Justbyfaith said:
The scribes and Pharisees understood Jesus' claim to be God. When Jesus broke normal grammatical form in order to make a claim in
John 8:58 ("
Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am"), they picked up stones to stone Him (
John 8:59).[/QUOTE\]
In verses 53,54,55 of John chapter 8 Jesus is admitting he's not God
Justbyfaith said:
When Jesus later made a similar claim, they picked up stones to stone Him again. When He asked them what good work they were stoning Him for, they responded that they were not stoning Him for a good work; but "because that thou, being a man, make thyself God." (see
John 10:31-33).[/QUOTE\]
I and the Father Are One”
THAT text, at
John 10:30, is often cited to support the Trinity, even though no third person is mentioned there. But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being “one” with the Father. At
John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples “may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, . . . that they may be one just as we are one.” Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.—See also
1 Corinthians 1:10.
At 1 Corinthians 3: 6, 8 Paul says: “I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one.” Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for “one” (
hen) is neuter, literally “one (thing),” indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at
John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at
John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word “one” (
hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.
Regarding
John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book
Commentary on the Gospel According to John: “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father.
Right in the context of the verses after
John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: “Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, ‘I am God’s son’?” (
John 10:31-36,
NE) No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but the Son of God.
“Making Himself Equal to God”?
ANOTHER scripture offered as support for the Trinity is
John 5:18. It says that the Jews (as at
John 10:31-36) wanted to kill Jesus because “he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.”
But who said that Jesus was making himself equal to God? Not Jesus. He defended himself against this false charge in the very next verse (
Joh 5:19): “To this accusation Jesus replied: . . . ‘the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing.’”—
JB.
By this, Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God and therefore could not act on his own initiative. Can we imagine someone equal to Almighty God saying that he could “do nothing by himself”? (Compare
Daniel 4:34, 35.) Interestingly, the context of both
John 5:18 and Joh 10:30 shows that Jesus defended himself against false charges from Jews who, like the Trinitarians, were drawing wrong conclusions!
Equal With God”?
AT
PHILIPPIANS 2:6 the Catholic
Douay Version (
Dy) of 1609 says of Jesus: “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The
King James Version (
KJ) of 1611 reads much the same. A number of such versions are still used by some to support the idea that Jesus was equal to God. But note how other translations render this verse:
1869: “who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God.”
The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
1965: “He—truly of divine nature!—never self-confidently made himself equal to God.”
Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.
1968: “who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to greedily make his own.”
La Bibbia Concordata.
1976: “He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.”
Today’s English Version.
1984: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.”
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
1985: “Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped.”
The New Jerusalem Bible.
Some claim, however, that even these more accurate renderings imply that (1) Jesus already had equality but did not want to hold on to it or that (2) he did not need to grasp at equality because he already had it.
In this regard, Ralph Martin, in
The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: “It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of ‘to seize’, ‘to snatch violently’ to that of ‘to hold fast.’”
The Expositor’s Greek Testament also says: “We cannot find any passage where ἁρπάζω [
har·paʹzo] or any of its derivatives has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean
‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”
From the foregoing it is apparent that the translators of versions such as the
Douay and the
King James are bending the rules to support Trinitarian ends. Far from saying that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal to God, the Greek of
Philippians 2:6, when read objectively, shows just the opposite, that Jesus did
not think it was appropriate.
The context of the surrounding verses (
Php 2:3-5,7, 8,
Dy) makes it clear how
Php 2 verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: “In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves.” Then Paul uses Christ as the outstanding example of this attitude: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” What “mind”? To ‘think it not robbery to be equal with God’? No, that would be just the opposite of the point being made! Rather, Jesus, who ‘esteemed God as better than himself,’ would never ‘grasp for equality with God,’ but instead he “humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death.”
Surely, that cannot be talking about any part of Almighty God. It was talking about Jesus Christ, who perfectly illustrated Paul’s point here—namely the importance of humility and obedience to one’s Superior and Creator, Jehovah God.
