Friday, January 20, 2012

Answering the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 4)

Click here to start at the beginning of this series on the Jehovah's Witnesses. Again, this series is devoted to addressing the Jehovah's Witnesses' misconceptions concerning the identity of Christ. They view Jesus as an archangel, not as a member of the Godhead.

The Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the phrase "Son of God" (as it relates to Jesus) to mean that Jesus is merely a created being, an angel, and not a true member of the Godhead. However, much to the chagrin of the JW's, the phrase actually proves His deity.

We understand that in a sense, all of us are children/offspring of God because He made us in His own image (Acts 17:28). There is also a sense in which the expression "children of God" is limited to the saints (Rom. 8:17; 1 John 3:1). Even if we are more specific in talking about "sons" of God, the Bible uses such language in reference to angels (Job 1:6), to "peacemakers" (Mt. 5:9) and to all saints (Rom. 8:14).

However, when Jesus identified Himself as the "Son of God" and when He referred to God as His Father, it meant something different. Notice two examples where this is the case:
"But Jesus answered them, 'My Father has been working until now, and I have been working. Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. Then Jesus answered and said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner...Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live'" (John 5:17-19, 25). 
"Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered Him, saying, 'Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?' The Jews answered Him, saying, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, make Yourself God.' Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, I said, you are gods? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'" (John 10:31-36).
In both of these passages, it's clear that when Jesus identified Himself as the Son of God, it was an expression of His "divine nature," that He was "equal with God." In other words, Jesus wasn't a son/child of God in the same sense that we are children of God; He was the "Son of God" in the sense that He possessed the seed of the Father and the attributes and characteristics of the Godhead. Likewise, we all ought to strive to be one with the Father (Jn. 17:20-21), but when Jesus said, "I and My Father are one," it meant something more...something deeper. The Jews of Jesus' day understood that and thus wanted to stone Jesus for the cause of blasphemy.

Now why does the expression "Son of God" have special meaning when used in reference to Christ? Although we've already answered this in part, I'd like to give it a little more attention here. For further clarity, let's read Hebrews 1:1-3:
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."
Jesus Christ, as the SON of God possessed the brightness of God's glory and the express image of God's person. The phrase "express image" literally means "exact likeness." So according to the inspired record, Jesus is a duplicate of God, which is why Paul could correctly write that He (Jesus) possessed the "fulness of the Godhead" (Col. 2:9). I like what Adam Clark's commentary says about this phrase in Hebrews 1:3...
"The character or impression of his hypostasis or substance. It is supposed that these words expound the former; image expounding brightness, and person or substance, glory. The hypostasis of God is that which is essential to him as God; and the character or image is that by which all the likeness of the original becomes manifest, and is a perfect fac-simile of the whole. It is a metaphor taken from sealing; the die or seal leaving the full impression of its every part on the wax to which it is applied.
From these words it is evident,
1. That the apostle states Jesus Christ to be of the same essence with the Father, as the απαυγασμα, or proceeding splendor, must be the same with the αυγασμα, or inherent splendor. 
2. That Christ, though proceeding from the Father, is of the same essence; for if one αυγη, or splendor, produce another αυγη, or splendor, the produced splendor must be of the same essence with that which produces it.
3. That although Christ is thus of the same essence with the Father, yet he is a distinct person from the Father; as the splendor of the sun, though of the same essence, is distinct from the sun itself, though each is essential to the other; as the αυγασμα, or inherent splendor, cannot subsist without its απαυγασμα, or proceeding splendor, nor the proceeding splendor subsist without the inherent splendor from which it proceeds.
4. That Christ is eternal with the Father, as the proceeding splendor must necessarily be coexistent with the inherent splendor. If the one, therefore, be uncreated, the other is uncreated; if the one be eternal, the other is eternal."
In conclusion, the Jehovah's Witnesses are absolutely incorrect in using the expression "Son of God" to disprove Jesus' deity. The fact is, according to a thorough study of scripture, it actually proves Jesus' divine nature. Had Jesus NOT possessed full divinity, it would indeed have been blasphemous for Him to identify Himself as the "Son of God," and the Jews would have been right in stoning Him for it.

Click here to read the next installment in this series.

No comments:

Post a Comment