BBI II:12 In what Way was Jesus “Equal with God?” (John 5)
There are several statements in the New Testament which flatly contradict the Trinitarian claim that Jesus was “co-equal” and “co-eternal” with the Father. Scripture indicates that God performed all of Jesus’ miracles through Him. Jesus had no inherent power or “divine nature” as the source of His miracles. He stated plainly that He was powerless to perform even one thing. He also stated that His Apostles would do the same and more miracles once the Spirit of God came upon them.
Yet, at the same time Jesus made statements that indicate He was God’s literal (begotten) Son, which necessarily meant that He would have inherited the divine nature by procreation, something the Jews understood from His claim that God was His “own” Father. The solution to this mystery was first given by Paul in Phil. 2:6-11 but was also indicated by John’s Gospel in the statement, “and Logos became flesh and tabernacled among us.”
5 thoughts on “BBI II:12 In what Way was Jesus “Equal with God?” (John 5)”
Tim, I am not trinitarian but just wanted to clarify a couple of points. Both John and Paul state Jesus’s equality with God (the Father), and both seem to pitch that equality at his incarnation (pre-incarnate and post-resurrection would also be assumed). Therefore, would you say that Jesus still has ontological equality with God as a man ie in human FORM (image), but from this passage in John 5 and Phil 2, he examples functional subordination?
Also, I don’t understand your use of ‘powerless’. Every translation I’ve read clearly indicates Jesus is not operating as an independent agent, but as one submitted to what he sees (v5) and hears (v30) the Father doing and saying. Once he observes and hears the Father, it seems as though he acts from innate power. For example, the Douay-Rheims reads:
‘ Then Jesus answered, and said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, the Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner. ‘
This accords with Phil 2 in that Paul, to my mind, isn’t so much making an ontological description of the way Jesus became a different kind (human not divine of the Father kind), but was one in total submission to the Father in temporarily leaving his glorious nature to tabernacle as a man, and even submitting to death in giving up his life. Am I not grasping the word ‘form’ in Phil 2 correctly? Jesus was fully human in form, but that wouldn’t deny continuing in subordinated/veiled equality with God (divinity), in my view.
So an associated question is: was Jesus born under Adam’s curse of a natural death, or was he of a different nature, and if so, what was that nature? The kenosis version you are positing reminds me of Bill Johnson that Jesus was simply a man in a right relationship with God empowered by the Holy Spirit. He took that to mean that as believers we are in the same position and therefore should be enacting the miraculous just as Jesus did. I don’t think that’s the correct way to view kenosis, but see your position as the same. Thank you for any clarification you can offer.
James,
In Phil. 2:5-8 the “equality with God” was His state BEFORE he “emptied Himself” thus “becoming in the likeness of men.” Note the contrasts in that passage:
1. “In the form of God” vs. “taking the form of a servant”
2. “equality with God” vs. “becoming in the likeness of men.”
The pivot point between these contrasted things is “emptied Himself.” Consequently, He was no longer “in the form of God” or had “equality with God” once He “emptied Himself.”
IMO, this explains why John pointed out the reason the Jews wanted to kill Him, because His calling God His “own Father” necessarily meant ontological equality. What the Jews had absolutely no concept about was the “self-emptying” and thus becoming fully human.
What John 5 does is presents exactly the same scenario presented in Phil. 2 but leaves undisclosed the solution to the apparent contradiction between the Son of God as a Divine being and the Son of Man as a human being. So the short answer is that as Man, Jesus possessed no inherent supernatural, divine qualities. This is what He “emptied” or “voided” by His own choice.
Regarding “powerless,” the Greek reads: οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν (literally, word for word: “Not powerful the Son to do from self nothing.” The word δύναται (dunamai) is the verb form of the noun dunamis, which means “power.” This is prefixed with the word οὐ (not). Young’s literal translations has: “The Son is not able to do anything of himself.” But even this is not complete because it leaves out the word ἀφ (out from).
The problem with the English translations is that they often confuse “dunamis” (power) with “exousia” (authority). Both words can imply either the ability of lack of ability to do something. However, “exousia” (authority) implies external authorization or restraint, while “dunamis” implies internal ability or the lack of internal ability when prefixed with “not.” Because almost all of our English translations are done by Trinitarians, and they believe that Jesus had full divinity cloaked in flesh, they are less than precise in their translations, conflating authority and inherent power. But the Greek is very precise and clearly distinguishes these two concepts.
When Logos became flesh, when the Son “emptied Himself, … becoming in the likeness of men.” Hebrews says that He had to be made like (lit. “conformed to”) His brethren in all things. Therefore, in this transformation He became exactly what we are, subject to death, sickness, accidents, temptations, etc., yet receiving power from God’s Spirit. In other words, He had ONLY what is inherent to all humans, and what is available to all humans through the Spirit of God. In this way He became the perfect pattern of what all humans are capable of becoming and achieving by God’s Spirit. If He was anything OTHER than, or MORE than, what we are He could not be the perfect pattern which we are to strive to achieve by the same means Jesus used (the Spirit of God). This is one of the severe errors of Trinitarianism which destroys the motivation to follow Jesus’ example. Unitarians actually have this point right, although they greatly diminish the pristine Faith by denying the reality of the “self-emptying” and thus the magnitude of what Jesus sacrificed for us.
Thank you Tim for your time. Your reply is very helpful. Having been out of trinitarianism for some time, but not crossing into unitarian thinking, my major point to resolve is Jesus’s nature during his incarnation. I look to Peter’s description of a ‘pure spotless lamb’ and the gospels portrayal of his conception and see someone who was indeed fully man but still outside Adamic humanity.
Because I don’t see scripture teaching a spirit being in a flesh suit either, my question is how did Jesus present himself as the Son of God and Son of Man? Do you think Son of God is titular and Son of Man ontological, or are both names titular and ontological? At the moment I think I’m best defined as a non-Chaldcedonian miaphysitist, which would look great on a t-shirt!
James,
I don’t know how one can claim Jesus was “outside Adamic humanity.” Ther is only one kind of humanity that I know of. I take Hebrews 2 quite literally. Rom. 8:3 also indicates that Jesus was made “sinful flesh.” This does not mean He sinned, only that He bore Adam’s humanity which was destined to die because of Adam’s sin.
I take “Son of God” and “Son of Man” as both titular and ontological. This was also the view of early Christian writers such as Irenaeus. I think it is a very important part of pristine Christology that the Son became exactly what we are. “in all things made like unto HIs brothers,” being under the curse just as Adam was (Gal. 3:13).
BTW, having been part of the Stone Campbell Restoration Movement for a number of years, I have come to appreciate one of their slogans, “Call Bible things by Bible names.” So much of the infighting and misunderstandings can be avoided when we do this, IMHO.
Thanks again Tim. I think my point of difference is on the understanding of the word translated ‘likeness’. It seems to be used in various verses such as Rom 1:23, 5:14, 6:5, 8:3, Phil 2:7 and Rev 9:7 to describe something similar in outward representation but not the full actuality. I’ll continue to dig in on this and appreciate your perspective.