BBI II-A: #12 In what Way was Jesus “Equal with God?” (Jn. 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.”
Go to: BBI II-A: #13 Jesus literally & personally came down from heaven (Jn. 6)
12 thoughts on “BBI II-A: #12 In what Way was Jesus “Equal with God?” (Jn. 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.
> Call Bible things by Bible names
I agree with this! One concept I’ve been questioning recently is the word “divine”. Does that come from a biblical word, or is it another leftover concept from Greek thinking? It seems the Bible is largely unconcerned with the ontological, but more focused on authority and power?
Gilbert,
Actually it does come from a Greek word used in the Bible, but only 3 times in the NT. The most important (and only time it refers to God’s ontological nature) is Acts 17:29 “Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising (NKJV). The Greek word in question is θεῖον (theion- divinity, divine nature). It is an adjective (used as a substantive) derived from the masculine noun θεός (Theos – God). But, because it is neuter it refers to WHAT God is (His ontological nature) as opposed to “Theos” (God – masculine) which refers to WHO He is, (identifying His person).
The other two occurrences in the NT are in 2 Pet. 1:3-4. In both of these it is θείας (theias), the same adjective but inflected in the feminine gender which is the gender of abstract qualities like wisdom, faithfulness, steadfastness, patience, goodness, power, authority, etc. So while in Acts 17:29 the neuter adjective refers to God’s ontological nature, in 2 Pet. 1:3-4 it refers to His abstract character qualities.
I agree with you that the Bible does not define God’s ontological nature, simply because there is nothing to compare it to — it has no equal. One of the mistakes made by Trinitarians is in supposing that when Jesus is called “God” (such as in Heb. 1:8) that the word “God” defines His ontological nature. It absolutely does NOT. Demons are also called “gods.” Biblical Unitarians also WRONGLY accept the Trinitarian mistake, and so seek to explain away, using exegetical gymnastics, all of the passages that refer to Jesus “God” as they are trying to answer Trinitarians. But they are missing the point! Jesus is only called “God” because that term refers to AUTHORITY and SOVEREIGNTY delegated to Him within a particular dominion. As Hebrews 1:8-9 shows, Jesus is called “God” because His “God” has appointed Him in that role.
However, the Bible DOES identify the preincarnate Son’s ontological nature by using the “father – son” language and the language of procreation (begotten, only-begotten, first-produced), which is based on the principle that “kind” always begets like “kind.” Also, in Phil. 2:6-7 the “equality with God” is meant to refer to ontological nature and is immediately contrasted with His “becoming in the likeness of men” when He “emptied Himself.”
Tim,
I am puzzled by the way the apostle John phrased his commentary in John 5:18. John said that the Jewish leaders sought to kill Jesus because “He… was making Himself equal with God.” John was not attributing this to the Jewish leaders’ interpretation of what Jesus said. Rather, he was attributing the statement to Jesus Himself.
If Jesus were making Himself equal with God at the time He was speaking, that would be clashing with the notion that Jesus was no longer ontologically the same as God. Having already “emptied Himself”, and having “become flesh”, He would have no longer been equal with God. But John 5:18 makes it sound as if Jesus was making the claim that He was still a divine being, rather than just a human being.
Perhaps Jesus was claiming that He was equal with God prior to “becoming flesh”? This is not apparent in the English translation.
Is there something about the Greek verb translated as “was making” that accounts for what appears to be a timing issue concerning Jesus’ claim to be equal with God?
Sam,
The statement in vs. 18, “making himself equal with God” was John’s editorial comment. All Jesus said was that God was His own Father. John’s editorial comment could be interpreted two ways: (1) that this was the accusation being hurled a Jesus, or (2) John was giving the implication of Jesus’ claim, that it implied or required equality with God. IMO, John was reporting what the Jews were concluding from Jesus’ statement, not stating a necessary fact. Jesus did not claim to be “equal with God.” IMO, calling God His “own Father” in Jewish thinking necessarily implied sameness of kind (ontological nature). He certainly was not making Himself “equal with God” in rank, simply because a father always outranks his offspring.
The problem you are proposing assumes that Jesus was indeed “making Himself equal with God.” But that cannot be true because He then said that He was powerless to do anything from Himself. That is the opposite of equality. There are no contradictions if we understand John’s statement to simply be relaying the thinking of the religious leaders. The principle and inference was correct, that claiming God was His “own Father” implied sameness of kind. What they did not realize is that Jesus “emptied Himself” … “becoming in the likeness of men.” He was indeed “equal with God” (ontologically) prior to His “becoming flesh,” that is “becoming in the likeness of men.” But once a man, He was not equal with God either ontologically or in rank.
Tim,
Thank you. Yes I agree with all you said. That certainly follows from the statements Jesus made out “My Father”, as well as John’s & Paul’s statements that you have covered in the BII lessons up to this point.
I do have another question regarding Phil. 2:7. What basis is there in the Greek for Trinitarians to translate that verse as “made Himself of no reputation” rather than “emptied Himself”? Those seem like such radically different ways to translate the verse.
Sam,
There is zero justification for the translation “made Himself of no reputation” (KJV/NKJV), or even “made Himself nothing” (NIV). The Greek reads ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν (lit. “self emptied”) as in the NASB, NRSV, ESV, etc.
The KJV/NKJV/NIV do not actually “translate” the words, but rather “paraphrase” (interpret) them to refer to His outward persona of humility. This paraphrase allows room to apply this action entirely to Jesus actions as a human, rather than to HOW He became human as the text requires. The KJV/NKJV also hide the evidence by translating the participle γενόμενος (becoming – which requires a previous condition) as “coming” (which does not require a previous condition).
The importance of the grammar and syntax of this verse cannot be overstated. “But emptied Himself” is being contrasted with the previous clause which concerns His contemplating His “equality with God.” “But emptied Himself” was what He did as a result of that contemplation. The most important feature here is the grammatical construction of the two clauses that follow the independent clause “But emptied Himself.” These are two adverbial participle clauses: “taking the form of a servant” and “becoming in the likeness of men.” (the adverbial participles are underlined above). These are not independent clauses, but rather dependent clauses. The adverbial participles modify the main verb “emptied” (just as any adverb modifies a main verb) and thus explain what “emptied” involved and/or resulted in. While the adverbial participle clause “taking the form of a servant” could possibly refer to something Jesus did as a human, the second clause “becoming in the likeness of men” absolutely cannot. This clause requires that BEFORE He “emptied Himself” He was NOT “in the likeness of men.” You cannot “become” something you already are. These two adverbial participle clauses DEFINE the full extent of what Paul meant by “emptied Himself.”
Also, look at Paul’s description of the Son BEFORE He “emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant and becoming in the likeness of men.” He was “in the form of God” (contrasted with “taking the form of a servant”) and He was contemplating His “equality with God” which is contrasted with “becoming in the likeness of men.” What separates these contrasted characteristics is “but emptied Himself.”
The reason the KJV/NKJV/NIV paraphrase these words rather than translate them accurately is because of their Trinitarian bias. In Trinitarianism “God the Son” did NOT “empty Himself” of anything. He did the opposite; He ADDED something to His person (flesh). This verse alone completely debunks the Trinitarian idea of “hypostatic union” (the fusing of two natures). Instead, it actually describes the ELIMINATION of His divine nature in order to take our nature. But that would destroy what Trinitarians call “the deity of Christ.” So some translations attempt to hide the evidence from the reader.
On the other hand, this verse also destroys the Biblical Unitarian (Socinian) view that Jesus had no pre-human existence. So Biblical Unitarians piggy-back their arguments off of bad Trinitarian translations (like the KJV/NKJV/NIV) and Trinitarian commentaries so that they can make all of what Paul says in this verse apply to Jesus as a human including “being in the form of God” and “equality with God.” The PROOF that they are wrong is found in those adverbial participle clauses, esp. “becoming in the likeness of men.” Also, verse 8 is a big problem for Biblical Unitarians, “And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death …” (NRSV). The clause “being found in human form” is completely redundant and meaningless IF it was understood that the whole passage involves Jesus as a human being, having no pre-human existence. However, if the passage is about (first) His pre-human existence, (second) His willing and complete transformation to humanity, (third) His humble obedience as a Man, then this statement is a critical reinforcement of what was stated in vs. 7. It emphasizes the fact that He became 100% human (emptied of His divine nature), and as a 100% human (without any kind of super-powers of divine nature) He also took the lowest possible human place by willingly submitting to the cruelest of executions. Thus the extreme contrast between “being in the form of God” and “equal with God” vs. becoming a man, and then even treated as less than human, becomes the entire scope of what Paul meant when he wrote in vs. 5: “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus.” This is of one who had the HIGHEST place in all creation (apart from God) choosing to take the absolute LOWEST place a human could take, that of a sacrificial animal. That is the mindset that Paul commanded us to take.
The Trinitarian “mind of Christ” here is to empty nothing, but ADD a temporary flesh-suit, and sacrifice that, maybe an inconvenience, but not really costing us anything.
The Biblical Unitarian “mind of Christ” is that Jesus simply became a martyr, something many others have done. But Paul’s real point was to hold up Jesus as the epitome of selflessness, a kind of hyperbolic example that none of us could possibly achieve as He did. Yet we are to seek to emulate His mindset as much as possible. Jesus’ example leaves us with absolutely no excuses for any form of selfishness. That was Paul’s intent in this passage.
Tim,
Thanks so much. It’s good to see the explanation of Christ’s transformation to the Son of Mann so thoroughly presented.