Skip to main content

Watch the Tower: Equality in the Godhead?

 


Continuing our look at the Trinity, we find in the Reasoning book p. 210 the Watch Tower continues to address the question:

'Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?'

They comment on the gospel text in Matt. 20:20-23, RS:

The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” They go on:

(How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?)'

The evidence seems clear enough, Jesus cannot be equal to the Father since he cannot grant what the Father can.

God the Son and the God-Man Jesus

Later in Matthew’s gospel we have Jesus clearly declaring, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me…’ (Mt.28:18). It seems clear that Jesus’ authority here is derived. From whom? From the Father (Jn.3:35). This appears to strengthen the case for Jesus not being equal to God the Father. Does this mean Jesus didn’t previously have this authority?

John writes, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.’ (Jn.1:1-4) I want to point out three things:

The Word was God.’ I know Jehovah’s Witnesses translate, ‘the Word was a god,’ but there is no warrant for doing this. See here.

...without him was not anything made that was made.’ The New World Translation has, ‘...apart from him not even one thing came into existence.’ If the Word was a created being this statement would be false. If he is created, albeit before everything else, one thing would have come into existence before the Word created everything else.

In him was life, and the life was the light of men.’ The New Word Translation inexcusably gives us, ‘by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.’ The literal translation of these words in their own Kingdom Interlinear is, ‘in him life was.’ Contrary to JW claims, this life was not derived but was integral, in the very nature of the Word.

If this is the case, then why is Jesus’ authority derived? Because God the Son exists eternally, having life and authority in himself. The God-man Jesus did not exist eternally, but had a beginning into which God the Son stepped, becoming incarnate.

God the Son existed eternally with the Father and the Spirit, in perfect and equal union. The God-man Jesus walked a journey from his birth, through his baptism and effectual calling, crucifixion, death, and resurrection, to be raised eternally to the place at the right hand of the throne of God. Here ‘all authority in heaven and on earth’ was given to him.

The extent of his authority is absolute, ‘all authority.’ We see this when we see his role as creator of all things (Jn.1:3); upholder of all things (Heb.1:3); his holding all things together (Col.1:17); his absolute authority over nature (Lk.8:25); over Satan and all his demons (Mk.1:27); his triumph over death (1 Cor.15:54-58); his role as ‘King of kings’ (Rev.17:14)

Before the World Existed

In his high priestly prayer in John’s gospel Jesus says, addressing the Father:

I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.’ (Jn.17:4,5)

Paul writes of Jesus in Philippians:

...though he was in the form of God, [he] did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing,, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of man.’ (Philip.2:6,7)

The Watch Tower translates, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God.’ This only raises the question, of what then did he empty himself? If he was a creature he could only empty himself of his creaturely nature. The correct translation stands, in no small part because of all we have said so far.

Earlier Paul describes Christ’s glorification, seated at the right hand of God:

...in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.’ (Philip.120-23)

All rule, all authority, all power, all dominion, all things under his feet, all things to the church, who fills all in all. This is the glory to which he was raised and the answer to his prayer in John 17, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.’

This is the God-man Jesus returning to that place from which God the Son came ‘to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.’ (Titus 2:14)

Oh, give thanks to the LORD, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever! Let the redeemed of the LORD say so, whom he has redeemed from the hand of the enemy…’

(Ps.107:1,2)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...