Furthermore, it is obvious that John would never distort God’s word by saying that if anyone calls God his Father, he is necessarily claiming to be equal with God! - John 8:41; Matt. 23:9; John 20:17; Is. 64:8; Jer. 3:4, 19; Luke 3:38; Ro. 8:14, 15; Gen. 6:2; Job 38:7. - It must have been the words of those who by their traditions “nullify the word of God.â€
This begins by begging the question. And the references above do not at all support the argument being made. Clearly when we see Jesus being called, or referring to himself as, the Son of God, it is categorically different from when people are referred to as sons of God or call God their Father.
To us, God is our Father as he is our Creator. To believers, we are adopted as sons and daughters of God, heirs with Christ, and so God is our Father in a different way. However, when Christ is referred to as the Son of God or God is said to be his Father, it is in a literal way, that is by way of nature, which is never used of humans.
teddy trueblood said:
Now let’s look at the Greek term “equal.â€
The trinitarian reference work The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2, pp. 496, 497, states:
“Although it is impossible to make a clear and universally applicable differentiation between the two word-groups, as they are often interchangeable, in general the isos group [ison] indicates more strongly an external, objectively measurable and established likeness and correspondence, while the words connected with homoios express more substantial, essential likeness .... Although the term does not appear in the NT, a note on homoousios [clearly more closely related to homoios above, not ison] has been appended to the article on homoios in view of the crucial importance of the term in the debates on the person of Christ in the early Church [325 A.D.]. It was opposed by the Arians but included in the Creed of Nicaea (325) asserting that Christ was ‘of the same substance [‘essence,’ ‘nature’] as the Father,’ and as such passed into the Nicene Creed.â€
So, right off the bat, we can see that, in general, if we wanted a term to show Jesus’ real equality (in his very “essence†or “natureâ€) with God, we wouldn’t use the term ison. -- [Of course this is all in accordance with the incredible trinitarian principal that no inspired Bible writer can actually come out and say: “three persons make up the only true God, and those three are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spiritâ€] -- And, although homoousios [“of the same substanceâ€] was never used in Scripture to show Christ’s relationship to God, it was nevertheless so applied, after much violent, heated debate, in 325 A.D. (over the objection of the vast majority of Bishops who preferred the term homoiousios [“of similar substanceâ€]).
Obviously it was felt necessary by these 4th century Church trinitarian policy-makers to use this non-Biblical term instead of ison in order to declare Jesus’ essential equality with the Father. The fact that Scripture never uses it for this purpose is, therefore, very significant!
But let’s continue the examination of ison (or isos). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol. 2, p. 968 (1984 reprint), discussing isos, reveals:
“In Mt 20:12, ‘made them equal’ means ‘put them upon the same footing,’ i.e. regarded their brief service as though it were the very same as our long hours of toil. In Lk 20:36 the context restricts the equality to a particular relation.â€
In other words, ison at Matt. 20:12 makes the workers measurably “equal†in only one external aspect: the amount of money they were to receive. They were really very unequal otherwise. Also in Luke 20:36, as the trinitarian reference book quoted above tells us, those resurrected humans and God’s angels are not necessarily considered equal in essence in this scripture but in only one particular relation: they will not die again.
And, of course, it is a fallacy to claim that because a word means something in another usage that it cannot mean something else.
teddy trueblood said:
So, Jesus’ apparent arrogation (in his enemies’ eyes, at any rate) to himself of the authority to “change†God’s Sabbath law (which, of course, he was not really doing) made him appear to them to be claiming to be “equal†to God (in that particular aspect: “changing†God’s Law - only).
It seems reasonably certain from the above that the Jews didn’t really believe Jesus was actually claiming to be God but attempting to usurp God’s authority in this one respect! But, since these were Jesus’ enemies who were making this false charge at John 5:18, it really matters very little what they claimed!
This is incorrect as it is clear the Jews' claim that Jesus was claiming equality with God was directly based on Jesus referring to God as his own Father.
But this whole argument misses one significant point, and that is verse 17:
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."
The Jews understood God to be continually working, sustaining creation, and Jesus is saying that he is doing likewise. This statement is much more than just claiming God as his Father, he is claiming to be equal in nature to his Father.
From
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
"and I work; or "also I work"; as the Syriac and Arabic version reads; i.e. in conjunction with him, as a co-efficient cause in the works of providence, in the government of the world, in upholding all things in it, in bearing up the pillars of the earth, in holding things together, and sustaining all creatures: "
From
Vincent's Word Studies:
Joh 5:17
Worketh
The discussion turned on work on the Sabbath. The Father's work in maintaining and redeeming the world has continued from the creation until the present moment (ἕως ἄρτι):
until now, not interrupted by the Sabbath.
And I work (κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι)
Or,
I also work. The
two clauses are coordinated. The relation, as Meyer observes, is
not that of imitation, or example, but of equality of will and procedure. Jesus does not violate the divine ideal of the Sabbath by His holy activity on that day. “Man's true rest is not a rest
from human, earthly labor, but a rest
for divine, heavenly labor. Thus the merely negative, traditional observance of the Sabbath is placed in sharp contrast with the positive, final fulfillment of spiritual service, for which it was a preparation†(Westcott). (Underline by me)
And the above is supported by Col 1:17, when in speaking of Christ Paul writes:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and
in him all things hold together. (ESV)
