JW's and John 5:23

by UnDisfellowshipped 50 Replies latest watchtower bible

Narkissos

I am limiting my words to John 5 and "honor the Son as the father", I believe contextually this is limited to the authority given to Jesus over the resurrection, judgement. You know, again this principle," while the Son is doing the works of the Father, honor him as if it was the Father himself doing these works"...
I would question the "as if" part. What the Father does (absolutely) the Son also does in the kosmos, in the flesh, among mankind.
V. 18ff: Jesus answered them, "My Father is still working, and I also am working." For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God."
(Just turning your argument head over apex: if "the Jews" were familiar with angels or prophets acting and speaking as Yhwh's "legal representatives/agents," yet did not think of such agents as "making themselves equal to God," this narrative must involve something more than the Jewish notion of "legal agency".)
V. 20ff: the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing; and he will show him greater works than these, so that you will be astonished. Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes. The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son.
I guess his nature would not have to be excluded necessarily, it is just not what John has in mind here in his teaching. I do not see nature being in view in this phrase.
I agree that "nature" as a static notion is not the point.
I believe you mean to say that because the Son proceeds or is generated from the Father that they are equal because of this..but also the elect are equal as well?
Yes, and this is the point orthodox Trinitarians miss imo. To them, the significant borderline is between God as creator and man as creature. To the proto-Gnosticism of the original Johannine Gospel the borderline is between the divine (or Spirit, or Light) as present in the Father, Son, and the elect (or perhaps ultimately in any human being, cf. 1:9), and the kosmos, or flesh, or darkness in everyone. There is something (note the neuter) within the elect that already belonged to the Father prior to their revealing encounter with the Son (6:39; 10:29; 17:2,6f ["they were yours"], 9,24; 18:9); they were children of God prior to their gathering (11:52); they were God's sheep whose name he knew and who knew his voice (chapter 10). Cf. also the divine "seed" in 1 John. The goal is that they "may be one as we are one" (another kathôs which Trinitarians tend to tone down, and that unitarians use to extrapolate onto the Father-Son relationship as relative unity, whereas in its initial context it was absolute). Redemption in Gnostic thinking is the restoration of the divine (or supra-divine) plèrôma, "fullness" (already in Colossians).
What you call "ontological choreography" would still include the idea, that Jesus on his own , cannot "raise the dead" (John 5) "judge man" (vs. 28) or even "have life in himself" (5:26) or, be able to live at all (John 6:57). You can speculate endlessly what John 1:1 means exactly, but it would not erase the whole of John's subordination, by nature. Would you not agree?
He can actually do nothing on his own (5:20). But "subordination, by nature" is not the point either, because "nature" as a static notion is not the point. The Johannine "Son" does not "exist" apart from his movement (descending from heaven and ascending back there with his own) in the dynamics of proto-Gnostic redemption.
In sum, I think the Trinitarian-Unitarian debate is stuck on a 4th-century problematic which is inadequate to the understanding of the Fourth Gospel. The key to the latter has been lost with the rejection of Gnosticism in the 2nd century, a rejection which both sides of the discussion take for granted.
Death to the Pixies

Just turning your argument head over apex: if "the Jews" were familiar with angels or prophets acting and speaking as Yhwh's "legal representatives/agents," yet did not think of such agents as "making themselves equal to God," this narrative must involve something more than the Jewish notion of "legal agency".)
If we indeed take vs. 18 as saying the Son is equal to the Father legally (this is debateable, the WT explanation also fits context) why would we assume that say, Moses was not equal to God in the same way? The Jews did not accept nor like Jesus so his "above the law" actions would be enough to set them off. I do not have my references on me, but the Law of Moses is likewise considered the Law of God, as Moses himself was legally established as God (ex. 4:16,7:1) Angels themselves were treated like, and called YHWH. (Gen 18,19) I do not believe the Hebrew scrips contradict themselves when they say "One cannot see the (actual) person of God" (Exodus 33:20,23 Jhn 1:18) while the scrips say people had seen the (legal) person of God elsewhere. (Ex 33:11, Jg13:22) Parenthetical statments are mine.
Proposed Gnostic influences aside, Jhn 5:23 with the implications put to us in the first post on this thread,really does not harm the basic unitarian view, in fact it fits nicely with it. At least from his angle.
UnDisfellowshipped

Death To The Pixies,
Since you believe that it is okay to worship one of God's representatives as if the representative was God, and you believe that God's representatives can be addressed as if they were God, and honored as if they were God, I have one question for you:
Why does the Bible forbid worshiping God's representative who is speaking for God in the following verses?:
Revelation 19:9-10 (ESV): And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are the true words of God." Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Revelation 22:1, 6-9 (ESV): Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb [...] And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place." "And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
How do you explain those verses?
Also, notice what Paul said about Jesus as compared to other angelic representatives of God:
Colossians 2:2-10 (ESV): that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ. Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
Colossians 2:18-19 (ESV): Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
How do you explain why Paul said all the fullness of Deity dwells in Christ, and that Christians must never let anyone deceive them into worshiping angels, but should instead live for Christ?
Also, the Apostle Peter was God's ambassador on earth (as were the other Apostles), and was God's representative. Peter was a leader (if not THE leader) of the early church. But, Peter refused to be honored as God is honored:
Acts 10:25-26 (ESV): When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man."
One last thing to mention:
Most Trinitarians (and even the Watchtower Society in certain publications), believe that "The Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament was the Pre-Human Jesus Christ, and that is why He is worshiped, prayed to, receives sacrifices, and called Yahweh.
Narkissos

Within the Johannine narrative Jesus' implied "equality with God" is what motivates the "Jews" to "kill" him (v. 19, "because"). That this is imo a completely artificial narrative with strawmen "Jews" does not change the inner logic of the text. To the author, the "Jews" did not construe Jesus' "equality with God" as something acceptable to them as a prophet's "legal agency" would be. It was blasphemous, cf. 10:33: "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God." (Ironically, the whole idea is reminiscent of the Israelite's attempt to stone Moses, Exodus 17:4; Numbers 14:10, although on completely different grounds).
fjtoth

Narkissos,
To the author, the "Jews" did not construe Jesus' "equality with God" as something acceptable to them as a prophet's "legal agency" would be.
But didn't Jesus go on to point out that he actually was speaking of himself as "God's Son" in that "legal agency" sense?
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" (John 10:34-36)
Jesus said he was "sanctified and sent into the world" just as those prophets had been. (Jer. 1:5; John 1:6) He wasn't claiming anything more for himself than the Scriptures claimed for those prophets. His defense gives me the impression that he was saying, "The prophets were gods. Your own Law says so. The Law was not blasphemous and neither am I. I didn't claim to be one of the 'gods' but that I am God's 'Son'. So where's the evidence of blasphemy?"
If Jesus had actually made the claim that he was God, what was the point of seemingly denying it or minimizing it by now saying instead "I am the Son of God."
I do believe the "Jews" misconstrued what he said about "equality with God," and it seems to me that his explanation makes a point of their wrong interpretation.
Maybe my view is the same as yours. Maybe not. At any rate, I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Frank
Mr. Kim

...............many don't have a freeking clue about this topic......
GIGO
UnDisfellowshipped

Hi fjtoth, I hope you don't mind me replying to your questions. I do want to say that your questions are very good questions that deserve a good answer.
You said:
But didn't Jesus go on to point out that he actually was speaking of himself as "God's Son" in that "legal agency" sense?
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" (John 10:34-36)
In Jewish language and thought, the phrase "son of [someone]," depending on how it is used and the context, could actually mean [someone]. For example, the title "Son of Man" used by Jesus (and also used in the Old Testament, especially in Ezekiel) meant "Man." The phrase "sons of the prophets" in the Old Testament meant "Prophets" or "the order of prophets."
That is how the Jewish leaders interpreted the phrase "Son of God" when Jesus used this title. Notice these verses:
John 5:18 (English Majority Text Version): Because of this the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but also He called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
Jesus must have been claiming a special, unique Father-Son relationship with God, because the Pharisees themselves called God "Father" in John Chapter 8. The Jews did not normally accuse a person of blasphemy for calling God "Father."
Luke 22:67-70 (EMTV): "If You are the Messiah, tell us." But He said to them, "If I tell you, you will by no means believe. But if I also question you, you will by no means answer Me or release Me. Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God." Then they all said, "Are You then the Son of God?" So He said to them, "You rightly say that I am." And they said, "What further testimony do we need? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth!"
Did you notice? The Jews did not accuse Jesus of blasphemy when He said He was the Christ, the Messiah. They only condemned Him for blasphemy after He said He was "The Son of God."
John 19:7 (EMTV): The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God."
The Jews told Pilate they had a law against claiming to be The Son of God in the way that Jesus was claiming to the Son of God.
John 10:36 (EMTV): do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
The Jews were accusing Jesus of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God.
John 20:28, 31 (EMTV): And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" [...] but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.
The Apostle John includes Thomas' confession that Jesus is God right before he writes that the purpose of his Gospel is for people to believe that Jesus is The Son of God. It appears that John was equating "God" and "Son of God."
1 John 5:20 (EMTV): And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true; and we are in Him that is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
John here wrote that Jesus, the Son of God, is the True God.
Matthew 14:33 (EMTV): Then those who were in the boat came and worshipped Him, saying, "Truly You are the Son of God."
The Apostles worshiped Jesus when they finally realized that He was The Son of God after seeing Him have control over nature.
You said:
Jesus said he was "sanctified and sent into the world" just as those prophets had been. (Jer. 1:5; John 1:6) He wasn't claiming anything more for himself than the Scriptures claimed for those prophets.
I have to disagree with you on that point. Look at what the Gospel of John says about Jesus being sent into the world from The Father:
John 3:13 (EMTV): And no one has gone up into heaven except He who came down out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.
John 3:31 (EMTV): He who comes from above is above all; he who is from the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.
John 6:33, 35, 38, 41, 48, 50-51, 57-58 (EMTV): For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." ... "I am the bread of life. ... I have come down from heaven ... I am the bread which came down from heaven. ... I am the bread of life. ... This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. ... the living Father sent Me ... This is the bread which came down from heaven
John 8:23 (EMTV): And He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are from this world; I am not from this world.
John 16:28 (EMTV): I came forth from the Father and I have come into the world. Again, I am leaving the world and I am going to the Father."
John 17:5 (EMTV): And now, O Father, glorify Me alongside Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
No prophet (or any other sane person) had ever made claims like Jesus did. Jesus was claiming to be sent by God in a way that no one else ever has been or ever will be.
You said:
His defense gives me the impression that he was saying, "The prophets were gods. Your own Law says so. The Law was not blasphemous and neither am I. I didn't claim to be one of the 'gods' but that I am God's 'Son'. So where's the evidence of blasphemy?"
If Jesus had actually made the claim that he was God, what was the point of seemingly denying it or minimizing it by now saying instead "I am the Son of God."
That's what I was taught by the JW's. And at the time it seemed to make sense, especially since the Watchtower Society had pounded into my head that Jesus was just an inferior creature who should not be worshiped, and that the Trinity was of the Devil.
Then, when I began studying on my own (without the Watchtower publications), I saw that Scripture in a "new light."
Jesus quite often used "how much more so" type illustrations. For example, these verses here:
Matthew 7:11 (EMTV): If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, by how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!
Mat 10:25 It is enough for a disciple that he become like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call his household members!
Mat 12:12 How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
Luk 11:13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, by how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"
Luk 12:24 Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap, which have neither storeroom nor barn; and God feeds them. How much more are you worth than birds?
Luk 11:8-9 I say to you, even if he will not get up and give to him, because he is his friend, yet on account of his persistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs. "So I say to you, ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you.
Luke 18:1-7 Then He spoke a parable to them, that one must always pray and not lose heart, saying: "A certain judge was in a certain city, who did not fear God nor have regard for men. Now there was a widow in that city; and she kept coming to him, saying, 'Give justice to me against my adversary.' And he did not want to for a time; but afterward he said within himself, 'although I do not fear God, nor have regard for man, yet because this widow bothers me I will give justice to her, lest she wear me out by forever coming to me.' " Then the Lord said, "Hear what the unjust judge said. And God, shall He not execute justice for His own elect, who cry out day and night to Him, and yet He is patient with them?
I believe that in John 10:34-36, Jesus was using that type of argument. This is what I believe He was saying:
"If God called wicked judges "gods," how much more so should I, the true Son of God, the true God, who was sanctified and sent from heaven by The Father, be called "God" or "The Son of God!"
You said:
I do believe the "Jews" misconstrued what he said about "equality with God," and it seems to me that his explanation makes a point of their wrong interpretation.
Maybe my view is the same as yours. Maybe not. At any rate, I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Frank
Part of Jesus' reply in John Chapter 5, after the Jews said he was claiming to be "equal" to God, was to say that all should honor The Son just as they honor The Father. If you were a Jew who was already about to kill Jesus because you thought He claimed to be equal to God, what would you think Jesus meant when He then went on to say "You must honor me to the same degree that you honor The Father"?
Thanks for your comments Frank.
sammielee24

The bible also says to honor your father and your mother........so, should we worship them as we do god?
Couldn't let this one pass Gumby! We all know that once you are a JW - the WTS always trumps any blood relationship so the honor you bestow on your father and mother as quoted in the bible, must be referring to the society as being both your mother and father. Let's face it - once a blood father or mother is disfellowshipped they are dead and buried so that flies in the face of honor - if your father and mother are non believers well - there goes that honor and in the end, if the WTS told you to cast off your JW parents for any reason, you'd do so in the blink of an eye. Sorry - that just caught my eye as I was meandering through ....sammieswife.
fjtoth

Undf'd,
With due respect for your lengthy effort, I got lost trying to zero in on a specific answer to my question.
Several times I've been in a room where a Trinitarian and a non-Trinitarian argued back and forth, each one spouting off tons of texts that seem to support his point of view and neither one giving in an inch. I tend to think that we are all in for a big surprise when we no longer see things in a hazy mirror. (1 Cor. 13:12)
My question was perhaps not as clear as I intended. I'll try again.
In the psalm referred to by Jesus, God addressed the men of ancient Israel as "gods" and as "sons of the Most High." (Ps. 82:6) God designated them as such because they represented and spoke for him. He did not mean they were in reality Almighty God himself. So there is such a thing as "legal agency," mentioned by Narkissos.
Wasn't Jesus simply stating that he was "God" in the same "legal" sense that "the Law" spoke of those ancient men as "gods"? It seems to me he wasn't talking about apples in connection with those ancients and talking about oranges in connection with himself. The "gods" and "sons of the Most High" in Psalms and "Son of God" in John 10 had to be such in the same sense of the words, imo. On more than one occasion he showed the Jews that they were wrong for accusing him of blasphemy. And here in John 10 he chides them again. He claimed to be God's "sanctified" Son who was doing the work the Father sent him to do, but they twisted his meaning.
On another occasion when they accused him of blasphemy, Jesus asked, "Why are you thinking evil in your hearts?" (Matt. 9:4) Imo, the correct view is stated in verse 8: "But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men."
I don't see the evidence you seem to see that "son of God" means "God". As proof that he was God's Son, as he had claimed, he said, "The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me." (John 10:25) The miracles did not necessarily mean he was God. Angels are "sons of God." Adam was "the son of God." Those ancient Israelites were "sons of the Most High." Christians are "sons of God." And not all scholars agree that "Son of God" means "God" himself.
Frank
Narkissos

Hi Frank,
The notion of "legal agency" is certainly present in Jewish (and Jewish-Christian) thought at large, and especially in the Synoptics. E.g. Matthew 10:40: "Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me." This basically applies to any representative, envoy, emissary, prophet, apostle.
The same pattern obviously underlies the structure of Johannine christology, but(as ever) GJohn modifies it by carrying it over from a social-functional plane (what applies to any person sent by anybody) to a mythical-mystical one: the Son is not a mere prophet sent by God, he really comes from heaven / the Father. And this is scandalous to "the Jews" as John portrays them (although ultimately the whole Johannine conception of "the Son" is deeply rooted in Jewish thought, e.g. the apocalyptic "Son of Man" of Daniel and 1 Enoch and the conflation of Wisdom with the Hellenistic logos in Philo).
But didn't Jesus go on to point out that he actually was speaking of himself as "God's Son" in that "legal agency" sense?
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" (John 10:34-36)
Jesus said he was "sanctified and sent into the world" just as those prophets had been. (Jer. 1:5; John 1:6) He wasn't claiming anything more for himself than the Scriptures claimed for those prophets. His defense gives me the impression that he was saying, "The prophets were gods. Your own Law says so. The Law was not blasphemous and neither am I. I didn't claim to be one of the 'gods' but that I am God's 'Son'. So where's the evidence of blasphemy?
Psalm 82:6 comes from a polytheistic context, but even in its monotheistic reinterpretation it is not applied to prophets but judges, and bad ones at that. The word of "God" (originally El as the chairman of the divine assembly) is addressed to them in an adverse way (it is a word against them as much as to them -- both senses for pros + acc.), not a word transmitted through them (as in the legal agency pattern). Even if John ignores this context and is thinking broadly of God's representatives (good or bad), the argument is a fortiori -- hence it does not reduce the status of the Son to that of any representative. "The one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world" (keywords of the Christ journey in John) is unique (although of an inclusive uniqueness, since it extends to the disciples, cf. chapter 17).

JW's and John 5:23

Share this