Posted by One of JW's on September 15, 1997 at 16:42:07:

Blog : Podcast : Classics : MP3 : Jehovah's Witnesses : Sunday School : Bookstore : Ping Us

Apologetics

v. JW
v. Rome
v. ignert

Boards

Misc.

Jesus and Subjection

A Dialogue

Posted by One of JW's on September 15, 1997 at 16:42:07:

Michael is the only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called "archangel." (JUDE 9) "But when Mi'cha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses' body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: "May Jehovah rebuke you.""

The first occurrence of the name is in the tenth chapter of Daniel, where Michael is described as "one of the foremost princes"; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by "the prince of the royal realm of Persia." Michael was called "the prince of Daniel’s people," "the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people."

(DANIEL 10:13,20-21) "But the prince of the royal realm of Persia was standing in opposition to me for twenty-one days, and, look! Mi'cha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I, for my part, remained there beside the kings of Persia. 20 So he went on to say: "Do you really know why I have come to you? And now I shall go back to fight with the prince of Persia. When I am going forth, look! also the prince of Greece is coming. 21 However, I shall tell you the things noted down in the writing of truth, and there is no one holding strongly with me in these [things] but Mi'cha·el, the prince of YOU people."

(DANIEL 12:1) ""And during that time Mi'cha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book."

This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness.

(EXODUS 23:20-21,23) ""Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. 21 Watch yourself because of him and obey his voice. Do not behave rebelliously against him, for he will not pardon YOUR transgression; because my name is within him. 23 For my angel will go ahead of you and will indeed bring you to the Am'or·ites and the Hit'tites and the Per'iz·zites and the Ca'naan·ites, the Hi'vites and the Jeb'u·sites, and I shall certainly efface them."

(EXODUS 32:34) "And now, come, lead the people to where I have spoken to you of. Look! My angel will go ahead of you, and on the day of my bringing punishment I shall certainly bring punishment upon them for their sin.""

(EXODUS 33:2) "And I will send an angel ahead of you and drive out the Ca'naan·ites, the Am'or·ites, and the Hit'tites and the Per'iz·zites, the Hi'vites and the Jeb'u·sites;"

Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that "Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body.

(JUDE 9) "But when Mi'cha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses' body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: "May Jehovah rebuke you.""

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be "the archangel," meaning "chief angel," or "principal angel." The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host.

(1 THESSALONIANS 4:16) "because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first."

At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with "a commanding call." It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords.

(MATTHEW 28:18) "And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth."

(REVELATION 17:14) "These will battle with the Lamb, but, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those called and chosen and faithful with him [will do so].""

If the designation "archangel" applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel’s voice" would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.

There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael at (DANIEL 10:13) "But the prince of the royal realm of Persia was standing in opposition to me for twenty-one days, and, look! Mi'cha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I, for my part, remained there beside the kings of Persia."),

Daniel recorded a prophecy reaching down to "the time of the end"

(DANIEL 11:40) ""And in the time of [the] end the king of the south will engage with him in a pushing, and against him the king of the north will storm with chariots and with horsemen and with many ships; and he will certainly enter into the lands and flood over and pass through."

Daniel then stated at (DANIEL 12:1) ""And during that time Mi'cha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book."

Michael’s ‘standing up’ was to be associated with "a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time." In Daniel’s prophecy, ‘standing up’ frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. ((DANIEL 11:2-4,7,16,20-21) "And now what is truth I shall tell to you: "Look! There will yet be three kings standing up for Persia, and the fourth one will amass greater riches than all [others]. And as soon as he has become strong in his riches, he will rouse up everything against the kingdom of Greece. 3 "And a mighty king will certainly stand up and rule with extensive dominion and do according to his will. 4 And when he will have stood up, his kingdom will be broken and be divided toward the four winds of the heavens, but not to his posterity and not according to his dominion with which he had ruled; because his kingdom will be uprooted, even for others than these. 7 And one from the sprout of her roots will certainly stand up in his position, and he will come to the military force and come against the fortress of the king of the north and will certainly act against them and prevail. 16 And the one coming against him will do according to his will, and there will be no one standing before him. And he will stand in the land of the Decoration, and there will be extermination in his hand. 20 "And there must stand up in his position one who is causing an exactor to pass through the splendid kingdom, and in a few days he will be broken, but not in anger nor in warfare. 21 "And there must stand up in his position one who is to be despised, and they will certainly not set upon him the dignity of [the] kingdom; and he will actually come in during a freedom from care and take hold of [the] kingdom by means of smoothness."

This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har–Magedon.

(REVELATION 11:15) "And the seventh angel blew his trumpet. And loud voices occurred in heaven, saying: "The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.""

(REVELATION 16:14-16) "They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and perform signs, and they go forth to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty. 15 "Look! I am coming as a thief. Happy is the one that stays awake and keeps his outer garments, that he may not walk naked and people look upon his shamefulness." 16 And they gathered them together to the place that is called in Hebrew Har-Ma·ged'on."

Notice the following verses

(REVELATION 12:7,10,12) "And war broke out in heaven: Mi'cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 12 On this account be glad, YOU heavens and YOU who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to YOU, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.""

These verses specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God’s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth:

Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth.

(REVELATION 19:11-16) "And I saw the heaven opened, and, look! a white horse. And the one seated upon it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on war in righteousness. 12 His eyes are a fiery flame, and upon his head are many diadems. He has a name written that no one knows but he himself, 13 and he is arrayed with an outer garment sprinkled with blood, and the name he is called is The Word of God. 14 Also, the armies that were in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen. 15 And out of his mouth there protrudes a sharp long sword, that he may strike the nations with it, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron. He treads too the winepress of the anger of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 And upon his outer garment, even upon his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."

This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the "time of distress" that is associated with Michael’s standing upas brought out at Daniel 12:1

Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels.

In his prehuman existence Jesus was called "the Word." As brought out at John1:1.

He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection.

(ACTS 9:5) "He said: "Who are you, Lord?" He said: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."

"The Word" shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) "The Word of God"

(REVELATION 19:13) "and he is arrayed with an outer garment sprinkled with blood, and the name he is called is The Word of God."

This ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, "Who Is Like God?" points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator.

Posted by Dave Sherrill on September 16, 1997 at 07:17:52:

In Reply to: Michael posted by One of JW's on September 15, 1997 at 16:42:07:

But the Bible teaches that Jehovah God is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. What gives?

*Ac 17:24 God, Lord of heaven and earth

*De 10:17 Jehovah is Lord of lords

*1Tim 6:15 Jehovah is Lord of lords

1Tim 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, [be] honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (If this is speaking of Jehovah God how can he be King eternal if his kingship is interrupted by the rule of King Michael?)

: It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords.

Posted by Bibleman on September 16, 1997 at 12:45:54:

In Reply to: Re: Michael - King of Kings and Lord of Lords? posted by Dave Sherrill on September 16, 1997 at 07:17:52:

: But the Bible teaches that Jehovah God is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. What gives?

: *Ac 17:24 God, Lord of heaven and earth

: *De 10:17 Jehovah is Lord of lords

: *1Tim 6:15 Jehovah is Lord of lords

: 1Tim 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, [be] honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (If this is speaking of Jehovah God how can he be King eternal if his kingship is interrupted by the rule of King Michael?)

: : It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords.

Dear Dave,

"King of Kings" is obviously a title SHARED by both Jesus and his father, as well as Lord of Lords.

The title if appropriate for both of them since both are over all and Jesus does things as a "representative" of his Father.

More play on words I see; more running in circles.

Cheers,

Bibleman

Posted by Dave Sherrill on September 16, 1997 at 13:22:35:

In Reply to: Re: Michael - King of Kings and Lord of Lords? posted by Bibleman on September 16, 1997 at 12:45:54:

: "King of Kings" is obviously a title SHARED by both Jesus and his father, as well as Lord of Lords.

: The title if appropriate for both of them since both are over all and Jesus does things as a "representative" of his Father.

Dear Bibleman,

What a hoot! Haven't you heard? There is ONE TRUE GOD who is a JEALOUS GOD (His words, not mine) who does not share his glory with mere creatures. His goal is to exalt HIMSELF above all things (angels, people, animals, plants, rocks, dirt, etc.).

When God describes himself as King of Kings and Lord of Lords doesn't this mean that he is proclaiming his supreme authority, glory, and honor over all creation? If he meant to say that he shared this title with one who is not God, then wouldn't he say "King among Kings and Lord among Lords" or possibly "King of most Kings and Lord of most lords?"?

Robertson's Word Pictures provides us with the following description of the Greek here:

{Who is the blessed and only Potentate} (\ho makarios kai monos dunastês\). "The happy and alone Potentate." {The King of kings} (\ho basileus tôn

basileuontôn\). "The King of those who rule as kings." Oriental title. So with "Lord of lords." See #Re 10:16|.

Did you notice that little word "monos". "Only" "Alone" This means that God is the ONLY King!!!!!!

Or do you need to fight about "monos" and tell us that it really means "many" and not "only"? I certainly hope not.

And to make sure my point is clear, I do not deny Christ the title "King of Kings and Lord of Lords". He most certainly is exactly that for God's Word declares it irrefutably. My point is that God alone is King of Kings and Lord of Lords which would make Jesus....

well, you know...

GOD!

Bowing Before the King of Kings and Lord of Lords,

Dave

Posted by Bibleman on September 17, 1997 at 01:54:56:

In Reply to: Re: Michael - King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Shared? Obviously? posted by Dave Sherrill on September 16, 1997 at 13:22:35:

: : "King of Kings" is obviously a title SHARED by both Jesus and his father, as well as Lord of Lords.

: : The title if appropriate for both of them since both are over all and Jesus does things as a "representative" of his Father.

: Dear Bibleman,

: What a hoot! Haven't you heard?

Apparently not. But Dave, you love to play word games.

It is a FACT and Jesus has the title of "Lord" is it not?

And Isn't Jehovah also referred to as "Lord"?

And isn't Jesus also have the title of "Mighty God?"

Didn't Thomas say to Jesus, "My Lord, My God?"

And didn't Jehovah instruct all creatures both in Heaven

and Earth to bow down to Jesus as "god"? After which,

in turn Jesus then bowed down to himse...uh I mean to God?

Of course.

Context. You can use the same superlatives about Jesus in

most cases as with Jehovah, except you understand the "exception".

This has been explained.

Cheers,

Bibleman

Posted by Dave Sherrill on September 17, 1997 at 07:01:30:

In Reply to: Re: Michael - King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Shared? Obviously? posted by Bibleman on September 17, 1997 at 01:54:56:

: :

: : : "King of Kings" is obviously a title SHARED by both Jesus and his father, as well as Lord of Lords.

: : : The title if appropriate for both of them since both are over all and Jesus does things as a "representative" of his Father.

: : Dear Bibleman,

: : What a hoot! Haven't you heard?

: Apparently not. But Dave, you love to play word games.

BM, this is no game. This is a serious as it can be.

: It is a FACT and Jesus has the title of "Lord" is it not?

: And Isn't Jehovah also referred to as "Lord"?

yes

: And isn't Jesus also have the title of "Mighty God?"

: Didn't Thomas say to Jesus, "My Lord, My God?"

yes. and I do too. :-)

: And didn't Jehovah instruct all creatures both in Heaven

: and Earth to bow down to Jesus as "god"?

Well, the "god" part is not correct. I don't remember any verse which says "bow down to Jesus as 'god'". I do remember verses that command bowing down and worshipping Christ, but the is no mention of "little 'g' godhood" there. So if you are willing to strike the 'god' part out of your previous statement I could agree with you.

After which,

: in turn Jesus then bowed down to himse...uh I mean to God?

I just quickly scanned through a concordance and I can't find any reference to Jesus 'then bowing down to God' in connection with all creation bowing before Him as you are stating here. Could you provide the reference please?

: Of course.

: Context. You can use the same superlatives about Jesus in

: most cases as with Jehovah, except you understand the "exception".

I'm sorry BM, but when I read "alone" or "only" I am willing to take God at His word. I am unwilling to follow your example that you must insert "alone (except)" and "only (except)" into those verses.

: This has been explained.

Explained? More like stated but not in any way explained. I have never seen you explain why "alone" and "only" means "many". I have just seen you state that it is that way in contradiction to the rules of language. So once again I am sure you think this is all a game of words but it is not. I am not joking or laughing at all.

Your arguments here repeatedly display an ignorance of the Trinity which you should not be satisfied with. To knock over straw men is not a flattering method of argumentation. I can recommend a good book on it for you to read if you will email me.

: Cheers,

: Bibleman

Posted by Bibleman on September 17, 1997 at 12:17:37:

In Reply to: Re: Michael - King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Shared? Obviously? posted by Dave Sherrill on September 17, 1997 at 07:01:30:

Hello Dave,

How are you?

: : And didn't Jehovah instruct all creatures both in Heaven

: : and Earth to bow down to Jesus as "god"?

: Well, the "god" part is not correct. I don't remember any verse which says "bow down to Jesus as 'god'". I do remember verses that command bowing down and worshipping Christ, but the is no mention of "little 'g' godhood" there. So if you are willing to strike the 'god' part out of your previous statement I could agree with you.

: After which,

: : in turn Jesus then bowed down to himse...uh I mean to God?

: I just quickly scanned through a concordance and I can't find any reference to Jesus 'then bowing down to God' in connection with all creation bowing before Him as you are stating here. Could you provide the reference please?

The reference is at Ephesians 1:22 where it says all things were subjected to Jesus; compared with 1 Cor. 15:27 which says:

"For God "subjected all things under his feet. But when he says that ALL THINGS have been subjected

it is with the EXCEPTION of the one who subjected all things to him.

But when all things have been subjected to him, then

the son hmiself will subject HIMSELF to the ONE who

subjected all things to him, that God may be all

things to everyone."

So basically, Jesus is being "worshipped" by everyone,

EXCEPT God himself, who Jesus himself worships.

There is your scripture. Please note, again, that

All things are subjected under Jesus with the

EXCEPTION of the Creator, which is implied by

the context.

I believe the same applies to John 1:1 without the

"a" god reference of the NWT. That is, it is

understood that Jesis IS GOD with the EXCEPTION

of Jehovah, that exception being implied in the

previous phrase which clearly introduces God by

saying the Word was "WITH"God. Usually,

when you're WITH someone it suggest being accompanied

by. Of course, you can say, we are always WITH

ourselves. So it is left to other scriptures how

to interpret that John really meant, though, I

totally understand how a Trinitarian would find

this scripture supportive of the concept that

Jesus IS GOD, that is, one in the same as the

'ONLY TRUE GOD." But I can understand that Jesus

IS GOD, with an implied exception of Jehovah

himself, even in John 1:1. The basis of making

exception of God to the superlative contexts for Jesus" in the context of

the NT is well-established by 1 Cor 15.

I know you aren't going to go down this road with

me on this (not willingly anyway), but that's my

position. Cheers, and take care Dave; you're a

patient soul.

: : Cheers,

: : Bibleman

Posted by Dave Sherrill on September 17, 1997 at 14:02:38:

In Reply to: Re: Michael - King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Shared? Obviously? posted by Bibleman on September 17, 1997 at 12:17:37:

: Hello Dave,

: How are you?

Dear BM, I'm getting along quite well thank you. Nearing another birthday but still feeling quite young. And yourself?

: :

: : : And didn't Jehovah instruct all creatures both in Heaven

: : : and Earth to bow down to Jesus as "god"?

: : Well, the "god" part is not correct. I don't remember any verse which says "bow down to Jesus as 'god'". I do remember verses that command bowing down and worshipping Christ, but the is no mention of "little 'g' godhood" there. So if you are willing to strike the 'god' part out of your previous statement I could agree with you.

: :

: : After which,

: : : in turn Jesus then bowed down to himse...uh I mean to God?

: : I just quickly scanned through a concordance and I can't find any reference to Jesus 'then bowing down to God' in connection with all creation bowing before Him as you are stating here. Could you provide the reference please?

: The reference is at Ephesians 1:22 where it says all things were subjected to Jesus; compared with 1 Cor. 15:27 which says:

: "For God "subjected all things under his feet. But when he says that ALL THINGS have been subjected

: it is with the EXCEPTION of the one who subjected all things to him.

: But when all things have been subjected to him, then

: the son hmiself will subject HIMSELF to the ONE who

: subjected all things to him, that God may be all

: things to everyone."

Once again I'm left wondering. You said earlier that Jesus bowed down and worshipped God after all creation bowed down and worshipped Jesus. Then you give these references to establish Jesus bowing before and worshipping God. When I read those verses, I notice in them that "subjection" is spoken of, both to God and to Christ, and that Christ becomes subject to God when these things come to pass. But when I look up "subjection" and related terms, bowing and worship are not mentioned as synonyms or as defining terms of "subjection". So please explain to me where you get the idea that "subjection" involves worship, because I don't see that as an existing identified definition of "subjection".

Now understand that I'm not denying "subjection". I'm trying to use it according to it's definition and not read things into it that are not present. For example, I am "subject" to the laws of the US. Does that mean I bow down and worship them? Absolutely not! It is a submission to the authority of and recognition of leadership. Doesn't God tell wives to be "subject" [same Greek root] to their husbands? Is that a command for them to bow down and worship their husbands? Absolutely not. I hope you can see that I am only trying to be true to the text here by demanding that we both read it as written.

Am I misunderstanding your position? Let me try to restate what I read you as saying here and let's see if you are actually saying that. I would paraphrase your position as follows:

"The fact that Jesus bows before and worships God is established by Eph 1:22 and 1 Cor 15:27 which speaks of him [Jesus] being made 'subject to' God."

Is that a fair restatement of your position? Because if it is I don't see that you have a leg to stand on. Why? because in looking up "subjection" I see no demand by the use of that word to force the meaning of "bowing down and worshipping" and, in fact, find usage which could NEVER mean that [i.e. wives being 'subject to' their husbands CANNOT mean worship them].

Do you have other references which might establish your position more clearly? I see no support whatsoever for what you are saying in the two verses you used here, based on reading the word using its definition without forcing foreign meanings onto it. I truly hope you can see that I am not playing word games here.

: by. Of course, you can say, we are always WITH

: ourselves.

Once again, your lack of understanding the Trinity doctrine rears its ugly head. But this is best left for another discussion (which I AM willing to undertake).

Prayerfully,

Dave

Posted by Bibleman on September 18, 1997 at 00:30:08:

In Reply to: Re: Michael - King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Shared? Obviously? posted by Dave Sherrill on September 17, 1997 at 14:02:38:

Dear Dave,

: Once again I'm left wondering. You said earlier that Jesus bowed down and worshipped God after all creation bowed down and worshipped Jesus. Then you give these references to establish Jesus bowing before and worshipping God. When I read those verses, I notice in them that "subjection" is spoken of, both to God and to Christ, and that Christ becomes subject to God when these things come to pass. But when I look up "subjection" and related terms, bowing and worship are not mentioned as synonyms or as defining terms of "subjection". So please explain to me where you get the idea that "subjection" involves worship, because I don't see that as an existing identified definition of "subjection".

You are a man of "words" truly. But I see now, I think,

what you're getting at. "Subjection" is not bowing.

I'm going to start a long list of words and new terms.

Subjection is not bowing.

Son is not son.

Creation is not creation.

Death is not death.

In this case, I suppose you're holding out for no

scripture where Jesus is BOWING to God, he's just

"subject" to God in the Trinity.

Well, all I have to say to that is that SUBJECT

is not EQUAL, it is BENEATH not BESIDE.

Phil 2:10, however, says specifically: "do that in the

name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in

heaven and of those on earth..."

So the "subjection" of those beneath Jesus do "bow"

down to him. I drew a parallel in this case with

this "relationship" of these described as "bowing"

to Jesus and thus generally applied it to 1 Cor 15.

Thus I considered it a similar "context" but different

words. I see you choose to make a critical distinction.

So I will go along with this, and expand my meaning

to include specifically being under the "authority".

So, everyone comes "under the authority" of Jesus in Heaven

and earth, and then Jesus, in turn, in the same

manner, comes "under the authority" of his Father.

So thanks for this clarification.

Of course, the real bottom line point is that

Jesus is "under" his Father in the same sense

that Jesus' "subjects" are under him. But we

know his subjects aren't HIM nor are EQUAL to

him. That's my main point; again, that Jesus

makes EXCEPTION for God.

You keep mentioning that I don't understand your

particular concept of the Trinity, to which I do

apologize. I can tell you are comfortable with

your definition.

But ultimately, I have had some friends who at

some point throw their hands up and say, "Uh,

it's a Mystery." At which point I

say, "It sure is." :)

Cheers,

Bibleman

Posted by Dave Sherrill on September 18, 1997 at 07:21:45:

In Reply to: Re: Michael - King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Shared? Obviously? posted by Bibleman on September 18, 1997 at 00:30:08:

: Dear Dave,

: : Once again I'm left wondering. You said earlier that Jesus bowed down and worshipped God after all creation bowed down and worshipped Jesus. Then you give these references to establish Jesus bowing before and worshipping God. When I read those verses, I notice in them that "subjection" is spoken of, both to God and to Christ, and that Christ becomes subject to God when these things come to pass. But when I look up "subjection" and related terms, bowing and worship are not mentioned as synonyms or as defining terms of "subjection". So please explain to me where you get the idea that "subjection" involves worship, because I don't see that as an existing identified definition of "subjection".

: You are a man of "words" truly. But I see now, I think,

: what you're getting at. "Subjection" is not bowing.

Yes, this is what I'm getting at.

: I'm going to start a long list of words and new terms.

: Subjection is not bowing.

: Son is not son.

: Creation is not creation.

: Death is not death.

: In this case, I suppose you're holding out for no

: scripture where Jesus is BOWING to God, he's just

: "subject" to God in the Trinity.

You got it. ;-)

: Well, all I have to say to that is that SUBJECT

: is not EQUAL, it is BENEATH not BESIDE.

Yes and no. You are missing some words in that sentence and I want to demonstrate why. I would make the addition of two words at the end of each phrase. I would say:

SUBJECT is not EQUAL [in authority], it is BENEATH not BESIDE [in authority].

I think that the word I added are probably NOT the point you are trying to make. I think you are probably stating something like (and please correct me if I'm wrong),

SUBJECT is not EQUAL [in essence or nature or being], it is BENEATH not BESIDE [in essence or nature or being].

However, that emphasis is demonstrably wrong on the basis of racism. Are those who are subject to the president of the U.S. less human (lower in nature or essence) because of their subjection? Absolutely not. I believe an attitude like that is the foundation for such wonderful concepts as racism and ethnic cleansing.

So I guess I'm saying:

To be SUBJECT to refers to positions of rank or authority but cannot and does not refer to the inherent nature of those who are SUBJECT to. It is a description of "relationships" but not of "natures". [I'm hoping that this makes sense. It is tough to type fast, be brief, yet be clear.]

All of this leads to an important point about the Trinity. There are verses which describe both kinds of "being", I mean - "subjection" or 'relationships between the persons of the Trinity', and "essence" or ' the inherent nature of the beings described'.

The relationship of the persons to each other (which includes such concepts as subjection, is referred to as the "economic Trinity". "In the economy of the relationships of the persons of the Trinity, how do those relationships fit together." Please note that the economic Trinity is not describing the natures or essences or inherent values of the persons of the Trinity. It is just looking at the kinds of questions like "Who is the boss? Who sends versus who is sent? etc."

So in the "economic Trinity" we find descriptions like what you are describing - Jesus is made SUBJECT to God. Yet we recognize this as a statement of "relationship" and not a statement of "nature or being" which denies the full Godhead of Christ.

Other descriptions of the Trinity involve the nature or essence or inherent worth of the persons of the Trinity. This is referred to as the "ontological Trinity". When we examine those verses, we find that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are presented as equals regarding their natures. One huge point of confusion over the Trinity stems from the confusion of reading a statement concerning the "economic Trinity" and interpreting it like it applies to the "ontological Trinity". (To paraphrase this in order to be clear - confusion comes when you read descriptions which tell you how the persons of the Trinity relate to one another in authority and then interpreting those descriptions to apply to the natures or essences of the persons.] An example of this kind of misinterpretation would be reading a law which says "children are under the authority of their parents" and thinking that is saying "Children are sub-human or less than human compared to their parents." Get it? Positions of authority do not of necessity apply to the inherent natures of those over and under authority. ( I know this is not explained well but I am at least trying to communicate clearly - please recognize the fact the my time is limited so I may be overly brief and thus unclear about something. Give it time. We will continue our discussions and this will become clearer given more interaction.)

: Phil 2:10, however, says specifically: "do that in the

: name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in

: heaven and of those on earth..."

Yes, this will include you and I and all of creation.

: So the "subjection" of those beneath Jesus do "bow"

: down to him. I drew a parallel in this case with

: this "relationship" of these described as "bowing"

: to Jesus and thus generally applied it to 1 Cor 15.

: Thus I considered it a similar "context" but different

: words. I see you choose to make a critical distinction.

Yes, the bowing to and worshipping Jesus is stated explicitly in many verses. And yes, there is a distinction that needs to be drawn from those instances compared to the verses you provided as 'parallels'. :-)

: So I will go along with this, and expand my meaning

: to include specifically being under the "authority".

Congratulations! We always do well to take God at His word and deal with it carefully.

: So, everyone comes "under the authority" of Jesus in Heaven

: and earth, and then Jesus, in turn, in the same

: manner, comes "under the authority" of his Father.

: So thanks for this clarification.

: Of course, the real bottom line point is that

: Jesus is "under" his Father in the same sense

: that Jesus' "subjects" are under him. But we

: know his subjects aren't HIM nor are EQUAL to

: him. That's my main point; again, that Jesus

: makes EXCEPTION for God.

Yes, in terms of "subjection" I agree with you. Just remember that the discussion at this point is relationships of authority, not relationships of essence or inherent worth. You could not use this argument, for example, to prove that people are lesser beings in essence compared to Christ. It only proves they are under His authority.

: You keep mentioning that I don't understand your

: particular concept of the Trinity, to which I do

: apologize. I can tell you are comfortable with

: your definition.

: But ultimately, I have had some friends who at

: some point throw their hands up and say, "Uh,

: it's a Mystery." At which point I

: say, "It sure is." :)

Yes, there are aspects of the Trinity which are very mysterious. I fully grant that. I simply regret that some Christians are ill prepared to even begin talking about the Trinity, let alone advanced concepts of it. It is a shame.

: Cheers,

: Bibleman

Posted by Bibleman on September 18, 1997 at 11:16:15:

In Reply to: Re: Michael - King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Shared? Obviously? posted by Dave Sherrill on September 18, 1997 at 07:21:45:

Dear Dave,

I must say I'm very impressed! You are well-read

and intelligent and your beliefs make sense to you.

I want to discuss some other topics with you about

some Bible "contradictions" but I'll wait.

Now on your analogy of the President, equality,

essence, etc.

That's an interesting comparison, BUT, it doesn't

work for the TRINITY for me. Why? Because you

are asserting that just because citizens are

"subject" to the President, it doesn't mean that

they are of lesser "substance." They are EQUAL

as humans. So I must agree.

BUT, my critical point here would be this: just because

people are not equal in "authority" but can be equal in

substance, that does not mean those people ARE the same

person. The subjects of the president are equal in substance

to him, but they are SEPARATE individuals.

Applying this to Jesus, some of his subjects are

angels. Jesus is an angel and thus they may be

equal to him in "substance" (generally, I know

Jesus is an archangel and there's only one, so

that may be a difference, but generally, speaking

of spirit versus earthly bodies). But Jesus is

NOT the same people as his subjects.

Thus, just because Jesus shares the same "substance"

as God, does not make him GOD, no more than individuals

who share the same human nature are a single person.

So you have to come up with a better illustration.

My point was that since a person is "subject" or

even "beside" (John 1:1="with") that indicates

two different people, but particularly since

subject relates to authority it would underscore

separateness, I would think.

After you comment on this, if you wish, I'd like

to ask you about John 19:14 versus Mark 15:25.

Thanks!

Cheers to you.

Bibleman

Posted by Dave Sherrill on September 18, 1997 at 14:01:47:

In Reply to: Re: Subjects and subjection posted by Bibleman on September 18, 1997 at 11:16:15:

: Dear Dave,

: I want to discuss some other topics with you about

: some Bible "contradictions" but I'll wait.

That is fine. We will continue our discussions and work through those issues later. Although I may feel frustration that we do not see things the same way I do feel the both os us are attempting to be objective in this discussion and I find that a real encouragement.

: Now on your analogy of the President, equality,

: essence, etc.

: That's an interesting comparison, BUT, it doesn't

: work for the TRINITY for me. Why? Because you

: are asserting that just because citizens are

: "subject" to the President, it doesn't mean that

: they are of lesser "substance." They are EQUAL

: as humans. So I must agree.

This is a good thing to agree about. :-)

: BUT, my critical point here would be this: just because

: people are not equal in "authority" but can be equal in

: substance, that does not mean those people ARE the same

: person. The subjects of the president are equal in substance

: to him, but they are SEPARATE individuals.

Thank you for the last paragraph. I appreciate the clarity with which you communicate. And that clarity will help me address, hopefully as clearly, a misunderstanding which is present in your statement. Never, ever in my whole life of discussing the Trinity have I ever said that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same 'person'. I have never said that Jesus is the Father, that the Father is the Holy Spirit, or that the Father is Jesus, or any other confusing of the persons of the Trinity. You have never read anything from me which said that explicitly and which, I hope, never said that implicitly either. I do not believe that and I have never read anything on the Trinity which stated such a belief as a part of Trinitarian doctrine.

Evidently that is how my argument on "subjection" versus "substance" was understood and I deeply regret that. Any confusion here falls fully on myself and should not be seen as a fault in Trinitarian doctrine. Only a lack in my ability to communicate it clearly. So let me state again that the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT that Jesus is the Father, that the Father is Jesus, or any other confusion of the persons. There is a distinction and separateness present in the three "persons" of the Trinity which cannot be denied (and which I do not deny, rather, I affirm those distinctions). So please understand that I am not now nor will I ever argue that the Trinity are all the same "person". (I recognize that 'person' is an imperfect term used to describe something which has no true parallel but it is the accepted phraseology and I will continue using it.)

: Applying this to Jesus, some of his subjects are

: angels. Jesus is an angel and thus they may be

: equal to him in "substance" (generally, I know

: Jesus is an archangel and there's only one, so

: that may be a difference, but generally, speaking

: of spirit versus earthly bodies). But Jesus is

: NOT the same people as his subjects.

2 comments. I do not accept that Jesus is an angel (you know that already) and I have never said that Jesus is the same person as his subjects.

One additional observation: Are you following what you are saying here? In the above paragraph you say that the angels are equal in 'substance' with Jesus, and immediately below you state that Jesus is equal in 'substance' to God. Do you really mean to argue that all angels are equal in 'substance' with Almighty God? Although it may not be intentional, that certainly is an implication in what is being said here. Please clarify this for me because I have never heard this before.

: Thus, just because Jesus shares the same "substance"

: as God, does not make him GOD, no more than individuals

: who share the same human nature are a single person.

I completely agree that we are not the same person. But the point is that we are ALL HUMAN! Being made of the same 'substance' or 'essence' or 'nature' is what makes us all human, right? Not the same person, but the same KIND of persons, right?

So if Jesus is equal in 'substance' or shares the same 'substance' or 'essence' with God , this does not make him the same PERSON as the Father but it does make him...

[I'll let you fill in the blank.]

Please please please stop and reflect on what you just said. If Jesus is the same 'stuff' as God, then what is Jesus? I'm out of time now but will spend more on this if you want.

: So you have to come up with a better illustration.

: My point was that since a person is "subject" or

: even "beside" (John 1:1="with") that indicates

: two different people, but particularly since

: subject relates to authority it would underscore

: separateness, I would think.

I completely and fully agree (and all other Trinitarian scholarly works would also agree) that there is a separateness of the 'persons' explicitly taught in John 1:1 and many other places. But there is also equally, if not greater, teaching of "unity of essence" present in John 1:1 too [the Word was God]. And this is PRECISELY the point of mystery which you mentioned in your earlier post. If you want me to tell how the separateness of the persons and the unity of the essence of God fits together, then our discussion is over because God has not revealed the blueprint, only parts of it (those parts which we need to know). I sincerely hope this is not the end of our discussion. I cannot now nor will I ever be able to fully explain everything about God. I also do not believe you can do so either. But I am content to take God at His word and believe it as best as I can with His help.

: After you comment on this, if you wish, I'd like

: to ask you about John 19:14 versus Mark 15:25.

I would rather not move on to that yet but we can touch on it in the future. Let's hang in there and work through our present discussion until we are both satisfied that we understand each other before moving on.

: Thanks!

: Cheers to you.

: Bibleman

Praising Almighty God,

Dave

Posted by Bibleman on September 19, 1997 at 02:49:56:

In Reply to: Re: Subjects and subjection posted by Dave Sherrill on September 18, 1997 at 14:01:47:

Hi Dave,

Key points:

: So if Jesus is equal in 'substance' or shares the same 'substance' or 'essence' with God , this does not make him the same PERSON as the Father but it does make him...

: [I'll let you fill in the blank.]...uh, a spirit creature?

: Please please please stop and reflect on what you just said. If Jesus is the same 'stuff' as God, then what is Jesus?

A SPIRIT. And God is a spirit. And the angels are all spirits. They are all the same SPIRITUAL stuff.

:I'm out of time now but will spend more on this if you want.

Thanks okay. You've been more responsive than most; life does

go on...forcibly!

Cheers,

Bibleman

P.S. I understand about the "persons" concept and you

have always been clear about this; three separate

"persons" but one god.

Posted by Dave Sherrill on September 19, 1997 at 07:13:52:

In Reply to: Re: Subjects and subjection posted by Bibleman on September 19, 1997 at 02:49:56:

: Hi Dave,

: Key points:

: : So if Jesus is equal in 'substance' or shares the same 'substance' or 'essence' with God , this does not make him the same PERSON as the Father but it does make him...

: : [I'll let you fill in the blank.]...uh, a spirit creature?

Dear BM, obviously I have done a ppor job in communicating what I mean by the "stuff" or "substance" or essence" or "nature" of God. Please give me a few minutes to attempt to clarify what I mean. By "essence" of God I cannot be speaking of what he is created as, since He is uncreated. Also, by "essence" or "nature" I am not speaking about a vague generality which may be applied to things other than God. The best way I can think of to describe this is the following way.

When I ask you about the "essence" of humanity, our "human nature" I want you to consider the following questions:

You have agreed that we are all equal at the level of our "nature" or "substance" or essence" as human beings. There is no super-human that is intrinsically of more worth or value than any other human, like a king or pope. In speaking of this "essence" of humanity, what are we talking about? Could it be...

1. The fact that we are all physical beings? No, that is not the essence of humanity since there are many different physical beings which are not "human" simply because they are physical beings.

2. The fact that we are bi-peds? Is that the foundation or substance or stuff of humanity? If it is then what of those who are born deformed with no feet or who cannot walk? This is not the essence of humanity.

3. The fact that we use tools? No that is insufficient to describe the "essence" of humanness in such terms for many things inhuman use tools also.

So is "essence or "nature" or "substance" of humanity something that we see (physical being, biped) or something that we do (use tools)? No, that is not going deep enough. Those are surface distinctions observed from the outside. They are not the inherent qualities which form the core of people that makes them all uniquely identifiable as humans. There is something deeper than mere observation of something that defines its inherent identity. The human "nature" or "essence" exists even if it were unobserved by those outside the individual, since it is the "inherent" (meaning that it has it IN ITSELF, not attributed to it by outside sources).

So in speaking of the "nature" or "essence" or "substance" of God I am not speaking about those things outside which we might observe (God is Spirit) or things which God does (sends rain). Instead, I am speaking about that inherent, basic, fundamental "stuff" that identifies God uniquely as God. (I really hope this is making some kind of sense. I am not used to communicating this and I'm certainly no philosopher so I apologize for any unclarity of thought.)

So you see, the generalization that God is a spiritual being is not the level of "essence" or "nature" which I was speaking of in my previous post (though I think you were and stated that was the level you were speaking at).

So let me ask you, what are the things which we might identify as being the unique "substance" or "essence" or "nature" of God which uniquely identifies Him as God? I have some ideas myself but I would rather see your thoughts to know if you are following my discussion at this point. Remember, there is an "essence" of humanness that makes us all human (and thus equals). Is there an identifiable "essence" or "nature" that makes God inherently God and also identifiable uniquely as God.

: : Please please please stop and reflect on what you just said. If Jesus is the same 'stuff' as God, then what is Jesus?

: A SPIRIT. And God is a spirit. And the angels are all spirits. They are all the same SPIRITUAL stuff.

I hope you follow my note above that this is not going deep enough in describing "essence".

: :I'm out of time now but will spend more on this if you want.

: Thanks okay. You've been more responsive than most; life does

: go on...forcibly!

: Cheers,

: Bibleman

: P.S. I understand about the "persons" concept and you

: have always been clear about this; three separate

: "persons" but one god.

Ok. Your objection seemed to center on the fact that Jesus is not the Father but tha thtye are separate persons. Since I fully accept that too, it appeared that we were not understanding each other (and I'm still not convinced that we are). I think we still have several posts each before we get down to the "essence" of this discussion.

;-)

Praising The One True and Living God,

Dave

Posted by Bibleman on September 19, 1997 at 15:09:50:

In Reply to: Re: The "Stuff" of God posted by Dave Sherrill on September 19, 1997 at 07:13:52:

Hi Dave,

I think I'm clear that you want to make "stuff"

something unique, something uncreated, some type

of special spiritual condition, unique to God,

shared by Jesus, thereby, proving God and Jesus

must be the same in essence. The Nicene creed I

think addresses this.