JESUS

In Everything
by David R. Leigh, M.A.
LEIGHIST & GRATEFUL PRESSLESS FULL PRESS
DAVID R. LEIGH
P.O. BOX 268
FOX RIVER GROVE, IL 60021-0268

847-571-3011
Dave@TheJesusAgenda.net

© 2010 Copyright David R. Leigh. All Rights Reserved.

“... that He [Jesus Christ] might come to have first place in everything.”
—Colossians 1:18b
 Contents

Section I: The Primacy Of Christ: Summarizing A Christ-Centered Theology

Outline For A Christ-Centered Theology

Prolegomena

1. God-in-Christ-ology

2. God’s Saving Action in Christ

3. The Spirit of Christ is God (Pneumatology)

4. Christ-in-Eccles-iology

5. Christ and the World

Glossary

Endnotes

Section II: Excursus Over Questions Of Divinity

1. Is The Evangelical Jesus As Divine As He Used To Be?

2. THE “COMPLEMENTARIAN” AS ARIAN COMPLEMENT:

A Classic Protestant Response To An Objection
About Jesus' Eternal Status

3. Speaking Of Arians.... A RESPONSE TO THE WATCH TOWER'S

LESSER DEITY

Section III: Coming To Terms With Jesus Christ Our Head

[Chapters and contents forthcoming.]

 Section I:

THE PRIMACY OF CHRIST

SUMMARIZING A CHRIST-CENTERED THEOLOGY

“Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through me. If you
really know me, you will know my Father as well. From
now on, you do know him and have seen him.'”
—John 14:6-7
 Outline For A Christ-Centered Theology

Prolegomena 3. The Spirit of Christ is God

(Pneumatology)
1. God-in-Christ-ology
4. Christ-in-Eccles-iology
Grace
Jealousy The Ordinances
Aseity Church Government
Omnipotence
Infinity 5. Christ and the World
Personality
Anthropology
Immutability
Harmartiology
Omniscience
Eschatology
The Trinity
Revelation Today

2. God’s Saving Action in Christ Glossary

Election
Atonement Endnotes
Justification
Salvation
Sanctification
Glorification
Prolegomena

It might seem like common sense to assume that Christianity begins with and
emanates from Jesus Christ, who is the author, founder, and pioneer of our faith.
After all, the Christian is by definition a Christ-Follower. But theologians have
never been accused of having too much common sense.

Systematic theologies customarily share some variation on this traditional

outline:

 Theology (the doctrine of God)

 Anthropology (the doctrine of humanity)
 Harmartiology (the doctrine of sin)
 Christology (the doctrine of Christ’s Person)
 Soteriology (the doctrine of Salvation)
 Pneumatology (the doctrine of the Holy Spirit)
 Ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church)
 Eschatology (the doctrine of the end times or last things)

The traditional outline stands in contrast to the outline found at the start of
this chapter. It shows that traditionally theologians have treated Jesus Christ as a
subset of theology, rather than rightly seeing Jesus Christ as the only proper source
and environment for all theological thinking. Ironically, the traditional outline is
misleading in that it does not comport with reality. The reality is Christian
theologians only know what they know, and believe what they believe, because of
their faith, which began by an encounter with Jesus Christ. And the source of all
they believe rests upon his authority.

One can only marvel, therefore, that traditional theologians have chosen any
other starting point than Jesus Christ, the personal self-revelation of Yahweh-God.
And what little wonder it is that this simple corrective of giving Jesus first place in
everything results in a paradigm shift of seismic proportions. Suddenly, with Jesus
as the center and starting point of theology, Jesus truly becomes the Way, the Truth,
and Life. He is now rightly restored to his place as the only way to the Father. He
takes us away from truth being merely a body of information and turns theology
into a matter of relationship to Truth as a Person, with all people, places, and things
finding their meaning, significance, and understanding determined by their relation
to him. Jesus is the very Life of God in all things, first breathed into Adam in the
Garden and passed through all creation by the breathe of his Spirit in the gospel.

The traditional approach comes to us via the Catholic and Protestant

Scholastics, who faithfully endeavored to crystallize the teachings of their
predecessors. With little variation, that agenda also typifies most major works of
Christian theology since the Scholastic movements, regardless of how conservative
or progressive.

Ironically, even those who profess to be “non-creedal” seem unable to shake

off the common addiction to these fossilized Scholastic formulae and categories.
But if one is non-creedal, why be pro-formulae? However well the Scholastic
model has served both orthodox and heterodox alike, we hold no obligation to it as
an environment for hearing from God nor for articulating his message.

The biggest problem with the Scholastic approach is that it is procedurally

misleading. Its format presumes and gives the message that one may speak of God
truthfully before—and therefore without—speaking of Christ. Jesus, on the other
hand, says, “No one comes to the Father, but through me.”1 While there is a general
and non-saving knowledge of God communicated in nature, in Christ alone we find
the full self-disclosure of God. In Christ alone do we speak of God (or ourselves or
the world) with depth, accuracy, and clarity. In Christ alone can we come to truly
know God. For this reason Luther said, “You cannot find God outside of Christ,
even in heaven,” and “Seeking God outside of Jesus is [the work of] the devil.” All
truly consistent Christian theology, then, must begin with Christ and proceed from
him to an understanding of God, humanity, salvation, or anything else.

While the Old Testament chose general revelation as its starting point (“In
the beginning God created ...”), it never manages to present Yahweh “beyond the
veil.” The New Testament, on the other hand, begins with Jesus Christ as the
unique self-revelation and personal disclosure of Yahweh, establishing Jesus
therefore as the only theological starting point for the Christ follower. The Gospels
and Epistles boldly model this in content, order and arrangement. The New
Testament model, then, flatly challenges the Scholastic approach to “systematic”
theology and resists being squeezed into its categories. The New Testament calls
us, instead, to something more organic and personal, being grounded and centered
upon the Person of Jesus the Messiah as “God With Us.”

Ordering each article of a Jesus-centered faith is therefore no small matter.

The order divulges the faith and presuppositions behind and prior to the articles
themselves, while the arrangement of the whole flavors the content of the parts.
This is why the following presentation summarizing my theology will take a non-
traditional, distinctively Christocentric, approach.
1. God-in-Christ-ology

We begin with Jesus Christ, yet we do not. As Jesus said, “Whoever believes in
me does not believe in me….”2 Jesus is the only window to the Father and he is
perfectly clear; “whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”3

Jesus is not a mere reflection of the Father. He is the direct radiance of the
Father. He is to the Father as the sun’s rays are to the sun. We cannot see one
without seeing the other. They are one and yet distinct. Jesus is “Light from Light”
and “very God from very God.”4 Therefore, “His name will be called Wonderful
Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father ....”5

In Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, we see Yahweh-God’s greatest

attributes revealed. That is, by becoming flesh, God peels away the persistent veil
of the Old Covenant. Here are a few very brief examples:

Grace—God acts in Christ on behalf of the world, despite the world’s rebellion.
One thing Christ’s sacrifice did not do was to gain for us God’s love. God’s love
preceded and gave impetus to Messiah’s coming.6 It always was, as Jesus always
was. Jesus is God’s grace fully revealed in that humanity’s greatest sin, the
slaughter of Christ, becomes humanity’s only redemption. Here we see that God’s
favor depends in no way on human merit. God’s costly grace is totally free—free
to all (offered to everyone) and free of all (dependent on no one). Meanwhile, in
the same act of sacrifice upon the cross, Christ also reveals the full extent of God’s
wrath in that by becoming sin for us, he becomes the receptacle in which all wrath
and judgment against sin, and all that stood against us, is completely poured out
and exhausted.

Jealousy—The length to which Jesus went to demonstrate God’s love and to

reconcile us to Yahweh shows how zealous is our jealous God. While grace allows
God to forgive us in Christ, his zeal compels him. God’s love is not passive; it is
jealous. He does not simply wait; Yahweh seeks and sacrifices.

Aseity—Jesus demonstrates that God is independent and totally self-sufficient. The

ultimate proof of this sufficiency is Yahweh’s ability in Christ to unilaterally atone
for the insufficiency of all fallen humanity and to then go on to reign victoriously.
Omnipotence—God demonstrates his power through weakness. He conquers
Satan, all of hell, hell’s forces, sin and the world of sin by a show of meekness: a
single, broken man on a cross. The force and power of every wicked and righteous
enemy to humanity exhausts itself in the seemingly defeated Jesus of Nazareth.
Even God’s wrath over sin is poured out and exhausted upon Christ as he becomes
sin for us. Yet Jesus resiliently springs back as victor. When we look at the
crucified carpenter who incarnates the weakness of humanity, we see Yahweh and
Yahweh’s power incarnated and unveiled.

Infinity—Jesus is the infinite God in finite man. We see there is no end to God
when we see the boundlessness of Christ’s wisdom, compassion, and love.

Personality—Is God an impersonal force? An ultimate It? Jesus demonstrates that

God is personal, for Jesus is the exact representation of God. 7

Immutability—Does God change? We find the answer in Jesus. For “Jesus Christ
is the same yesterday and today and forever.”8 There is a dimension to God that
does change in the sense that movement and interaction are change. These actions
always are consistent with God’s personality and character, which is what we speak
of when we say God is immutable.

Omniscience—Who can hear Christ’s words and not feel completely known by
him? Even the Samaritan Woman at Jacob’s well perceived it.9

Further investigation would demonstrate how Jesus reveals these and all of
the traditional qualities ascribed to God. Jesus reveals God’s eternality,
omnipresence, holiness, justness, goodness, truthfulness, faithfulness, and
absoluteness. We could explore God’s volition revealed in Christ, and his
sovereignty. Through Christ we could discover God as Creator,10 Sustainer,11 and
Re-creator.12 Each of these subjects is a fascinating and captivating study in itself.
And yet all of these topics combined would just be a beginning.

So let’s move on to what perhaps is the most enigmatic mystery that Jesus
reveals about God. For prior to his coming this truth was as little understood as
was his grace.13 That mystery is, of course, God’s triunity.

The Trinity—On the most simplistic level, we can argue from the examples of
Christ’s life and teaching that God is three and yet one. We see God’s threeness in
Jesus’ baptism, where the Father speaks from heaven, the Spirit descends, and
Jesus stands revealed as the Lamb of God.14 We further see the distinction of
Persons in the fact that Jesus prays to the Father15 and speaks of the Spirit as
“another.”16 Likewise, we see the unity of Yahweh in Jesus’ statements of oneness
with the Father and the Spirit.17

On a deeper level, we learn of the Trinity through the self-revelation of God

in Christ itself.18 For what is a self-revelation if it is not that the Revealer, Yahweh,
is also What is Revealed? God is as much the Content of his revelation in Christ as
he is its Author and Subject.

Jesus is the objective revelation of the invisible Father.19 The Holy Spirit is
the subjective revelation of the Father in the Son.20 Because Jesus is the visible
self-revelation of the invisible God, he must be distinguished from God the Father.
Because it is God the Father whom Jesus reveals, there is a necessary unity, or
identity, of essence between them.

God reveals himself not just objectively but subjectively. For we not only
learn of God in Christ, but we are reconciled to him personally. The Holy Spirit is
the subjective form of this revelation; he is God within us and is called
interchangeably the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of him who
raised Christ from the dead.21 He too must be distinguished yet seen as one in
essence with the Godhead for the same reasons given for Christ.

Because Jesus reveals God as immutable, we know that Yahweh always

existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, even prior to Christ’s advent. Jesus reveals
what God always was, is, and ever shall be ontologically. The Economic
(objective) Trinity reveals the Ontological Trinity (i.e., God as he is in himself).

We see in Jesus, then, that God, who is Person, is an indivisible One, for
Yahweh acts in Christ as one. Yet we also see the threefoldness of the Godhead. We
see the one Being distinguished into three eternally co-existent modes of
subsistence.

Revelation Today—To speak of revelation is to speak of a revealing, an unveiling,

a making immediate of what before was not known, seen, experienced. Whereas
God communicated in the past through prophets and speaks to the world through
nature and in diverse ways today, Yahweh only unveils himself in Christ. It is only
through the mediation of Christ that Yahweh-God’s Spirit becomes immediate to
us. This is now and always has been the case.

Jesus was “God with us,” and he remains so.22 We find God’s self-revelation
in Christ alone. We find the Christ who sits on heaven’s throne in and through the
message of the Scriptures alone. The Old and New Testaments are God’s
authoritative witness to his primal self-revelation in Christ. This makes them the
final, authoritative, infallible Word of God.
 Every word of the Bible is, after all, God-breathed.23 The breath (heb. ruach)
of God is none other than the Spirit (ruah) who bears witness to Christ externally
in the written Word and internally in our hearts. The first part of his twofold
witness we call inspiration, the second illumination.

The Scriptures not only come to us by commendation and commission of

Christ, who is the Word (Logos) of God, but they imitate and model Christ in that
their words are completely human and completely divine. They are completely
human and yet without sin or deception. They are completely divine, yet they
explain and disclose the infinite, transcendent God through finite immanent means.

There are, of course, other ways in which God speaks and acts in our world,
providing inspiration and insight to many inside and outside of Christ.24 Only
through Christ, though, do we obtain ultimate understanding of these
communications and the God behind them. In the same way, it is only through
Christ that we ultimately understand the Old Testament prophecies and teachings
about God, law, grace, salvation, and so on.25 Christ Jesus is the lens through which
all things become clear and understood. He is our wisdom and the wisdom of God
in that he is the frame of reference that provides the perspective that makes sense
of all things.

When someone asks, “Does God reveal himself today?” the answer is Yes.
But only in and through Christ is Yahweh-God fully revealed. This Christ is
exclusively the Jesus Christ found in the canon of Scripture, which is complete and
therefore closed.

When someone asks, “Does God still work miracles and give all his gifts of
the Spirit to the Church?” the answer is again found in Christ who established the
New Covenant in his blood until he comes again.26 Just as the Old Covenant was in
force from Moses until Christ, so the New Covenant remains in force and
unchanged until Christ’s return. Just as there were periods of spiritual draught and
absences of spiritual signs and wonders, and then periods of supernatural opulence
during Old Testament times, so too we should expect famines and feasts of
supernatural manifestations between Christ’s advents. As we look toward Christ’s
return, we expect to see his Spirit at work more and more as the day draws nearer.27
We live in the end times, which Jesus and the apostles promised would be filled
with signs and wonders. Our times are also New Testament times, for we live
under the New Covenant as we will until he comes.

Meanwhile, Christ reveals God as compassionate, merciful, and powerful.

Those who come to him will in no way be cast aside.28 We have boldness therefore
to pray expectantly to the one who bore our griefs and by whose stripes we are
healed.29 God is never obligated to show mercy.30 Nor is he obligated to answer our
prayers the way we think they should be answered.31 Jesus does teach us, however,
to persist in prayer believing, making all our requests known to God.32 His throne
is the mercy seat. Therefore, miracles will happen.33
2. God’s Saving Action in Christ

Just as there is no proper theology outside of Christology, so there is no

soteriology outside of or apart from Christology. Christology rightly entails a
discussion of election, atonement, justification, salvation, sanctification, and
glorification.

Election—Soteriology begins with God’s Elect, Jesus Christ, who was foreknown
from the beginning. That Jesus was foreknown as slain before the foundation of the
world34 shows God’s perfect foreknowledge, even of humanity’s sin. That God
created the world with foreknowledge implies he predestined all he foreknew.35

With Yahweh’s provision for sin foreknown and established at the founding
of the world, God had this knowledge when he acted in Christ on behalf of those
whose names have been “written in the book of life since the foundation of the
world.”36 As Augustine put it, Christ’s death was sufficient for the entire world but
efficient only to the elect—those whom God chose, those who believe.

The question of free will is also answered in Christ’s human prayer: “Not my
will, but yours be done.”37 Two totally free wills cannot coexist in the same
universe—sooner or later one will infringe upon the other. Jesus demonstrates, as
the human par excellence, that human beings have wills (volition), but that
however free they may be, they are limited by the limitless, totally free will of
God. It is God’s will, therefore, which always prevails.38

Atonement—It has been suggested that this word is a picture of what Christ
purchased for us: at-one-ment. That at-one-ment took place in Christ is true in his
person as well as his action. In Christ’s Person, God and humanity are united
(reconciled). For Jesus is at once fully God and fully human. He is the new
humanity, one with God. All who are in Christ, then, share in the new humanity,
united with God, at one with him.

In his passion, death and resurrection, Jesus became victorious over sin,
death, the devil, the Law and the wrath of God. He does this as our substitute and
representative. When Jesus died, the new humanity died. When Christ arose, the
new humanity arose.39 When Christ sat down in the heavens, the new humanity sat
in heavenly places.40

Christ’s two natures are the reason why he alone could accomplish
permanent atonement. Humanity had sinned and needed to pay for this sin.41 Being
sinful, however, humanity could offer nothing to a holy God.42 Jesus, being both
human and sinless is able to offer on behalf of humanity the perfect sacrifice to
God as satisfaction (propitiation) for all humanity’s sin.43 Because Jesus is God in
the flesh, God meets us in Christ at the cross and demonstrates his love and
forgiveness.44 There all humanity was reconciled to God.45 It remains, however, for
individuals to enter into that reconciliation.46 This can happen only by faith.47

Justification—All who place their faith in the atoning Christ are counted righteous
by God,48 and have Christ’s righteousness imputed to them.49 This is our only hope.
No human effort or merit could ever suffice for eternal life. All who strive on their
own to earn or retain their salvation deny the freely-given love of God in Christ.50

Salvation—Being literally rescued from hell and from a life without God is what
we call “being saved.” The saved life consists in knowing God through Jesus
Christ.51 Because Jesus is the self-revelation of God, all who receive him encounter
Yahweh, know him, and are reconciled to their God. Because God’s objective
revelation, in Christ, does not occur without his subjective revelation, in the
Spirit,52 the work of salvation cannot be divorced from the Spirit and the Spirit’s
work.53 The subjective aspect of salvation in Christ is called regeneration, or
rebirth.54 The believer is baptized, sealed, and infused with the Holy Spirit at
conversion.55 Like good works and human merit, faith, cleansing, and regeneration
are not the cause or result of salvation; they are the actual experience of salvation
itself.

Christ’s sacrifice effected God’s reconciliation to us while we were yet

sinners and demonstrates that salvation is totally by grace. Christ’s teaching
demonstrates that it is accessed solely by faith, which itself is also a work of God.56
Salvation, then, begins with conversion and is a state of being, the outworking of
which we call sanctification.

Sanctification—Like salvation, there is no holiness outside of Christ. Even the

holiness of the Law is but a shadow of Christ, who is the substance and
consummation of the Law.57

Like salvation, sanctification is not a human work and cannot be judged by

human standards or legalisms.58 The principle present in justification by faith
applies to the whole Christian life, not just to conversion. Sanctification is both a
once-for-all act by God in Christ whereby we are “set apart,”59 and also the
practical “working out” of salvation by God the Spirit in and through the believer.60
In Jesus’ example we see that the saved life is the sanctified life and that having the
faith that justifies is to have the faithfulness which obeys.

Glorification—The Christian life is a continuous process in which we become

transformed into the image of Christ, the exact representation of Yahweh.
Glorification is the consummation of that goal. This will occur at Christ’s return.

Jesus, then, is the Creator, Redeemer and Consummator of our existence.

3. The Spirit of Christ is God (Pneumatology)

We know the Holy Spirit because the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ.
Therefore we confess that Yahweh is the Spirit.61 This is why the Western Church
historically confesses the Spirit as “proceeding from the Father and the Son.”62

The more we focus on the Holy Spirit, the more we shall see, learn of, and
glorify Jesus.63 The Spirit is the incorporeal presence of Jesus and the Father in the
believer, the Church, and the world today.64

This third Person of the Trinity applies the work of Christ to the believer in
his subjective revelatory work. It is he who regenerates and sanctifies, cleanses and
comforts, convicts and empowers, illumines and guides the believer in a daily life
of prayer and obedience. He is the divine author of Scripture. He is rightly called
the Lord65 as the object of prayer and worship, although he is also the inspiration,
facilitator and intercessor in these things.

While the Spirit of Christ seals and indwells every believer, so that we can
say Christ lives in us, he remains distinct from the believer’s spirit, preserving our
identity and his own. The Holy Spirit’s influence over the believer is not to “take
control” but to give self-control.66 He produces blessed fruit in each believer’s life
and sovereignly gives supernatural gifts to the Church as he wills.67

Although there is one baptism in the Spirit (at conversion), the believer may
experience many special empowerings and overflowings.68 These are not “second
blessings” required for salvation or for the completeness of sanctification. They are
the normal outcome of a faithful life with God, who commands Christ followers to
walk in the Spirit and to be filled by him.69
4. Christ-in-Eccles-iology

Although we treated the doctrine of the Scriptures under “God-in-Christ-

ology,” it also belongs under this heading. For the words of Scripture are at once
human and divine. The Scriptures belong to God, but they also belong to the
Church, whom he entrusted with the gospel. Because of this, the Church is the
context in which Christ is revealed.70 Christ reveals himself through the Church
because she preaches and lives out his words and truth. She does this by preaching
and living out the content of the biblical message.

For it is precisely the gospel teaching of the apostles and prophets, who are
the foundation upon which the Church is built,71 which the Scriptures preserve for
us. The Bible is therefore the only prophetic and apostolic authority that remains
for the Church, which is created and preserved by the preaching of the Word. In
preserving and proclaiming the Bible’s message, the Church participates in the
apostolic witness. The Bible message, then, is foundational and essential to the
Church’s existence.

The first responsibility of the Church is to bear Christ, to proclaim his

message, and to be the physical extension of his presence on earth, just as the Spirit
is his spiritual presence. In this sense she “incarnates” him, which is one reason she
is called Christ’s body.72 She is composed of all those dead and alive who have
sincerely called upon the name of the Lord in faith. The apostles proclaimed the
need for everyone to call upon the name of the Lord Jesus to be saved, quoting Old
Testament passages promising salvation to all who call upon the name of Yahweh.
And they further referred to the believing church community as those who had
called upon the name of Jesus.73 The local church has a responsibility to reflect this
fact by baptizing and admitting to membership believers only. She also has a
responsibility to deal graciously with Christ followers of other churches and
denominations who hold a biblical faith.

Much fuss has been made about “distinguishing the Church from Israel” by
a once popular hermeneutic called Dispensationalism. This view claimed that God
has two brides, Israel and the Church, and that the Church is just a kind of
parenthesis in God’s overall plan for Israel. Limited space precludes extensive
refutation of this view here. But Paul does quite well in Romans 11 to show that
Gentiles who believe in Christ are grafted into the same tree as Israel. While there
certainly are distinctions between the Church and natural Israel, Paul teaches us
there is one body, not two, one people of God, not two.74

The Ordinances—One way the Church lives out the biblical revelation of Christ is
through her use of the symbols he ordained—baptism and holy communion. There
has been a trend among Evangelicals rooted in Zwinglian, Baptistic, and
Calvinistic theologies that rightly points out there is nothing magical about the
ordinances, tends to refrain from using the word “sacraments” because of
undesirable connotations, and calls them “merely symbols.” While well
intentioned, the phrase, “merely symbols,” is over-reactionary and therefore a great
misnomer. There is nothing “mere” about these symbols! They are very powerful
emblems that allow us to participate in spiritual realities.75 The early church
believed Christ was made known in the breaking of bread.76

By combining a Zwinglian view of the ordinances (rejected by Calvin and

Luther) with a post-Enlightenment cosmology, many fundamentalists today have
reduced their understanding of symbol to that of sign and implicitly reject the
supernaturalistic cosmological framework of the biblical writers. Biblically
speaking, symbols by definition, participate in the reality they represent;77 while
signs merely point to a greater reality.

By obediently observing Christ’s ordinances, we find that God the Spirit,

who is grace, meets us there—not in the elements, but in their use. Communion is
a blessed time of intimate interaction with God as well as with his people. Baptism
is an act of God in which he meets us and allows us to be vicariously identified
with Christ in the likeness of his death and resurrection.

Do these symbols save us? Do they impart some “special grace” to us? No
more so than lifting a hand at a revivalist’s invitation, or walking the aisle at an
altar call can do these things. Their use is an outward expression of inward realities
and is empty apart from faith. But when that faith is present, the God who honors
the obedience of faith meets us and blesses us.

Yahweh is revealed in Christ through the ordinances in so far as they are

faithful representations of Christ’s gospel. As words are symbols that proclaim the
biblical message and, though human, become the Word of God, so the ordinances
are Christ-appointed symbols that proclaim the same divine message and have the
same effect, as both human and divine actions.

The ordinances are commemorative, or memorial, in nature precisely

because they re-enact the Christ event, allowing the believer to rehearse the cosmic
drama of salvation history, and in so doing to become vicariously identified with
Christ.78 Because of the depth and seriousness of these potent symbols, much care
should be taken in administering them. Because they are symbolic representations
of the gospel, to compromise their symbolism in representation is to compromise
the gospel message. The proclamation side of both ordinances illustrates the
importance of celebrating them often and openly before unbelievers, even though
both are for believers only.

Church Government—The Church of Jesus Christ is built upon that rock of

apostolic confession: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”79 Her nature
is defined by her confession of Christ, for there is no ecclesiology apart from
Christology, just as there is no bride without a groom.

By confessing Christ alone as her head, the Church commits herself to

operate in organic unity with him and to renounce worldly principles of authority.
The Church is not an army, city state, or business corporation. It ought therefore to
beware of adopting their methods, techniques or paradigms. The Church is a body,
of which Christ is the head; she is family, of which God, and no man, is the Father;
she is Christ’s bride and the household of God.80

Jesus said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and
their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever
wants to become great among you must be your servant....”81 This “Not so with
you” is the basis for rejecting authoritarian and hierarchical forms of leadership,
both in the church and in the Christian family. No believer, pastor, elder, spouse, or
group of believers is given authority over another believer anywhere in Scripture
unless it is mutual, for the Lord alone is our Master; to him only are we ultimately
accountable.82 There is no principle of “headship” operative between Church
leaders and members. Christ is the only head of the Church.83

Because every believer is directly accountable to God and has direct access
to God, the Church is to be a democratic or consensus-guided society with deep
egalitarian commitments. Because the only authority over the believer is the Spirit
and the Word of God, the influence of church leaders is limited to the Word of
God, whom they serve. It is significant that of all the apostolic lists which urge
Christ followers to submit to authorities, church leaders are never included in these
lists. Discussions about church leaders are always treated separately. Their
“authority” is of a completely different sort, being earned and persuasive in
nature.84 They may command, discipline, and instruct only what God’s Word
commands, reproves, and instructs. The pastor, elder, deacon, and church board
have no divine authority by virtue of their “office.” Their authority depends solely
on whether or not they have proven themselves and stand upon Scripture.

In fact, the idea of Church leaders holding an “office” is foreign to the New
Testament and exists in some versions only by eisegesis of the translators (compare
1Tm 3:1 NASB to NIV and to the Greek). Instead, New Testament leadership calls
for the mature and exemplary to be recognized and set apart for certain tasks or
functions. For it is primarily by example that church leaders are to lead and teach.85
New Testament leadership, then, is dynamic, not static. Titles are descriptive, not
honorific.

There is of course a practical authority granted and agreed upon by the local
congregation that allows leaders to make a variety of decisions without consulting
the congregation. This is imparted to the leaders from the congregation, though,
and is distinguished from divinely appointed authority. For this reason the scope
and roles of leaders’ authority may vary in content from church to church.

Church leaders “watch over” the flock to ensure it grazes upon God’s Word
and to guard it from danger. They are guides and resources for individual and
corporate life in submission to the Good Shepherd, to whom the flock belongs.86

When Christian liberty and the priesthood of all believers are taken
seriously, traditional clericalism breaks down. This is why those in baptistic,
anabaptist, and radical reformation traditions historically recognize that the
ordinances can and should be administered by all believers, not just “clergy.”
Likewise, the doctrines of Christian liberty and the priesthood of all believers hits a
shattering blow to the hermeneutically unsound but ever-popular sexist view of
leadership, causing Paul to exclaim that in Christ there is no longer slave or free,
Jew or Gentile, male or female.87

While the New Testament offers no one model of church government, it

does discuss the following leadership roles for men and women: elder, deacon,
teacher, and prophet.88 A mature church should and will produce and be led by all
of these. Likewise, apostles (missionaries) and evangelists may be part of a
church’s founding and are vital to the extension, outreach and growth of a church.
There appears to be no biblical distinction between elder, pastor, bishop, or
overseer. These are synonyms.89

The details of local church structure are arbitrary as far as the New
Testament is concerned. What the New Testament stresses is the quality of leader.90
5. Christ and the World

Because our Messiah is the supreme and final self-revelation of the Word of
God, truly incarnated “in the likeness of sinful flesh,”91 Christology is also the
Christ follower’s basis for anthropology, harmartiology, and eschatology. Only in
and through Jesus do we see what humanity was meant to be, what we are and are
not, and what we will become. Only in him do we have the assurance that some
day, all will be right with the world and that justice will prevail.

Anthropology—Because Jesus is God, he alone is the full and perfect image of

God.92 Although none of us is “less than human,” Jesus alone can claim to be fully
human. Because of the Fall and our own sin, we are all less then God intended us
to be.93 Jesus alone, then, is the standard of humanity. Because Jesus is fully human
and therefore fully God’s image, he alone is fully suited to reveal God to us.
Because Jesus is fully human, he alone is fully suited to reveal humanity to us.
Christianity then, is the only true humanism.

In Jesus alone we see what it means to be human and how humanity was
meant to relate to God.94 Christ changes not only our view of and relationship to
God, but our view of and relationship to other humans. Christology is God’s
anthropology, and there is no true anthropology apart from Christology.

Because Jesus became one of us, we know that humanity has retained the
image of God.95 Because we continue to retain this image, even unbelievers and
sinners cannot help but reflect God’s character to greater and lesser degrees. This
character is reflected in humanity’s innate creativity, ingenuity, sense of morality,
justice, love, compassion, wisdom, knowledge (science) and in various expressions
of culture, such as art, music, and literature. That Christ came as a first-century
Aramaic-speaking Hebrew who took part in his culture and social system shows
that God does not reject or mean to abolish human culture but wants rather to
incarnate himself in it, redeem it, and work through it.96 For this reason the gospel
and the church are emptied of power unless they are contextualized for the cultures
they address.

Harmartiology—We know that we are all less than we were created to be97
because we are all less than Jesus is in his humanity. Our standard of righteousness
is Jesus, not the Law, because Jesus is the fulfillment, embodiment, and therefore
the final interpretation of the Law. Only by seeing how far short we fall from being
like Jesus do we see how far short we fall from the glory of God, which is the
biblical definition of sin. Only by looking to his cross do we see the ultimate
judgment of God on sin. Only by looking to his victory and resurrection do we
understand our only possible emancipation from sin’s power and its
consequences.98

Eschatology—Only by looking to Jesus do we have the answer to: “What happens

to people after death?” Only in him do we have trustworthy assurance concerning
our species’ fate. In his resurrection and ascension Jesus has become already what
we yet will be when he soon returns.99 At that time there will be a resurrection of
all humanity unto judgment, starting with the household of God.100

Yahweh’s judgment will take place in human history but also in eternity.
Because eternity is a non-temporal term, there is a sense in which judgment day
has taken, and is already taking, place (in eternity but not “yet” in time). Because
Jesus is the nexus of time and eternity, the judgment is in him. Therefore he can
say that he who believes not is judged already,101 although we all have yet to stand
before his judgment seat. The question of what happens to a soul between death
and resurrection is immediately solved when we realize eternity is not a temporal
term. For the soul at death is transported out of time and into eternity where there
is no time. Judgment and resurrection are, from the soul’s point of view,
immediate.102 The so-called “reunion of the soul with the body” in the resurrection
will be the reunion of the soul with time when eternity and time meet on judgment
day, as they can only meet in Christ, who is our judgment and our Judge.

Eternal life begins for the believer at conversion and is not interrupted by
death. Eternal death and the experience of God’s wrath are a current reality for the
unbeliever103 and are not initiated nor relieved by physical death.

The Bible proclaims a new heaven and new earth in which righteousness
shall dwell.104 In this new kingdom Jesus shall reign “forever and ever.” This
historical confession of the Church is that “His Kingdom shall have no end.”105
Both the Old Testament and the New Testament proclaim Christ’s throne
established forever.106

As to time tables and eschatological charts, the Bible gives us none. In fact,
Jesus discourages us from trying to discern such things.107 Instead, we are to set our
hope on the fact that Jesus may return at any moment.108
 It is the responsibility and privilege of the Christ follower to spread the
gospel through evangelism and missions,109 as well as to work against
contemporary social injustice and toward societal emulation of that kingdom,110 for
this is what Jesus did. Because the kingdom is both future and present for the
Church, it is for us to model kingdom principles and Christ’s rule in every sphere
of life. Ώ
Glossary

Please note: There is no substitute for a good dictionary! The definitions below
are only supplemental.

• Anthropology—the study of humanity, or human nature.

• Calvin—a Protestant reformer and father of the Reformed faith. He
taught that the ordinances are a testimony, sign and seal of the Holy Spirit
and the New Covenant. See also ‘Luther’ and ‘Zwinglian.’
• Christology—the study of Christ.
• Contextualize—to express in a way that is culturally relevant,
meaningful within a contemporary context.
• Ecclesiology—the study of the Church.
• Eisegesis—to read into a text meaning, rather than to extract only what is
intrinsic to the intended meaning, as in exegesis.
• Eschatology—the study of the end times.
• Fundamentalist—one (like myself) who believes in the fundamental
tenets of Christian faith as expressed in the early creeds. Unfortunately,
this term like many other great descriptors of devoted Christ followers,
has been hijacked by extremists and ought not be understood in this paper
as referring to aberrant factions that have commandeered this term.
• General Revelation—also called natural revelation, refers to God’s clear
but partial disclosure of himself in nature.
• Godhead—all that is God.
• Harmartiology—the study of sin.
• Hermeneutic—any method of interpreting literature.
• Heterodox—one who holds beliefs which are questionable or wrong
from an orthodox perspective.
• Incarnate—to become flesh.
• Luther—the father of the Reformation. He taught that Christ is present
with the elements of the ordinances as fire is present in an iron poker
passed through a flame (consubstantiation) as opposed to the Catholic
view that the elements are changed in substance (transubstantiation). See
also ‘Calvin’ and ‘Zwinglian.’)
• Non-creedal—to be bound by no creed, but only to the content of
Scripture.
• Objective—pertaining to an object, as opposed to a subject. God in
 himself exists prior to the subject/object split, just as he is prior to
male/female differentiation. Yet both aspects reveal aspects of God to us.
That which is objective to us is outside ourselves. That which is
subjective is within.
• Pneumatology—the study of the Holy Spirit.
• Sacrament—from the Latin word for mystery, used by the Church to
refer to things regarded as sacred vehicles of God’s grace. (Christ alone is
the true sacrament.)
• Scholastics—a Medieval movement among Catholic theologians to
systematize the thought and writings of previous scholars and
theologians, later revived among Protestants who added to their subject
matter the content and tradition of 16th century Protestant thought and
theology.
• Soteriology—the study of salvation.
• Subjective— pertaining to an subject, as opposed to a object. That which
is subjective is within us or from within our own frame of reference or
perspective.
• Subsistence—that which exists within and of the same essence.
• Theology—the study of God.
• Yahweh—the primary, unique, and sacred name of God in Hebrew and
Aramaic, traditionally rendered LORD in many English translations, and
sometimes as Jehovah. Many passages in the Old and New Testament
speak of the importance of hallowing this name and making it widely
known and revered among the nations.
• Zwinglian—of the theology of Ulrich Zwingli, a Protestant reformer
who taught that baptism and the Lord’s Supper have no mystical or
spiritual qualities in themselves. See also ‘Calvin’ and ‘Luther.’
Endnotes

1. Jn 14:6b
2. Jn 12:44a, note context
3. Jn 14:9
4. Heb 1:1-3f, Nicene Creed
5. Is 9:6
6. Jn 3:16
7. Heb 1:3
8. Heb 13:8
9. Jn 4:19; see also Jn 7:40
10. Jn 1:3
11. Col 1:17
12. 2Co 5:17
13. 1Tm 1:9-10
14. Mt 3:13-4:1
15. e.g., Jn 17:1
16. e.g., Jn 14:16,17; 16:7,13-15
17. e.g., Jn 10:30
18. Heb 1:1-3
19. Col 1:15
20. Jn 16:13-15
21. Jn 7:37-39; 14:17; Ro 8:9-11
22. Mt 28:20b
23. 2Tm 3:16
24. e.g., Ps 19:1-4: Ro 1:18-25; 10:17-18; 2Co 4:6
25. Lk 24:25-27
26. cf. 1Co 1:7
27. Ac 2:16-21
28. Jn 6:37
29. Heb 4:14-16; 1Pe 2:24
30. Ro 9:15
31. e.g., Gn 17:18-21
32. Mt 7:7-11; Lk 18:1 ff; Php 4:6
33. Jn 14:12; 15:7,8; Heb 4:14-16; 8:6
34. 1Pe 1:20; Rv 13:8
35. Ro 8:28; Eph 1:11,12
36. Rv 13:8; 17:8
37. Lk 22:42
38. Eph 1:11
39. Ro 6:1-10
40. Eph 2:6
41. Ro 3:23; 6:23a
42. Is 64:6
43. Ro 8:3; 1Jn 2:2
44. Ro 5:8,9
45. 2Co 5:18-19
46. 2Co 5:20
47. Eph 2:8,9
48. Ro 4:22-25
49. 2Co 5:21
50. Ga 5:4
51. Jn 17:3
52. e.g., Jn 14:16-17
53. Ti 3:4-7
54. Jn 3:3-7
55. Ro 8:9-11; 1Co 12:13; Eph 1:13
56. 2Co 5:19-20; Jn 6:29,44; Eph 2:8,9
57. Col 2:17; Heb 10:1; Ro 8:3
58. Ga 3:3; Col 2:20-23
59. Heb 10:10
60. Ga 3:3; Php 2:12,13
61. Ro 8:8,9; 2Co 3:18
62. cf. Jn 15:5-7
63. Jn 16:14
64. Jn 14:23; 16:8
65. 2Co 3:18
66. Ga 5:22,23
67. 1Co 12:11
68. cf Acts 2:4; 4:31; Eph 4:4
69. Ga 5:16ff; Eph 5:18
70. Jn 15:8,26,27; 17:6-8,20-23,26
71. Eph 2:19,20
72. 1Co 12:12,13
73. Ro 10:9-13; 1Co 1:2; cf Joe 2:32
74. Eph 2:11-16; 4:4
75. 1Co 10:16, Ro 6:3,4
76. Lk 24:30-31
77. 1Co 10:16
78. e.g., Ro 6:3,4
79. Mt 16:15-18
80. Eph 5:29-30; Heb 3:6
81. Mt 20:25,26 ff
82. 1Co 7:4-5. Ro 14:4
83. Col 1:18
84. Heb 13:7,17
85. 1Pe 5:3
86. Heb 13:17
87. Ga 3:28
88. cf: Ac 18:2,18,26; 1Co 11:7; 16:19; Ro 16:1,2,3,6,7,12,15; Php 4:2,3;
1Tm 3:11;
Ti 1:5-9; 2:2-5
89. cf. Eph 4:11; 1Tm 3:1 ff; Ti 1:5-7
90. cf 1Tm 3:1-13; Ti 1:6-9; 1Pe 5:1-4
91. Ro 8:3
92. Gn 1:27
93. Ro 3:23
94. 2Co 5:16
95. Jas 3:9, cf. Jn 1:14; Ro 8:3; Heb 2:14
96. cf. Rv 21:24-27
97. Ro 3:23
98. Ac 4:12
99. 1 Jn 3:2
100. 1Pe 4:17
101. Jn 3:18
102. Heb 9:27,28
103. Ro 1:18
104. Rv 21:1
105. See the Constantinopolitan Creed, A.D. 381.
106. e.g., 1Ch 17:12; Heb 1:8
107. Ac 1:7
108. Mt 24:36-51; 1Jn 3:2,3
109. Mt 28:19,20
110. Am 5:23,24; Mt 6:10
 Section II:

EXCURSUS OVER QUESTIONS OF DIVINITY

“But the errors of heretics and blasphemers force us to deal

with unlawful matters, to scale perilous heights, to speak
unutterable words, to trespass on forbidden ground. Faith ought
in silence to fulfill the commandments, worshiping the Father,
reverencing with Him the Son, abounding in the Holy Spirit,
but we must strain the poor resources of our language to
express thoughts too great for words. The error of others
compels us to err in daring to embody in human terms truths
which ought to be hidden in the silent veneration of the heart.”
—Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity
Chapter 1: Is The Evangelical Jesus
As Divine As He Used To Be?

If you asked an Evangelical Christian, in as late as the mid-1970s, if Jesus

Christ is equal to the Father in all respects, or if he was somehow less or
subordinate to the Father in authority or rank, the unanimous reply would have
been that each member of the Trinity is equal in all respects, and that any
suggestion of hierarchy or subordination within the Trinity is an error likened to
Arianism and Jehovah Witness teaching.

But something has happened under the “big tent” of Evangelicalism. And
that answer is no longer unanimous. Today there are well-known and widely
respected Evangelical Bible teachers asserting that “Jesus is eternally subject to the
Father.”

I cut my theological teeth in the late 1970s studying the orthodox view of the
Trinity as a reply to the cults. Resources like Walter Martin's Kingdom of the
Cults and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project Newsletter helped me shape my early
understanding of Jesus' full and complete deity. My studies since then, as a
theology student, pastor, and Christ-follower have spanned the history of doctrine
from biblical studies through the history of doctrine and dogma. The result has
been a deepened love in the deepest reaches of my soul for the Trinity doctrine.

Since the late 1970s a segment of Evangelical Christians has arisen with a
social agenda that has broken our previous unanimity on this doctrine, however.
Bent on imposing gender-based hierarchy in the family, church, and society, these
divergent voices have found it convenient and expeditious to harvest examples
from church history that cast some doubt on the certainty we Evangelicals once
had with regards to the total non-hierarchic and equal status of each Person in the
Trinity. They call themselves complementarians. But their ideas bear less
resemblance to complementarity than they do to Arians. These “complement-
Arians” do not see complementarity in terms of symmetry or parity but rather of
hierarchy and subjugation: ruler/ruled, leader/led, authority/submission. Their
more honest and proper classification might therefore be hierarchists,
patriarchalists, or subordinationists.
 The idea of subordination within the Trinity is a controversy with roots in
the early church and the writings of some church fathers. Yet very early it was
rejected as unorthodox during the great Christological and Trinitarian debates.
This was articulated in some of the great ecumenical creeds before any formalized
denominations divided the Church. Augustine and Athanasius strongly opposed
any form of subordinationism, as did later confessions of the Protestant
Reformation.

The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology defines subordinationism as: “A

doctrine that assigns an inferiority of being, status, or role to the Son or Holy Spirit
within the Trinity.” This doctrine was “condemned by numerous church councils,”
though it “has continued in one form or another throughout the history of the
church.”

We are seeing such a resurgence today among complementarian

Evangelicals who naively view this as part of what it means to be conservative and
orthodox.

But the basis for opposing subordinationism is grounded in a truth expressed

by the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, which declared that Jesus Christ is:

from the essence of the Father,

God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten not created,
of the same essence as the Father.

The council was adamant that “same” means “same,” to the degree that the Nicene
Creed anathematizes “those who say ... the Son of God is of a different nature or
essence,” allowing for no variation.

Explanations by later councils and creeds clarified that this sameness of

nature means both the Father and the Son are equal in all respects and that there is
no subordination within the Trinity. Consider:

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, such also the Holy Spirit. The Father
is uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father is
infinite, the Son infinite, the Holy Spirit infinite. The Father is eternal, the
Son eternal, the Holy Spirit eternal.... And in this Trinity there is nothing
 before or after, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are co-eternal
with each other and co-equal. Thus in all things, as has been stated above,
both Trinity and unity and unity in Trinity must be worshiped. So he who
desires to be saved should think thus of the Trinity. (Athanasian Creed, c.
500)

Thus there are not three gods, but three persons, consubstantial, co-eternal;
distinct with respect to hypostases, and with respect to order, the one
preceding the other yet without any inequality. For according to the nature
or essence they are so joined together that they are one God, and the divine
nature is common to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (5.017)
HERESIES. Therefore we condemn ... all heresies and heretics who teach ...
that there is something created and subservient, or subordinate to another in
the Trinity, and that there is something unequal in it, a greater or a less....”
(5.019) (The Second Helvetic Confession, 16th Century Reformed)

The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal
God, of one substance, and equal with the Father.... (The Westminster
Confession, VIII, 2; 1647, Presbyterian)

We believe that there is one living and true God, eternally existing in three
persons, that these are equal in every divine perfection.... (An Affirmation of
Faith, Article 2; adopted by the Baptist General Conference in 1951)

A question naturally arises due to statements in the gospels that indicate

that Jesus was in submission to the Father during his earthly ministry (cf. Matthew
11:27, John 5:26-27; 6:38; 8:28; 14:28). But such statements must be understood
first as within the temporal context of Jesus' mission and his voluntary choice to
humble and empty himself of divine rights in order to save humanity; in his
exaltation, Jesus returned to the equality he'd known in eternity (Philippians 2:6-
11; cf. John 1:1, 5:17-23; 10:15, 30; Titus 2:13; Romans 9:5; 1 John 5:7).

In Philippians 2:6-7, Paul marvels that although Jesus was equal to, and the
same as God, he voluntarily chose to submit himself to servitude. Hebrews 5:8
tells us that Jesus' incarnation required him to learn obedience as a Son; apparently
it was not something native to his pre-incarnate relationship to the other members
of the Trinity.

Therefore, passages that seem to indicate that Jesus was subordinate to the
Father must be understood in the context of Jesus setting us a human example to
submit to God and to one another. When Jesus knelt down and washed his
disciples' feet he repudiated the idea of his followers holding rank over one another
and urged them to imitate him in serving and submitting to each other (John 13:13-
17). He made the application himself that this example was a model he set for us
to follow, rather than acting as bosses or authorities over each other (Luke 22:24-
27).

So complete is the unity and equality of the Trinity that Jesus discloses the
amazing truth that the Father is also submitted to the Son. How did Jesus learn
submission? Though we rightly marvel at the degree of submission he gave the
Father, we dare not overlook the fact that in John 5:19 Jesus explained the source
of all his actions being that he “can do only what he sees his Father doing, because
whatever the Father does the Son also does.” In other words, Jesus' actions toward
the Father mirrors the Father's own actions toward Jesus. (While unilateral
obedience was new to Jesus, belonging to the nature of his humanity, mutual
submission was not—mutuality being characteristic of the divine relationships
within the Trinity.)

Jesus further illustrates this by saying in John 11:42 that God always hears
him—in the sense of respecting his requests (cf. 1 John 5:15). So sure was Jesus
of the Father's willingness to yield and cooperate with the Son, that he even
promised the apostles they would be able come to the Father and make requests in
Jesus' name and the Father would grant them on Jesus' behalf (John 16:23-24).
Furthermore, Jesus says the Father has committed all he has to the service of the
Son (Matthew 11:27). So complete was their mutual submission to one another
that in John 17:10 Jesus describes his relationship to the Father by telling him, “All
I have is yours, and all you have is mine.” In verses 11-12, Jesus reveals that he
and the Father share the same holy Name. In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus reveals that
this Name is shared by all the Godhead, while he also announces that by
resurrecting, now “all authority in heaven and earth” is again his. Is it any wonder
that Jesus longed to return the glory he shared with the Father before the world
began? (John 17:5,24) There, Jesus again shares his Father's throne. Yes, there
will be one throne, not two. Not one, slightly higher with the Father sitting on it,
with Jesus on his right on a slightly shorter throne. No, Jesus rightly possesses and
sits upon even the Father's throne (Revelation 22:1).

It does not follow, then, that because Jesus chose voluntarily to be humanly
subordinated to the Father for the sake of saving humanity, that this means it is
mandatory for a whole category of people to permanently and unilaterally submit
to another category of people based on created biological differences, like race,
gender, or class. Yet this is the “complementarian” argument and agenda. To the
contrary, since the Father also submits to the Son, then it follows that submission
between husband and wife, or between Christians of all races, classes, and genders,
should be mutual toward one another. The character of Christ and of the gospel
stand in stark contract to all racism, classism, and sexism. This is how and why
Paul could declare that for the baptized Christ-follower:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor
female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

This mutual submission/mutual authority is also beautifully illustrated in

Paul's teaching on sex within marriage. Perhaps nothing better depicts the
marriage relationship synecdochically than the act that unites the two into one
flesh. And it is was the creation of humanity as male and female that is said to
depict the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Yet it is here that Paul instructs
spouses by way of using sex as a synecdoche for their entire relationship:

The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her
husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his
own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps
by mutual consent.... (1 Corinthians 7:4-5)

And so the orthodox and biblical view of the Trinity challenges us to

understand submission in a new way, a way of true mutuality. Biblical submission
is demonstrated for us by One who is equal to the One to whom he submitted (cf.
Philippians 2:6-7). His example also explains how it is we are to submit to one
another as God's image bearers (Ephesians 5:21) while none of us is divinely
authorized to hold authority over another (Matthew 20:25-26; 1 Peter 5:1-3).
Chapter 2: THE “COMPLEMENTARIAN”
AS ARIAN COMPLEMENT:
A Classic Protestant Response
To An Objection About Jesus' Eternal Status

I first realized complementarians were pulling Evangelicalism from its earlier

Trinitarian purity when some noted Evangelicals (some of whom even taught at a
school with the word Trinity in its name) began to use an argument I had only
encountered before in (of all places!) discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses. That
argument is based on 1 Corinthians 15:24-28:

24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father,
after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he
must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy
to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under
his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that
this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28
When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be
subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God
may be all in all. (NRSV)

The claim made by the complementarian, like that of the JW, is that Christ's
subjection to the Father in this passage indicates a place of eternal subordination to
the Father. The complementarian wants to maintain an eternal equality between
the Father and Son in their “essence” but not in their “roles.” In other words, the
complementarian espouses an equality that is in name only, because he insists on
an eternal subordination in terms of roles. Yet, the JWs are more honest in their
Arianism, seeing that an eternal hierarchy negates any real claim to eternal
equality, and therefore to any claim of deity.

So how are we to understand what this passage teaches us about Jesus and
the Father, in light of the clear biblical and historic orthodox position of true
equality and mutuality within the Trinity?

Ironically, many of these subordinationist “complementarians” claim to be

Reformed. Yet, the father of Reformed theology could not tolerate the thought of
any subordination, inequality, or imbalance within the Trinity being implied prima
facie in this text. John Calvin writes in his commentary on this passage:

This statement, however, is at first view at variance with what we read in

various passages of Scripture respecting the eternity of Christ's kingdom.
For how will these things correspond—Of his kingdom there will be no end
(Dan vii. 14, 27; Luke i. 33; 2 Peter i. 11), and He himself shall be
subjected? The solution of this question will open up Paul's meaning more
clearly. In the first place, it must be observed, that all power was delivered
over to Christ, inasmuch as he was manifested in the flesh. It is true that
such distinguished majesty would not correspond with a mere man, but,
notwithstanding, the Father has exalted him in the same nature in which he
was abased, and has given him a name, before which every knee must bow,
&c. (Phil. ii. 9, 10). Farther, it must be observed, that he has been
appointed Lord and highest King, so as to be as it were the Father's
Vicegerent in the government of the world—not that he is employed and the
Father unemployed, (for how could that be, inasmuch as he is the wisdom
and counsel of the Father, is of one essence with him, and is therefore
himself God?) But to reason why the Scripture testifies, that Christ now
holds dominion over the heaven and earth in the room of the Father is—that
we may not think that there is any other governor, lord, protector, or judge of
the dead and living, but may fix our contemplation on him alone. We
acknowledge, it is true, God as the ruler, but it is in the face of the man
Christ. But Christ will then restore the kingdom which he has received, that
we may cleave wholly to God. Nor will he in this way resign the kingdom,
but will transfer it in a manner from his humanity to his glorious divinity,
because a way of approach will then be opened up, from which our infirmity
now keeps us back. Thus then Christ will be subjected to the Father,
because the vail being then removed, we shall openly behold God reigning
in his majesty, and Christ's humanity will then no longer be interposed to
keep us back from a closer view of God. (John Pringle's translation)

The translator's footnote on this section in Calvin offers this explanation from
Dick's Theology, vol. iii. pp. 250-251:

The mediatorial kingdom of Christ .... will end when its design is
accomplished; he will cease to exercise an authority which has no longer an
object. When all the elect are converted by the truth, and, being collected
into one body, are presented to the Father .... a new order of things will
commence under which the dependence of men upon the Godhead will be
 immediate [i.e. without mediation]; and Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one in
essence, counsel, and operation, will reign for ever over the inhabitants of
heaven.

In responding to the suggestion that 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 teaches an

eternal subjugation of Jesus to the Father, I offer the responses of these two
classical Protestant sources (Calvin's Commentary and Dick's Theology) to show
how orthodox Protestants properly affirm the eternal equality of the three Persons
of the Trinity.

Now, let's unpack what these commentators said, as there is a lot to learn
from these defenders of orthodoxy:

1. This passage presents a hapax that on the surface appears to conflict with what
is elsewhere clearly taught about Jesus' eternal reign.

Calvin: “This statement, however, is at first view at variance with what we

read in various passages of Scripture respecting the eternity of Christ's
kingdom. For how will these things correspond—Of his kingdom there will
be no end (Dan vii. 14, 27; Luke i. 33; 2 Peter i. 11), and He himself shall
be subjected? The solution of this question will open up Paul's meaning
more clearly.”

The idea that Christ will end his kingdom and become a subject of another
clearly contradicts the clear and consistent biblical teaching elsewhere that Jesus'
kingship is eternal (modern pre- and post-millennialist fancies not withstanding).
Scripture does not contradict itself. So there must be an explanation for why Paul
speaks this way. Calvin will propose a scheme based on biblical distinctions
between Christ's function as a human mediator and his eternal status as true God
from true God. In doing this he alludes to distinguishing between the economic
and ontological Trinity.

2. There is a difference to note between Christ's reign as a human mediator and

as the Divine Presence.

Calvin: “In the first place, it must be observed, that all power was delivered
over to Christ, inasmuch as he was manifested in the flesh. It is true that
such distinguished majesty would not correspond with a mere man, but,
notwithstanding, the Father has exalted him in the same nature in which he
 was abased, and has given him a name, before which every knee must bow,
&c. (Phil. ii. 9, 10).”

Calvin's first distinction is that: By becoming human, Christ now needed to

receive the kingdom from God. Though Jesus surely was its King before his
incarnation, yet it is remarkable and significant that he should receive the kingdom
and “all power” while in the flesh.

3. As a human, Christ now needed to be appointed and identified as the

Father's co-ruler and God's human face.

Calvin: “Farther, it must be observed, that he has been appointed Lord and
highest King, so as to be as it were the Father's Vicegerent in the
government of the world—not that he is employed and the Father
unemployed, (for how could that be, inasmuch as he is the wisdom and
counsel of the Father, is of one essence with him, and is therefore himself
God?) But to reason why the Scripture testifies, that Christ now holds
dominion over the heaven and earth in the room of the Father is—that we
may not think that there is any other governor, lord, protector, or judge of
the dead and living, but may fix our contemplation on him alone. We
acknowledge, it is true, God as the ruler, but it is in the face of the man
Christ.”

Christ's “appointment” was needed because of his humanity, not because of

his Sonship. Having become a human he became someone who did not
automatically hold title to the kingdom of heaven. Although he was entitled in his
humanity to Israel's earthly throne by lineage, yet it remained for heaven to
recognize and elevate the human that Christ became to the stature he held before
his incarnation.

As to divinity, the Father and Son are Vicegerents (co-rulers) and it is

impossible to ever conceive of them as being anything else, ever, at any time. For
the Father cannot exist without his own wisdom and counsel, which are titles
Scripture gives to Christ. They are of one essence and therefore Christ is God,
even while clothed in human flesh. And so, even now, no one should assume that
one rules and the other rests or is unemployed. It will never be so. Rather, the
purpose of the incarnation was to allow us to see God's face in the flesh. Scripture
focuses on Christ's current rule now so that there would be no mistaking that Christ
truly is our Lord, God, Ruler, Protector, Judge, etc. Certainly God is the ruler.
And Jesus is God. In fact, there is no face of God to be seen without looking upon
Christ's face.

4. Christ's current kingdom is moving toward consummation, which amounts

to the full restoration of what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had before God
became flesh. Christ's reign will then be transferred from humanity to his divinity.

Calvin: “But Christ will then restore the kingdom which he has received,
that we may cleave wholly to God. Nor will he in this way resign the
kingdom, but will transfer it in a manner from his humanity to his glorious
divinity, because a way of approach will then be opened up, from which our
infirmity now keeps us back.”

The kingdom was entrusted to Christ in his humanity for the very purpose
that we should be brought back completely to God, that we would cleave to God.
Remember: to speak of God is to speak also of Christ, for there is no God apart
from Christ; the Father, Son, and Spirit are One. It is therefore absurd to speak of
God the Son resigning his rule of the kingdom of God, since doing this would
mean he would cease to be God. What then is he doing by surrendering the
kingdom to God, which is who Jesus is? Calvin answers that Jesus is
“transferring” it, in a manner of speaking, from the humanity that carried it during
the time of his mediatorship back to his divinity, which will now be accessible to
us in ways previously unknown due to the limitations of our current status in the
progress of salvation history.

5. The veil of Christ's flesh will then be removed so that (Jesus') divinity may
shine in its fullness and unmediated splendor—in favor of divine intimacy with
God's people.

Calvin: “Thus then Christ will be subjected to the Father, because the vail
being then removed, we shall openly behold God reigning in his majesty,
and Christ's humanity will then no longer be interposed to keep us back from
a closer view of God.”

Since this is what will become of Christ's humanity, and the veil of his flesh
will be positioned so as to no longer hide the Triune God from our full access,
therefore one may say in a manner of speaking that Christ will be “subjected to the
Father,” in that the man we have known will have served his purpose. However,
he is subjected, or deemphasized, not as a divine Person in the Godhead but as a
human mediator, since mediation will no longer be needed. We will now know
God as he is without the mediation of human flesh. But make no mistake about it:
The God we will get a closer view of is the God whom Christ is now and whom he
now embodies in human flesh.

6. God will be “all in all” as we see Jesus fully glorified with the Father and
Spirit as One, now united with God's people without a need for a human authority
over God's people.

Dick: “The mediatorial kingdom of Christ .... will end when its design is
accomplished; he will cease to exercise an authority which has no longer an
object. When all the elect are converted by the truth, and, being collected
into one body, are presented to the Father .... a new order of things will
commence under which the dependence of men upon the Godhead will be
immediate [i.e. without mediation]; and Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one in
essence, counsel, and operation, will reign for ever over the inhabitants of
heaven.”

This is a description of what Paul meant when he said the outcome would be
that God would finally be “all in all” (v. 28). In other words, “Mission
accomplished!” Now Jesus takes his rightful place between the Father and the
Paraclete, who had previously stepped back temporarily, to let Jesus represent
them. Now together, side-by-side, they reign as One, and Jesus' divinity shines
more clearly than ever. Divinity now reigns “for ever over the inhabitants of
heaven” in that God rules within every heart, in and among them. Rather than the
economic division of roles continuing in the Trinity, now they are one not just in
essence and counsel, but they are also one in “operation” as they reign.

Recapping This Truly Reformed View: It is clear that the orthodox view of the
Trinity being made up of equals compelled commentators like to Calvin and Dick
to understand the prima facie subjection mentioned in this passage as pertaining to
the economic Trinity, but not the ontological Trinity. The economic Trinity refers
to how the Trinity operates within salvation history. The ontological Trinity
speaks of its essence and eternal characteristics. Unlike subordinationist
complementarians, classic orthodoxy sees the economy as dynamic and temporal
(or temporary) and the ontological as changeless and eternal (without beginning or
end).

The economic and ontological often coincide. But the economic operations
of the Trinity can sometimes reflect exceptions to God's nature that were made as
concessions to human limitations and need. These exceptions reflect divine
choices and sacrifices for the sake of our redemption by operating within temporal
parameters. The economic Trinity may at times suspend eternal aspects of God's
being, as in Christ's kenosis, when Jesus emptied himself of divinity to become a
human servant (Philippians 2:6-7). But these economic adjustments never
permanently cancel out attributes of the ontological Trinity. Rather, in the end
they reinforce them by evincing the greatness of each divine Person and they
affirm ontological realities, as when Jesus' death and resurrection demonstrate his
eternal power over death.

However, when complementarians classify aspects of the economic Trinity

as eternal they cloud the distinction between the economic and ontological,
thereby calling into question Christ's true equality with the Father. This happens
most egregiously when they assign the Lord of lords and King of kings an eternal
“role” or “position” of a subordination.

In contrast to this, because it is inconceivable to orthodox thinkers like

Calvin that Christ could be equally God and yet eternally and unilaterally subject
to the Father, these orthodox theologians chose to interpret this passage within
context of the rest of Scripture—unlike Arians and Subordinationists who take it
out of the broader context of clear biblical doctrine.

Calvin and Dick came to these conclusions not only because of their
theology of the Godhead, but because of the Bible's teachings elsewhere on
Christ's kingdom. If Christ's kingdom truly is forever, then this passage cannot be
interpreted to mean that Christ's divine reign will ever end, especially by the divine
Jesus becoming an eternal subject himself. Rather, Jesus' subjection is always a
property of his humanity.

These classic Protestant thinkers saw that Christ's humanity would always be
subjected to his divinity—of course, since it is humanity! But Christ is not just
human; he is also God. And since the kingdom of heaven was only transferred to
his humanity for a time and purpose to be fulfilled, then the fulfillment of that
kingdom would naturally have implications for Christ's human nature—as it does
for all humanity. Once Christ's current human reign in the flesh serves its purpose,
his eternal divinity will then shine in its stead—and more fully, without the veil,
limitation, or mediation of human flesh. That for which he came to earth in the
first place will finally be accomplished, and the glorified Triune God will be
intimately one with his people.
 Calvin knew that for God to be all in all, Christ's full and equal divinity
needs to be kept central in order to truly understand this text. And so Calvin did
not yield even for a second to the temptation to conclude, like Arius, that Christ
was or ever would be anything less than an equal with the Father in authority,
majesty, or power. Hurray for Calvin! And shame on all those who call
themselves Reformed and yet risk pouring down the anathemas of Reformed and
orthodox councils, creeds, and confessions on their own heads—and the heads of
their followers.

Anyone tempted to respect Arian tendencies or ideas would do well to

consider the inconsistencies of such interpretations. We will look at some of these
inconsistencies in the next chapter, as there is no group better suited to demonstrate
the bankruptcy of the Arian orientation than the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their
doctrine, more than any other group's in history, has pressed out the logical out-
workings of Arianism when it comes to interpreting biblical texts about Jesus. A
look at the inconsistency of their teachings about Christ will give us insights into
his divinity and demonstrate how foolish it is to think Jesus could in any way be
less in stature than Yahweh (Jehovah) himself.
Chapter 3: Speaking Of Arians....
A RESPONSE TO THE WATCH TOWER'S
LESSER DEITY

If any group today can be called the heirs of Arius, it is the sect that calls itself
Jehovah's Witnesses (or the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society). In almost
every point of Christian doctrine they take issue with the orthodox believer. They
have even gone so far as to create their own translation of the Bible, The New
World Translation (NWT), which frequently differs from mainstream translations
—if not all other translations—on key passages pertaining to fundamental
doctrines. One of its most infamous revisions regards how to understand Jesus in
relation to the Godhead. When Christians encounter this dispute, they often find
themselves arguing about John 1, especially the end of verse 1:

NIV (2010): 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through
him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been
made.

NWT (2010): 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God.
3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even
one thing came into existence.

In most English translations, John 1:1 is rendered to declare that Jesus (the
Word) was with God in the beginning, was God (not a god), and that all things
came into being through him. The NWT, however, depicts Jesus as “a god.”

Using the NWT, JWs further claim that Jesus served Jehovah-God as a
master workman doing God's bidding, as a secretary might take dictation and do
the actual typing of a letter, although the one who dictated the letter is really the
author and gets the credit for creating the document. They note that a building
may be the work of a certain architect, even though the architect himself may never
have set foot on the actual construction site. The JW claims that as God's “master
workman,” Jesus was the brawn who did the labor conceived, designed and
directed by Jehovah.
 Where does one begin with this topic? So many have started in the
obvious places, arguing the Greek syntax and grammar of John 1:1, or focusing on
other passages where Jesus' divinity can be established or questioned. And yet
anyone who has participated in such debates can confirm this usually results in a
frustrating and dizzying circle of tail-chasing arguments that go nowhere for either
side.

I would like to propose an exercise that takes a different approach. Let us

briefly assume hypothetically that the NWT assumption is correct, for the sake of
argument, and that John 1:1 will be rendered for the time being as if to say the
Word (Jesus Christ) is a god, not The God. In fact, let's also assume for the same
of argument that the whole NWT will be used as our preferred translation for our
study of this question: “Is Jesus God or a god?”

Where does that lead us? How does accepting that belief stand up to other
NWT passages about Jesus and Jehovah?

I propose that when we make this assumption and then read even just a few
passages, we quickly stumble upon a cascading tumult of complications that do not
exist in the so-called Trinitarian translations. Let's consider these complications:

1. Isaiah and the Creator

Comparing Isaiah 42:5; 43:1—11; 44:24; 45:5-8,12; John 1:1-3; Romans
11:36; Colossians 1:15

If we accept the NWT translation of John 1:1-3, quoted above, and its
rendering of Isaiah chapters 42 through 45, then we are faced with a major
contradiction between John's message and Isaiah's. Consider:

Isaiah
42:5 - This is what the [true] God,
Jehovah, has said, the Creator of the
heavens and the Grand One stretching
them out; the One laying out the earth and
its produce, the One giving breath to the
people on it, and spirit to those walking in
it:
John
1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and
the Word was with God, and the Word
was a god. 2 This one was in [the]
beginning with God. 3 All things came
into existence through him, and apart
from him not even one thing came into
existence.
 Isaiah
44:24 - This is what Jehovah has said, your
Repurchaser and the Former of you from
the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing
everything, stretching out the heavens
by myself, laying out the earth. Who
was with me?
[The implied contextual answer is: no one.
See the next chapter....]
John
1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and
the Word was with God, and the Word
was a god. 2 This one was in [the]
beginning with God. 3 All things came
into existence through him, and apart
from him not even one thing came into
existence.

45:5 - I am Jehovah, and there is no one 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and
else. With the exception of me there is the Word was with God, and the Word
no God. I shall closely gird you, although was a god. 2 This one was in [the]
you have not known me, 6 in order that beginning with God. 3 All things came
people may know from the rising of the into existence through him, and apart
sun and from its setting that there is none from him not even one thing came into
besides me. I am Jehovah, and there is no existence.
one else. 7 Forming light and creating
darkness, making peace and creating
calamity, I, Jehovah, am doing all these
things. 8 “O YOU heavens, cause a
dripping from above; and let the cloudy
skies themselves trickle with
righteousness. Let the earth open up, and
let it be fruitful with salvation, and let it
cause righteousness itself to spring up at
the same time. I myself, Jehovah, have
created it.”

45:12 - I myself have made the earth and
have created even man upon it. I—my
own hands have stretched out the heavens,
and all the army of them I have
commanded.”
1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and
the Word was with God, and the Word
was a god. 2 This one was in [the]
beginning with God. 3 All things came
into existence through him, and apart
from him not even one thing came into
existence.

To summarize the above chart: According to the NWT, God spoke

through Isaiah saying that the creation was the work of One but NWT-John says it
was the work of two. According to NWT-Isaiah 42:5, One and only One stretched
out the heavens, laid out the earth and its produce, gave breath to the people on it
and spirit to those walking in it. In 44:24 and 45:5-8 & 12 Jehovah repeats with
emphasis that he is that One. He did all this by himself; there was no one else with
him or beside him, and certainly not another divinity. (Note that Hebrew does not
have capitalization; god and God are the same word.) Isaiah is repetitious in
proclaiming that Jehovah alone created everything; that he alone created the earth,
even heaven and earth and the people on it, with his “own hands” and “by himself.”
Yet the NWT tells us in John 1:1-3 that Jehovah was not alone. He was not
unaided. He leaned on the work of another.

If we follow the NWT rendering of John 1, there was someone with Jehovah
who assisted him with the creation, and through whom all things came into being.
John goes on to identify this partner as Jesus Christ. But Jesus could not have been
with Jehovah at creation if Isaiah is telling the truth—or unless the NWT is wrong
about Jesus being “a god.” If Jesus is God himself, and not “a god,” then and only
then could he have been with God. In the NWT, John and Isaiah give contradicting
accounts of creation. This is a problem.

But hang on, NWT-John isn't the only one in trouble with the NWT-Isaiah.
NWT-Paul also tells us that all things were created not only by and through Jesus,
but for him (Colossians 1:16). Yet he also says the same thing of Jehovah God in
Romans 11:36 (the context of which cites other Old Testament passages that make
it clear Jehovah is the subject of the text). And so it is clear that the New
Testament presents Jesus as working alongside the Father in creation and being
the one by whom and through whom and for whom the creation was accomplished.
The only problem with this is that in Isaiah Jehovah attributes these things
exclusively to himself. Was he alone and acting independently when he created the
world, or not?

This is not a problem for the Trinitarian, who believes the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are One and the same God. It is a very serious problem for the NWT.

2. Exclusive Titles And Position

According to the NWT, Isaiah also made it clear that no real gods were
formed before or after Jehovah, and that there is no god or savior besides him
(43:10-11, 45:21-22, 47:4). Besides him there is no God—or “god” since the
Hebrew does not have capitals (44:6). There is no one even like him (v. 7) or even
resembling him (46:6). There is no God (or god) or Rock but him (v. 8). He and
he alone is the “first and last” (v. 6). And yet the NWT claims that Jesus is a god
(John 1:1), not in the sense that money is a god or that people become gods in their
arrogance or that idols are mistaken as gods, but that he is a real god that Jehovah
created, who lived and breathed and took part in the creation which Jehovah
himself claims to have executed alone and without assistance.

NWT-Isaiah says that only Jehovah alone is our savior (43:11 and 45:21)
and that from the rising to the setting of the sun there is no one else with Jehovah;
nor was anyone there as he formed the light and created the darkness (45:6-8). Yet
the NWT tells us that Jesus is our savior (Titus 1:4), that he is beside God the
Father (Acts 7:56; Revelation 22:3), that he existed in God's form prior to his
becoming flesh (Philippians 2: 6), that he is so like God as to not only resemble but
be an exact representation and mirror-like image of God (Hebrews 1:3). And while
NWT-Isaiah says there is no other rock for Israel but Jehovah (44:8), it also
proclaims that Jesus is the same rock that the Israelites knew in the wilderness (1
Corinthians 10:4, cf. Psalm 78:20 & 35). NWT-Isaiah 8:13-15 says it is Jehovah
who must be the rock over which people will stumble and upon whom people will
fall and be broken, and yet Peter discloses that this is actually a description of
Jesus, the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:6-8).

There are several places in the New Testament where Jesus is given the title
once reserved exclusively for Jehovah, not least of which is “First and Last.” Now,
logically there can be only one first and one last; yet the Bible gives this title to
both Jehovah and Jesus (cf. Revelation 1:17-18; 2:8). If the NWT rendering is
correct, then either the Bible contradicts itself or Jesus and Jehovah are both first
and both last and therefore one and the same.

3. To Whom Will We Bow?

According to the NWT, God makes it most emphatic in Isaiah 45 that to him
and him alone will every knee bend down and every tongue swear allegiance:

21b Is it not I, Jehovah, besides whom there is no other God; a righteous

God and a Savior, there being none excepting me?

22 “Turn to me and be saved, all YOU [at the] ends of the earth; for I am
God, and there is no one else. 23 By my own self I have sworn—out of my
own mouth in righteousness the word has gone forth, so that it will not
return—that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear, 24
saying, ‘Surely in Jehovah there are full righteousness and strength. All
 those getting heated up against him will come straight to him and be
ashamed.

Compare this to Paul's declaration about Jesus in Philippians 2:

9 For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly
gave him the name that is above every [other] name, 10 so that in the name
of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and
those under the ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge
that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Note that NWT-Isaiah has every knee bowing to Jehovah alone as the only
God and savior, and confessing Jehovah alone as our righteousness and strength.
Yet it also renders Paul as saying that it is Jesus who has the name that is above
every name. We know that there is no name greater than the name Jehovah, which
is the name to which every shall knee bow. So what is Paul saying? How can
Isaiah be correct and Paul be correct, unless Jesus' possesses the name Jehovah?
Paul tells us indeed that every tongue will confess that it is Jesus who is Lord—
which turns out to also be the New Testament translation of Jehovah!

What do I mean by this? The actual Greek text of the New Testament
nowhere uses the name of Yahweh (Jehovah). Rather, it follows the same
conventions as the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Old Testament. New
Testament authors used and often quoted from this translation as their Bible.
Following the Septuagint, then, they used the Greek word kurios uniformly
whenever it referred to Jehovah in Old Testament citations or in its discussions
about Yahweh. But, like the Septuagint, it also used the same word, kurios, to
translate the Hebrew word adonai (Master). And so, when Jesus is called kurios, it
is the same word used for Jehovah and for any master or lord, as the word also
functioned much like señor in Spanish or Sir in English, as a title.

The Watch Tower claims to have identified early Christian scriptures that
they say used the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (YHWH). They allege this was
originally in the Septuagint and New Testament autographs but that it was not
preserved in the Greek textus receptus and other manuscript traditions. This claim
has gone unsubstantiated. What's more, it seems improbable that Hebrew letters
would occur in a Greek manuscript with any regularity, it at all. Likewise, there
are no known occurrences of the Name or its letters being transliterated in
canonical Greek scriptures. Yet JWs operate on the assumption that someone
changed the canonical New Testament Greek texts so as to replace occurrences of
the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in the autographs with the word kurios (Lord) in the
manuscript copies. The NWT therefore follows the policy of using Jehovah in the
English rendering of any New Testament text that quotes an Old Testament
passage where YHWH originally occurred in the Old Testament Hebrew. The
NWT editors also admit to adding “Jehovah” in places where there is no Old
Testament reference but where they believe the context makes this clarification
justified. Mainstream biblical scholars, on the other hand, are agreed that there is
no credible evidence for believing that the Septuagint or the New Testament
autographs were altered in this way.

I raise this issue not to debate whether or not the NWT is justified in using
“Jehovah” where Jehovah may be meant, but to remind the reader that the New
Testament writers, and the community that preserved the New Testament for us
over the generations, had no problem using the word kurios/Lord in reference to
both Jehovah and Jesus. Believing both were Lord, the canonical texts repeatedly
assert that there is one kurios/Lord, and that this is Jesus. The same writers who
cited Old Testament passages that “Jehovah is one,” used the word kurios to
translate the subject of that statement and later asserted that we have one kurios,
Jesus Christ. And so, while the NWT appears to distinguish statements about
Jehovah from statements about the Lord Jesus, the Greek texts of the Septuagint
and the New Testament actually treat “Jehovah” and “Lord” as synonyms under
the word “kurios.”

One place where this matter becomes acute is in the Philippians 2 passage
where Paul's remarks parallel Isaiah's about the Day of Judgment. The JWs are
fond of pointing out that Jehovah is a name, not a title, but that “Lord” (or “the
Lord”) is a title and not a name. When we come to the NWT's awkward rendering
of Philippians 2, we find Paul declaring that when Jesus resurrected and returned to
the place where he previously had been “existing in God’s form” (v. 6), Jesus is
given “the Name that is above every [other] name” (v. 9). Now, we know that
“Jesus,” a common first-century Jewish name, was the name of his humiliation, not
his exaltation. So what was the name that God gave the exalted Jesus Christ that
should be confessed and bowed to on the Judgment Day? The answer is in what
Isaiah and Paul affirm together will be confessed on that occasion:

NWT-Isaiah: “... to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear,
saying, ‘Surely in Jehovah there are full righteousness and strength....'”
(45:23-24)
 NWT-Paul: “... so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those
in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue
should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord (kurios) to the glory of
God the Father.” (Philippians 2:10-11)

The conclusion is obvious. Lord cannot be the name Jesus' exaltation, since
by the JW's own distinction, “Lord” would be a title, not a name. And the only
name that the Greek scriptures consistently translate as kurios is the Name YHWH
(Jehovah)! This is who Isaiah says will be confessed. And this is who Paul
declares Jesus to be.

But hold on! How can it be that NWT-Isaiah 42:8 tells us that Jehovah will
not share his name or his glory with another and yet Paul tells us that neither this
confession of Jesus as kurios, nor this bowing of the knee to his name as being the
Name above all others, nor this glory being given him on the Last Day, will in any
way offend Jehovah. To the contrary, the Father will actually be pleased with it
and it will glorify him (Philippians 2:9-11)! How is it we have Christ enjoying the
glory reserved for Jehovah on the last day and it even results in more glory for God
the Father?

If you think I'm reading into this example, note that this is not the only place
where Jehovah's glory is declared to be shared with Christ. See also Jesus' remarks
in John 17 where Jesus speaks of being glorified alongside God the Father in the
future with the glory he shared with the Father even before the world was made (v.
5). Jesus says that everything that is God's is also his, and vice-versa, including his
glory (v. 10) because he and the Father are one (v. 11 ff).

Jesus also tells the Father to watch over his followers by the power of, or on
account of, “your own name which you have given me” (v. 11). Yes, you read that
correctly, the Father gave Jesus the Father's own name! Yet this is something
Jehovah swore in Isaiah he'd never do, just as he would not share his glory with
another.

To make this even clearer, Jesus later tells his followers to baptize in “the
name [singular] of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit [a plurality]” (Matthew 28:19).
What is that name? The Name that is above every other name and that every
tongue will someday confess belongs to Jesus—kurios/Lord (the New Testament
Greek rendering for Jehovah/Yahweh)—to the glory and delight of God the Father!
4. On Whose Name Must We Call For Salvation?

The divine Name is key not only to the Last Day but to the beginning of the
Christian's new life of eternity.

Genesis 4:26 tells us that people began to call upon the Name of Jehovah as
early as the days of Seth and the prophet Joel looked forward to a day when
whoever called upon the Name of Jehovah would be saved from the doom of the
last day (Joel 2:32).

On the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), Peter quotes Joel, warning that the coming
of the Holy Spirit, which they were witnessing, presaged the coming of that day
prophesied by Joel, saying: “And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will
be saved” (Acts 2: 21). Now the Greek, of course, does not use “Jehovah,” since
that name did not exist as a Greek word, even in a transliterated form (see above
discussion). The Greek speaks of everyone calling on the name of “the kurios”
being saved. Peter goes on in this text to speak of the kurios, as being the Lord
Jesus Christ. And when the crowd finally pleads with him, “What shall we do?”
(v. 37), Peter's answer is to follow through on what it means to call upon the name
of Jehovah/the kurios. He tells them to be baptized in the name that belongs to the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:18-20), the name that is the name of
Jehovah—and what does that name turn out to be: “Repent, and let each one of
YOU be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of YOUR sins....”
(Acts 2:38).

How is it that Peter would tell them in one breath to call upon the name of
the kurios/Jehovah and then in the next breath direct them to Jesus for their
salvation? How is it that they are to call upon the name of the kurios/Jehovah by
being baptized in Jesus' name? The answer is painfully obvious. The name of the
kurios, that is, the name of Jehovah, and the name of Jesus, are the same!

If you are tempted to think that Peter's comments were unique or unclear, we
note that Paul treated Joel's promise in exactly the same way. Notice what he says:

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord
over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him. For “everyone who calls
on the name of Jehovah will be saved” (Romans 10:12-13).

After telling us there is one kurios/Lord who is over all, he then goes on to
say that everyone who calls upon the name of that kurios/Lord will be saved. The
NWT astutely reminds us that the original Hebrew of Joel's statement spoke of
Jehovah, even though the Greek has it as the kurios. But now notice the context of
Paul's quote in Romans 10:

9 For if you publicly declare that ‘word in your own mouth,’ that Jesus is
Lord (kurios), and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from
the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one exercises faith for
righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for
salvation.
11 For the Scripture says: “None that rests his faith on him will be
disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for
there is the same Lord over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him. 13
For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”

If we were to diagram these sentences, we would see that the word “him”
points back to Jesus. We confess Jesus as kurios and believe that “God raised
him” (v. 9). The Scripture then speaks of “him” saying, “None that rests his faith
in him will be disappointed” (v. 11). Paul is here quoting Isaiah 49:23, were we
find out the “him” is Jehovah. How can this be? How can what is said about Jesus
be actually about Jehovah? The answer comes in the next sentence: “there is the
same Lord (kurios) over all” for both the Jew (or the Hebrew person) and the
Greek person (v. 11). Who is that kurios? We confessed him in verse 9 to be
Jesus! Now watch what Paul says next: “For 'everyone who calls on the name of
the kurios/Jehovah will be saved'” (v. 13).

Now the question remains, is there any evidence that the early Christians
actually called upon Jesus' name when they were told to call on the name of
Jehovah? Paul spells it out boldly for us when he describes all Christians as being:

... together with all who everywhere are calling upon the name of our Lord,
Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours. (1 Corinthians 1:2)

Notice, it was all Christians who called upon the name, not just some. And it was
happening everywhere, not just at Corinth. And whose name did they call upon?
Jesus Christ. And who is Jesus? Their kurios and ours. Not only is this, then the
definition of what it means to call upon Jehovah, but this act is what defines a
person as a Christian.

Likewise, Peter makes it clear that this is what the apostles preached from
the very beginning, when he says to the Jewish leaders in Acts 4:
 10 let it be known to all of YOU and to all the people of Israel, that in the
name of Jesus Christ the Naz·a·rene´, whom YOU impaled but whom God
raised up from the dead, by this one does this man stand here sound in front
of YOU. 11 This is ‘the stone that was treated by YOU builders as of no
account that has become the head of the corner.’ 12 Furthermore, there is no
salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has
been given among men by which we must get saved.”

Notice we are talking about Jesus Christ the Nazarene. He is the stone
rejected by the builders that has become the corner stone (v.11). In his first epistle,
Peter later identifies this stone as the “stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of
offense” that Isaiah described (1 Peter 2:8; Isaiah 8:14). But when we look at the
context of this Isaiah citation, we find that this stone, this rock, is none other than
Jehovah—again! (See Isaiah 8:13-15.)

Here in Acts, Peter is not content to risk his hearers not picking up on this
connection. So he goes on with further clarity, declaring what no Jew had ever
said of anyone but Jehovah, specifically, that there is salvation in no one else and
that there is no other name known to man “by which we must get saved” (Acts
4:12). No other name will work for those who would call out for salvation. What
is that name? It is the Name that all God's people call upon together and
everywhere. It is the Name that Joel said would bring salvation to anyone who
called upon it. It is the Name Jesus told his followers to baptize in and the name
that Peter and the other apostles did baptize in. It is the Name of Jesus (not the
title). It is Jehovah. It is the kurios.

5. To Whom Shall We Pray?

Comparing Psalm 102 & Hebrews 1:8-12

According to the NWT, Psalm 102 is “A prayer of the afflicted in case he

grows feeble and pours out his concern before Jehovah himself.” Notice, then, that
the Psalm is indeed addressed exclusively to Jehovah, with references to him
throughout. Read the Psalm and notice there is no indication given anywhere in
the Psalm that anyone but Jehovah is being addressed or described throughout the
prayer. As we read the Psalm, we find there is not even a hint that the psalmist is
speaking to or about the Son of God or any lesser god in his remarks. It is before
Jehovah and only Jehovah that the Psalmist pours out his heart.
 And yet his plea in verses 24-27 is quoted in Hebrews 1:10-12 as having
been said “with reference to the Son” (Hebrews 1:8)!

Here is how that part of the prayer to Jehovah appears in NWT-Psalm 102:

24 I proceeded to say: “O my God,

Do not take me off at the half of my days;
Your years are throughout all generations.

25 Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself,

And the heavens are the work of your hands.

26 They themselves will perish, but you yourself will keep standing;
And just like a garment they will all of them wear out.
Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will finish their turn.

27 But you are the same, and your own years will not be completed.

Now, quoting Hebrews 1:10-12 in the NWT:

8 But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and
[the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved
righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God,
anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.” 10 And:
“You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself,
and the heavens are [the] works of your hands. 11 They themselves will
perish, but you yourself are to remain continually; and just like an outer
garment they will all grow old, 12 and you will wrap them up just as a
cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed, but you are the
same, and your years will never run out.”

In other words, here we have a prayer uttered to Jehovah that the writer of
Hebrews now tells us was actually spoken to Jesus. The clear inference is that the
Psalm in which Jehovah alone is addressed, being called Jehovah, Jah, and my
God, was actually a prayer to Jesus Christ. Who then is Jesus Christ, according to
the Hebrews author, but Jehovah? And who is rightly addressed as Jehovah and
God? It is the Son, Jesus.

Summarizing:
 1. There is no indication within the Psalm that there is any change in the
person being addressed by the Psalmist.

2. Although the Psalm speaks of the creation, there is no indication

within the Psalm that anyone was with Jehovah at creation or that he
used a Master Worker who could be addressed as God or god. Rather,
there is but one person addressed.

3. The only person addressed in the Psalm, then, is Jehovah-God.

4. Yet Hebrews identifies the person addressed in this Psalm as Jesus.

5. It stands to reason that there are only two possible explanations for
this. Either:
a) There is a contradiction in the Scriptures, or
b) The JW and NWT are in error because Jesus and Jehovah are one
and the same.
Which is it? Is it okay to pray to Jesus calling him Jehovah and God? That's
what this Psalm does if we accept the Hebrews writer's explanation of it.
An objective reader will opt for “b” and marvel at how Christ's deity shines
through the scriptures even when a biased mistranslation tries to obscure it!

6. The “Master Worker” Question

The JW Use Of Colossians 1:15-16,18, Revelation 3:14, And Proverbs 8

So what about the claim that Jesus is creation's “master worker” and not its
actual creator? How shall we understand those remarks in the Bible that the NWT
and Watch Tower Society say describe Jesus as being created, the first of Jehovah's
creations, and as created for the purpose of creating everything else that was
created?

The JWs' argument runs something like this:

 1. The Bible calls Jesus “the first-born of all creation” and the one
through whom all the rest of creation came (Colossians 1:15-16). This,
they say, indicates that in the sequence of creation, Jesus was “born”
first and the rest of creation came through him. He is the first-born
chronologically.

2. John's apocalypse describes Jesus as “the beginning of God's

creation,” which shows Jesus was the first of God's creations and that
Jesus had a beginning (Revelation 3:14).

3. Solomon gives us a description of Wisdom personified that is actually

a description of the pre-incarnate Jesus. Wisdom is said to be the first
of God's creations and the master worker who was at God's side all
while he created the world (Proverbs 8).

4. The JW concludes, therefore, that if Jesus had a beginning and was

created, he cannot be God. He is a creature.

Although the JW is misguided, the Trinitarian really can be very grateful to

the JW for pointing these passages out. They point to some beautiful and deeply
moving insights into Jesus' incarnation and his place within creation. These truths
and the verses cited, however, do not mean what the JW claims they mean. Let's
look at each claim:

1. Jesus As First-Born

Although there are instances in the Bible of “first-born” meaning first in

chronological order, it is a mistake to infer from this that “first-born” always refers
to something sequential. Consider:

• The chronologically first-born of Israel's sons was Reuben (Genesis 49:2),

yet in Jeremiah 31:9, Ephraim was called the first-born. Yes, the first-born
of God, but in Exodus 4:22, Jehovah says Israel was God's first-born.
Clearly the term is not used in these verses the way the JW claims. To the
contrary, the term clearly refers to a position or title that can be transferred
from one person to another regardless of their actual birth order.

• In Psalm 89:23 and 27, Jehovah promises that he will “make” David his
first-born! How can David become a first-born when, as Jesse's youngest
 son, he clearly was not even the chronological first-born of Jesse?

• Notice that for Jehovah to make someone his firstborn—be it Israel, Reuben,
Ephraim, or David—this did not mean they were the first to actually be born,
nor did it mean they were the first thing created.

In the case of David, we have an example of a Messianic promise; that is, a

promise given to the house of David. The New Testament is replete with similar
applications. For example: Peter at Pentecost declared that what was said of David
in Psalm 16:8-11 of the Septuagint, and in Psalm 110:1, really looked forward to
Christ (Acts 2:25-35). And in Hebrews 1:5 what was said of Solomon in 2 Samuel
7:14 is taken as proclaiming something about Jesus. In speaking to David and
Solomon, these verses really bestow promises to the one who would be their
ultimate heir. It is therefore Jesus, the heir of David's throne and David's promises,
who would “become” God's first-born and the first-born of creation, as others had
“become” God's first-born in anticipation of Christ. But in Jesus the title finally
rests.

Clearly then, the term does not refer to one's place in a chronological
sequence. Clearly it speaks rather of one's rank or status, not one's place on a
timeline.

The JW may ask, well if Jesus holds this title and he is equal to the Father
and Spirit, why then why wouldn't the Father or Holy Spirit also hold this title?
The answer is a precious one: Neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit are part of the
creation. Jesus became part of creation, but not in the beginning but in his
incarnation—and not until then. When he became flesh, when he came into the
world he had created, he became our brother, our deliverer, and the first-born over
all creation as he assumed the Davidic place of first-born in fulfilling his Messianic
destiny.

2. Jesus As The Beginning Of Creation

In Revelation 3:14, Jesus calls himself “the faithful and true witness, the
beginning of the creation by God.” And while many translations agree with using
the word “beginning,” some see “the creation by God” as referring to the new
creation. Others note that the Greek word that is translated “beginning” actually
means “source” in the sense of origin, starting point, or the place from which
creation came. It all began with him, not in the sense that he too was created, but
that as creator, he was its source and began it all. This nuance is not always
obvious to speakers of modern English, but the Greek word, which is the word that
matters, and which is clarified for example in the New Revised Standard Version,
can have both meanings. Since “beginning” then, need not mean “first created”
but rather “point of origin” and “source of all that follows,” there is no need to see
this as fixing Jesus' beginning at the first day of creation. He was creation's
source/beginning point; but he did not begin when creation did. Far from denying
Christ's deity, this passage is rather another wonderful declaration of Jesus being
our Creator—the one who is the Source of all that exists, who brought all the world
into being by himself, without any assistance.

3. Jesus As Wisdom Personified

Proverbs 8 introduces us to a remarkable character: Wisdom personified. In

this chapter Wisdom is said to call out to passers by, calling them to forsake folly
and embrace the fear of Jehovah. As the chapter progresses, we learn that Wisdom
was with Jehovah in the beginning of creation. In fact, Wisdom was the first thing
God “brought forth.” And Wisdom assisted Jehovah in the process of creating the
world. “I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he
was specially fond of day by day....” (Proverbs 8:30).

The point of the chapter is the point of all biblical wisdom literature, namely
that God's design of the world is according to wisdom; therefore whoever follows
wisdom will succeed in the world God made, being in sync with God and his
creation.

35 “For the one finding me will certainly find life, and gets goodwill from
Jehovah. 36 But the one missing me is doing violence to his soul; all those
intensely hating me are the ones that do love death.”

“Now,” the JW says, “this personification of Wisdom is actually a reference

to Jesus Christ, who was with God as his master worker in creation.”

The NWT is one of the few English translations that misses something very
clear in this chapter's original language, both in the Hebrew and later Septuagint
Greek rendering of it: Wisdom is presented here as a woman who is contrasted to
the woman of folly in the surrounding chapters. The woman of folly is also
personified with striking parallels to Wisdom's behavior as a rival. Folly also calls
out to passersby and entreats them to embrace her, but in secrecy and forbidden
intimacies.

So yes, we do see Wisdom personified—as a woman brought forth in labor

before the world was created. And yes, we see that she was with Jehovah and at
his side in the creation process as a master worker. But we do not see any
reference here to Wisdom being God's Son. Perhaps she is Yahweh's spouse
working with him as a partner, since she guides his hand and all his decisions;
perhaps she is his daughter, metaphorically speaking. But in actuality there is no
reason to think this is referring to a real person the way Jesus is a real person.

We can understand that there are some similarities here that remind us of
Christ. After all, Paul tells us that Jesus has become for us the wisdom of God (1
Corinthians 1:30). But surely there is a wonderful metaphor here that is lost if we
elect to be rigidly literal—even if we set the question of Christ aside. For if
Wisdom actually had a point of beginning, that would mean there had to be a point
at which she did not exist. If she was literally born, being brought forth out of the
travails of labor, then surely there was a point when Jehovah was without wisdom!
The God who never changes would then have had to change once Wisdom came
forth from the womb—and whose womb would that have been?

If we grant that Jesus and Wisdom are one and the same, and that Wisdom
had a beginning before the creation began, then we have to conclude that God
changed when Jesus came into being, that God became wise at that point in time
and that before Jesus came into being Jehovah lacked wisdom. This is absurd and
unnecessary, as anyone who knows how to interpret wisdom literature and the
poetic genre of the book of Proverbs can tell you. The imagery is not intended to
be taken this way and such literalism only does violence to the true meaning.

Surely then, the imagery of Wisdom coming into being is just picturesque
language to say that from the start of creation Jehovah displayed his wisdom in
everything he made. It makes the greater point that we should seek wisdom
because wisdom was essential even to God when he made the cosmos. Wisdom is
therefore in harmony with how the world is made. And to lack Wisdom is to be
out of harmony with God and his creation.

But there never could have been a time when Jehovah lacked wisdom—or
else he would not truly have been God. And if Jesus is to be identified with
Wisdom, then surely there never could have been a time when Jesus did not exist,
since Wisdom had to always exist in God. Wisdom is an attribute of God who is
the only one who can claim to have always existed. An attribute of God exists
eternally because God always exists and never changes. But Jesus is a Person, not
an attribute. If Jesus always existed, then he is eternal and he is God.

What's more, when this passage speaks of Wisdom being a master worker at
God's side, it suggests that Jehovah was led by wisdom in all he did. Wisdom
guided the Creator. Now, if wisdom is just an attribute of God that is displayed in
the choices he made at creation, then Jehovah remains God. But if Wisdom is the
pre-incarnate form of “a god” who tells Jehovah what and how to create, then this
“master worker” was a being to whom Jehovah submitted and depended upon.
Mutual submission is appropriate between equals. But it is blasphemous to assert
that Jehovah-God yielding to a lesser god, much shared his glory with that god in
creation—especially a god he created. This is, from the perspective of Isaiah and
of Old Testament orthodoxy, completely and intolerably unthinkable.

Wisdom, though, is not truly a person or a god, as the NWT makes Jesus out
to be. Wisdom is an attribute of God being personified here for literary effect.
Surely we know that wisdom is a quality that is part of Jehovah's glorious
character, inseparable from God, and not really a person, a god, or Jesus in some
pre-incarnate feminine form. It is like Jesus in many ways because Jesus
personifies wisdom in the New Covenant and becomes for us, as Paul says, “the
wisdom (sophia) of God” (1 Corinthians 1:30). And like Jesus, there never could
have been a time when Jehovah was without her. But since this is the only place
where the Bible specifically mentions a “master worker” involved in the creation,
and since Proverbs 8:30 is the only verse in the whole Bible where the phrase
occurs, and since this reference is metaphorical and not to an actual created person
or thing, we have to conclude that the idea in no way establishes Jesus as having a
beginning. If anything, identifying Jesus with God's wisdom ascribes to Jesus
eternality and makes him one with Jehovah, since a wisdom-lacking Jehovah is
unthinkable.

4. The Correct Conclusion Contradicts All Forms of Arianism And Exposes The
NWT's False Prejudice

We have seen that the NWT is inconsistent with itself when it tries to
establish Jesus as a master worker who had a beginning or who worked as a kind
of foreman over Jehovah's creation project. Nor can Colossians be used to
establish Jesus a the first thing created.
 If we had found the JW doctrine actually taught anywhere in the Bible, we
would still be left with the original problem set out earlier in this chapter, namely:
If Jesus was the first thing (a god!) created in order to be the means by which all
other things were created after him, it does not explain how Isaiah could claim that:

1. God acted alone, and

2. that there were and are no gods besides Jehovah, when
3. The NWT-God did not in fact act alone but created Jesus to be a god
who worked with him as a master worker—and who continues to be
beside him today!

To the contrary, how is it that Jesus is part of the creation? It is by virtue of

his incarnation, not by means of a pre-incarnate birth. He holds first-place in
creation by virtue of being the Davidic Messiah and is part of creation only
because of his humanity, miraculously conceived in the Virgin Mary. He was not
human or a part of creation prior to his incarnation (see John 1:14 and Philippians
2:7). Rather, he existed in the form of God, which is why Paul could say that all
things were created not only by him but in him “and for him” (Colossians 1:16).
No creature, human being or angel, could possibly contain all things, let alone
create them within themselves. But in God and God alone “we live and move and
have our being” (Ac 17:28) and so it is that in Christ the world came to be. What's
more, since nothing and no one existed before God created all things—except God
—then there is no one else of whom it can be said that all things were created “for
him.” This can only be said of Jehovah (Revelation 4:11). Yet this is what Paul
says of Jesus!

While the credit and glory for creation clearly goes exclusively to Jehovah in
Isaiah, this is not the case in the NWT New Testament. There Jesus is hailed as
our Creator, the one by whom, in whom, through whom, and for whom all things
were made. This clearly conflicts with Isaiah's proclamations that Jehovah has an
exclusive and solitary claim to the creation's formation—if Jesus and Jehovah are
not one and the same.

While the Arian's architect analogy may sound plausible (i.e., that a building
may be said to have been built by this or that designer, even though they never
picked up an actual hammer), it does not change the fact that in Isaiah Jehovah
claims not only to have been the architect but the builder as well—the exclusive
hands-on builder (Isaiah 41-48). Through Isaiah, Jehovah goes to great pains to
contradict the idea that anyone other than himself had anything to do with creation
and to separate himself from any hint that another deity might exist or have claim
to Israel's loyalty, obedience, or devotion. His insistence is emphatic that he alone
was personally and independently involved.

Summation

I would like to remind the reader that all of the points in this chapter were
established using only the NWT as our basis for conversation and for the sake of
argument. Yet the deity of Jesus Christ still shines through these texts. Rest
assured that his divinity shines even more clear in accurate translations of the
original languages.

Based on this brief study it is clear that the NWT made some translation
choices that reflect an unjustified and misguided preconceived bias against the
deity of Jesus Christ; yet Christ's divinity shines through the NWT's pages in
contradiction to the translators own prejudiced efforts to obscure it! If the Arian
notion that Jesus is “a god” were correct, it would bear out throughout the
scriptures, including the passages cited above. Yet the translators proved unable to
sustain their bias throughout their own work, as they failed to carry out
consistently that which could not possibly be carried out—the masking of
Jehovah's glory: Jesus Christ. They could not smooth over the incongruities that
their own prejudice alone created. This is why these incongruities do not exist in
other translations. And why? Simply because it is impossible translate the Bible
consistently while rejecting the correct premise that Jesus and Jehovah are one and
the same God. To reject this would require amputating, not just retranslating, huge
portions of holy text. In the NWT redactors' attempts to perform cosmetic surgery
on the Bible, they have hacked up a body of literature that now looks more like a
Frankenstein than a holy messenger.

That being said, it is clear the inconsistencies between the passages I've cited
above can easily (and only) be resolved by conceding that the more prominent
controversial passages in dispute, such as John 1:1, have been improperly rendered
by the NWT in its effort to mute Christ's full deity. The Watch Tower's distorted
picture of Jesus and Jehovah bleeds away like a water color painting under the
Niagara when exposed to any careful and fair examination.

This short study certainly does not exhaust the subject or the numerous
examples of questionable renderings in the NWT. It does, however, provide a
significant case against the bias of the Watch Tower's “translators” and
demonstrates that the Arian interpretation of this topic is fatally flawed.
A Word To Complement-Arians And Others Who Demote Christ From His
Full Equal Status With the Father

The oneness of Jesus and Yahweh demonstrated in this chapter should show
the absurdity of supposing any kind of eternal subordination within the Trinity. If
Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same God, their unity of essence can only mean
mutuality, harmony, and balance between them. For each to be fully God means
each is in their Person what the full Trinity is in Tri-unity. To suggest a higher and
lower, a before and after, within the Godhead is to introduce a prioritizing within
God of one person versus another. This would suggest that each is not wholly for
the other or that one Person would accept exclusively what rightly belongs to all
who are of the same essence. Jesus demonstrated that divinity does not behave this
way.

No Trinitarian can properly conceive of the divine Persons arranging

themselves by rank except possibly for the temporary window where the Economic
Trinity made momentary concessions for the eternal benefit of objects of grace
trapped in a fallen world. Entering into the fallen order, the Trinity pursued them
with unyielding passion and unparalleled sacrifice. As Jesus gave up his flesh at
Calvary, the Trinity gave up itself in the incarnation and economy of salvation.
Yet both did so only to take up again what could never be extinguished with any
true finality. And even in the incarnation we find Jesus disclosing and
demonstrating the Trinity's mutual submission, mutual authority, and unbreakable
unity.

The Arian, on the other hand, cannot conceive of true unity and equality in
plurality and diversity, without inferring hierarchy. But when Arians point the
threeness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Trinitarian says, “Exactly! The
one is three!” When they point to the oneness of Yahweh, the Trinitarian cries,
“Exactly! The three are one!” The Arian points to passages that show Jesus to be
finite, human, lesser than, and surrendered to, the Father. To this the Trinitarian
rejoices, “Yes! He became flesh for us, and emptied himself to dwell among us as
one of us—becoming part of his own creation—for our sake, and for a time as was
necessary for us and our salvation!

Arians and complementarians are fond of citing places where Jesus speaks
of the Father being greater than himself (John 14:28), or where the Father is said to
know what Jesus did not know (e.g., Mark 13:32). To this, the Trinitarian replies:
If one accepts the Trinity, then one accepts that God is one Being in three Persons.
There is no confusion of Persons in the Trinity. Each Person is just that, a person.
As such, they are distinguishable. The Father had an intention he had yet to
disclose to the Son (an hour or date when he planned to do something). This only
proves his distinct personhood. The Son, who spoke these words while still in the
state of his humiliation, had not been privy as a human to the Father's decision on
this point. Perhaps the Spirit had not yet either, although this is doubtful in light of
1 Corinthians 2:11. More likely, Jesus is saying that no human being knows what
the Father has planned, and that includes the Son who had become human, thereby
setting aside what he once possessed in eternity. As a human, Jesus set aside the
divine assets he once possessed before he was born (Philippians 2:7). As a child
he had to learn to speak, spell, use abstract thought, even how to obey (Hebrews
5:8). Why? Because his humanity required it. And as a human being, emptied of
divinity for the sake of salvation's temporal plan, of course the Father was greater.
But Jesus looked forward to the day when he would be reunited with the Godhead
and when God will be all in all.

The Arian, though, looks at the biblical passages that display Jesus' full deity
and equality with the Father, and scrambles for other ways to explain away what
shines forth clearly in the original sacred texts. Arians cannot part with their
penchant for hierarchy and subordination. To this the Trinitarian says: “Shame on
you! Even the contradictions of your own convoluted misrepresentations lead us
back to the only possible conclusion about Jesus and Yahweh! Namely this: They
are equal and One. Jesus is LORD, fully and totally! And there is NO other.”

Praise be to the Name that is above every other name, the only name given
to us by which we must be saved!