Saturday, April 29, 2017

Colossians 2:9 - The Fullness of Deity

For in Him all the fullness of Deity [Greek transliterated: theotes; Strong's #2320] dwells in bodily form and in him you are made full, who is the head of all principality and power. -- Colossians 2:9,10, New American Standard Bible translation
The above scripture is often cited by trinitarians and some others to offer proof of their two "natures" of Jesus theory. In actuality, there is nothing here about Jesus possessing two natures at once. Such an idea has to be read into what Paul stated. Walter Martin claims that Colossians 2:9 refers to "the triunity of the Godhead." (The Kingdom of the Cults, page 168) This would seem to lead to the conclusion that the Godhead in Colossians 2:9 is the alleged three person of the alleged triune God. However, Walter Martin also states of Colossians 2:9, "all the fullness of Deity dwells him Him bodily, which means nothing was lacking in his Deity." (The Kingdom of the Cults, page 530) Although we certainly would not agree with Martin's intent of this statement, nevertheless, what Martin states in the latter quote is more closely to what we believe Paul meant by his statement in Colossians 2:9. According to Matt Slick, in Colossians 2:9, Jesus claims to be God.

Some of our trinitarian and/or oneness neighbors wish to read into Colossians 2:9 that Jesus had two natures at once, evidently with the thought that "bodily" refers to Jesus as a human being, and that godhead in some way refers to Jesus as the Supreme Being. One states, "Jesus Christ is God manifest in flesh and has a dual nature.  Jesus IS both God and man (Colossians 2:9, 1 Timothy 3:16)." (See our studies related to "God in the Flesh" and also "Dual Natures".)

Below needs to be edited; links may not work.

Although both oneness and trinitarian believers teach that Jesus is still human, many of them as well as many others will often, evidently instinctively, based on their false misconception that "bodily" refers to Jesus' fleshly body, change the present tense "dwelleth" as it appears in the King James Version to "dwelt", making it past tense. Thus many express it similar to this: "in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Nevertheless, although some authors even emphasize the word "dwelt" (one even expressly states that it is "past tense"), we know of no translation that expresses that dwelling in the past tense, nor have we as yet found any explanation from any who express it in past tense as to what they would seek support for changing it from the present tense to the past tense. More than likely, however, these authors, and they probably run into the hundreds, perhaps thousands, evidently do not read the scripture closely, and assume that it is past tense, and that it is therefore the way they present. In reality, as we will show, the word, being present tense, refers to this "Godhead" as dwelling in Jesus' spiritual body that he received in the resurrection. See our study: Jesus Died a Human Being - Raised a Spirit Being.

One should also realize that most of the prominent Bible scholars are trinitarian, and often their trinitarian assumptions are used as a basis for what they state about translation and/or understanding what Bible writers were writing about. If one examines the word THEOTES with the assumption that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, one will tend to view "pleroma" and "theotes" as referring to Jesus as being the Most High. Actually, as we will see from the context, this "plerorma" was not inherit to who Jesus was originally, but it was given to him in Jesus' mighty spiritual body that he was raised with, so that he might fulfill the position that God gave to him of being "the head of all principality and power." -- Isaiah 9:7; Matthew 29:18; Luke 1:32,33; John 3:35; 5:22-27; 13:3; Acts 2:36; Romans 14:9; Colossians 2:10; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Philippians 2:9-11; 1 Peter 3:22.

The plenitude of godship -- ruling might -- does dwell permanently in the mighty spirit body of Jesus. It is not just an authority that is given to him, but his very being contains all the power needed to carry out the works of his Father, thus "it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him," (Colossians 1:19, NAS) and so that he "is the head of all principality and power." (Colossians 2:10) This might -- godhead, godship -- is given to Jesus by his God. -- Psalm 45:7; Matthew 28:18; Hebrews 1:2,6,9; Philippians 2:9; Colossians 2:10; Psalm 2:7,8; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; Luke 1:32; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14.

Our Lord, before he became a man, was of the highest order of spirit beings, the Logos, who, after the creation of the angelic host through him, is called the archangel (Jude 1:9; Daniel 12:1; Colossians 1:16) He was not then so high as he is now, for "God has highly exalted him" to his right hand because of his obedience in becoming man's willing ransom. To him the abundance of power has been given to dwell bodily, so he now possesses even more power in his spiritual body than before he came to earth. (1 Corinthians 15:45; Colossians 2:9) No longer in the days of his flesh, and having offered his body of flesh in sacrifice, he was "made so much better than angels." (Philippians 2:8,9; Hebrews 1:4; 5:7; 10:10) He is now, especially since his resurrection, of the highest order of spirit beings that God will ever have, next to that of the Father, exalted to the right hand of Jehovah. -- 1 Corinthians 15:27; Psalm 45:6; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 1:3-5,13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; Acts 2:32,33; 5:30,31; Colossians 3:1; Ephesians 1:20; Luke 22:69; Mark 15:19; 1 Peter 3:21,22; Psalm 110:1.

The Greek word translated "Godhead" in many translations at Colossians 2:9 is often transliterated as Theotes. The Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich lexicon [BAGD], on page 359, defines the Greek word theotes as: "deity, divinity, used as abstract noun for theos...the fullness of a deity Col.2:9". [abstract noun, a quality or attribute].

Being an abstract noun for theos, we thus fall back to the root, THEOS, and its usages as well as the Hebraic background of forms of the Hebrew word often transliterated as 'EL, which correspond to forms of the Greek word transliterated as THEOS. See our study: The Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"

If we remember that the Hebrew word 'EL has the basic meaning of "strength, power, might"*, we can see what Paul is saying here. The fullness [abundance] of deity [strength, power, might] dwells in him bodily [his heavenly spirit body, not his body of flesh]. Seeing the word THEOTES as based on Hebrew usage of EL and ELOHIM, in the sense of power and authority, allows us to understand that Paul is saying that all this power and authority dwells in Jesus bodily. All the power and authority spoken of, however, is given to Jesus by the Almighty Yahweh. This agrees with Paul elsewhere says: "Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name." (Philippians 2:9 -- Thus Jesus is not God who exalted him.) "For, 'He put all things in subjection under his feet.' But when he says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him." (1 Corinthians 15:27) "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ.. raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. He put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the assembly, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all." (Ephesians 1:17,20-23) "He is the head of the body, the assembly, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Colossians 1:18) Peter agrees with this: "Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers being made subject to him." -- 1 Peter 3:21,22.

Yes, God has given to Jesus all the plentitude, abundance of godship -- mightiness, so that he "is the head of all principality and power." -- Colossians 2:9,10.

Jesus proceeded forth and came from God (John 8:42). But Jesus is not God; he is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15) He stated that he is inferior (John 10:29; 14:28); he worshiped God; he prayed to God (John 11:41, 42; 17:1-26); he submitted to God; he called upon God for help with things he could not do himself; he accepted God's will as his own; he affirmed that God heard his prayers; and unlike God, who must by definition be perfect in every way, Jesus was made complete as a high priest through sufferings, and learned deeper levels of obedience by the things which he suffered (Hebrews 2:10; 5:8,9). Jesus of Nazareth was just what the scriptures style him: the Only-Begotten, the Son of the Highest, the First-Born of all Creation. -- John 1:18; Luke 1:32; Revelation 3:14.

The fullness of divine glory (Colossians 1:19) - the plenitude of love, wisdom, grace, and power- makes Jesus the able executor of the Father's wonderful plans. All this power in heaven and earth belongs to Jesus especially since his resurrection (Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:33; 5:31; Philippians 2:9). The counsels of God, before kept secret (Mark 13:32), are now entrusted to his care (Revelation 5:1-5). We look forward with rejoicing to the day when all mankind will join the heavenly chorus, singing, "Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be to him that sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever." - Revelation 5: l3

We should also note that "all the fullness of God" is said to include the members of the church (Ephesians 3:19), who are partakers of the Christ, being members of the body of Christ. Does this mean that they are or will become God Almighty? The fullness of God dwelling in believers, of course, is not equal to the fullness of godship dwelling in Jesus, since Jesus has godship over the church. Nor do we understand the apostle Paul to mean the same thing when he speaks of the fullness of God in believers as when he spoke of the fullness of deity dwelling bodily in Jesus. Nevertheless, some trinitarians make a big ado about this fullness being in the plural, and not of a single person. Paul speaks of the fullness of God in the believers, because he is speaking to all of the ecclesia in Ephesus, and not to one single member of that ecclesia. Although Paul speaks to the believers in the plural, it is apparent that he is saying this of each individual believer from the context, for each individual must be rooted and grounded in love, be strengthened to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know Christ's love which surpasses knowledge, that he/she may be filled to all the fullness of God.

Ephesians 3:16-19: that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, that you may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be strengthened to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know Christ's love which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled to all the fullness of God.

Regardless, the godship -- deity -- (as used for the power or authority of rulership) of God's kingdom will include Jesus and all the saints. -- Psalm 2:6,8; 82:1,6,8; Isaiah 11:1-9; 32:1; Daniel 2:44; 7:22,27; Acts 17:31; 1 Corinthians 6:2,3; Colossians 2:9,10,19; 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 2:26,27; 20:4.

Of course, Jesus and the church do receive from Yahweh the power and authority through the holy spirit of Yahweh. -- Mark 13:11; John 3:34; 7:39; 20:22; Acts 1:2,8; 2:4,33,38; 5:32 (Darby); 8:15,17; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 2:12; 12:8; 2 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:8; 1 John 3:24; 4:13; Revelation 22:17.

Actually, we find nothing in the verse about such a "hypostatic union" as many claim that this verse teaches; indeed, the idea has to be first be imagined and assumed using the spirit of human imagination, what is imagined and assumed has to be formed into the dogma, and then that assumed dogma has to be added to and read into what is stated. As can be seen from what we have presented, there is nothing in Colossians 2:9 that supports the added-on dogma that Jesus is both the Most High, higher than the angels, and that Jesus is also a human being of flesh, lower than the angels, both at the same time.

Of course, now that the only Most High -- the unipersonal God and Father of Jesus (Ephesians 1:3) -- has exalted Jesus (Acts 5:31; Ephesians ; Philippians 2:9; Ephesians 1:20-22), he has been made "the head of all principality and power" (Colossians 2:10), and he is no longer in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), and having sacrifice his fleshly existence (Luke 22:19; John 6:51; Hebrews 10:10), he is no longer a little lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9), but is now exalted above the angels. (1 Peter 1:22). As such, in the spiritual body that he now has (1 Corinthians 15:44,45; 1 Peter 3:18), God has given to him all the fulness (abundance, the full amount needed) of deity (mightiness, powerfulness) that is needed for him to be "head of all principality and power" as has been given to him by the only Most High. Jesus, however, is and always will be excluded from being that which only belongs to the Most High Himself. -- 1 Corinthians 15:27.

Nevertheless, one has to discard man's dogma in order to comprehend the scriptures concerning this matter. God's holy spirit is hindered as long as any child of God continues to filter what is provided by means of God's Holy Spirit with the doctrine and fables of men.

Addendum 1 - Does the Word "Godhead" mean Three Persons?

It has been stated: "Since the word Trinity is used to represent God as a triune being, what is triune? Noah Webster defined the word triune to mean, 'three in one.' This means that God, a singular being, exists in a plural manner. This is why the term Godhead is often used in scripture (Acts 7:19, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9, etc.)."

We often hear trinitarians speak of three persons in the "Godhead" in this manner. They do not stop to reason that if Godhead means plural in number, as designating three persons in one Godhead, this would mean that Jesus himself is more than one person, for "Godhead" is said to dwell in Jesus bodily. If this is applied to Colossians 2:9, then all three persons would be Jesus, for it is stated that all three dwell in Jesus bodily. Additionally, it would mean that Jesus would be dwelling in Jesus. Actually "Godhead" simply means "godship", or from Hebraic background, having power and authority.

Addendum 2 - Bodily - Jesus' Physical Body?

One has stated: "Your suggestion that Col. 2:9 only refers to present tense, or His current state, is definitely not supported by the rest of the book which tells us that the fullness of the eternal Creator also dwelt in His corruptible human nature (1:16, 19,20)."

It is not our belief that Colossians 2:9 refers to God Almighty dwelling in Jesus, so the above is not applicable to what we have stated. Yet, there are some similarities. Yes, God was in Jesus as a human. (John 10:38; 14:10,11) The scriptures also say Jesus and God are in the believer through God's spirit, and that the believer is in Jesus and God. (Matthew 10:20; John 14:20,23; 15:4; 17:21-24; Romans 8:9-11; 1 Corinthians 6:16; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Colossians 1:27; 1 John 2:24; 3:24; 4:13,16; see also 1 John 1:3,7; Ephesians 2:22) None of this makes either Jesus or the believers God Almighty, nor does it make the believers become Jesus.

See our studies:

Addendum 3 -- Word Was Made Flesh - John 1:1,4; Philippians 2:6-8

Someone comments that what we say does not "mesh with the rest of Scripture which tells us that the eternal Word of God was made flesh (John 1:1, 14), or Phil. 2:6-8 which tells us that the eternal, immutable nature of God which Christ possessed took on the corruptible nature of human flesh."
There is nothing either in John 1:1,14 nor Philippians 2:6-8 that speaks of an "eternal, immutable nature of God which Christ possessed [that] took on the corruptible nature of human flesh." Does such an idea even make sense? While those who advocate this idea claim that it was not the substance of God that became flesh, if applied to what is actually stated in John 1:1,14, it would indeed mean that the very substance of the Most of the Most High became the substance of flesh, lower than the angels! In reality, it was the Logos that became flesh; and while in the days of his flesh, he did not have his former divine glory. -- John 17:5.
See our studies:
Hebrews 2:9 and the Alleged Incarnation

Jesus' Prehuman Glory

Jesus' Two Glories


Addendum 4 -- Regarding the Word "Fullness" (Pleroma)
We have been criticized for our explanation of the "abundance" or "plenitude", evidently with the thought that "fullness" in Colossians 2:9 expresses that Jesus is fully God, as the trinitarians like to say. Note the following regarding the word "fullness" and Greek word from which it is rendered:

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 4138
Original Word Word Origin
plhvrwma from (4137)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Pleroma 6:298,867
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
play'-ro-mah Noun Neuter
Definition

that which is (has been) filled
a ship inasmuch as it is filled (i.e. manned) with sailors, rowers, and soldiers
in the NT, the body of believers, as that which is filled with the presence, power, agency, riches of God and of Christ
that which fills or with which a thing is filled
of those things which a ship is filled, freight and merchandise, sailors, oarsmen, soldiers
completeness or fulness of time
fulness, abundance
a fulfilling, keeping
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/pleroma.html
From the Greek-Dictionary.net
==

Lexical form (using TekniaGreek):
plhvrwma
Greek transliteration:
plērōma
Transliteration (simplified):
pleroma
Strong's number:
4138
GK number:
4445
Frequency in New Testament:
17
Morphology of Biblical Greek tag:
n-3c(4)
Gloss:
fullness, fulfillment

that which fills up; full measure, entire content,, Mk. 8:20; 1 Cor. 10:26, 28; complement, full extent, full number, Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10; that which fills up a deficiency, a supplement, a patch, Mt. 9:16; fulness, abundance, Jn. 1:16; full measure, Rom. 15:29; a fulfilling, perfect performance, Rom. 13:10; complete attainment of entire belief, full acceptance, Rom. 11:12; full development, plenitude, Eph. 4:13; Col. 1:19; 2:9

http://www.greek-dictionary.net/pl%C4%93r%C5%8Dma
Addendum 5 - Using Dictionaries

The same one who criticized our use of plenitude responded to our presentation of the Greek scholars (see Addendum 6) with the claim that we need to learn how to better understand the Scriptures and quit worrying about what dictionaries say.
This kind of reasoning sounds very similar to the accusations that the Jewish leaders made of Jesus and his disciples. Our experience with such is, in effect, that such an argument is saying, don't confuse with the facts, my mind is made up. If we present what the Bible says, what we present is not addressed, but simply dismissed; if we present what trinitarians scholars say, then we get attacked for presenting what trintiarian scholars say. Such who criticize in this manner are endeavoring to create what many call a Catch-22 situation, a continual method of frustrating anything said by presenting self-contradictory demands upon what is presented; it is as though the one creating this situation is stating: I do not recognize your scholarship so I do not recognize what you say; I do not recognize your quotes of scholars because I do not recognize you as scholar, and therefore whatever you quote of trinitarians scholars must also be wrong, etc.

Addendum 6 -- Context and Meaning

It is being argued related to Colossians 2:9 that context and what the writer meant to say is the important thing. With this we agree; there is not any indication, however, from the context or from Paul's writings in general that he meant to say that Jesus was the Most High.

For those who are genuinely seeking the truth, however, what does the context of Colossians 2:9 reveal?

Is the word THEOS in Colossians 1:3,6,10,14,27; 2:12; 3:1 referring to one person, or three persons? Does not this one person who is identified as "God" exalt the the one spoken of Colossians 2:9 with the power that is spoken of in Colossians 2:10?

Most trinitarians will agree that in these verses (Colossians 1:3,6,10,14,27; 2:12; 3:1), Paul uses the word THEOS of only of one person, not more than one person. What they will do, however, is call upon the spirit of human imagination so as assume that "God" means only the alleged "first" person of God, and that our Lord Jesus Christ means the alleged second person of God. Of course, then they will use the spirit of human imagination in order to suppose that, in Acts 2:36, it is the first person of their alleged triune God who made the second person of the alleged triune God both Lord and Christ. Some go on to confuse matters even more by claiming that the word Lord, when applied to Jesus, means Jehovah (Yahweh) of the Old Testament, although as yet I have not seen any explanation as to how Jehovah made Jesus Jehovah. The point is that the trinitarian has to continuously call upon the spirit of human imagination in order keep bringing forth one thing after another to add to the scriptures and to read into the scriptures in order to sustain the added-on trinitarian dogma.

The New Testament, however, is based on the Old Testament. The usage of the word THEOS is based on the Hebrew word EL, which has the basic meaning of strength, power, might. THEOTES is actually an abstract feminine form of THEOS, which in turn corresponds with EL in the Hebrew. There is no reason to think that the NT writers would use forms of THEOS any differently than the OT writers used forms of EL. When EL is applied to anyone who is not Most High in the OT, the Hebrews would not think that this meant that the one being spoken of as EL or ELOHIM, etc., as a person of the Most High. They would simply attribute the word as being applied to the strength, might, or power of that person, which might, strength, power can only come from the Most High Himself. Most translations of the Bible into English as well as other languages recognize this usage. We can use the most popular English translation — the King James Version — to illustrate such usage. This can be demonstrated in such verses where the KJV renders the word for “God” (forms of EL and ELOHIM in the Hebrew) so as to denote strength, power, might, rulership, etc., such as in the following verses: Genesis 23:6 (mighty); Genesis 30:8 (mighty); Genesis 31:29 (power); Deuteronomy 28:32 (might); 1 Samuel 14:15 (great); Nehemiah 5:5 (power); Psalm 8:5 (angels); Psalm 36:6 (great); Psalm 82:1 (mighty); Proverbs 3:27 (power); Psalm 29:1 (mighty); Ezekiel 32:21 (strong); Jonah 3:3 (exceeding). If one were to substitute “false god” in many of these verses, we would have some absurd statements. This demonstrates that these words are used in a sense other than the only true God, or as “false god.”

As THEOTES in Colossians 2:9 is not speaking of "God" who does the exalting (Colossians 2:12; 3:1; compared with Acts 2:32,33; 5:31; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Ephesians 1:3,20,22; Philippians 2:9), but rather of the one who is exalted, the default reasoning is that THEOTES is not referring to a state being the Most High -- the Supreme Being, but rather to a state of being mighty, mightiness, dwelling in the substance of Jesus' spiritual body -- the body he now has, not the body that was his during the days of his flesh.

Are we to think that the entire substance of the Most High, who is greater than the material heavens, is all compacted and bound into a human body of flesh, as some seem to claim? These same trinitarians will often on the one hand claim that that God's substance is boundless, but then, by forcing into Paul's words that he was speaking of Jesus' body of flesh, and that THEOTES means the the state of being the substance of the Most High, they would have the boundless substance of the Most High bound into an comparatively minute body as compared with the totality of the universe. This is not the way they would put the matter, but it is the logical conclusion that would be reached by some of the statements that have often been presented to me, and which I keep reading from trinitarian apologists.

However, simply accepting the Biblical usage of forms of EL and applying that usage to THEOTES in Colossians 2:9 is fully in harmony with the facts, the context, and the entire Bible. It is very simple and straightforward; nothing at all complex, no distortion of context, no need to use a lot of human imagination so as to keep coming up with explanation after explanation so as to force a preconceived dogma into the scriptures. It is because trinitarians (and many others, such as "oneness" believers) do utilize the spirit of human imagination in order to "see" their dogma in the scriptures, that what would otherwise be simple and straightforward, becomes complex.



Some related online writings (we do not necessarily agree with all statements given; you may have to use your search or find feature of your browser to search the pages for 2:9)
http://www.nazarene-friends.org/pubs/trinity/trinity4.html'
The Error of the Trinity - Part 4
(use the search or find feature of browser for "Colossians 2:9")
(Friends of the Nazarene) Luke 7:47-49; Matthew 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20- Who Can Forgive Sins? John 14:9 - Was Jesus the Father? John 20:28 - The God of Thomas. Acts 20:28 - Whose Blood? Romans 9:5 - Is Jesus the "Blessed God"? Philippians 2:6 - Was Jesus Equal to God? Colossians 2:9 - Is Jesus Part of a Godhead?

Comments and Replies

Franklin Eugene Rhoads on June 8th, 2011 at 1:34 pm e
You said “Our Lord, before he became a man, was of the highest order of spirit beings, the Logos, who, after the creation of the angelic host through him, is called the archangel (Jude 1:9; Daniel 12:1; Colossians 1:16).”

I do not believe that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as a spirit being. Please see my web page for more in depth information on this matter.
ResLight Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 10:30 am
Regarding Jesus’ pre-human existence, see the studies at:

http://biblehope.yuku.com/sreply/6/-All-in-John-1-3
The Logos of God
http://reslight.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/logos/
and also the thread in the forum:
http://reslight.boards.net/thread/194/jesus-exist-before-flesh
==========
Ronald R. Day Sr. (Restoration Light Bible Study Services -- ResLight, RlBible)
Updated: March 2009 -- September 2014; Republished, September 2014; Republished, April 2017

Friday, April 21, 2017

Philippians 2:6 - Examining the Greek Word "Morphe"

Philippians 2:6
hos en morphee theou huparchwn ouch harpagmon
WHO IN FORM OF GOD EXISTING NOT SNATCHING
3739 1722 3444 2316 5224 5225 3756 0725
heegeesato to einai isa thew
HE CONSIDERED THE TO BE EQUAL (THINGS) TO GOD,
2233 3588 1511 2470 2316
Philippians 2:7
alla heauton ekenwsen morpheen doulou labwn en
BUT HIMSELF HE EMPTIED FORM OF SLAVE HAVING TAKEN, IN
0235 1438 2758 3444 1401 2983 1722
homoiwmati anthrwpwn genomenos
LIKENESS OF MEN HAVING BECOME;
3667 0444 1096
Westcott & Hort Interlinear
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/phi2.pdf

Philippians 2:6 - who, though he was in the form [morphee, external appearance -- Strong's 3444*] of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. -- Revised Standard Version.

Philippians 2:7 - but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form [morpheen, external appearance*] of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. -- New King James Version

*==========================
Definitions of Strong's #3444:

Thayer's Definition
1. the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision
2. external appearance

Strong's Definition

Perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts); shape; figuratively nature: - form.

Mounce's Definition

form, outward appearance; nature, character

==========================

This scripture is not saying, as many would like to read into it, that Jesus was the Supreme Being before he came to the earth. Nor does it say that he was equal to his God, but rather that equality with his God was something that he was not grasping for. Nor was it that Jesus did not grasp for equality with his God because he already had that equality, for why should such a consideration even be mentioned if Jesus was God Almighty? If Jesus, however, was equal to God, that would actually mean that there are two Gods, two Supreme Beings, one Supreme Being who is equal to the other Supreme Being. For Paul's words to make any sense, he has to be understood as saying that Jesus was not equal to his God, and that he did not seek to grasp such equality (unlike the one spoken of in Isaiah 14:14).

Jesus was in the form [external appearance] of God before he came into the world of mankind, in that he had the glory of a heavenly body, a body in the likeness of, a body similar to, the only true God who sent him into the world. (John 17:1,3,5; 1 Corinthians 15:40) But this does not mean that Jesus was his God.

Nor does this scripture say that Jesus *became* a slave of his God when he became a man, as some have read into the scripture, for Paul did not say that Jesus took on being a slave, but rather that he took on the *form* [external appearance] of a bond-slave. In what way was Jesus externally in appearance as a bond-slave? We can see by comparing spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing. Jesus did not actually become a slave as other men, in bondage to corruption (Romans 8:21); he was never in bondage to the corruption that is in the world. (2 Peter 1:4) He was, nevertheless, in the form [morpheen, external appearance] of such a bondage, since he suffered the consequences of sin, in the likeness of men (likeness of sinful flesh - Romans 8:3), so that he could redeem mankind from sin. Thus, externally, he appeared as though he were actually as other men, in bondage to the corruption and in slavery to sin, and he suffered and died as though as sinner, but this was only external appearance, for actually, he had no sin, nor was he ever a bond servant to sin. (Romans 6:16-20; Galatians 2:17) Thus we read, that "for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." -- Hebrews 12:2, World English Bible version.

The angels, of course, do indeed have the quality of mightiness, and that quality could be expressed by forms of the word "THEOS," corresponding to forms of the Hebrew words EL and ELOHIM. (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7,9; Psalm 82:1,6,7; John 10:34,35) However, since the word "morphee" is used in Philippians 2:6 in relation to "theou," then the word "theou" here is probably referring to the God and Father of Jesus, and not just to an attribute of mightiness.

Jesus, therefore, before he became a human being, was indeed in the external appearance/likeness of his God and Father, in a similar manner that he was, as a human, in the external appearance/likeness of sinful man, although Jesus was not a sinful man.

==============
The question has arisen: "Was Jesus a bondservant, or did he only appear to be one?"

Jesus was definitely not a bondservant under the bondage of corruption as are other men. However, he did appear to be such, even suffering death. Jesus was not born into this world under the condemnation through Adam (Romans 5:12-19), he was no a child of wrath as other men (Ephesians 2:2,3) nor was his birth of the creation that has been subjected to futility under a bondage of corruption. -- Ecclesiastes 1:2,3,8-17; Acts 3:13; Romans 1:21-2:1; 3:9,10,20; 5:12-19; 8:20-22; Galatians 2:16; 3:12.

Jesus' body was prepared separate from the bondage common to man, for his body was specially prepared by his God (Hebrews 10:5) by means of God's Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:20) Thus, Jesus was, while he was in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), not of this world that is under bondage to corruption, although he appeared to be since he suffered until death to pay the wages of sin for the church and for all mankind who are under that bondage. -- Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22; 17:25; John 3:17; 4:42; 12:47,48; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23; Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 2:9,10,18; 5:8; 9:26; 13:12; 1 Peter 2:21,24; 4:1; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:14.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

John 17:3 - Did Jesus Really Say That the Father is the Only True God?

Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you.... This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” -- John 17:1,3
Unless otherwise stated, all scriptural quotations are from the World English Bible translation, with God's Holy Name presented as "Jehovah".

There are those who claim that John 17:1,3 does not really say what we claim, that is, that the Father is the only true God, and that Jesus excludes himself from being that only true God. Indeed, some have even stated that we have twisted the scriptures in order to have it say what we want it to say: that only the Father is the only true God. In reality, it is the trinitarian (and some others) who have to distort what Jesus actually did say, and then add this and that, and read what has been added into, the verses, in order to make it appear that the Jesus was not denying that he is the only true God. Did Jesus really state that only the Father is the true God, thus excluding himself from being that only true God, but rather the one sent by that only true God?

ELOHIM AND EL

In our examination of this question, we remind the reader that the basic Hebrew word from which the English word “God” is transliterated is EL. Other forms of this word are often expressed as different words, but are actually simply inflections of the one word. These other Hebrew forms are built upon this basic word, and are also often translated as “God”, such as the forms often transliterated as ELOHIM and ELOAH. While technically ELOHIM is the plural of ELOAH, ELOAH is also an inflection of EL. The basic meaning of the Hebrew word for "God" is “strength, power, might”, etc. (See Proverbs 3:17 and Micah 2:1, where the KJV translates EL as "in the power of ", and Psalm 82:1, where the KJV renders EL as "mighty"; see also Strong's Hebrew Dictionary for #410) ELOHIM as used of the Most High Jehovah, however, is used as what has been called the plural intensive, that is, it is used as a singular in an intensive, superior or superlative form.*
==========
*See our studies related to:
Elohim

The Hebrew forms EL and ELOHIM are not always used of Jehovah, the only true God. Remembering their basic meaning of “might, power or strength”, they are legitimately used of any to whom Jehovah has given special power or might. That the word EL is thus used may be readily seen by anyone who will carefully note the following texts from the King James Version, in which English translations of the Hebrew word El are in denoted by *..*: "It is in the *power* of my hand." (Genesis 31:29) "There shall be no *might* in thine hand." (Deuteronomy 28:32) "Neither is it in our *power*." (Nehemiah 5:5) "Like the *great* mountains." (Psalm 36:6) "In the *power* of thine hand to do it." (Proverbs 3:27) "Pray unto *a god* [mighty one] that cannot save." (Isaiah 45:20) "Who among the sons of the *mighty*." (Psalm 89:6) "God standeth in the congregation of the *mighty*." (Psalm 82:1) "Who is like unto thee, O Lord [Jehovah] among the *Gods* [mighty ones or ruling ones]?" (Exodus 15:11) "Give unto the Lord [Jehovah] of ye *mighty*." (Psalm 29:1) "The *mighty* God even the Lord [Jehovah]." -- Psalm 50:1.

One should note the above usages carefully, and the application given by the King James translators; all will agree that the context in most of these scriptures indicate the meaning of the Hebrew word El to be that of "might", "power", etc. How clearly it is stated that Jehovah is the Supreme "El" and rules over all other ones called "el/elohim" - powerful ones. In the absolute sense, there is no other EL – Might -- besides Jehovah (Isaiah 44:6; 45:5,21), since he is the Might -- the source of all power, all mightiness, and there is no power or might in the universe that does not originate from him. Even the demons have their power or might from Jehovah, although they do misuse their power. It is this special quality of mightiness that determines the “nature” of what is EL. Thus idols, having no power of their own, are by nature not gods. -- Galatians 4:8

How about the Hebrew word ELOHIM; is its usage only legitimately used of the Most High, Jehovah? No. Exodus 4:16 relates that Moses was made as ELOHIM [a mighty one] to Aaron. (Exodus 4:16) In Exodus 7:1, however, we find that Jehovah made Moses ELOHIM [one of superior might] to Pharoah. Man is a little lower than the angels who are ELOHIM. (Psalm 8:5 -- compare Hebrews 2:9). In Psalm 82:6,7 the “sons of God” -- while yet human -- are called ELOHIM – mighty ones. (See John 10:34,35; 1 John 3:2) The wicked spirit that impersonated Samuel is also called ELOHIM. (1 Samuel 28:13) And there are other scriptures that are possibly referring to angels or human rulers as ELOHIM: Psalm 86:6-8; 95:3; 50:1; Psalm 82:6,7.

It should be noted that Jehovah is the one holy name applied to the Supreme Being - our Father, and him whom Jesus called Father and God. -- John 17:1,3: 20:17; Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:43-45; 26:64; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34; 7:55: Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:13; 10:12,13; 1 Peter 3:22.

What does all of the above have to do with John 17:1,3? Just this: The Father is the only true God [Might, Power] from which all might and power is derived. Jesus, being sent by this only true God, is not the only true God who sent him. Jesus -- like Moses in Exodus 7:1, the angels in Psalm 8:5, and the sons of God (Psalm 82:6,7) -- receives his power and authority from the only true Supreme Being. Psalm 82:6,7 is the scripture Jesus referred to in his defense as recorded in John 10:34,35, and he there uses the Greek form often transliterated as THEOI [a plural form of the Greek often transliterated as THEOS] – gods -- as a translation of the Hebrew ELOHIM. By this reference, Jesus shows that the narrow definition that the Jews were giving the expression “Son of God” does not mean equal to God, any more than the Hebraic usage of ELOHIM when applied to the “sons of God to whom the Word came” means that these “sons of God” are equal to God. But as used in the strict, absolute sense of Supreme Power, the Supreme Being, Jesus states very straightforwardly in John 17:1-3 that his God, his Father, is the only true God [Supreme Being, hence the source of all might, power -- 1 Corinthians 8:6], and then excludes himself as being sent by that only true God.

Our trinitarian neighbors, as well as some others, have redefined the “nature” of what the Biblical "deity" is, by claiming that it means that such must have all the attributes of the Almighty, including never having been created, as well as being the Supreme Being. They do this by a series of misapplications of scripture, and with some imaginative redefining of the basic meanings of words as given in scripture.

We have been presented with the following quote from David A. Reed:

If Jesus’ reference to the Father as “the only true God” were meant to exclude the Son from deity, then the same principle of interpretation would have to apply to Jude 4, where Jesus Christ is called “our only Owner and Lord” (nwt, italics added). This would have to exclude the Father from Lordship and Ownership. Yet, Witnesses speak of the Father as “the Lord Jehovah,” even though Jude 4 calls Jesus our “only” Lord. And the Holy Spirit is called “Lord” at 2 Corinthians 3:17. Obviously, then, neither use of the word only is exclusive with reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ being called our “only” Lord does not rule out the Lordship of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Father’s being called the “only” true God does not exclude the Son and the Holy Spirit from deity. -- Reed, David A., Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House) 1998, c1986.
Of course, we do not believe that John 17:3 excludes Jesus from deity, as that term would be defined by Hebraic usage of the Hebrew forms of the word EL (including ELOHIM), but it does exclude him from being the ultimate Power Source -- Supreme Being, the Most High, the One who sent him -- not from the power as deity {EL, ELOHIM, THEOS} that is given to Jesus by Jehovah, his Father.
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. -- New American Standard Bible translation
Right away it should be plain that there is no contrast made in Jude 1:4, as in John 17:1,3. In John 17:1,3, we are directly told that the Father is the only true God, and that Jesus was sent by this only true God. In Jude 1:4 there is no contrast being made, nor is there any need to think that “only” as used Jude 1:4 negates the fact that Jesus was sent by the only true God as shown in John 17:3. This should be easy to understand, except for our trinitarian and possibly our “oneness” neighbors, who insist that Jesus is the only true God.

As we have shown elsewhere, Jesus is the Lord of those who accept him; Jesus is the "only Lord"-- through whom is all -- that Jehovah has appointed over the church. (1 Corinthians 8:6) We notice that in Isaiah 61:1, it is "The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on" the Messiah, the anointed one. Notice that it is "Lord Jehovah" who does the anointing of Jesus, and thus it is "Lord Jehovah" who has made Jesus both Christ (anointed one) and lord. (Acts 2:36; 10:38) The fact that the Lord Jehovah has made Jesus the only Lord over the church does not do away with the Lordship of Jehovah. The expression “only Master and Lord” used in Jude 1:4 as the one appointed over the church does not mean that there is not another who is Supreme Lord and Master over all. Let us liken this to a certain division or department in a large company. For instance, a worker in a cabinet factory may refer to only one boss over the door finishing line. This does not mean that the boss over the door finishing line does not have another boss who is over him. -- Acts 2:36, Ephesians 1:17.

If Jesus had to be made 'lord' (Acts 2:36), then this indicates that at one time Jesus was not the 'lord', or 'master', which he became, even as he became also “Christ” by the anointing of the one who is God over him. (Psalm 2:2; 45:7 [See also Hebrews 1:9]; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 10:38) By being made “Lord” signifies that special powers or authority was given him. With this many scriptures agree that Jehovah, the only true God, has given to his Son special powers and authority. (Psalm 2:2,7,8; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7 [See Luke 1:32]; 11:1-4; 42:1; 61:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; Matthew 11:27; 28:18; John 3:35; 5:21-30; 13:3; Acts 2:36; 17:31; Romans 14:9; Ephesians 1:,3;17-23; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2,6,13; 1 Peter 3:22). The fact that these things are given to Jesus in itself shows that Jesus is not the Most High, else none of these would have to be “given” to him, for as being the Most High, he would already have these things. Of course, the One who made him "Lord" would be superior to him, and thus another Lord, a higher Lord. Thus when the scriptures say that all things have been given to him, it is evident that the Almighty One who has given him all these things is excluded. (1 Corinthians 15:27) It is with this in mind that Paul stated: “yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we to him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” (1 Corinthians 8:6) Only Jehovah is Most High. Never is Jesus referred as the Most High.

Nor does Jesus as the only Lord and Master of the church negate the fact that individuals of the church may work as servants of an employer, who, in effect would be a “lord” and “master” over them as long as they are employed as such. Likewise, in the first century, some of the Christians were actually slaves that were owned by a master or lord. Neither Paul nor Peter exhorted slaves to be free from their master or lord so as to have only one “Lord”. (Ephesians 6:5,9; Colossians 3:22; 4:1; Ephesians 6:1; Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:8) Thus we can see that Jesus as the “the only Lord” over the church is a specific office, an office given to Jesus by the only true God, his God, his Father, and yet there are still “many lords” that are properly so in other areas of life, while Jehovah is still Lord over all. -- Psalm 97:9; 135:5; John 10:29; 14:28.

Since Jesus was sent by the only true God to declare the only true God who had sent him (John 1:18), and since Jesus is the only way that we can know the only true God who sent him (Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 14:6; 1 John 5:20), and thus be reconciled to the only true God (2 Corinthians 5:18), it is imperative that we come to know the one whom the only true God sent, else we cannot actually know God.

Below we present quotes from various ones (or from various websites) who have presented objections to using John 17:3 to show that Jesus is not Jehovah and our response to these objections. The quotes are preceded with a bullet.

One states:
  • If the same principle of hermeneutics is applied to 2 Corinthians 11:31 as anti-Trinitarians wish to apply at John 17:3, God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ would necessarily be two different people, and the latter could not be God.
The distinction between John 17:3 and 2 Corinthians 11:31 should be apparent to all. The latter does not state that the Father is sent by the only true God, as we read of Jesus in John 17:3. Evidently the writer is emphasizing the Greek word “kai” meaning “and” and claiming that in John 17:3, the word “kai” is used as meaning inclusion, which it is, for both the only true God and the one sent by the only true God is included as objects of knowledge. We should have knowledge of both the only true God and also of one whom the only true God sent.

Nevertheless, our understanding is not based simply on the usage of the word “kai” in John 17:3, but on the fact that Jesus is sent by the only true God, and is thus distinguishable from the only true God who sent him. While “kai” means in addition to what has just been spoken of, in the case of John 17:3, there are two who are being spoken of that one needs to know in order to live eternally. One needs to know the only true God, and one needs to know the one sent by that only true God. Jesus is only way by which we can be brought to God. (John 14:6; Acts 14:12; Ephesians 2:18; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:23; 2 John 1:9) Thus there are two who are included that we need to know in order to live eternally, the one being the only true God and the other being the one sent by the only true God.

One trinitarian claims:
  • The purpose of this statement [in John 17:3] was to deny polytheism, not to teach about Jesus' essential relationship to the Father. Note Jesus' statement in verse two about receiving "authority over all flesh." This all encompassing authority the Father could not give if He had rival gods (cp. 1Cor 8:4-6, and see comments on Matt 28:18).
However, the verse is discussing more than just denying polytheism. Jesus says that Father is the ONLY true God [Supreme Being], and he [Jesus] was sent by the ONLY true Supreme Being. And the Father is identified in the scriptures as Jehovah. -- Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:43-45; 26:64; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34; 7:55: Rom. 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:13; 10:12,13; 1 Peter 3:22.

John 17:2 is referred to by a trinitarian, which states: “even as you gave him authority over all flesh, that to all whom you have given him, he will give eternal life.” According to the writer, this is supposed to prove that either Jesus is supposed would be a rival god or else that Jesus is the God who gave the authority to himself. In actuality this only proves that the only true God has given the authority to Jesus, whom he sent, nothing more, nothing less. Of course, the only true God was not authorizing Jesus to be a rival Supreme Being in the universe, nor do we know of anyone who teaches such. There is only one Supreme Power, and that is Jehovah, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus.

One claims:
  • The very juxtaposition here of JESUS CHRIST with THE FATHER is a proof, by implication, of our Lord's Godhead. The knowledge of GOD AND A CREATURE could not be eternal life, and such an association of the one with the other would be inconceivable. (Henry Alford, quoted in Jamieson, p.1064; emphases in original; see Job 22:21; Isa 45:22; Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21, cp. Acts 4:12).
As best as we can determine, the author is stating something to the effect that since God the Father and Jesus are mentioned together in John 17:1,3, this should be accepted as proof of the trinitarian idea of Godhead. Of course, there was and is a close relationship between the Father and his Son; this does not mean that they are the same being. As far as implying the godship of Jesus, John 17 certainly does imply such, for such power is given to Jesus by the only true source of all power. The God and Father of Jesus is the source of human life, and all human life is given through Jesus. And it is pure assumption that the knowledge of the Father and also of the Son as the firstborn creation of the Father could not mean eternal life.

The one sent has to be a creature, a human being, in order to be fully obedient to God, and thus to offer hismelf as human being to his God to offset the codemnation in Adam. 

One claims:
  • Now you say that John 17:1,3 says that the Father is JHVH, but does it? It says that the Father isn't Jesus. It says that the Father is God. You still need to prove that "God" in John 17:3 is somehow different than "God" in John 20:28, or Titus 2:13, or anywhere else that "God" is used to refer to Jesus.
Jesus said more than just that the Father is God; Jesus plainly states that he was sent by his Father, the only true God, the only true Power. Jehovah, the God and Father is the only true Power because there is no power apart from him. Even the demons receive their power from Jehovah, although they misuse the power that they have. After stating that the Father is the only true God, Jesus then states that he was sent by this only true God, thus he is not this only true God who sent him.

Who is the only true God? Of course, the scriptures identify the true God as Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the prophets. This same God that spoke through the prophets also spoke through Jesus. (Exodus 3:15; Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Isaiah 61:1; Hebrews 1:1,2; Jeremiah 10:10; 42:5) Jesus identified the God he prayed to as the same God as that of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Luke 20:37; John 8:54; 17:1,3) Who sent the prophets? None other than Jehovah, the Father of Jesus. (Judges 6:8; 1 Samuel 3:20; 1 Kings 16:12; 2 Kings 14:25; 17:3; 2 Chronicles 25:15; Jeremiah 28:12; 37:2,6; 46:1; Ezekiel 14:4; Hosea 12:13; Haggai 1:3,12; 2:1,10; Zechariah 1:1; Acts 3:8) It is this same Jehovah -- the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus – who also sent Jesus, and who is therefore the God and Father of Jesus. -- Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1.

See also our study on Titus 2:13

One claims:
  • You appear to be arguing that because the Father sent Jesus, Jesus can't be God. If that is the case, then wouldn't the same argument also mean that the Holy Spirit isn't God? John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. [KJV] That verse might be a bit "trinitarian" for you, what with the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus all in one verse. What do you think it means?
It is not simply our understanding that since the Father sent Jesus, that Jesus can't be God, but rather that since “the only true God” sent Jesus, Jesus is not the only true God who sent him. It is the plain statement that the “only true God” sent Jesus, and thus Jesus is not the only true God who sent him. Nor do we believe that the holy spirit is God Almighty himself, but rather that it is the personal power of God that he sends to accomplish his purposes. It is our further belief that the Bible is completely harmonious without adding the imaginative story of three persons in one God.

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your memory all that I said to you. -- John 14:26

As for John 14:26, there is nothing there about three persons in one God, thus this verse has absolutely nothing at all “trinitarian”. It is nonsense to think that simply because all three might be mentioned together in some way that this is trinitarian. Of course, Jesus also mentions in context his followers, who are one with him and his God. (John 17:11,21,22) According to the reasoning given, we should conclude then the disciples are also God Almighty, since they are spoken of in the same verse with Jesus and his Father, and not only that -- they are to be one with Jesus and his Father, even as Jesus is one with the Father.
John 14:26 simply states that God will send the holy spirit as the comforter. This agrees with what Peter states in Acts 2:33: “Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured forth this, which you now see and hear.” God gave the holy spirit to Jesus for a special purpose, that is to pour it forth upon his disciples.

One states:
  • I've heard people say that in Greek, "and" means the same as "equal to". I wouldn't expect you to agree with this in the context of John 17:3, however, because you firmly believe that Jesus isn't God.
The Greek word that is translated “and” in John 17:3 is KAI. It means: and, also, even, indeed, but “and, also, even, indeed, but”. Some have argued that its usage as “even” means “equal to”, and that John 17:3 should be translated something like: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, even [Greek, kai] Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” This kind of translation would in effect have Jesus as the only true God sending himself, which is nonsense. The Greek text however identifies kai directly with the one sent, with addition of identifying the one sent as Jesus, and distinguishing the one who did the sending as the "only true God". To see this, we present Jay Green's Interlinear: “And is everlasting life, that they may know You the only true God, and [Greek kai] whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”

Some try to apply Granville Sharp's first for the usage of kai to this verse in order to make it appear that the only true God is the one sent by the only true God, which, of course, is also nonsense. Sharp's first rule is that when there is a article-noun-kai-noun construction, then one person is being referred to. Sharp's purpose is doing a study in order to formulate this rule was for the very purpose of trying to prove the trinity by such a rule. However, to do so he had to come up with a list of exceptions to the rule: a) neither noun is impersonal; b) neither noun is plural; c) neither noun is a proper noun. The argument is that there is a definite article before “only true God” but none before the pronoun hon (whom), thus supposedly according to Sharp's rules one person is being spoken of. We have seen any place that Sharp ever discussed pronouns in association with his rule, or that he ever tred to apply his rule to John 17:1,3. If such a rule would be applied applied to John 17:1,3, then this would mean that Jesus is one person with the Father whom he describes as the only true God, the supposed official trinity dogma denies. However, the context itself plainly is showing that the one sent is not the one who did the sending. There is no reason to believe that Jesus in his prayer was trying to say that he was the only true God who sent him.

It is being claimed:
  • It is correct to say that the Father is the only true God, the Son is the only true God, or the Holy Spirit is the only true God. But it would be incorrect to say that the Father alone is the only true God, the Son alone is the only true God, or that the Holy Spirit alone is the only true God. Therefore, to say that the Father is the only true God no more disproves the Deity of Christ than saying that Jesus is the only true God disproves the Deity of the Father.
To someone who does not believe in the trinitarian doctrine, the above simply appears to be double-talk jargon. It assumes the trinity to be true, and thus filters John 17:3 to agree with the doctrine. It would be correct to say Father alone is the only true God, for that is in fact what Jesus was saying, for he disassociates himself from the only true God by stating that he was sent by the only true God. Putting on the tinted trinitarian lenses and viewing the scripture through the trinitarian lenses appears to blind one as to what is actually being stated.

Nevertheless, as we have stated many times, our effort is not to disprove the deity of Jesus, but rather to show that the deity of Jesus does not mean that Jesus is Jehovah or that Jesus is equal to the Almighty Jehovah.

One claims:
  • John 17:3 is better understood including Christ's Divine Nature with the Father's in the term "God" and the phrase "and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent," as a reference to His human nature--since that was the only nature that was "sent." (The Divine nature being omnipresent -- John 3:13.)
This assumes the trinitarian doctrine of two “natures” -- two different planes of being -- at the same time, and then seeks to thwart what Jesus plainly says by reading this doctrine into the verse. The "dual nature" doctrine, that is, that Jesus possessed two planes of being at once, has to be imagined, assumed, and then, based on what has been imagined and assumed, such imagined assumptions have to be added to, and read into, the scriptures. There is no reason to add the story that Jesus existed in two planes of being at once.

And it is claimed:
  • "And" is not a contrasting word. Since other verses clearly show that the Son has all the incommunicable attributes of the nature of God.
As already stated, our argument is not based on the word “and”, which is used in John 17:3 as the common word “and”, denoting a copulative in that the word “know” includes knowing both the one true God and his Son. The contrast comes from the fact that the Son is sent by the first personage being spoken of, that is, “the only true God.”

While many have attempted to show that Jesus has some alleged incommunicable attributes of Almighty God, in reality all we have seen is many scriptures presented where such a thought is “read into” the scriptures. As shown earlier, the “nature” of godship is mightiness. Only Jehovah, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus has this nature in the Supreme sense in that only he is the source of all might. There is no source of power or might that is not derived from him. Jesus does not possess the nature of being the Most High, the Supreme Being, the "one God" of whom are all. -- 1 Corinthians 8:6.

While some claim that we are twisting John 17:3, it is actually the trinitarians that have to twist John 17:3, to make it appear that Jesus is Jehovah who sent him (Isaiah 61:1), for Jesus, by stating that he was sent by the only true God, plainly disassociates himself from being the only true God who sent him. And, it is the trinitarian that has to assume this and that, and based on those assumption, add to the scripture so as to make what Jesus said appear to be in harmony with the trinitarian assumptions.

Some comments regarding John 17:3:

The Lord Jesus said, "This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." (John 17:3.) To know God means to have intimate acquaintance with Him, to be like Him in character, to be able to view matters as He views them. Only those who have the mind of God will be granted eternal life – whether of the Church now or of the world in the next Age. -- Charles Taze Russell, "The New Creature's Conquest of the His Flesh," Watch Tower, May 15, 1915, page 148.

The Lord Jesus said, "This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." Our love for God and God's Love for us are two different matters, of course. We reverence God even before we love Him. We do not know enough about Him at first to love Him. We know that we have very little power of ourselves, that we are surrounded by difficulties here, and that the Adversary has beset us on every side. And so this is the beginning of Wisdom, that we should have a reverential fear of God.

As we come to know God more and more, we see that He would not wish to do harm to any creature. And as we grow in our knowledge of God, our love for Him increases accordingly. We grow in our knowledge of how much He loves us. We did not know this at first. God is not pleased to reveal Himself to any except those who have His Spirit; therefore the very highest ambition any of us could have would be that we might know Him, that we might know more of His wonderful Love, His wonderful peace, because to have this knowledge draws us nearer to God. As St. Jude says, we must continue to keep ourselves in the Love of God.

Whoever would come to a full knowledge of God must first come to an appreciation of His Word and must follow a line of obedience such as would enable him to love the Lord and to appreciate His Plan. And all things working together – love, appreciation, desire to be obedient – lead onward and upward to the goal which the Lord has set before us. -- Charles Taze Russell, "The Greatest Thing in the Universe -- Part II," Watch Tower, July 15, 1913, page 214. 

Jesus declared, “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent.” (John 17:3) In these words Jesus is not calling our attention to the way in which we may obtain eternal life—although this also would be true—but is emphasizing that the object of eternal life is that we may know God and his beloved Son. This will require eternity, during the endless ages of which we will be continuously measuring the breadth and sounding the depth of the infinite mind and character of God. And man will never be able to comprehend him fully. The Apostle Peter added his testimony, saying, “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord.” (II Pet. 1:2) Our ‘grace’ and our ‘peace’ are contingent upon our acquaintanceship with God. The psalmist wrote that only the “fool”—that is, one who does not have a knowledge of the Creator, and is unable to exercise faith in him—says in his heart, “There is no God.”—Ps. 53:1 -- "The True and Living God," The Dawn, December 1953.

********************


Tuesday, April 18, 2017

2 Corinthians 5:19 - God in Christ

"But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through [Greek, dia, Strong's #1223] Jesus Christ, and gave to us the ministry of reconciliation; namely, that God was in [Greek, instrumental en -- through, by means of, Strong's #1722] Christ reconciling the world to himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and having committed to us the word of reconciliation." -- 2 Corinthians 5:19, World English Bible translation
The thought many would like for us to see in this verse is that God was in Christ, and being in Christ makes Christ God Almighty. This, of course, is not what the verse is saying. The Greek word *en* -- translated "in" -- has many variations of meaning, including "through", "by" [often with the meaning as "by means of", "in" [still often with the meaning as an instrument being used]. From the context of 2 Corinthians 5:17 we understand what this word is saying. God -- by means of Christ -- was reconciling the world to himself.
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/1722.html

Yes, God was in Christ, that is, by means of Christ, reconciling the world to himself. That is all that is says. The idea that this is saying that Jesus was God Almighty in a human form is a thought that has to be read into what Paul was saying.

Some translations make this plainer to see:

A ministry whose message is that God, through Christ, was reconciling the world to himself, not debiting their sins against them, and has given us the story of this reconciliation to tell.-- Barclay Translation.

For through the Messiah, God was reconciling the world to himself by not counting their sins against them. He has committed his message of reconciliation to us. -- International Standard Version.

Our message is that God was making all human beings his friends through Christ. God did not keep an account of their sins, and he has given us the message which tells how he makes them his friends. -- Good News Translation

Some translations use English syntax to show that God was using Jesus as the means of reconciliation:

That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. -- 2 Corinthians 5:19, New Revised Standard Version

That is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed the message of reconciliation to us. -- Holman Christian Standard Bible translation

That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation --Revised Standard Version

hws hoti theos een en christw kosmon katallasswn
AS THAT GOD WAS IN CHRIST WORLD RECONCILING
5613_5 3754 2316 1511_3 1722 5547 2889 2644
heautw mee logizomenos autois ta paraptwmata
TO HIMSELF, NOT RECKONING TO THEM THE FALLS BESIDE
1438 3361 3049 0846_93 3588 3900
autwn kai themenos en heemin ton logon tees
OF THEM, AND HAVING PUT IN US THE WORD OF THE
0846_92 2532 5087 1722 1473_9 3588 3056 3588
katallagees
RECONCILIATION.
2643
Westcott & Hort Interlinear, as obtained from the Bible Students Library DVD

In other words, God was using Christ as the instrument to restore his relationship with humanity. This agrees with the similar expressions in Romans 3:24: "being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in [by means of] Christ Jesus." Romans 6:11: "Thus also consider yourselves also to be dead to sin, but alive to God in [by means of] Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in [by means of] Christ Jesus our Lord."

Nevertheless, the idea that God is in Christ is expressed elsewhere in the scriptures. Jesus says: "But if I do them, though you don't believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (John 10:38) And again he says: "Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me." (John 14:10,11) Does this mean that Jesus is God Almighty? Hardly. Of course our trinitarian neighbors may shrug at the implication that this means that Jesus is the Father and that the Father is Jesus. Yet if the expression as it is used in 2 Corinthians 5:19 means that Jesus is God because, as it reads in some translations, Paul states: "God in Christ", then, if we are consistent in such reasoning, we would reason from these scriptures that Jesus is the Father, since the Father is in him, and he is in the Father. (Our oneness neighbors believe that Jesus is his Father; however, our trinitarian neighbors believe that Jesus is not his Father) Of course, these scriptures are not saying that Jesus is his father, nor do they say that Jesus is his God. (Ephesians 1:3) Actually, it would take some imagination beyond what is written in order to read into the Scriptures that Jesus is God Almighty.

Jesus himself gives us a hint as to what he means, when he tells his disciples: "In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." (John 14:20) Here Jesus likens his relationship to his Father to his relationship to his disciples. Thus, if his being in his Father and/or his Father being in him means that Jesus is God, then Jesus' being in his disciples and his disciples' being in him, would make the disciples to be Jesus himself, and also God Almighty, since, according to trinitarian and oneness philosophies, Jesus is God Almighty. Of course, none of these scriptures mean that Jesus is God Almighty, but it does show a closeness, a harmony between God and Jesus, and between Jesus and his disciples.

Someone has responded: Jesus doesn't say that he is in his disciples and that his disciples are him in the same manner that he is in Father and that the Father is in him. Let us read further. In John 17:21, we read of Jesus praying to his God (John 17:1,3), that his disciples "may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us." Here it is plainly stated that the two unions are the same kind of union.

It is to the disciples as individuals that Jesus said: "Remain in me and I in you. As the branch can't bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you, unless you remain in me." (John 15:4) And also he says: "If you remain in me, and my words remain in you, you will ask whatever you desire, and it will be done to you." (John 15:7) These words are not speaking of Christ as being in his disciples collectively, but as individuals. There is something that we can learn from this: that we need to "remain" in Christ, and there is the possibility that the one who is in Christ may not "remain" therein.

We read in Romans 8:1: "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus." Does the believer's being "in Christ Jesus" mean that the believer is Christ Jesus? If Jesus is God because God is in Jesus, then this would make Jesus God, thus to be in Christ Jesus, would mean being in God, and thus the believer would be God. The truth is that for Jesus is in a Christian, and for God to be in Christian, does not mean that the Christian is God Almighty, nor does God's being in Christ mean that Jesus is God Almighty.

Another relevant scripture is Romans 8:9: "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if it is so that the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if any man doesn't have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his." Here we see that it is necessary for the spirit of God to dwell, live, in the believer if he is to walk by the spirit. Some see into this verse trinity because it speaks of the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. More than likely, however, the spirit of Christ is being used in a different sense than that of the spirit of God. Of course, God gave his spirit to Jesus without measure, and then he sent his spirit through Jesus to the church. (John 14:26; 15:26; Acts 2:33) Thus, since Jesus is given charge of the holy spirit, it is God's spirit, but it is also the spirit of Christ. This can be likened to fact that Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah (1 Chronicles 29:23) and yet Solomon sat on the throne of David. (1 Kings 2:12,24) And yet it is also Solomon's throne. (1 Kings 1:37,47) All three statements are true relatively. Likewise, the spirit of God, being given to Jesus, could also be referred to as the spirit of Christ.

Nevertheless, one's having the spirit of Christ probably means having the same disposition as Christ. See our discussion on Romans 8:9.

Romans 8:11 reads: "If Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of righteousness." Again, reference is made of Christ being in the believer, the same reasoning applies as given for Romans 8:1.

While we do not believe that 2 Corinthians 5:19 is speaking of exactly the same thing as these other verses we have just examined, even if it should be assumed to be that it is, these other verses show that it would not mean that Jesus is his God any more than when the scriptures say that the believers are "in Christ" means that Jesus himself *is* every member of the church, or the scriptures that refer to believers as being "in God" would make believers God Almighty. -- Romans 8:1; 16:3,7,10; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 2 Corinthians 2:4; 5:17; 12:2; Galatians 1:22; 3:28; Ephesians 2:10.\

God resides in, dwells in Jesus and his church, by means of his holy spirit. -- John 10:38; 14:10,20; 17:11,21; Romans 8:9,10,11; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 11:10; 13:5; Ephesians 3:17; 4:6,15; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:14; 1 John 3:24; 4:12,13; 2 John 1:9; 4:6.

None of this means that Jesus is Jehovah, or that the church is Jehovah, or that the church is Jesus, etc. Thus there is nothing in 2 Corinthians 5:19 that would lead us to believe that Jesus is Jehovah, or that Jesus, while in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), was God Almighty in human form.

Some quotes from various authors about 2 Corinthians 5:19 (we do not necessarily agree with all conclusions given by the authors):
That God was by Christ ( ἐν Χριστῷ en Christō), by means of Christ; by the agency, or mediatorship of Christ. Or it may mean that God was united to Christ, and manifested himself by him. So Doddridge interprets it. Christ was the mediator by means of whom God designed to accomplish the great work of reconciliation.-- Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:4". "Barnes' Notes on the New Testament". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/2-corinthians-5.html. 1870.
The English Authorized Version puts a comma at Christ: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself." It is safe to say that "God was in Christ" is a sentence which neither St. Paul nor any other New Testament writer could have conceived; the "was" and the "reconciling" must be taken together, and "in Christ" is practically equivalent to "through Christ" in the previous verse-God was by means of Christ reconciling the world to Himself.-- Nicoll, William R. "Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:19". "Expositor's Bible Commentary"
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/teb/2-corinthians-5.html.
The secondary use, if intended at all, would mean "in union with": "God was, in union with Christ, reconciling the world to Himself." Whenever this little word "in" comes up, one must consider its application, not assuming we know what it means. -- John W. Ritenbaugh, Forerunner Commentary for 2 Corinthians 5:18-21, as found at:
https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28897/eVerseID/28897

Addendum: Regarding the idea that God's being in Christ means that Jesus is God:

John 17:21
That they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.

Ephesians 4:6
One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all.

1 John 3:24
He who keeps his commandments remains in him, and he in him. By this we know that he remains in us, by the Spirit which he gave us.

1 John 4:12
No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God remains in us, and his love has been perfected in us.

If one is consistent, if God's being in Christ means that Jesus is God, then one should also believe that all of the followers of Jesus, who have God “in” them, makes all the followers of Jesus to be God and therefore that God is thousands of persons. In reality, the fact the God and Father of Jesus is in Jesus, and in his followers, does not at all make either Jesus or the followers of Jesus to be the Most High Jehovah.

However, the power and authority given to Jesus do indeed make Jesus “god” – mighty – to man, but this usage of the word “god” does not mean that the Most High has made Jesus into the Most High. Additionally, Jesus represents to mankind the righteous qualities of the Most High; this does not mean that Jesus was made into the Most High to do so.
See:
Jesus is Not Jehovah
and
The Hebraic Usage of the Titles for God

Regarding the idea that Jesus is a dual person, both God and man:

Nowhere in the Bible do we find any thought that Jesus, while in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), was also the Most High God. Such has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into any scripture that is presented to allegedly support what is being imagined and assumed.
By Ronald R. Day, Sr.


See the page on “dual natures”.

Related Books
Please note that we do not necessarily agree with all that is stated in these books.

When Jesus Became God -- Gives a lot of historical background.
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture - The Effect of Early Christological Controversies
on the Text of the New Testament
Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian
The Trinity's Weak Links Revealed A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

*********