it was not something he already possessed. But the
context must determine the meaning so it must not be assumed this is what he
meant. Paul makes some concluding remarks that are contrasted. Christ did not
grasp after equality with God but rather emptied himself. This passage
indicates it was a voluntary emptying done by Christ. Paul uses this term
“emptying” as a metaphor in other places as well (e.g. Romans 4:14). Paul
clearly makes a connection between emptying and taking. He “becomes flesh” by
taking the “form” of a bondservant and being made in the likeness of man. Its
no accident Paul uses the same word “form” to refer to Christ’s divinity and
becoming a bondservant, taking humanity. It is to show a true act of humility.
The very one that was served and worshiped by Angels and man takes upon the
lowly existence of man. Now let us ask given the context what is true humility?
Is it the idea of an inferior created being not usurping someone in a greater
position? Is it “humble” for an employee to not try and take the job of his
employer? Certainly not! However, what about the second understanding of this
passage. Christ the preexistent Logos by very nature God. He being equal with
the Father in deity with all its privileges, but he does not consider that
position something to hold on to at all costs. But out of love he rather takes
upon the lowly existence of a man to go to the for his peoples sins. He
voluntarily lays aside his privileges as God and takes the form of a man. He
becomes a servant. He serves those he came to redeem at the cross. Paul
distinguishes the Son from the Father often calling the Father “God” and Jesus
“Lord.” Isaiah 45:23 is quoted by Paul speaking of God and he applies it to
Jesus revealing further his deity.
So Jesus was both fully God and man as one person. Thus he
could rightfully say that authority was given to him, which he did not have, as
a man.
Questions for Witnesses:
1. Who raised Jesus from the dead?
Acts 4:10, John 2:19, Romans 8:11
2.Who is Jesus Father?
John 3:16
Matt 1:18
Who created the heavens and the earth?
Gen 1:1, John 1:3, 1:1,1:14, Col 1:14-17, Job 26:13, Gen
1:2, Isai 44:24 and Job 9:5-8
Who is the Lord God Almighty, the Alpha and Omega, the First
and Last?
Rev 1:8 who is the one ” which is, who was, and which is to
come?
Rev 1:17-18
Rev 4:8
Rev 11:17
Who did the Apostles believe Jesus to be?
John 1:49, John 20:28, John 1:1,14, 1 Tim 3:16,
What title does Heavenly Father give to Jesus?
Luke 9:35
Hebrews 1:8
Objections to Christ’s deity revisited:
Col 1:16-17
This verse does not teach Christ is created. The term “first
born” in Greek does not mean first created. Further, it must be interpreted in
its context. The latter part of the verse says “He [Jesus] is before all things
(the word “other” is added in the NWT but it is not in the Greek); according to
this verse then how can Jesus be a created thing if he is before all things?
Logically he cannot. Either he is before all things or he himself is a thing
created by God and therefore cannot be before all things. We ought to
understand the term “firstborn” to mean preeminent or heir, as Jews understood
the term in Hebraic tradition.
Rev 3:14
The term archa translated beginning can be rightly rendered
origin or source. Even the “Reasoning” book acknowledges this fact.
John 14:28
Again a different function or role does not entail an
inferiority of nature.
Proverbs 8 The wider context of Chapter 8 in the middle of
Chapter 7 and 9 speaks of wisdom in the feminine gender. Chapter 7 tells us to
call wisdom our sister. Clearly the wisdom spoken of in this chapter cannot
refer to Jesus. Even so, this is a personification of wisdom in the literary
genre of proverbs and should not be taken as precise doctrine.
The Trinity
First let us go to some passages in
Scripture to build the foundations for how we ought to understand God.
Det 6:4
Mark 12:28-33
1 Corinthians 8:4
Foundation 1: Monotheism, God is one,
It is an indisputable fact that the clear teaching of
scripture is monotheism. There is one God. Nevertheless, there are passages that seem to refer to other
gods, but when you look at the context of such scriptures it is evident they
are speaking of either: idols, angels or kings in a metaphorical way. Examples
of such passages would be Psalm 82, John 10, and 1 Corinthians 8.
Foundation 2: There are three named, the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit called God.
The Father: Jesus’ model prayer
1 Peter
The Son: Mark
Exodus, Mark 6:51
John 20:28
Phil 3:5
The Holy Spirit: Acts 5, 1 Corin 6:19
Foundation 3: The three named, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
are persons.
John 15:26
Notice the Father sends the Spirit to testify of the Son.
The three are spoken of as persons. But note how the Holy Spirit is spoken of
with the personal pronoun “He.”
John 17:5
Foundation 4: The three persons, Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit are the one God. This foundation necessarily follows from the other two.
Here we draw the conclusion from scripture the Tri-unity of God, the 3 in
oneness, commonly called the doctrine of the Trinity.
The term “Trinity” is nowhere to be found in scripture. But
it refers to a biblical doctrine. Much like the term omnipresence is not found
in scripture, but the idea of God being everywhere present is clearly taught in
scripture. So although the term
“Trinity” is not in scripture the truth in which the word refers to is taught
in scripture. The word Trinity can be traced to Latin roots, ‘tri’ meaning
three and ‘unity’ meaning one. The word literally means three in one.
The four foundations build from scripture the teaching that
the one God is three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But what exactly
are we saying? How is God one and
yet three? Isn’t the Trinity contradictory?
The Trinity is not contradictory since we are saying God is
one in one sense and three in another sense. God is one in essence and three in
personhood. God is one what and three who’s. In a more precise way, God is one
incorporeal Spirit with three sets of cognitive faculties comprised of
intellect, will and emotions. Another way to put it is God has three centers of
self-consciousness.
Are there any other evidences that testify to God being
Triune apart from Scripture? Well one way to see the plausibility of the
Trinity is to think of the attribute love. What is love? It is an action,
right? It is the act of giving one’s self to another. It is “otherness” instead
of self-centeredness. A thought experiment would help here. Imagine if God did
not choose to create the world. Would we still say God is all-loving before
creation? How so? God had no one to love prior to creation. God was always
loving. Since as Scripture says God is love (1 John 4:8). This requires God to
love another prior to creation. To say one can love without someone to love is
meaningless. The very concept of love requires another person to love. And it
is unbiblical to think God created love. Thus we are left with the plausible
conclusion that God as one being exists in three persons: the Father Son and
Holy Spirit; and that they love each before the creation of anything.
Books I recommend to present sound Christian doctrine dealing with the Trinity and Incarnation:
James White, The Forgotten Trinity
JP Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations
for A Christian World View.
[1] Fritz
Reinecker, A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, ed. Cleon Rogers, Jr.
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 550.
No comments:
Post a Comment