Exactly How Equal is Jesus Christ to the Father God?

Eugene Shubert

This thread is for Trinitarians to discuss the question Exactly How Equal is Jesus Christ to the Father God?

Heston · hopefully saved by grace Joined: 24 Sep 2003 Posts: 15

Totally equal

Heb. 1:8
God the Father called the Son "God."
Isa. 9:6
The "child" is called the "Mighty God."
Mt. 1:23,

Is. 7:14
Jesus is called Immanuel, which means "God with us."
John. 1:1
Jesus (the "Word") is called "God."
1 Tim. 3:16
Paul said Jesus was God "manifested in the flesh."
Col. 2:8.9
Paul said Jesus was the "fullness of the Godhead bodily.
John. 20:28
Thomas said to Jesus, "…my God."
Titus 2:13
Paul called Jesus "the great God."
Phil. 2:5,6
Paul said Jesus didn’t feel it was wrong to be considered "equal with God."
John 5:18
The Jews wanted to kill Jesus because He was "making Himself equal with God."
John 10:30
Jesus said, "I and the Father are one."
Gen. 1:1;

Col. 1:16
The Bible said God created all things and that Jesus created all things.
Mic. 5:2
The messiah (Jesus) had always been in existence.
Isa. 44:6; Rev. 1:2,8, 11,13
God claimed to be the "First and the Last." So did Jesus. God clearly states that He is the only savior. The Bible also says Jesus is our savior.

1 Timothy 3:16 -Paul Said Jesus was God manifested in the flesh.
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the nations, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

John 20:28 -Thomas called Jesus God.
"And Thomas answered, and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

Colosians 2:8,9 -Paul said Jesus was the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
"…Christ. For in him dwelleth all of the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

Titus 2:13 -Paul said Jesus was God.
"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our savior, Jesus Christ."

Luke 8:39 -After Jesus healed a demon possessed man, Jesus said:
"Return to thine house, and show what great things God hath done unto thee. And he went on his way and published throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done unto him."

Rom. 14:10b -12 -Paul uses the words Jesus and God interchangeably.
"For we shall all stand before the judgment Seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So, then, "every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

Luke 8:39 -After Jesus healed a demon possessed man, Jesus said:
"Return to thine house, and show what great things God hath done unto thee. And he went on his way and published throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done unto him."

Phil. 2:5b, 6 -Paul said Jesus was God.
"… Jesus Christ, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

I think that should cover it.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 3:44 pm Post subject:

Heston,

Yours is truly the most delightful assemblage of Bible texts that I've seen in a long time. While recognizing all the wonderful texts you've quoted, I'm curious to know your explanation of the many New Testament statements that seem to place the Father above Jesus.

www.everythingimportant.org/Godhead

Welcome to the forum.

Heston · hopefully saved by grace Joined: 24 Sep 2003 Posts: 15

Before answering those verses, I would love to hear your explanation of these that I have posted.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2003 6:33 pm Post subject: John 1:1

I propose that, if we must eat a whole proverbial elephant then let's do so one bite at a time. I'll be happy to start with a most delectable piece because it masterfully highlights and precisely states my point of view. It's a wonderful quote on John 1:1 by William Barclay and is reproduced in the link I cited. Also see The Daily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol. 1 III. [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9]:

Finally John says that “The Word was God”. There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because Greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which English speaks. When the Greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The Greek for God is ‘theos’, and the definite article is ‘ho’. When Greek speaks about God it does not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when Greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was ‘theos’ —without the definite article— which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God; he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like.

Heston · hopefully saved by grace Joined: 24 Sep 2003 Posts: 15

Can't say I disagree...or wouldn't if it weren't for a little word called "was"

the word WAS God

Emphasis mine.

jpbrooke · Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:43 pm Post subject:

When I was growing up, I wondered a lot about the concept of three Gods, yet one. I puzzled about it and wondered how it could be?

About a year or so ago, I was talking with a person about what it is that really constitutes who we are. Is it our body? Is it our mind? Is it our breath? Is it our thoughts? Is it the words we speak or write?

It seems to me that all of these things together are who we are. Yet, in and of themselves, there are aspects to each of these attributes that define who we are. (certainly twins, having the same physical appearnce are not the same. It is the mind, words and thoughts that make them different). After thinking about that some, I wondered if the same comparison can be made of God. I think it can (albeit only an imperfect comparison). After-all, wasn't man made in the image of God?

John 1 speaks of the 'Word' of God becoming flesh and dwelling among us. I believe this text means that the spoken Word of God, which was equal with God and emenated from Him throughout all time, took upon itself the garb of humanity, became flesh, and lived here with us.

We are not able to separate our different features and have them funtion independantly of each other. But I think God can. The Bible says (in a paraphrase of Psalm 33:6, 9) that "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. He spoke, and it was. he commanded and it stood fast".
So, even though they do function independently, they are all still equally God. Each has its function and role, and each is independently God. Even so, they are all a part of 'God' ==> leading to the idea of three-in-one, or the trinity.

I noticed in your essay on the Godhead that you did cite Isaiah 9:6 which speaks of Christ being called the 'Everlasting Father' and the 'Mighty God'. In this context, I can see how that could be.

As for one of them being subject to the other? Well, yes, but only in the sense that our arms and legs are subject to our own minds. Does that make any one of them any less a part of the body, or less important than the other? Absolutley not! The same is true with the Godhead. Jesus is as fully God as the father is! The only difference is that right now He is merely clothed with the garment of our humanity.

There is an interesting question which one might ask about God because of this. Mrs White speaks of Satan being jealous of Christ when he was in Heaven. Do you suppose there was a time when God didn't even differentiate His various attributes even to the angels, and that once He percieved the flaw in Lucifer, that He allowed His different attributes to be made evident so that Satan would have to make a choice as to whether he would subdue the evil growing in him or let it manifest itself? I mean, why would Satan ever become jealous of Christ if there was never a time when Christ wasn't manifest as God? It's all speculation, and one shouldn't get too caught up in that, but it's an interesting thought nonetheless.

I welcome any comments.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:59 am Post subject:

JESUS IS GOD IN THE HIGHEST SENSE (EQUAL WITH GOD)!!

Only one text is needed to prove that thesis wrong which states that only the Father is God (“ho theos”) in the primary sense, and that Jesus is God (“theos), but only so in nature (the secondary sense, or not in the highest sense). That one text is John 20:28, 29. Notice that in direct reference to Jesus’ identity in Greek it has the definite article before the word "theos", that is, "ho theos" ("ho theos mou", that is, 'the God of me").
Now, either Jesus was amiss to acknowledge and endorse Thomas' declaration about Jesus being "My God, and My Lord", therefore contradicting God’s own command in Ex. 20:3 to have no other God before or with me, or you have to accept that Jesus is also God in the primary sense (despite there is only one God). By the way, for those who think that the definite article “ho” is never missing when the Father is referred to as “God” (“theos”) had better see the truth of it clearly missing in John 1:6 (just below Jn.1:1), and also missing in Matt. 5:9; Matt. 6:24; Luke 1:35,78; Luke 2:40. So it is not true that the article is always there when the Father is referred to as God. It is just that when Jesus was compared to the Father in John 1:1 it was necessary to so word the Greek that it did not mean that Jesus is the same person as the Father whom He was with. But back to the main point.
No amount of theological gymnastics can deny the truth evident in Isaiah 43:10, 11. Jesus was not formed as Thomas' God (and our God) after the Father, despite he was begotten, but He is our God in the primary sense, and "from all eternity" (Micah 5:2), "God over all" (Titus 2:13, Is. 25:9, and Ps. 50: 1,3, Is. 9:6), just like the Father, and IN OPPOSITION TO ALL FALSE GODS OF THE HEATHEN. Twist and turn all you like, the truth still remains- there is one God, the Father (Mal. 2:10), BUT ALWAYS IN UNION WITH HIS CO-EQUAL (FULLY EQUAL) SON, AND HIS SPIRIT- "three living Personalities of the “Heavenly Trio". In terms of our human reality these three have been inseparable, whether we understand this reality and accept it, or deny it like the Jews even today!! Hear the haunting words of Mrs. White on the matter:

“Unbelief [in Jesus as our “Lord” and our “God”] is seldom overcome by controversy. It is rather put upon self-defense, and finds new support and excuse. But let Jesus, in His love and mercy, be revealed as the crucified Savior, and from the many once unwilling lips will be heard the acknowledgement of Thomas, * ‘My Lord and my God’” [Compare Exodus 20:3] -E.G. White, Desire of Ages, 1898, pgs. 807-808

“Christ lived and died as a man, that he might be *God both of the living and of the dead” [some of the living refuse him as their God in the guise of uplifting only the Father as such]
-E.G. White, Letter 97, 1898

Know and understand that none of the foregoing uses of the word "God", by both the Bible and the "SOP" support the theory that Jesus is only God in the secondary sense, or that He is just "God" in nature. We will have to live with that truth staring us in the face, and recognize that the only way to reconcile the truth is by accepting the spiritual (not numeric) unity in the Godhead, which sees our God as more than one Person, despite the Bible says we have but one God, the Father. Notice the language of the Bible:

1Co 8:6 “Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.”

Contrary to popular opinion among some, this is not an anti-Trinitarian or Unitarian verse!! It is interesting here that Paul was insisting on "none other God, but ONE" (1 Cor. 8:4), AND INSTEAD OF USING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK OF ONLY ONE PERSON, FULL STOP, HE INDICATED A UNITY OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE GREATEST ACT, CREATION, THAT IS, BY USING THE CONJUNCTIVE "AND" BETWEEN FATHER AND SON; BOTH EQUALLY OUR CREATOR!! Why did he not just stop at the Father as Creator, since creation is the greatest link to identifying the true God? Clearly the Father and Son are not two Gods, but are two Persons deemed inseparable (not "indivisible") when we think of the true God, "the Father"!! Hear the instructional words of Tertullian (despite he made, admittedly, SOME mistakes on the Godhead) long before the Papacy later perpetuated some of his errors:

“That there are two Gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit, God… [But] when Christ would come, He might be acknowledged as God, and be called Lord, because He is the Son of Him who is both God and Lord” - Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 13:6

The Father and Son (in 1 Cor. 8:6) were not being contrasted to each other, but contrasted against the false “gods” and “lords” of the heathen (with the words “gods” and “lords”, and “God” and “Lord” interchangeable in meaning in this passage). Both the Father and Son, even when distinguished as separate beings, are equally called "God" (“ho theos” -John 1:1 and John 20:28) and "Lord" (“Kurios” or “Yahweh”), and even “Everlasting Father" (with ALL three terms used the same way in the highest sense in Judaism). And Paul was a Jew calling Jesus “Lord” or the Greek translation of “Yahweh”. THERE IS NO ESCAPING THAT REALITY (See Heb. 1:10 compared with Ps. 102:1, 25-27, and Malachi 2:10, Isaiah 9:6, John 20:28, and John 17:3). All references to Jesus being inferior to the Father is in the context of His incarnation and Messianic role (both on earth and in heaven today), and only as man is the Father His God (see Heb. 2:11-14); NEVER BEFORE HIS INCARNATION!! That is all a result of his sacrifice in Phillipians 2:5-11). But Jesus is still, and has always been “my God”, that is OUR GOD, JUST LIKE THE FATHER (John 20:28,29) despite his humiliation.
Wasn’t it Paul who (long before the trinity controversy at ‘Nicea’) clearly wrote about the unity of the Personalities of the Godhead in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, in a way similar to the unity of the members of the Church, depicted by the unity of the members of “one body” (in the same passage of 1 Cor. 12). Thus, the head, the arm, the hand and fingers, all have different offices, but belong to the same united body. They are distinct, but inseparable, constituent, and intrinsic members (see the word “intrinsic” in a good dictionary).
One Seventh-day Adventist pioneer, E.J. Waggoner, saw this truth, and once referred to the “constituent”, and intrinsic “Persons of the Eternal Godhead” as being so perfectly united that they have the same Spirit (Christ and His Righteousness, 1890). Paul even alluded to Christ, “the [incarnated] arm of the Lord” (Isaiah 53:1 and 52:10), as being “headed” by the Father, in 1Cor. 11:3, with both working in perfect unity with the Holy Spirit, the “hand of the Lord” (Ez. 8:1-5) or the “finger of God” (Luke 11:20). No one should venture to say that Christ, the “arm of the Lord” is not a separate personality from the Father, likewise the Holy Spirit, the “hand of the Lord” (see Is. 48:16). What a beautiful portrayal of the divine “Head”, “Arm”, and “Hand” or “Finger”, all distinct Personalities in the unity of the Godhead; illustrations coming long before the word “trinity” arrived on the scene!! And remember too that Church members, and married couples, are depicted just like the members of the Godhead, that is, distinct as personalities, but being in perfect unity, as being of one substance; only that Man is flesh and blood, and God is spirit, in substance.

So in summary the profound truth of the Bible is this:

There is one God, the Father Almighty, but He cannot be known, and has not been made known apart from His Eternal (and co-equal) Son, and Eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14). Only by way of and through the Son can He be worshipped or served, and only by the ‘unction’ of, and through the Holy Spirit can we accept Him and “serve” him. In serving the Father it automatically means you MUST serve the Son, who is God (divine) equally, and obviously you are automatically serving the Holy Spirit, who is God (divine) also. However, the unity does not destroy the Personality of neither, because “there are three living [literal] personalities of the Heavenly Trio”, said the leading pioneer in Adventism, Mrs. White (who sheds clear light on the Word of God).
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

DAISY · Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:00 pm Post subject:

SIMPLY PUT ABBA FATHER(ALMIGTHY GOD) IS JESUS IN THE FLESH.THAT ONE IS THE TRUTH..IT IS SO SIMPLE.
_________________
Wedded to Jesus in Love

tall73 · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 04 Aug 2004 Posts: 96

A lot of info to wade through here..as well as some of the other posts on the subject.

In skimming (for now, hope to read soon) your article Eugene, (lot of great stuff there too) I would add just one more aspect of the meaning of the word son in this context--in fact your last point, Son of God, hints at it. The son of a king was an HEIR, and at times a co-regent. In them was seen the one who would rule just as the father. They had equal "royal nature" but different status because the son was subject to the father while he yet reigned.

Also of course see Paul's discussion of an heir in galatians (in which he notes that we are also in one sense heirs). He here adds the wrinkle of an under-age heir. They are like a servant, though the whole kingdom belongs to them.

Jesus would be an of age heir who shares in rule with the Father ...in fact, after His death, burial, ascension, etc. you almost get a feel that God elevated him to a new level..almost like the co-regencies of the day.
In the co-regencies y both rule, both are considered authorities, etc. but I would imagine if push comes to shove the father is still in charge, and the son serves with him at his desire.

In any case we clearly see Jesus submitting to the Father, but possessing of much the same nature. This almost fits the co-regency idea. Obviously this is more of an illustration than a theology, but it is somewhat helpful for understanding their view of things with heirs.

It is similar to when Jesus is called the Firstborn from among the dead. He clearly was not the one raised first from the dead. But he was the first in preeminence. To understand the passage you have to get how the the firstborn thing worked. He was the preeminent one in the family. So by calling him the firstborn from the dead he is the most important, not the first. In fact it goes on to say that God was pleased to make him preeminent in everything.

In the same way it is helpful to understand how a king and his son was viewed. Jesus is not a lesser being but it equal to the Father...all the kingdom is His. But his role is one of subjection, and the Father is still truly king.

Perhaps we should simply be willing to look at it in a practical fashion. It is good to get all of the data we are given and get a clear picture. But our picture can only be as clear as what is revealed.

Having said that, I will go back and read the whole thing..don't want to short change the discussion!

chrismalan · Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:24 am Post subject: