Is Jesus inferior because he is called a servant ?

by hooberus 2 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  The Watchtower implies that since Jesus was said to be a servant that therefore he was inferior to the Father:

  "The followers of Jesus always viewed him as a submissive servant of God, not as God's equal. They prayed to God about "thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, . . . and signs and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus."?Acts 4:23, 27, 30, RS, Catholic edition." Should You Believe in the Trinity?

  "Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider." Isaiah 52:13-15

  Though servants are positionally lower than their masters, the fact remains that servants can have an equal nature to their masters. Human servants are just as human as their masters. Likewise even though Jesus was described as a servant, this does not mean that He was of an inferior nature to his Father. The watchtower implies that the Trinity doctrine teaches that Jesus was the Fathers equal in all respects, and at all times: "The followers of Jesus always viewed him as a submissive servant of God, not as God's equal." Should You Believe in the Trinity ? While the Trinity doctrine does teach that the Son is always equal by nature to the Father, it allows that He was lower by position. An earthly son is always equal to his father by nature, yet if the earthly son becomes a servant to his father, he does not loose his equality by nature.

  Interestingly the Bible says that Jesus "took upon him the form of a servant":

  "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" Phillippians 2:7

  The phrase "took upon him the form of servant" would seem to indicte that prior to the time of talking on thre form of a servant that Jesus was not then in the form of a servant. This would also seem to contradict the Watchtower premise that Jesus existed as "a servant" for millions of years prior to the incarnation.
• 

  Leolaia

  The WTS conflates subordination in role with subordination in nature. The latter would imply that regardless of role the Son is always subordinated to the Father, while the former implies that the Son submits to the Father as a function of his role. Acts 4:23, 27, 30 do not present a theological statement on Jesus' nature but rather mention his servanthood in relation to his role as Messiah and Christ (e.g. being annointed, performing signs and wonders, etc.). Thus they do not establish subordinate nature apart from Jesus' role. Philippians 2:7 connects Jesus servanthood explicitly with his incarnation. As far as statements of nature are concerned, Hebrews 1:3 says that the Son is "the exact representation of [God's] nature," thus equal in nature, and Philippians 2:6 designates his pre-incarnation nature as being "equal to God". Although different points of view are being expressed in the NT, it is clear that subordination in role cannot simply be equated with subordination in nature as an exegetical principle. The kenotic conception in Philippians of course raises all sorts of questions about how the Son's servanthood nature is to be conceived.
• 

  A Paduan

  Interestingly the Bible says that Jesus "took upon him the form of a servant"

  Have you ever said this ? - "May I help you?" Basic stuff.

  The phrase "took upon him the form of servant" would seem to indicte that prior to the time of talking on thre form of a servant that Jesus was not then in the form of a servant.

  I don't suppose the wt teaches that though - it's a miracle how they can remain so daft - I mean, what is that ? fear ? fear of loss ? bigotry? Where do they get this from?