Is Jesus Subordinate To God?

[The Pixie]

Yes, and Hebrew uses the plural form for singular as an honorific style, very much in the same way as the "royal we" functions for singular:
that is to say, "Let US" could mean either more than one or just one - Where it means (in honorific usage) just one, the verb shows as much, because it is conjugated to the singular: In "let us create", "create" is conjugated as singular.

Demonstrating, switching to perfect tense, the Hebrew does not say that "gods have created", but ,"gods has created". "has created" shows that "gods" is singular, not plural.

... which totally undermines the argument that it is God and jesus together.

[The Pixie]

I have to admit that Philippians 2 troubled me, but later verses make the claim that Jesus is the eqwual to God less certain. Here are the troublesome verses for reference:

Philippians 2:5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

It is clearly that Paul considers Jesus to be godly, and it certainly sounds like Jesus is equal to God. But a couple of verses later we get to this:

Philippians 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

This is quite different. This reads as though God selected Jesus, and made Jesus become lord of everyone. It certain;y does not read as though jesus is equal of God.

There are other verses that indicate how Paul regarded Jesus.

Philippians 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Saviour from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

And also:

1 Corinthins 15:20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

These verses make it clear that what happened to Jesus will happen to all Christians. Jesus was the "firstfruits" or prototype for the resurrection, and Paul fully expected to under go that resurrection too, and then Paul's body would be like Jesus' glorious body. Did Paul expect to become a god? I rather doubt it.

A couple more quotes from Paul that make his position clear:

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know that the head of every man in Christ and the head of the woman is the man and the head of Christ is God.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

I appreciate some will say I am just disregarding the verses that do not say what I want them to say, but by the same token those who claim Jesus is equal to God must do the same. Philippians 2:5-7 is certainly a problem for me, but there are plenty of verses that support my position. Perhaps someone with "authoritative theological backing" could explain why I am mistaken about those verses.

To finish off then, here are some quotes by Jesus himself:

Matthew 26:53 "Do you think I cannot call on my Father and he will at once put at my disposal more than 12 legions of angels?"

Matthew 20:20-23 "It is not mine to grant but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father."

Luke 23:46 "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit."

John 5:19 "The Son cannot do anything at his own pleasure, he can only do what he sees his Father doing."

[shunyadragon]

... which totally undermines the argument that it is God and jesus together.

Yes.

[tabibito]

Not in the least. It just means that Genesis 1:1 cannot be used to address the issue of the trinity ...
It is a reasonable analogy to say that man is a trinity, inasmuch that a person's body, soul and spirit can be considered, whether separately or in combination, to be with equal validity the person. Nor is this too hard a leap even for the atheist, because Freud very kindly made analogous divisions with id, ego, and superego.
Body, soul and spirit do not constitute a plurality, though they can individually be considered and addressed as the person. But when considering or addressing the person, the combined group is considered (and in fact is) a single individual.

[tabibito]

Nicely done Pixie: You have found a flaw in the STANDARD teachings concerning the Trinity.
HOWEVER - while those passages can be interpreted to mean that Jesus is not God, there are alternative explanations.
No call to any statements referring to Jesus while he was on Earth can even begin to demonstrate that Jesus is not God.
Along with Philippians 2:6 there are other statements --- (interesting translation that, by the way ... neatly dodges the significance of the whole "emptied himself taking on the form of a man" bit)
Consider the record of Hebrews:
He was not flesh and blood, but became flesh and blood. In his original form he could not die. He had to become a human because only by his death could the devil be defeated. He had to be made in EVERY respect just like us in order to complete his mission.

Heb 2:14

Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

Heb 2:15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Heb 2:16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

Heb 2:17 Therefore, it was necessary for him to be made in every respect like us, his brothers and sisters, so that he could be our merciful and faithful High Priest before God. Then he could offer a sacrifice that would take away the sins of the people.

[foudroyant]

One of the passages that Pixie supplied in the OP was addressed in Post #13.

This went ignored.

[The Pixie]

One of the passages that Pixie supplied in the OP was addressed in Post #13.

This went ignored.

Was post #13 so brilliant then, so devastating to my position? Let us see...

I see that Pixie doesn't really want to know the truth but just throws out anybody who says anything without any authoritative theological backing.

So rather than respond to his endless attempts to deny the Lord Jesus is God I will focus on one of the passages that was cited by him in the OP.

Revelation 22:3

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...velation-22-3)

a. Only God is to receive latreuo.
b. The Lord Jesus properly receives latreuo.
c. Therefore the Lord Jesus is God.

I wrote that the Lord Jesus is "properly receives latreuo" because there are times in the Bible where idols are offered the same but it was always wrong to do.

But this all hangs on exactly what latreuo means. If Jesus is a lesser god, a subordinate to God, then it would still be right to worship him, and we would expect to see that. Does latreuo allow for that?

Here is a definition I found:
http://biblehub.com/greek/3000.htm

I serve, especially God, perhaps simply: I worship.

Can you support your claim that latreuo exclusively means only serving the one highest God? I only see you asserting that claim, which added nothing to your previous post (so I saw no point in responding to it). Perhaps if you can show that supposed "authoritative theological backing" I might think you have a point.

[The Pixie]

Not in the least. It just means that Genesis 1:1 cannot be used to address the issue of the trinity ...

Agreed.

Nicely done Pixie: You have found a flaw in the STANDARD teachings concerning the Trinity.
HOWEVER - while those passages can be interpreted to mean that Jesus is not God, there are alternative explanations.
No call to any statements referring to Jesus while he was on Earth can even begin to demonstrate that Jesus is not God.
Along with Philippians 2:6 there are other statements ---

Although I am arguing that ther Bible says Jesus is subordinate on this thread, my position is that scripture is ambiguous on the subject. I was prompted to start this thread because someone said that Arianism had been refuted, and I responded that it had merely been declared a heresy based on majority opinion (here). I claim that the bible cannot be used to prove that Jesus is equal to God, that this is merely the prevailing opinion of the church. So yes, there are verses that support Jesus being equal, but also there are verses saying he is not.

(interesting translation that, by the way ... neatly dodges the significance of the whole "emptied himself taking on the form of a man" bit)

A lot of translations do that, I wonder why if it is so significant?
http://biblehub.com/philippians/2-7.htm

Consider the record of Hebrews:
He was not flesh and blood, but became flesh and blood. In his original form he could not die. He had to become a human because only by his death could the devil be defeated. He had to be made in EVERY respect just like us in order to complete his mission.

Heb 2:14

Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

Heb 2:15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Heb 2:16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

Heb 2:17 Therefore, it was necessary for him to be made in every respect like us, his brothers and sisters, so that he could be our merciful and faithful High Priest before God. Then he could offer a sacrifice that would take away the sins of the people.

How does that support your position? It can easily be read that Jesus came to exist only when he was born (or conceived), and that he was at that time "made in every respect like us", which is certainly not equal to God.

Further, that last bit has Jesus as a "merciful and faithful High Priest before God", which sounds to me like he is subordinate to God.

[tabibito]

What do you take my position to be?

Although I am arguing that ther Bible says Jesus is subordinate on this thread, my position is that scripture is ambiguous on the subject.

They are in fact quite explicit. It is necessary however to take full context into account and rightly divide the accounts. One group denies that Jesus was ever God ... and one body of texts lends support to that contention. One group declares that Jesus was and is God. Another body of texts supports that contention with equal certainty. But - when all texts are taken into account, with due attention to time periods, the real picture emerges. The link below demonstrates, by analogy, how the errors arise.

How does that support your position? It can easily be read that Jesus came to exist only when he was born (or conceived),

Well, yes it could (in English) - except that he was made (ελατοω / e lah tto oh) for a little while lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9). That "elattooh" signifies demotion, not formation. Moreover, (among other references), it would be necessary to ignore

and that he was at that time "made in every respect like us", which is certainly not equal to God.

Quite so. Jesus the man was subordinate to the Father.

A lot of translations do that, I wonder why if it is so significant?

Further, that last bit has Jesus as a "merciful and faithful High Priest before God", which sounds to me like he is subordinate to God.

Subordinate to the Father would not necessarily signify subordinate to God.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

[foudroyant]

Was post #13 so brilliant then, so devastating to my position? Let us see...

But this all hangs on exactly what latreuo means. If Jesus is a lesser god, a subordinate to God, then it would still be right to worship him, and we would expect to see that. Does latreuo allow for that?

Here is a definition I found:
http://biblehub.com/greek/3000.htm

I serve, especially God, perhaps simply: I worship.

Can you support your claim that latreuo exclusively means only serving the one highest God? I only see you asserting that claim, which added nothing to your previous post (so I saw no point in responding to it). Perhaps if you can show that supposed "authoritative theological backing" I might think you have a point.

From the link I gave:
7. For those who believe the Lord Jesus receives latreuo but this does not prove He is God:
a. The ministry denoted by latreuein is always offered to God (or to heathen gods...R. 1:25...Ac. 7:42) (TDNT 4:62, latreuo, Strathmann).
b. In Biblical Greek always refers to the service of the true God or of heathen deities (The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, copyright 1982, page 371).
c. As used in the New Testament, the word latreuo denotes actions that are always evaluated positively when God is the grammatical object and negatively with reference to any other object (Karen H. Jobes in Moises Silva's "Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics", copyright 1994 revised and expanded edition from 1983, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, page 203).

[The Pixie]

What do you take my position to be?

I am assuming you think Jesus is equal to God. That seems to be what youi are arguing.

They are in fact quite explicit. It is necessary however to take full context into account and rightly divide the accounts. One group denies that Jesus was ever God ... and one body of texts lends support to that contention. One group declares that Jesus was and is God. Another body of texts supports that contention with equal certainty. But - when all texts are taken into account, with due attention to time periods, the real picture emerges. The link below demonstrates, by analogy, how the errors arise.

yes, but the picture that emerges looks different to different people. The mainstream church has its picture, the Arianists saw another. I do not see anything to pick between the two besides personal preference.

Well, yes it could (in English) - except that he was made (ελατοω / e lah tto oh) for a little while lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9). That "elattooh" signifies demotion, not formation. Moreover, (among other references), it would be necessary to ignore

Good point, I agree it does look like Jesus was around before he was born, and presumably higher than the angels - but not necessarily as high as God, from that text.

The link below demonstrates, by analogy, how the errors arise.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

But how do we determine who has misunderstood?

[tabibito]

Compare the texts - Which ones say that Christ was a man? Do any of them refer to Christ being a man other than those which refer to the time between his conception and resurrection, or his ascension.
Do any texts exist declaring that he was God prior to his conception? Do any texts exist declaring him to be God after his ascension?
Do any texts exist which declare him to be less than God prior to his conception? after his ascension?
Does the Koine record of Philippians 2:6 show that he became a man and that he was equal to God before that time?
Importantly, does the record of Philippians 2:6 (or any other) ever show that he was equal to the Father?
My own investigations show - He was God (John's "Logos" is the Old Testament "Memra") - he abdicated, becoming in every respect a man - he resumed being God.
Of course, as wide ranging and in depth as my own investigations have been, it remains possible that I have missed something. But - no-one has yet been able to show (except by recourse to church tradition) that Jesus of Nazareth was 100% man and simultaneously 100% God.
The question: "How could he have remained God if he was in no wise different from any man" is insurmountable.
The question: "How could he have been other than God if he was the Logos?" can only be forestalled by declaring that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Logos. Which then begs the question: who then did the Logos become - for the Logos is declared to have become a man?
Major scripture wresting is needed before it can be said that Jesus of Nazareth was anything other than wholly man.
Major scripture wresting is needed before it can be said that Jesus was not God prior to being conceived as a man.
There is some ambiguity with regard to his status post ascension - it is even possible that the 100% God and 100% man might apply ... this piece, I am still investigating. Assuredly, he did resume being God, but .... did he stop being man?

[The Pixie]

From the link I gave:
7. For those who believe the Lord Jesus receives latreuo but this does not prove He is God:
a. The ministry denoted by latreuein is always offered to God (or to heathen gods...R. 1:25...Ac. 7:42) (TDNT 4:62, latreuo, Strathmann).
b. In Biblical Greek always refers to the service of the true God or of heathen deities (The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, copyright 1982, page 371).
c. As used in the New Testament, the word latreuo denotes actions that are always evaluated positively when God is the grammatical object and negatively with reference to any other object (Karen H. Jobes in Moises Silva's "Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics", copyright 1994 revised and expanded edition from 1983, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, page 203).

You argument is predicated on a single word choice by the author of Revelation and an assumption about a pronoun.

Revelation 22:3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him.

To whom does "him" refer? If to God, then your argument collapses. To have any force, you have to assume that "him" refers to Jesus (or the trinity as one). I.e., you are obliged to assume the very thing you are trying to prove.

Secondly, even if we allow this assumption, we must ponder why, when writing Revelation 22:3, did the author choose "latreusousin"? Was it because he believed Jesus was the equal of God? That is certainly possible, but there is at least one other possibility; that he considered Jesus to be of lower status, but nevertheless considered the word to be suitable. Certainly the author considered Jesus to be the son of God, to be divine - and that could be enough to make Jesus worthy of latreuo.

Is there some other word the author might have used instead? If there is, foudroyant, I invite you to present it. What word would the author have at his disposal to indicate serving a divine personage, but one with not quite the status of God? My suspicion is that Koine Greek was not sufficiently nuanced to offer such a word, but I see you have referenced "The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament", so I am sure you can tell us.

[robrecht]

Koine Greek can be as nuanced as any other language I'm aware of, but focusing on a single word is absurd from a linguistic perspective.

[foudroyant]

You argument is predicated on a single word choice by the author of Revelation and an assumption about a pronoun.

Revelation 22:3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him.

To whom does "him" refer? If to God, then your argument collapses. To have any force, you have to assume that "him" refers to Jesus (or the trinity as one). I.e., you are obliged to assume the very thing you are trying to prove.

Secondly, even if we allow this assumption, we must ponder why, when writing Revelation 22:3, did the author choose "latreusousin"? Was it because he believed Jesus was the equal of God? That is certainly possible, but there is at least one other possibility; that he considered Jesus to be of lower status, but nevertheless considered the word to be suitable. Certainly the author considered Jesus to be the son of God, to be divine - and that could be enough to make Jesus worthy of latreuo.

Is there some other word the author might have used instead? If there is, foudroyant, I invite you to present it. What word would the author have at his disposal to indicate serving a divine personage, but one with not quite the status of God? My suspicion is that Koine Greek was not sufficiently nuanced to offer such a word, but I see you have referenced "The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament", so I am sure you can tell us.

From the same link I cited above:
d. Vine: to God and Christ ( "the Lamb" ), Revelation 22:3 (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Serve, page 1021).
e. Robertson: "Their" (autwn) means the wrath of God and of the Lamb put here on equality as in 22:3 (Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Revelation 6:17).
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?bk=65&ch=6
f. G.K. Beale: That "they will serve him" likely does not refer only to God or only to the Lamb. The two are conceived so much as a unity that the singular pronoun can refer to both. This may find a parallel in 6:17b...possibly in reference to both God and the Lamb (see on 6:17; cf. also 11:15). That both are sitting on only one throne and together form one temple (21:22) enhances their perceived unity (The Book of Revelation, page 1113).
g. G.R. Beasley-Murray: But observe: his servants serve him. Whose servants, and who is served? God, or the Lamb, or God and the Lamb? It is difficult to interpret the statement in reference to the Lamb alone, who is the immediate antecedent of his. Still more difficult is it to refer to God alone. We must assume, therefore, that the third alternative is correct: God and the Lamb are viewed as a unity in so real a fashion that the singular pronoun alone is suitable to interpret them.#1
Footnote #1: So Holt, who observes that the same phenomenon is observable in 11:15, 'The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever...' The unity is the reason why the Christ is seated on the throne with God. 'The Christ stands in God's place, without thereby removing God himself to an unapproachable distance; they melt into a unity of function. God's role as Lord over the world and Regent of the end time has at the same time become that of the Christ' (op. cit., pp. 202f) (The Book of Revelation, page 332).
h. R.T. France: not only is Jesus ('the Lamb') regularly associated with God in His glory and sovereignty (e.g. Rev. 7:14-17; 11:15; 12:10; 14:1, 4; 20:6; 21:22f.; 22:1-4)#29 but worship and praise are offered to Him equally with the Father (Rev. 1:5f.; 5:8-14; 7:9-12; 22:3).
Footnote #29: Note the remarkable use of singular pronouns to refer to 'God and the Lamb' in 22:3f.; cf. 11:15; 20:6. ("The Worship of Jesus - A Neglected Factor In Christological Debate?", Vox Evangelica 12, c. 1981, pages 19-33 -> This quote is found on page 30).
i. Robert L. Thomas: The singular pronoun autw capitalizes on the unity of the Father and the Son (cf. John 10:30). It is difficult to see this priestly service rendered to one of the two persons to the exclusion of the other (cf. 11:15) (Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, page 486-487).

John wouldn't have considered the Lord Jesus lower status by assigning this form of worship to Him.