The Forgotten Trinity (13 page)

EQUAL WITH GOD

When Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, a controversy ensued
that sheds light on the deity of Christ:

For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was
doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, "My
Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." For this
reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him,
because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling
God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. Therefore
Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you,
the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees
the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the
Son also does in like manner" (John 5:16-19).

Jesus healed on the Sabbath. The Jews objected to this, alleging He
was breaking God's law. Jesus' response is often missed in the rush to
get to the phrase, "making Himself equal with God." The Jews took
great offense when He said that His Father was working till then, and
He himself was working. The reason they were so upset is that they
had a belief that Yahweh "broke" the Sabbath. That is, Yahweh kept the world spinning in its orbit, kept the sun shining or the rain falling,
even on the Sabbath day. Thus, in one sense, God was above the Sabbath law because He continued to "work" in maintaining the universe.
You can see, then, why Jesus' words offended them. He claimed the
same right for himself! They are enraged that by calling God "Father"
in a way that was unique and special to himself, He was making himself
equal with God. They knew that to be the Son of God was to be deity.
The son is always like the father, and if Jesus is the Son of the Father
in a special and unique way, He must be deity.

Now, many are confused by the discourse that follows, for in it
Jesus says that "the Son can do nothing of Himself." All through the
discourse the dependence of the Son upon the Father is stressed. Many
use this to argue against the deity of Christ. Yet, in reality, just the
opposite is true. The Son of God is not here repudiating the allegation
of His equality with the Father. Instead, He is expanding upon it, and
in the process correcting it. That is, He is making sure that no one
misunderstands what it means for Him to be equal with the Father.
How does He do this?

First, the Jews, while rightly sensing the exalted nature of the Lord's
claim, misunderstand the claim and phrase in the context of competition between the Father and the Son. That is, the Jews use a term of
the Son that is technically incorrect-it speaks of an equality of persons, which would confuse the distinction that exists between the Father and the Son.46 Rather than using the term in the way Paul does
when speaking of the equality the Son had with the Father in Philippians 2:6, they use the term in a different form. Jesus corrects their
misapprehension in the following verses by carefully distinguishing
Himself from the Father, while maintaining the truth of the claim He
has made in verse 17.

Secondly, Jesus makes it clear in the following discourse that there
is no competition between the Father and the Son. There are no differences of opinion, no disagreements to be ironed out. The Son is not
a "loose cannon" off on His own, doing His own thing. No, monotheism and the singular glory of God is not in any danger by the coming of the Son in human flesh. Instead, the Son's actions are in perfect accord with the Father, in everything. And again, no mere creature
could possibly utter such words. Jesus did indeed claim equality with
God by healing on the Sabbath-and in the rest of the chapter He
makes sure that we recognize that equality with God does not mean
He and the Father are at odds. Instead, He and the Father are "one"
(John 10:30) in all things.

TWO FINAL TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST

As I indicated at the outset, it is not my purpose to provide an
exhaustive apologetic for the doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, I have
attempted to provide helpful information along the way that is designed to assist those who so love this truth about God's nature that
they have to tell others about it! One such hopefully helpful bit of information is found in looking at two passages that are often cited
against the deity of Christ, but which, in fact, when properly understood, testify to the deity of Christ. These passages have the added advantage of removing from the hands of the detractors of the Trinity
some of their "favorite" texts, and causing them to reconsider what
they have been taught.

As the Lord Jesus walked with His disciples on the night of His
betrayal, He taught them many deep truths about himself, the Father,
and the soon coming Spirit. He told them that He was going to be
leaving them and returning to the presence of the Father. In the midst
of this discourse, Jesus says,

"You heard that I said to you, `I go away, and I will come to
you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the
Father, for the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

Probably no passage comes to the lips of the person who denies the
deity of Christ faster than John 14:28. Yet if we will but consider the
passage, and avoid embracing surface-level uses of it, we will find that
it does not lead us to deny the deity of Christ, but rather to embrace
it.

Most of the time we see this passage only partially quoted. The last
few words are recited as if they by themselves settled all question of the deity of Christ. "The Father is greater than I." Doesn't that say it
all? No one is greater than God; therefore, Jesus can't possibly be God
if, in fact, there is anyone greater than Him. How could it get any simpler than that? But such an argument ignores what Jesus himself is
saying. Why does He refer to the Father as being greater than He is?
He does so because He is reproaching the disciples for their selfishness.
He had told them that He was going back to the presence of the Father.
If they truly loved Him (and were not simply thinking about themselves), this announcement would have caused them to rejoice. Why?
Because the Father is greater than the Son.

Now immediately we can see what the term "greater" means. If it
meant "better" as in "a higher type of being," these words would have
no meaning. Why would the disciples rejoice because Jesus was going
to see a being who is greater than He? Why would that cause rejoicing?
But the term does not refer to "better" but "greater" as in positionally
greater. The Son was returning back to the place He had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5, see below). He would no longer
be walking the dusty roads of Galilee, surrounded by sin and sickness
and misery. He would no longer be the subject of attack and ridicule
by legions of scribes and Pharisees. Instead, He would be at the right
hand of the Father in heaven itself. So we see that the term "greater"
speaks to the position of the Father in heaven over against the position
of the Son on earth. The Son had voluntarily (Philippians 2:6) laid
aside His divine prerogatives and humbled himself by entering into
human flesh. He would soon be leaving this humbled position and returning to His position of glory. If the disciples had been thinking of
the ramifications of Jesus' words, they would have rejoiced that He was
going to such a place. Instead, they were focused upon themselves and
their own needs, not upon the glorification of their Lord.

So we can see that rather than denying the deity of Christ, John
14:28 implies it, for the position into which the Son was returning is
a position fit only for deity, not for mere creatures. This is brought out
plainly in the words of Jesus in John 17 and His prayer to the Father:

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I glorified You on the
earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to
do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory
which I had with You before the world was" (John 17:3-5).

Amazingly, even this passage is sometimes cited against the truth of
the Trinity. How can a passage that connects eternal life itself with
knowledge of both the Father and the Son, and that speaks of the Son
sharing the very glory of the Father in eternity past (cf. Isaiah 48:11),
be used against the deity of Christ? Again, it requires one to make a
couple of false assumptions right at the start. First, one must assume
unitarianism and refuse to see that "God" can refer either to the person
of the Father, or can be used more generically of the godhead en to to.
Secondly, one must assume that if there is any difference between the
Father and the Son, then the Son is not truly deity, the old "difference
in function does not indicate inferiority of nature" issue. So the argument is, "Jesus said the Father was the only true God. Hence, Jesus is
not God and is an inferior creature." Yet what Jesus said was that to
have eternal life one must know both the one true God and Jesus
Christ, who was sent by the Father. This is exactly what we read in 1
John, where having eternal life involves knowing both the Father and
the Son.

But what of the phrase "the only true God"? Doesn't this mean that
Jesus isn't God? Of course not. How else would Jesus make mention
of the truth of monotheism? Since He is not a separate God from the
Father (He is a separate person, sharing the one Being that is God),
how could His confession of the deity of the Father be taken as a denial
of His own deity? As the perfect God-man, we again encounter the
question of how the Incarnate One would behave and relate to the
Persons who did not enter into human existence (i.e., the Father and
the Spirit), just as we discussed above in reference to John 20:17.
Would Jesus deny the deity of the Father? Would He say that the Father
is not the only true God? What is often missed by those who present
John 17:3 as an argument against the deity of Christ is that they have
only two options as to what the passage is saying, if, in fact, it is not supporting the deity of Christ. Either (1) Jesus is a false god, separate
from the Father, or (2) Jesus would have to make some statement supporting polytheism, like "You are one of a couple of true Gods" or
some other such absurd statement. Instead, Jesus speaks the truth:
There is only one true God. And as the God-Man, He prayed to the
one true God, just as we would expect.

Having seen the misuse of the passage, we can then see how it is
directly relevant to John 14:28, in that it describes the exalted position
the Son had before the Incarnation, sharing the very glory of the Father. It is no surprise to recall that John himself had insisted that when
Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah, Isaiah was, in fact, seeing the glory of
Christ and was speaking about Him (John 12:39-41, see chapter 9).
Therefore, we can easily understand that the Father was, during the
entire time of the Incarnation, positionally greater than the Son, who
voluntarily subjected himself to the Father, taking a subordinate position, doing the Father's will, all to fulfill the eternal covenant of redemption.

We close by looking at our final passage, which has again been presented as if it denies the deity of Christ, when in reality it is beyond
understanding outside of that truth:

Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols,
we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and
that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods
whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and
many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom
are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by
whom are all things, and we exist through Him. (1 Corinthians
8:4-6)

Here some wish us to believe that, just like in John 17:3, Paul's use of
the phrase "one God, the Father" excludes Jesus from the realm of
deity. Of course, we immediately recognize that there is a real problem
here: that's not all Paul says. If "one God, the Father" is meant to be
taken exclusively, then does it not follow that "one Lord, Jesus Christ"
also excludes the Father from the realm of Lordship? When we see the distinctive use of the terms "God" and "Lord," we should realize that
the Scriptures are not here introducing a competition or contest between the two. God is just as much Lord as the Lord is God. The two
terms are merely being used to describe different Persons in their relationship to one another. They are not being used to say that God is
more "Lord" than the Lord is "God." But beyond this, B. B. Warfield
very accurately sums up the beautiful testimony of this passage of sacred Scripture:

In the very act of asserting his monotheism Paul takes our Lord
up into this unique Godhead. "There is no God but one," he
roundly asserts, and then illustrates and proves this assertion by
remarking that the heathen may have "gods many, and lords
many," but "to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
whom are all things, and we through him" (I Cor. vii. 6). Obviously, this "one God, the Father," and "one Lord, Jesus Christ," are
embraced together in the one God who alone is. Paul's conception
of the one God, whom alone he worships, includes, in other words,
a recognition that within the unity of His being, there exists such
a distinction of Persons as is given us in the "one God, the Father"
and the "one Lord, Jesus Christ."47