Verse-by-Verse Defense of the Trinity
Refuting the Watchtower

For this cause 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. (NASB)

"In fact, if we heard God speaking to us in His Majesty, it would be useless to us, since we would understand nothing. So, since we are carnal, He must stutter. Otherwise we would not understand Him. By that, then, we see that we must understand that God made Himself little to declare Himself to us." (John Calvin, The Deity of Jesus Christ, Sermon 1)

ANOTHER scripture offered as support for the Trinity is John 5:18. It says that the Jews (as at John 10:31-36) wanted to kill Jesus because "he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God."

But who said that Jesus was making himself equal to God? Not Jesus. He defended himself against this false charge in the very next verse (19): "To this accusation Jesus replied: . . . 'the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing.'"-JB.

By this, Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God and therefore could not act on his own initiative. Can we imagine someone equal to Almighty God saying that he could "do nothing by himself"? (Compare Daniel 4:34, 35.) Interestingly, the context of both John 5:18 and 10:30 shows that Jesus defended himself against false charges from Jews who, like the Trinitarians, were drawing wrong conclusions!

NAS John 5:18 For this cause 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.

NAS John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

NAS John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God."

NAS Luke 22:66-71 66 And when it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying, 67 "If You are the Christ, tell us." But He said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe; 68 and if I ask a question, you will not answer. 69 "But from now on THE SON OF MAN WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND of the power OF GOD. " 70 And they all said, "Are You the Son of God, then?" And He said to them, "Yes, I am." 71 And they said, "What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth."

NAS Matthew 26:63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus *said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." 65 Then the high priest tore his robes, saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66 what do you think? "They answered and said," He is deserving of death! "

NAS Mark 14:61 But He kept silent, and made no answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." 63 And tearing his clothes, the high priest *said, "What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 "You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

NAS Matthew 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

NAS Matthew 11:27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

NAS Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God

NAS Matthew 17:5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"

NAS Mark 3:11 And whenever the unclean spirits beheld Him, they would fall down before Him and cry out, saying, "You are the Son of God!

NAS Luke 4:41 And demons also were coming out of many, crying out and saying, "You are the Son of God!" And rebuking them, He would not allow them to speak, because they knew Him to be the Christ.

NAS John 1:34 "And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."

NAS John 1:49 Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel."

NAS John 5:25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear shall live.

NAS John 11:4 But when Jesus heard it, He said, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it."

NAS John 11:27 She *said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.

NAS John 20:31 but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

NAS Acts 9:20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God."

NAS 1 John 3:8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil.

NAS 1 John 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

NAS 1 John 5:5 And who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

NAS 1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

VII. If Jesus Christ was not god, he was justly condemned to death.

It is difficult to state and unfold this argument, without an appearance of irreverence. To charge the divine Jesus with crime, even hypothetically, is grating to the feelings of those who love and adore him. But it must be remembered that he who is, by this argument, proved to be chargeable with crime, is the Jesus of another gospel, a mere man, whose character and conduct are to be judged like those of other men.

Jesus was condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin. That council reported to Pilate, "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." (John xix. 7) On a former occasion, Jesus said unto them: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." (John v. 17) And they charged him with blasphemy, because he made God his [own] Father, thereby making himself equal with God. It was in this peculiar sense that the charge of making himself the Son of God was construed, or it would not have amounted to blasphemy. The high priest who was the president of the council, put Christ on his oath, "I adjure thee by the living God;" (Matt. xxiv. 62) and propounded to him two questions which, though mentioned together by Matthew and Mark, are by Luke stated as proposed separately. "Art thou the Christ?" and "Art thou the Son of God?" It was the affirmative reply of Jesus to the last of these questions, which was the ground of his condemnation. Jesus knew the sense in which the question was propounded; and he was bound, on correct principles or morals, in answering the question, to answer it honestly and truly in the sense in which he knew that the high priest meant it. He therefore affirmed on oath, at that tribunal, that he was the Son of God, in this high sense. For this he was condemned to death; and if he was not what he claimed to be, he was guilty of perjury and of his own death. On this charge he was condemned to death, by the Council, but God justified him by raising him form the dead. "Declared to be the Son of God, with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." (Rom. i. 4) This proved that his condemnation was unjust; and that he was truly what he had claimed to be, the Son of God, in the sense which the Jews accounted blasphemy.

The last argument exhibits the importance of his doctrine in a strong light. According to the law of Moses, any one who enticed to idolatry was to be punished with death. (Deut. xiii. 6, 8) The council before which Jesus was tried, was the court which had cognisance of this offence . A mere man, who should claim divine honor to himself, was guilty of this capital crime; and although the Romans had taken away from the Jews the power of inflicting capital punishment, the council might, with perfect propriety, report to the governor concerning such a man, "By our law he ought to die." This was their decision, as reported to Pilate, concerning Jesus; and, if he was not entitled to the divine honor which he claimed, the decision was just.

Two accusations were brought against Jesus. Before the Roman governor he was charged with treason against Caesar, by making himself king. Into this accusation the governor inquired, asking Jesus, "Art thou a king?" Jesus answered in the affirmative, as in the other case; but, that he might not convict himself of a crime of which he was not guilty, he explained, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John xviii. 36) His reply was satisfactory to the governor, who acquitted him on this charge. In the other case he not only claimed to be the Son of God, but accompanied the claim with no explanation, to prevent the passing of the sentence. He might have said, I am the Son of God, but not in such a sense as to claim divine honor. He made no such explanation. If Jesus was not entitled to divine honor, he knew it; and he knew also that he deserved death, under the decision of this court, for claiming it. To make the claim before the court, was to be guilty of the crime. To answer as he did, on oath, if he did not mean to make the claim, was perjury. And to permit the sentence against him to pass, without any effort to explain, was to be guilty of his own death. It follows, therefore, that Jesus Christ, if not entitled to divine honor, was a wicked man and a deceiver.

We might suppose the possibility of mistake, concerning Christ's claim of divine honor before the court that condemned him, if he had habitually disclaimed such honor in his previous ministry. But, instead of this, he had taught, "It is the will of God, that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." (John v. 23) He claimed superiority to the law of the Sabbath, and the right of working every day, as his Father did: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." (John v. 17) He claimed to have been before Abraham, in language which appropriately intimates self-existence: "Before Abraham was, I am." (John viii. 58) He claimed to be one with the Father: "I and my Father are one." (John x. 30) Moreover, he never rejected divine honor, when offered him. Paul and Barnabas, at Lystra, indignantly repelled those who approached to do them honor as gods; (Acts xiv. 15) and the angel hastily prevented John from worshipping him: "See thou do it not. Worship God." (Rev. xxii. 9) When the people were minded to take him by force, and make him king, he escaped from them. He refused to be "a judge or divider," (Luke xii. 14) and declined all civil honor, in perfect consistence with his disclaimer of it before Pilate. But in equal consistence with his claim of divine honor before the Sanhedrin, he never rejected it when offered by any one. The man of whom he had given sight worshipped him as the Son of God, (John ix. 38) without rebuke; and Thomas addressed him, "My Lord and my God;" not only without rebuke, but with approbation. (John xx. 28, 29) To all this we may add, that the disciples to whom he taught the principles of his religion, and who believed that they had the mind of Christ, were accustomed to render him divine honor. Many proofs of his deity have been cited above, from their writings. That Paul did not consider him a mere man, is most clear from Gal. i. 1: Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ;" and the whole tenor of his writings shows, that he felt such obligations to Christ, and reposed such trust in him, as are utterly inconsistent with the belief that he was a mere creature.

From these facts, we must believe that the deity of Christ is an essential doctrine of Christianity. As there can be no religion without the existence of God; so there can be no Christian creed in which the doctrine of Christ's deity is not a fundamental article.

…

Obj. 6. Jesus, in John x. 35, 36, explained his use of the phrase, "Son of God," as not implying proper deity. "If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

As this objection opposes a very strong argument for the divinity of Christ, it will be proper to give it a careful examination.

In examining the tenth chapter of John, in which these words are found, we may observe the following facts:

1. The claim to be the Christ was not that on which the charge of blasphemy was founded.

While Jesus was walking in Solomon's porch, the Jews gathered round him, and asked, "How long makest thou us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." They had asked John the Baptist, "Art thou the Christ?" The Jews were in expectation that their Messiah would make his appearance about this time; and, from the manner in which these questions were proposed, it is plain that the claim to be the Christ could not necessarily be blasphemous. It only needed to be sustained by proper proof, and the proposing of the question intimated a readiness to admit the claim. Jesus did not directly answer their question, but charged them with rejecting the testimony which he had previously given concerning himself, and the proofs which he had adduced. All this they bore, without charging him with blasphemy.

2. The charge of blasphemy was founded on the claim to be the Son of God.

This point is clear from the words of Christ, "Say ye, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?" He had spoken of God as his Father in a peculiar relation, according to which he could say, "I and my Father are one." This was said after such declarations concerning the power by which his sheep were kept, as represented himself omnipotent as well as his Father. His oneness with the Father was, therefore, such a unity as implied his possession of divine attributes. So the Jews understood him; and this they distinctly declared to be the ground of their charge: "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; because thou being a man, makest thyself God." On a former occasion they had made out the same charge against him on the same ground. He had spoken of God as his father in a peculiar sense, which implied co-operation with the Father, beyond what a mere creature could claim; and they who heard him, understanding the high claim which he set up, charged him with blasphemy, because "he called God his Father, making himself equal with God." (John v. 17, 18) It was precisely on this ground that he was reported to Pilate, by the Jewish Sanhedrin, as worthy of death: "By our law, he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." (John xix. 7) They also reported to Pilate that "he made himself Christ a king;" but they do not say that for so doing he deserved to die by their law. They said, "Whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." (John xix. 12) This was an offence of which the Roman law might take cognizance , and which Pilate might judge; but the other offence was a sin of which the Roman law would take no cognizance . The charge of blasphemy was investigated by the Jewish court, and was not made out on the claim to be "Christ a king."

3. Jesus knew that the charge of blasphemy would be left without foundation, if he should explain that, in claiming divine Sonship, he did not mean to claim divine attributes or honors.

The charge of blasphemy was, for making himself God, and equal with God. Now, the Jews called God their Father; and believers and angels are called sons of God. To claim sonship in this sense could not be blasphemy. Jesus knew all this, and showed himself able to avail himself of the plea which might be based on this distinction. He referred to the Scripture use of the term "gods," in its application to Hebrew magistrates; and showed clearly, that, if the words which he had used were to be justified by availing himself of this distinction, he understood well how to do it.

4. Jesus did not plead, that in making himself the Son of God, he did not intend to claim divine attributes or honors.

What has been supposed to imply this, is merely a question, which affirms nothing: "Say ye?" In this aspect, it is like the question proposed to the young ruler: "Why callest thou me good?" Jesus was not now on trial before a regular court, but was addressed by a company of malignant and captious men, to whom he did not feel bound to give answers and explanations at their demand. When they asked to know plainly, whether he was the Christ, instead of answering them, he charged them with rejecting the testimony and proofs which he had already given, and with murderous intentions towards him. So, when they state their charge of blasphemy, he charged them with inconsistency in making it out. They were desirous to condemn him. When he was finally delivered to the Roman governor, "Pilate knew that the chief priests had for envy delivered him to them." (Matt. xxvii. 18) Jesus, who knew what was in man, fully understood that their pretended jealousy for the divine honor, was hypocritical. Some of them, as members of the great council, could readily have found Scripture for being themselves styled "Gods," yet they would give no patient attention to the proofs which Jesus offered, to sustain his claim to the dignity he assumed.

5. Instead of leaving the matter to rest on the plea which these words have been supposed to imply, Jesus reasserted his intimate union with the Father: "That ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him." (John x. 38.) After this, it is added, "therefore they sought again to take him." It is manifest that the Jews did not understand him to retract the claim which had given them offence.

The Jewish magistrates, though called gods, in a subordinate sense of the term, had nothing of that intimate union with the Father which Jesus claimed. They were, after all, mortal men. "I have said ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; but ye shall die like men." (Ps. lxxxii. 6, 7) But concerning himself, Jesus had said: "As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." (John v. 26) "The Son quickeneth whom he will." (John v. 21) "The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God." (John v. 25) "The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son." (John v. 22) "I and my Father are one." (John x. 30) If, after making these high claims, Jesus had quailed before his enemies, and sought shelter in likening himself to mortal judges, called gods, he would not have closed his address by re-asserting that which had given offence. "Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me."

We should remember that Jesus was not now on trial. These words were not spoken before the Sanhedrin, where the plea which they are supposed to contain, was needed, if needed at all. When formally arraigned before that tribunal, Jesus did not object to their jurisdiction, nor to the oath administered by the high priest. He answered directly and plainly the question which the high priest propounded, though he knew well that the answer which he gave would, in the judgment of the court, convict him of blasphemy. Where now is the plea which he is supposed to have made on the former occasion? He then understood its bearing on the point. Has he forgotten it now? The plea urged on a former occasion, at a different place, to a different company, when not on trial, and not on oath, cannot avail now unless repeated in due form. Besides, when before made, if made at all, it was obscure, and hidden under the form of a question. It is now needed in plainness and by direct affirmation. But Jesus does not produce the plea. Let those who urge the objection we are considering, account for his silence.

The Father and the Son are to be considered together: the honor given the one must be given to the other, and anyone who fails in his duty to the one fails also in his duty to the other. The Jews were ready to give honor to the Father, but their failure to recognize what the Father was doing in the son meant that they were failing in their rendering of honor to the Father. They did not see him as the one who in the person of his Son came to earth to live in lowliness and to bring salvation to all who believe. That God was in Christ is very important for our understanding of the nature of the Father as well as that of the Son. If in fact God was not incarnate in Christ, then in the last resort when people had gone astray in sin God in effect said, "I’ll send someone to bring them back." If God was incarnate in Christ, he said in effect, "I’ll go myself." There is all the difference in a God who saves sinners himself and a God who asks someone else to do this. That surely is what is in mind when we read, "God is love" (1 John 4:8, 16). We cannot put full meaning into the love of God is in the end God leaves the task of salvation to someone else. We must see this behind the words of John 5. When people refuse to give the Son the honor they give the Father, they are not only coming short in the honor they ought to be giving the Son but they are also coming short in the honor they ought to be giving the Father.

The implication of Deity imbedded in the designation, Son of Man, is perhaps more plainly spoken out in the companion designation, Son of God, which Our Lord not only accepts at the hands of others, accepting with it the implication of blasphemy in permitting its application to Himself (Mt. xxvi. 63, 65; Mk. xiv. 61, 64; Lk. xxii. 29, 30), but persistently claims for Himself both, in His constant designation of God as His Father in a distinctive sense, and in His less frequent but more pregnant designation of Himself as, by way of eminence, "the Son." That His consciousness of the peculiar relation to God expressed by this designation was not an attainment of His mature spiritual development, but was part of His most intimate consciousness from the beginning, is suggested by the sole glimpse which is given us into His mind as a child (Lk. ii. 49).

What is noteworthy is that in John 'the Son of God' becomes very distinctly a self-designation of Jesus' own (5:25, 9:35, 10:36, 11:4): and it is noteworthy that in connection with this designation He claims for Himself not only miraculous powers (9:35. 11:4), but the divine prerogative of judgment (5:25, cf. 27); and He was understood, in employing it of Himself, to "make Himself equal with God," and therefore to blaspheme (10:33,36). … Such a passage as 5:18, however, makes perfectly clear the high connotation which was attached to the constant claim of Jesus to be in a peculiar sense God's 'Son,' entitled to speak of Him in an appropriating way as His 'Father.' The Jews sought to kill Him, remarks the evangelist, because of this mode of speech: "He called God His own Father (patera idion), making Himself equal (ison) with God." And indeed He leaves no prerogative to the Father which He does not claim as 'Son' to share.

Fifty-one times in the first three Gospels, and more than a hundred times in John, Jesus speaks of God as "Father." This in itself is remarkable, and we should not lose sight of that through our own familiarity with the term. For instance, only twice in the Old Testament is God directly addressed as Father, and only fifteen times is the word Father used of Him at all--and then only of His relationship to the nation and the king rather than to individuals as such. In corporate worship Jews sometimes spoke of God as "our Father," but the general reluctance to call God "Father," much more "my Father," is reflected in the Palestinian literature around Jesus' time. Indeed, O. Hofius writes, "We have yet to find an example of an individual addressing God as 'my Father'" even if the phrase "Father in heaven" was occasionally used later. (p.194)

Among Jesus' most important allusions to His sonship in John is His defense against the criticism of the Jewish leaders in John 5:17. They have charged Him with Sabbath-breaking in His healing work, and with claiming equality with God in the sense of competing with God. In response Jesus affirms both His equality with and submission to the Father. (p.197)

They were not upset that Jesus spoke of God as Father in the manner of Isaiah or Jeremiah. They were upset that, because he spoke of him as his own Father, he related himself to God in a way in which he related to no one else.⁹

9. Barnabas Lindars regards "his own Father" as "in contrast with the sense in which God is the Father of all men"; of Jesus' suggestion that he was equal with God Lindars says, "Nothing could be more provocative to the Jews who did not accept his claim. It was not only the ultimate folly to put oneself on a level with God, but absolute blasphemy" (The Gospel of John, London, 1972, p.219).

That God is Father means, for John, in the first instance that he is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is in this relationship that we see what divine fatherhood means. But it is also important for John that believers enter the heavenly family and may call God "Father". As we have noted elsewhere, John does not call them "sons of God". As it relates to the heavenly family he reserves "son" for Christ; when he is speaking of believers, he calls them "children" rather than "sons". This is a Johanine usage; Paul, for example, does not hesitate to speak of human members of the heavenly family as "sons". But John's usage distinguishes between Christ's sonship and that of anyone else. Jesus is God's Son; believers become God's sons. He belongs to God's family because of what he is; we may be adopted into the family despite what we are.

{Sought the more} (mallon ezhtoun). Imperfect active of zhtew, graphic picture of increased and untiring effort "to kill him" (auton apokteinai, first aorist active, to kill him off and be done with him). John repeats this clause "they sought to kill him" in#7:1,19,25; 8:37,40. Their own blood was up on this Sabbath issue and they bend every energy to put Jesus to death. If this is a passover, this bitter anger, murderous wrath, will go on and grow for two years. {Not only brake the Sabbath} (ou monon elue to sabbaton). Imperfect active of luw. He was now a common and regular Sabbath-breaker. luw means to loosen, to set at naught. The papyri give examples of luw in this sense like luein ta penqh (to break the period of mourning). This was the first grudge against Jesus, but his defence had made the offence worse and had given them a far graver charge. {But also called God his own Father} (alla kai patera idion elege ton qeon). "His own" (idion) in a sense not true of others. That is precisely what Jesus meant by "My Father." See#Ro 8:32 for o idioj uioj, "his own Son." {Making himself equal with God} (ison eauton poiwn tw qew). isoj is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means {equal}. In#Php 2:6 Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ isa qew, "equal to God" (plural isa, attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be isoj qew because in#Joh 14:28 he says: "The Father is greater than I." And yet he says in#14:7 that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in#10:33; 19:7. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (verses#19-47).

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, &c.] They were the more desirous to take away his life, and were more bent and resolute upon it, and studied all ways and means how to bring it about;

because he had not only broken the sabbath; as they imagined; for he had not really broken it: and if they had known what that means, that God will have mercy, and not sacrifice, they would have been convinced that he had not broke it by this act of mercy to a poor distressed object:

but said also that God was his Father; his own Father, his proper Father, his Father by nature, and that he was his own Son by nature; and this they gathered from his calling him "my Father", and assuming a co-operation with him in his divine works:

making himself to be equal with God; to be of the same nature, and have the same perfections, and do the same works; for by saying that God was his Father, and so that he was the Son of God, a phrase, which, with them, signified a divine person, as they might learn from#Ps 2:7,12, and by ascribing the same operations to himself, as to his Father, they rightly understood him, that he asserted his equality with him; for had he intended no more, and had they imagined that he intended no more by calling God his Father, than that he was so by creation, as he is to all men, or by adoption, as he was to the Jews, they would not have been so angry with him; for the phrase, in this sense, they used themselves: but they understood him otherwise, as asserting his proper deity, and perfect equality with the Father; and therefore to the charge of sabbath breaking, add that of blasphemy, and on account of both, sought to put him to death; for according to their canons, both the sabbath breaker, and the blasphemer, were to be stoned {d}.

making himself equal with God --rightly gathering this to be His meaning, not from the mere words "My Father," but from His claim of right to act as His Father did in the like high sphere, and by the same law of ceaseless activity in that sphere. And as, instead of instantly disclaiming any such meaning--as He must have done if it was false--He positively sets His seal to it in the following verses, merely explaining how consistent such claim was with the prerogatives of His Father, it is beyond all doubt that we have here an assumption of peculiar personal Sonship, or participation in the Father's essential nature.

12. THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST IS DEMONSTRATED IN HIS WORKS

Now if we weigh his divinity by the works that are ascribed him in the Scriptures, it will thereby shine forth more clearly. Indeed, when he said that he had been working hitherto from the beginning with the Father [John 5:17], the Jews, utterly stupid to all his other sayings, still sensed that he made use of divine power. And therefore, as John states, "the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God" [John 5:18]. How great will our stupidity then be if we do not feel that his divinity is here plainly affirmed? And verily, to govern the universe with providence and power, and to regulate all things by the command of his own power [Hebrews 1:3], deeds that the apostle ascribes to Christ, is the function of the Creator alone. And he not only participates in the task of governing the world with the Father; but he carries out also other individual offices, which cannot be communicated to the creatures. The Lord proclaims through the prophet, "I, even I, am the one who blots out your transgressions for my own sake" [Isaiah 43:25 p.]. According to this saying, when the Jews thought that wrong was done to God in that Christ was remitting sins, Christ not only asserted in words, but also proved by miracle, that this power belonged to him [Matthew 9:6]. We therefore perceive that he possesses not the administration merely but the actual power of remission of sins, which the Lord says will never pass from him to another. What? Does not the searching and penetrating of the silent thoughts of hearts belong to God alone? Yet Christ also had this power [Matthew 9:4; cf. John 2:25]. From this we infer his divinity.

5. Alleged Equivalence [of "Son of God"] to Messiah--Personal Sense Implied:

(3) Trial before Sanhedrin.

There is another passage where it is frequently contended that "the Christ" and "the Son of God" must be exactly parallel, but a close examination suggests the reverse. In the account of the ecclesiastical trial in the Gospel of Lk, He is charged, "If thou art the Christ, tell us"; and, when He replies, "If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God," they all say, "Art thou then the Son of God?" and, when He replies in the affirmative, they require no further witness (Lk 22:67-71), Matthew informing us that the high priest hereupon rent his garments, and they all agreed that He had spoken blasphemy and was worthy of death (Mt 26:65 f). The usual assumption is that the second question, "Art thou .... the Son of God?" implies no more than the first, `Art thou the Christ?'; but is not the scene much more intelligible if the boldness of His answer to the first question suggested that He was making a still higher claim than to be the Christ, and that their second question applied to this? It was when Jesus affirmed this also that their angry astonishment knew no bounds, and their sentence was immediate and capital. It may be questioned whether it was blasphemy merely to claim to be the Messiah; but it was rank and undeniable blasphemy to claim to be the Son of God. This recalls the statement in Jn 5:18, "The Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God"; to which may be added (Jn 10:33), "The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

The Title "Son (of God)"

Jesus claimed, as the Son of God, essential divine oneness with God in the Synoptic Gospels in Matthew 11:27 (Luke 10:22); 21:37-38 (Mark 12:6; Luke 20:13); 24:36 (Mark 13:32); and 28:19; and in the Gospel of John in (at least) 5:17-29; 6:40; 10:36; 11:4; 14:13; 17:1. To these must be added those instances in the Fourth Gospel when he claimed that God was his Father in such a unique sense that the Jewish religious leadership correctly perceived that he was claiming a Sonship with God that constituted essential divine oneness and equality with God and thus, from their perspective, was the committing of blasphemy (John 5:17-18; 10:24-39, especially verses 25, 29, 30, 32-33; 37, 38; see also 19:7).

The Sonship of Christ is one of the glorious mysteries of our religion. Angels are, indeed, sometimes called the sons of God. Thus, in the only reliable history of the origin of our world, we are told that at the creation "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." Job 38:7. Because Adam came into existence without any created instrumentality, but directly from the hand of God, he is called the son of God. Luke 3:38. And because all believers are, by the Holy Spirit, renewed into the image of the Most High, and are adopted into the heavenly family, they are called the sons of God. Rom 8:14; 1 John 3:1. But the whole tenor of the argument in the early part of the epistle to the Hebrews goes to show that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Father in a sense far higher than can be claimed for any mere creature. He is preeminently God’s own Son, Rom 8:32; and God’s dear Son, Col 1:13; and God is preeminently his Father, John 5:18.

The orthodox doctrine is that Christ is called "Son of God" in Scripture to indicate his eternal and necessary relation as the Second Person of the Godhead to the First Person, who is called Father to indicate the reciprocal relation.

72. State the argument from the application in Scripture of the terms monogenes, (only begotten) and idios, (own) to the Sonship of Christ.

Although many of God’s creatures are called his sons, the phrase, Son of God, I the singular, and when limited by the terms "own" and "only begotten," is applied only to Christ.

Christ is called "only begotten Son of God."--John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9.

In John 5:18, Christ calls God his own Father (see Greek). He is called the own Son of the Father.--Rom. 8:32.

The use of these qualifying terms proves that Christ is called Son of God in a sense different from that in which any other is so called. Therefore it designates him as God and not as man, nor as the bearer of an office.

There is a qualitative difference between the united relationship of Christ to the Father and the godward intimacy of any other person. Here the Semitic idiom expresses the uniqueness of Christ's person and work.

The Jews found in ho pater mou (ver. 17) and the implication in kago ergazomai a claim to some peculiar and exclusive (idion) sonship on the part of Jesus; that He claimed to be Son of God not in the sense in which other men are, but in a sense which involved equality with God.

Even Jesus’ use of my father adds to the pointedness of what he is saying. In corporate worship Jews sometimes spoke of God as ‘our Father’, but the individual way Jesus spoke of God as his own Father displayed the unique Father-Son relationship Jesus claimed as his own.

18. Jesus’ opponents instantly grasp the implications of his remark, including the fact that he was calling God his own Father. Perceived infractions against Sabbath laws were serious, and might provoke murderous intent; but a man making himself equal with God was challenging the fundamental distinction between the holy, infinite God and finite, fallen human beings. For this reason the Jews (cf. notes on 1:19; 5:10) tried all the harder to kill him.

… The rabbis acknowledge that God may make some like himself (chiefly Moses, Ex. 7:1) inasmuch as they represent God to others, but the four who according to Scripture make themselves like God all stand under terrible judgment: Pharaoh (Ezk. 29:3), Joash (2 Ch. 24:24), Hiram (Ezk. 28:2) and Nebuchadnezzar (Is. 14:14; Dn 4; cf. SB 2. 462-465). …

Some have thought that the Jews misunderstood what Jesus was saying--that Jesus was not really making himself ‘equal (isos) with God’. In the light of the argument from 1:1 to 20:28, it is hard to believe John took him that way. At the same time, John would be the first to insist that what the Jews understood by ‘equal with God’ was not exactly what either Jesus or John meant by it. The ensuing verses set out some of the parameters by which we may rightly understand that Jesus is equal with God (cf. Paul’s remarks, also with respect to isos, in Phil 2:6). Jesus is not equal with God as another God or as a competing God: the functional subordination of the Son to the Father, the utter dependence of the Son upon the Father, are about to be explicated. So once again there is irony: the Jews take umbrage at Jesus’ implicit claim to deity, having rightly detected the drift of Jesus’ argument; but their understanding of Jesus’ equality with God needs serious modification, for Christians will not accept di-theism or tri-theism any more than the Jews themselves. The ensuing verses may therefore be seen, in part, as a defense of a distinctly Christian form of monotheism (cf. Lightfoot, p.141), as much as an explication of the nature of Jesus’ equality with his Father.

Had he said, "God works on the sabbath day, and therefore I am free to do so too’, his words would have given offense enough to his hearers. But the manner of his reference to God as ‘my Father’ was more offensive still: it suggested rather pointedly that he was putting himself on a level with God. In their synagogue services of prayer and thanksgiving the Jews were accustomed to address God as ‘our Father’; but Jesus appeared to be claiming God as ‘his own Father’ in an exceptional, if not exclusive sense. … But for the Jews the line of demarcation between the divine and the human was strictly drawn; it was unthinkable that any one should be comparable to God (Isa. 40:25).

But the name Son of God when ascribed to Christ has a far deeper meaning than the theocratic: he was not a mere king of Israel who in time became an adopted Son of God; neither was he called Son of God because of his supernatural birth, as the Socinians and Hoffman held; neither is he Son of God merely in an ethical sense, as others suppose; neither did he receive the title Son of God as a new name in connection with his atoning work and resurrection, and interpretation in support of which John 10:34-36; Acts 13:32, 33; and Rom. 1:4 are cited; but he is Son of God in a metaphysical sense: by nature and from eternity. He is exalted high above angels and prophets, Matt 13:32; 21:27; 22:2; and sustains a very special relation to God, Matt. 11:7. He is the beloved Son in whom the Father is well pleased, Matt 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 9:35; the only begotten Son, John 1:18; 3:16; 1 John 4:9 ff.; God’s own Son, Rom. 8:32; the eternal Son, John 17:5, 24; Heb. 1:5; 5:5; to whom the Father gave "to have life in himself," John 5:26; equal to the Father in knowledge, Matt. 11:27; in honor, John 5:23; in creative and redemptive power, John 1:3; 5:21, 27; in work, John 10:30; and in dominion, Matt 1:27; Luke 10:22; 22:29; John 16:15; 17:10; and because of this Sonship he was condemned to death, John 10:33; Matt. 26:63 ff.

The Sabbath controversy grew very keen for the Pharisees now hated Jesus very much. His defense angered them more than the offense: "My Father worketh even until now and I work." This claim of equality with the Father and the corresponding right to work on the Sabbath as God continues His creative activity did not escape the notice of His enemies. They "sought the more to kill him" (5:18), having already had murder in their hearts. Religious persecutors are usually men of strong convictions of their own orthodoxy and infallibility, but with weak ethical principles. These men felt evidently that they were the champions of God against a Sabbath-breaker and a blasphemer who happened, however, to be the Son of God Himself and who was in reality doing the very will of God. So they pressed against Jesus "because he not only brake the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God" (5:18).

The Lord Jesus used the terms ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ in such a way as to suggest that the relationship between him and God was without any parallel. God is the Father and he is the Son (John 3:35; 5:19-27, etc.). He spoke of him as ‘my Father’, in an intimate way which, to say the least, was not characteristic of Jewish practice.

Jesus is saying that he observes the Sabbath in the same way the Father does. The Jews recognized that his claim meant he was asserting that God was his own Father, his Father in a special sense, for he was "making himself equal to God" (5:18). But Jesus did not mean this in the sense that he was a second god, a being quite separate from the Father. He says that he is quite unable to do anything apart from himself, and that what the Father does the Son does (5:19). He does not say that he does similar things, but that he does the same things.

All three of these passages point up a very significant fact concerning Jesus’ consciousness and claims to His identity. This is the fact that the Jews who heard Him speak and did not accept Him and His message considered Him guilty of blasphemy, judging Him to be claiming to be God, and were aroused on several occasions to the point of attempting to stone Him in the Jewish manner of execution. Furthermore, it was under this judgment of blasphemy that the Jewish leaders finally sentenced Him to death. Perhaps the liberals can develop a plausible case for the enthusiastic followers of Jesus jumping to conclusions about His identity which Jesus Himself did not claim. But it is difficult to conceive of His enemies drawing that conclusion without basis in His words. And it is even more difficult to conceive of Jesus being put to death because of a misunderstanding when a simple clarification would have saved his life.

By the words, he also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God, the author once more brings into clear view the purpose of his Gospel. That purpose was to strengthen believers so that they might continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they might continue to have life in his name (20:30, 31).

In addition to his stand with respect to the sabbath it was his claim of being equal with God that nailed Christ to the cross. When the Jewish authorities heard Jesus call God "my (own) Father," they did not do what many moderns have done. They did not try to tone down the character of Christ’s sonship. They immediately understood that Jesus claimed for himself deity in the highest possible sense of that term. That claim was either the most wicked blasphemy, to bepunished with death; or else, it was the most glorious truth, to be accepted by faith. The very character of the sign which Jesus had just now performed should have caused these religious leaders to adopt the latter alternative. Instead, they chose the former.

If you give due attention to the difficulties involved in each of these divinely revealed doctrines, you would be able a priori to anticipate all possible heresies which have been evolved in the course of history. All truth is catholic; it embraces many elements, wide horizons, and therefore involves endless difficulties and apparent inconsistencies. The mind of man seeks for unity, and tends prematurely to force a unity in the sphere of his imperfect knowledge by sacrificing one element of the truth or other to the rest. This is eminently true of all rationalists. They are clear and logical at the expense of being superficial and half-orbed. Heresy means an act of choice, and hence division, the picking and choosing a part, instead of comprehensively embracing the whole of the truth. Almost all heresies are partial truths--true in what they affirm but false in what they deny.

First let it be said, that it does not say to "worship the Son just as we worship the Father." Yet , still some imagine it means this. The reality is though, that it says to "honor" the Son. What does this mean? The Greek word translated "honor" is "timao." It means to "hold in estimation, respect, honour, to revere." (The Analytical Greek Lexicon by Moulton pg. 405, Strong's Greek Dictionary pg. 72) It is also used at Matthew 15:4 of the way you should view your parents: "For example, God said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Let him that reviles father or mother end up in death.'

Christians certainly are not to "worship" their parents are they?