Jesus is Divine, but is He Equal? - A Fresh View of God for 2015

Co-Equal in Position or Co-Equal in Divine Nature?

The Scriptures are clear that Jesus does have “divine nature” or “the nature of God” (John 1:1; Colossians 2:9). What does this mean? Well, the only thing we really know about "God's nature" is that it's invisible and different from human nature.

Does Jesus possessing equal "nature" to God automatically mean He is equal in position or authority? Does your human nature mean you're automatically equal to President Obama in position or authority? I think you can see why this reasoning is false.

If Jesus is only Co-Equal to God in His nature or "species," what does that really tell us? Human beings are all equally human in their nature, but they have all kinds of positions and all kinds of authority. Some humans are rulers who are given honor and praise. Some humans are poor or homeless and looked down upon. Some humans are morally good and some are evil.

The Bible says that God's nature is “spirit” (John 4:24). But it also says that the nature of angels is “spirit” (Hebrews 1:7; Hebrews 1:14). The fact that angels have “the nature of God” (“spirit” nature) may also help to explain why angels are called gods in Psalm 8:5.

Plus, it even says that Christians will share in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). So, when the Bible says that Jesus has the nature of God, or divine nature, it's not necessarily saying anything beyond the fact that Jesus is a “spirit” in His nature, just like God and the angels are, and like Christians will be in Heaven (1 Corinthians 15:39-49).

Trinitarians need to show, from the Bible, why Jesus Christ's “nature of God” or “divine nature” is different from the “spirit” nature possessed by angels and Christians in Heaven. Can they do this?

Top Questions for Trinitarians about Jesus being Co-Equal to God:

If Jesus has always been Co-Equal to the Father, then Jesus was always Lord. How could there ever be a time when the Father had to make Jesus become Lord? (Acts 2:36)

How can you be "Co-Equal" with someone if you cannot make a decision on your own, without the approval of another? (John 5:19)

If Jesus has always been Yahweh, together with the Father and the Spirit, how could there ever be a time when Jesus had to wait to inherit the Divine Name? (Hebrews 1:4)

How can Jesus be Co-Equal to God and at the same time, give up His Kingdom to God and subject Himself to God? (1 Corinthians 15:28)

How could the Supreme Being be made lower than angels, and even if the Supreme Being could be made lower than angels for a little while, how could He still be Co-Equal to God and lower than angels at the very same time? (Hebrews 2:9)

I understand that the usual Trinitarian argument John 14:28 is that the Father was greater than Jesus while Jesus was a human on earth, but this still eliminates the claim that Jesus was always Co-Equal to God at all times, because, at this particular time, obviously He was not equal, according to Christ's own words.

So what exactly does it mean when the Bible says...

___________________________________________

Jesus Has Divine Nature

The Greek words used for "divine," "divinity," "deity," and "divine nature," can mean something that is manifesting the same attributes or qualities of God, godlike, or the state of being God or being a god. Context must determine the meaning.

The Bible says the fullness of the divine nature dwells in Jesus, in His body (Colossians 2:9). This fullness dwells in Christ as a result of a decision made by God the Father (Colossians 1:19).

So does this mean that Jesus is Yahweh? It absolutely **can** mean that if the context supports this. But does it?

If we go with the idea of this meaning that Jesus is the one true God, Yahweh, then it means that God the Father somehow, at one time, made a decision to turn His Son into the same God as Himself.

Since God had to choose to place the fullness of divine nature into the Son, then this is not something the Son has eternally possessed. Trinitarian doctrine claims that the Son has always had divine nature and there has never been a time when when He lacked divinity.

The question thus remains, what was God's Son before the Father made the decision to put the fullness of divine nature inside of Him?

(Colossians 1:19)

It seems much more reasonable to me that it means Jesus is manifesting all of the fullness of the qualities and attributes of His Father perfectly, something no one else can do (at least not right now). It could also mean that Jesus is the absolute greatest of all the gods who represent Yahweh -- that third category of gods we discussed above.

Plus, immediately after saying that this fullness of divine nature dwells in Jesus, it declares that Christians have received a fullness from Jesus. If we say that the fullness Jesus has makes Him Yahweh, would we also be required to say that the fullness Christians have makes them Yahweh too?

In addition, God is going to grant some measure of this divine nature to Christians too, according to 2 Peter 1:4:

2 Peter 1:4 (ESV): ...you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

Since we all agree that Christians are not going to become Yahweh, we acknowledge that "divine nature" here means we will share in the spirit nature of God and angels, or we will manifest the qualities and attributes of God, or, perhaps, it means we will be representatives and rulers for Yahweh. Maybe it means all of the above. But it definitely does not mean we will become Yahweh.

God's Firstborn Son, Not God's Twin Brother

The Bible always refers to the relationship between God and Jesus as “Father” and “Son,” never as “brothers” or “twins.” If the Bible wanted to teach that they were Co-Equal, why wouldn't it call Jesus God's “twin brother” instead of God's “Son?”

Jesus Himself used the term “brothers” to mean “equals” (See Matthew 23:8). In addition, the Apostle Paul and James, the brother of Jesus, used the word “brother” to mean “equal” (Philemon 1:16; James 4:11-12). However, Jesus used the term “Father” to refer to a superior. (See Matthew 23:9; John 14:28)

So, what does the Bible mean when it says Jesus is the “Son” of God? Well, it actually means almost the same thing as when we say a human is the son of a father: It means the Father gave life to Jesus, taught Jesus, and Jesus obeys the Father (John 6:57; John 8:28-29; John 5:19-20; John 5:30; Hebrews 5:8).

What is the correct interpretation of Philippians 2:6?

Philippians 2:6 (NET): who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,

Philippians 2:6 (NIRV): In his very nature he was God. But he did not think that being equal with God was something he should hold on to.

This passage, in either interpretation, doesn't agree with the traditional Trinity Doctrine's claim that Jesus has always been Co-Equal to God the Father.

The NET Bible, NASB, and ESV all render this verse to show that Jesus did not even think that He should grasp at being equal to God. This would mean Jesus never was equal to God [in authority, at least].

The NIRV, NIV, and other Bible versions render this verse to show that Jesus did possess equality with God in heaven, but when He became a human, He gave up this equality.

Neither of these interpretations can harmonize with the traditional Trinitarian claim that Jesus has always been Co-Equal to God.

What is this"equality" that Jesus give up (or never had, depending on the interpretation or translation) in Philippians 2:6? If it is the “equality” of nature we spoke about above, then Jesus gave up His divine spirit nature when He became a Man. On the other hand, if this is “equality” in position or authority, then Jesus gave up (or never had) equal authority with God the Father.

If we go with the ESV/NET interpretation, I think we must say that it refers to equality of authority, because other Scriptures definitely teach that Jesus possessed the same divine spirit nature that God possesses (John 1:1; Colossians 2:9). If we go with the NIRV/NIV interpretation, then we could say that it refers to equality of nature, and Jesus gave this up when He became a human being.

In addition, what does it mean for Jesus to exist in “the Form of God?” The Greek word is “morphe.” Greek experts and dictionaries are divided on the meaning of this word. Some say it means “the outward appearance of,” and some say it means “the true nature of.” That is why the ESV/NASB render it as “form” and the NIV/NIRV render it as “in very nature.”

If we go with the ESV/NASB interpretation, it would mean that Jesus reflected God's qualities and nature, but may not necessarily have the exact same type of essence that God has. If we go with the NIV/NIRV interpretation, it would mean that Jesus did possess a nature identical to the nature that God possesses. Neither of these interpretations says that Jesus and the Father live together inside of the same Being.

What is the correct interpretation of Colossians 1:15?

Colossians 1:15 (ESV): He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

The Greek phrase for "firstborn of all creation," according to what I have researched, is most likely in the "partitive genitive" form, which is a fancy way of saying that the firstborn mentioned must be included as part of the group called "creation" here.

In the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of the Old Testament, and in the Greek New Testament, the phrase “firstborn of (someone/thing)” is used in one of two ways:

1. To say that the one who is “firstborn” was caused to be born by that someone/thing mentioned.
2. To say that the one who is “firstborn” was a member of the group that the someone/thing mentioned is part of.
   

Option 1 doesn't work for Colossians 1:15, because the rest of creation could not have caused Jesus to be born, since the rest of creation did not exist until it was created through Jesus. So we are left with option 2: Jesus would be included among the group that is called “creation.”

Usually in the Bible, the word “firstborn” refers to the first son born into a family or the first of a new type of thing or experience – in other words, it usually means the first in chronological order. There are, however, a few occasions where it may not refer to the chronological first, and instead, it takes on the symbolic meaning of holding first place. One such Scripture is Psalm 89:27. Even in that Psalm, with the symbolic use of the term “firstborn” over the kings as meaning “Highest of the kings of the earth,” it is still including the firstborn king inside the group called “kings.”

So, while admittedly, “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 may not refer to Jesus being first chronologically (even though that idea is present in Colossians 1:17-18), it is most likely still placing Jesus within the group or category called “creation.”

It should be noted that in Colossians 1:18, and in Romans 8:29, the Apostle Paul uses the word “firstborn” to mean that Jesus is the first chronologically to rise from the dead to immortal life and the first chronologically to have the new resurrection body.

There are four main ways of interpreting Colossians 1:15:

1. Jesus is the first creature that was ever made by God, thus He is the first being ever “born.” (Compare Proverbs 8:22-24)
2. Jesus is the first of the New Creation humans who have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of them. (Compare Romans 8:29)
3. Jesus is the Preeminent or Supreme One among all the creatures God has made. (See the ESV, NASB)
4. Jesus is the Preeminent or Supreme One over all the creatures God has made. (See the NIV, NLT)
   

However, option number 4 is not a valid option, if indeed the Greek structure of Colossians 1:15 is in the “partitive genitive." Some Bible experts and scholars do not think that this Greek phrase is in the “partitive genitive" sense, therefore, they say Jesus is excluded from the group or category of “creation,” and Jesus was over/outside creation.

I recommend you do your own research on this topic to come to a satisfying conclusion. Here are two links to get you started on this: Restoration Light and Scriptural Truth.

___________________________________________

Co-Eternal and Uncreated?

Is it true, as the Trinity Doctrine says, that the Son was never created, but instead is eternal and has always existed with the Father?

Proverbs 8:22 (NET): The LORD [Yahweh] created me as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago.

This verse clearly says “Wisdom” was created by God as the beginning of God's works. Some translations say "produced" instead of "created," but it's the same idea. Feel free to check out various Study Bibles produced by a wide range of scholars to fact-check this for yourself.

Many Bible scholars say this “Wisdom” of Proverbs 8 is the same as "the Word" [Jesus] from John 1:1. This is based partly on what the Apocrypha says about "Wisdom," which closely resembles what the New Testament says about Christ. In addition, 1 Corinthians 1:24 explicitly says that Christ is "the Wisdom of God." (The Jewish Apocryphal book of Sirach, says "Wisdom" is the Word from God's mouth and was the first thing created by God.)

To me, this is pretty convincing that the writers of the New Testament viewed the Son of God as Wisdom, and at some point, was created or brought into existence by Yahweh. However, I will admit there are many different interpretations of Proverbs 8, and there are different ways these verses can be translated. Please research this for yourself before arriving at your own conclusion.

Jesus, at John 6:57, says Christians will live because of Jesus in the same way that Jesus lives because of God the Father. How can Jesus be Co-Eternal if He received His life, and continues to live, because of the Father?

If Jesus is the Almighty Supreme Being, Source of all life, then He would not need the Father to give Him life or keep Him alive, would He? How could there ever have been a time when the Father had to grant life to the Son, if the Son is Co-Equal and Co-Eternal? (John 5:26)