Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

A few years ago about this time of year, a story appeared in the newspaper about a strange occurrence in France. It seems that a thief cornered a man in a dark place. He threatened to slash the man’s throat with his knife unless he handed over his money. As the Victim reached for his wallet, the light caught him in such a way that the thief saw his victim was a priest. The robber quickly apologized for his behavior explaining that he was unaware of the fact that he had preyed upon a priest. The priest, still shaken from the incident, pulled out his cigarettes to calm himself with a smoke. As he did, he offered one to the thief. The thief replied, “No thanks, Father. I gave them up for Lent.”

A strange sense of scruples, wouldn’t you say? The incident well depicts the moral hypocrisy seen in this season. This man had no problem with his practice of robbery and violence, at least on anyone except a priest. As long as he “fulfilled his responsibility” in some ritualistic sense by giving up smoking for a forty day period, everything was alright. Evidently, he gave little consideration to the moral consequences of his every day life as a thief!

When we stop to think of the system that fosters such values, we ought not be surprised about such incidents. On the night before Lent begins, this system condones the celebration of “Fat Tuesday” which is nothing but drunken, licentious revelry. It is the culmination of a period called “Mardi Gras” which is full of the same decadence. Just down the road from us in Galveston, the Mardi Gras is advertized as a big party with participants in various stages of undress, drinking plenty of alcohol. New Orleans bills its Mardi Gras celebration as a bigger party with more liquor and less clothing. Rio de Janeiro is famous for a Mardi Gras celebration which is the synonym for licentiousness.

Where in the world do people get such a perverted set of values? It certainly does not come from the Bible. The Bible clearly and repeatedly condemns such sinful actions at any time. In 1 Peter 4:1-5, notice the writer’s clear denunciation of such things:

Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles – when we walked in licentiousness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you. They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

In Romans 13:12-14, the Bible again condemns such “works of darkness” as inconsistent with the life of a Christian:

The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in licentiousness and lewdness, not in strife and envy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.

One is not made righteous because he ceases to do a few things for forty days while continuing to do other things that are just as sinful. Nor is one more pious because he gives up all sinful practices for Lent with the full intent of resuming the actions the day after “Easter.” God’s standard for conduct is much higher.

Notice God’s command: “But as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct ” (1 Pet. 1:15). Not forty days worth, but all of the Christian’s conduct must conform to the commands of God. Or consider the question raised by the apostle Paul in Romans 6:1-23. He talks to those who had been cleansed and justified by the blood of Christ and asks if they should continue in sin. His answer is simple, “God forbid! We who died to sin, how can we live any longer in it.” To the Christian, sin should be a disgusting and detestable path. It should be intolerable for another second!

The contrast is really very clear. The system which proposes Lent advocates a forty day vacation from sin – and then only some sins, not all. God’s Word commands that the practice of sin be put to death:

Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, in which you also once walked when you lived in them. But now you must also put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds (Col. 3:5-9).

There is a big difference between those two approaches to sin!

Oh yes, it is a more convenient religion for the worldly person to conform to certain outward rituals while one continues to live a life of sin. One might asked, “Then why not choose that kind of religion?” As far as I can see, there are only two reasons to be given:

1. Regardless of how we feel about it, the Bible says such a practice is wrong!

2. Such a religion will lead one to be lost eternally (Matt. 7:21-23).

Let’s follow what God says every day and put sin to death in our lives. We must not desire to join in the sins of the world around us. The Word of God gives this exhortation:

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light. . . . And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret (Eph. 5:6-12).

We must always seek to expose the darkness of sin, examine all things in the light of the Gospel and exalt the path God directs in everything that we do.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI :7, pp. 204-205
April 2, 1992

By Donald Townsley

All great movements, good or bad, have started from very small things. The beginning of the Kingdom of Christ was compared by Christ to “a grain of mustard seed” (Matt. 13:31). Small trends away from God’s order brought about a departure resulting in the formation of the Roman Catholic Church: one elder in a congregation became known as the “presiding” elder; he was called the “bishop” and the other elders were called “presbyters.” Later the “presiding” elder of a city church was considered more important than the elders of country churches; the city “bishops” soon had control of country elders, and this grew until the Roman Catholic Church was fully formed with its first “pope” in 606 A.D.

The Christian church was the result of small trends away from the New Testament pattern. “Cooperation meetings” were held (with only a few churches sending “messengers” at first) to make plans to send preachers to destitute places; then in 1849 came the establishment of the American Christian Missionary Society. In 1859 came the introduction of instrumental music in worship, and by 1869 it was really making headway in the churches. Then came great doctrinal departures with some even denying the inspiration of the word of God and that baptism is essential to salvation from one’s past sins! By this time many who had, in the beginning, nurtured these “innocent” trends were filled with great grief as they saw the end-result of their work. The younger generation had taken over; they wanted the church to become a full-fledged denomination, and they would not stop until it did! At this point in the apostasy, many became sick of the “things” they had helped to create and began to look back longingly at the people from whom they had separated years before – the people they had called “non-progressive” and “anti,” the churches of Christ. Preachers like brother Hall L. Calhoun left the digressive movement and spent the rest of his days preaching for churches of Christ.

Many “seeds of apostasy” were being sown in churches of Christ in the 1930s and 1940s, and by the 1950s there were many definite trends away from the truth. These “trends of error” were not considered to be “error” by the majority in the church, they were looked upon as “signs of progress.” In fact, any man who would raise his voice against them was to be branded as a trouble-maker, called “anti,” barred from the pulpit and treated as a heretic! Many of us who loved the truth and the souls of men more than popularity and money did raise our voices, and God, who gives the increase, saved a remnant of the church from complete apostasy.

Those who thirty-five years ago thought the “trends of error” (the sponsoring church arrangement and human institutions set up to do the work of the church) were “marks of progress” have now lived to view their work with grief. The “fruit” of these “trends of error” has not caused undenominational Christianity to flourish in the earth; it has borne the bitter fruit of modernism, denominationalism, the “social gospel,” church-sponsored social and recreational activities, every conceivable human organization to do the work of the church and acceptance of the denominational theory of the “direct operation” of the Holy Spirit. Many who have nurtured these “trends of error” are now, with great grief, having to fight day and night against “the unity-in-diversity” error; women preachers; the “no-pattern” doctrine; the “new hermeneutic”; instrumental music along with choirs and solos in worship; Calvinism; the “we cannot understand the Bible alike” doctrine; those who ridicule the idea of “restoring the New Testament church”; those who chide what they call “the old paths mentality”; those who say the New Testament is not “law” but “love letters,” and those who say we should “preach the man, not the plan.”

What these men need to realize is that they are reaping the harvest of their own sowing! There is a period of time between the “planting” of the seeds of apostasy and harvest of the full-grown crop. The first “seed of apostasy” that was sown was that the church is not all-sufficient to do its work (Acts 14:23; 20:28); here they rejected Bible authority and “cracked the door” for all the rest to come in! Many of us warned in years gone by what the end-result would be, but they would not hear. Now they have lived to view their own work with grief! Brethren, please give up your “sponsoring churches” and church support of human institutions, etc.; come back in repentance to Bible authority in all things, and save your souls before it is too late!

Let us all learn a lesson from this – apostasy comes with very small trends away from God’s order; the seed is sown, and in time it will bring forth a full harvest! There are “seeds of error” being sown among us today, and an “attitudinal apostasy” is at work (2 Tim. 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:7). If these trends and attitudes are not changed we will, in time, suffer the same problems of those who are now having to fight against the errors mentioned before. Brethren, let us get back to Bible authority in all things so that we can change these wrong attitudes and stop the trends that we might save our own soul and the souls of those who hear us.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 7, p. 196
April 2, 1992

By Mike Willis

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty (2 Cor. 6:17-18).

The Lord’s people are to be a separate people (Exod. 33:16; Lev. 20:24; Ezra 6:21). The charge of these verses is a call for the church to be a separate people. What necessitated this call?

The Corinthian Problem

Paul had a specific situation in mind when he charged the Corinthians to “come out from among them” and be separate. The church at Corinth had some among them who were joining hands with pagans in worshiping at heathen temples. Earlier in I Corinthians, Paul instructed these Christians to “flee idolatry” (10:14). He told them that joining with the heathen in their worship was sinful: “But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” (1 Cor. 10:20-22)

Another problem was the receiving of false teachers. Some denied the resurrection (see 1 Cor. 15). Earlier Paul had warned of their influence among the Christians: “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33). Some were influenced by the Judaizers (see 2 Cor. 3). Unfortunately, the Corinthians were receiving some of these false apostles (2 Cor. 11:4).

To address these very problems, Paul wrote this section of 2 Corinthians demanding that a separation occur.

The Call For Separation

Here are the words of Paul’s call for a separation:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1).

Joint participation in false religion is an “unequal yoke.” (The figure of an “unequal yoke” was taken from the Mosaical legislation forbidding plowing with an ox and ass yoked together [Deut. 22: 10].) Paul used a number of parallels to re-enforce his point that Christians have no fellowship with unrevealed religion. Here is an outline of them:

Fellowship	Righteousness	Unrighteousness
Communion	Light	Darkness
Concord	Christ	Belial
Part	Believer	Infidel
Agreement	Temple of God	Idols

There are several truths which logically follow from Paul’s words.

1. The line of demarcation between true andfalse religion can be known and drawn. The modern concept that there are so many shades of gray that one cannot distinguish black and white is foreign to New Testament teaching. Men can know the truth (Jn. 8:32) and identify those who have departed from it (1 Jn. 2:19).

2. Men are guilty of sin when they join with others in the participation ofsin. When the Corinthians went to the heathen temple and ate at the table of demons, they were guilty of sin. John adds that when a person bids Godspeed ‘Lo those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ, he is guilty of sin: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. fie that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 Jn. 9-11). Paul added, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). These passages demand a separation from the works of darkness.

Application of Paul’s Teaching

It will not apply to marriage. Some have misapplied this passage by teaching that Paul’s instructions condemn as sinful the marriage of a Christian to a non-Christian. If this verse applies to a mixed marriage, then we need to tell those who are in that marriage what Paul said: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” (2 Cor. 6:17-18). Though some misapply these verses to mixed marriages, I know of no one ready to tell those who are in a mixed marriage what Paul told these Corinthians! The fact of the matter is that Paul told those who were involved in mixed marriages not to depart one from another (1 Cor. 7:12-15), the very opposite of what this verse teaches.

While the marriage between a believer and unbeliever is not sinful in itself, some believers who are married to unbelievers join their mates in committing sin. Some worship with their unbelieving mates in denominations tacitly approving the unrevealed worship that is offered there.

These verses apply to joining with others in the practice of sin. Sin is described as “darkness, ” “unrighteousness, ” and “idolatry.” Though idolatry is not the only form which sin can take, it serves to emphasize that this passage is forbidding joining with others in committing sin.

Heathen religion is one form of sin which Christians cannot join in. The pagan religions of Paul’s day were sinful expressions of religion. Indeed, Paul said that their worship was “sacrifice to devils, and not to God” (1 Cor. 10:20). What was true of pagan religions of the first century is equally true of pagan religions of this century. Christians cannot join hands with Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and other pagan religions in offering worship to God. One Episcopal Church became so ecumenical that it hosted a Shinto ceremony in its building (Growth and Decline in the Episcopal Church 21). When Christians recognize as saved and join hands in work and worship with those in heathen religions, they are guilty of the very sin which Paul condemned. He called on men to “come out from among them and be ye separate” and “touch not the unclean thing.”

So-called Christian denominations are another form of unrevealed religion. The denominational churches do not teach the plan of salvation, do not offer worship according to the divinely revealed pattern (dare anyone deny there are patterns for worship?), and do not abide in the divinely revealed work and organization of the church. As they move further and further away from the truth and into sin, some of the mainline denominations openly advocate the appointing of homosexuals as members of their clergy. Many denominations openly defy the Lord’s limitation that women not “teach or usurp authority over” men (1 Tim. 2:12), Some sponsor gambling, such as those Catholic Churches which have casino nights, bingo games, raffles, and such like things. They encourage drinking by serving wine at their casino nights. Some churches sponsor lascivious dances for their young folks. Their clergy wears religious titles in violation of Matthew 23:9.

Christians cannot join hands with the denominations in offering worship to God without being guilty of sin. Max Lacuado, a popular writer and speaker among the liberal brethren, has participated in worship at a Catholic Church. This is the conduct which Paul forbade Christians to do. There are other signs that brethren are ready to join hands with the denominations. The editor of Image recently wrote that he was “tired of a sectarian message that postures ‘our church against someone else’s church… (Jan./Feb 1992, p. 4). Leroy Garrett wrote a series of articles in Restoration Review describing the positive things he saw in the various denominations he visited in his area.

Liberal brethren have also departed from the truth to commit unrighteousness and lawlessness (1 Jn. 3:4). The Christian Church brethren introduced the church supported missionary society and mechanical instruments of music in worship. Through the years, the spirit of apostasy has continued to work among them as they have moved further and further from the truth. Some of them were not willing to go as far as others; as a result a division occurred breaking them into two groups – the more liberal Disciples of Christ and the less liberal Independent Christian Churches. Both denominations have departed from the truth in many different items. Here are a few items gleaned from the Christian Standard which is circulated among the more conservative independent Christian Churches:

1. Using mechanical instruments of music in worship. (Some Christian Churches are ready to accept only a piano and organ while the group sings bluegrass, southern, or contemporary gospel. Others are ready to accept a full band, even those who sing “rock gospel.”)

2. Allowing Christian college bands to entertain during the Sunday evening worship period.

3. Using solos, quartets, and other singing groups.

4. Using church funds to support human institutions such as: missionary societies, hospitals, orphan homes, colleges, old folks homes (retirement villages, see Christian Standard [15 September 1991], p. 19), national conventions, etc.

5. Using church funds to build schools.

6. Allowing women to speak to groups where men are present, to lead singing (or sing solos), etc. in violation of the role given to women (see Christian Standard [ 17 November 1991], p. 9 for a republication of an article from a liberal member within the churches of Christ calling for a more leading position for women in the church; also note the call of David McCord in his address to the NACC fChristian Standard, 15 September 1991, p. III). Some Christian Churches allow women to address audiences where men are present (for example, in order for a missionary to make contact with as many people as possible, his wife sometimes speaks in one church and he in another).

7. Accepting the pious unimmersed into fellowship (this varies among the Christian Churches).

8. Observing unauthorized holy days (special worship services for Christmas, Easter, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, etc.).

9. Using entertainment to draw a crowd (a special singing group, a popular sports figure, etc.). Max R. Hickerson recommended “all-church events” such as “filling the 150-seat sky box at Candlestick Park” to see a Giants baseball game, “mission fairs, banquets, western days, and ministry fairs” (Christian Standard [25 August 19911, p. 13).

10. Operating a “kingdom circus” as the Kingsway Christian Church in Avon, IN recently did.

11, Raising funds through some manner other than the first day of the week contribution (such as the “kingdom circus”).

12. Using church funds to build gymnasiums, fellowship halls (eating places), etc. (see Christian Standard [10 November 1991], p. 19).

13. Taking a charismatic position on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (see Christian Standard [4 August 1991), pp. 14-16, for an article appealing for tongue-speaking not being made a test of fellowship). Spiritual worship comes to be identified with hand clapping, hand raising, and swaying to the music.

14. Conducting “children’s church” so the parents can worship “undisturbed.”

15. A national convention for Independent Christian Churches (NACC).

16. Willing to extend fellowship to those in the Churches of God (Anderson, IN). See Christian Standard [15 September, 1991), p. 13; [28 July 1991), pp. 4-6).).

17.Willing to extend fellowship to Disciples of Christ identified as “Disciple Churches in Renewal” (Christian Standard [15 September 1991], p. 13).

18.Taking the Lord’s supper on days other than the first day of the week (see Christian Standard [25 August 1991], p. 15).

Despite these apostasies from the truth, a sizable element among the liberal churches of Christ is ready to extend the right hands of fellowship to the independent Christian Churches.

The liberal churches of Christ followed in the footsteps of the Christian Church by departing from the revealed word of God in changing the organization of the church in the sponsoring church arrangement (such as is currently practiced in the “One Nation Under God” campaign), church support of human institutions (colleges, orphan homes, old folks homes, etc.), and church sponsored recreation. As the apostasy continued, some churches moved further and further into the social gospel. Denny Boultinghouse encourages churches to be “active in feeding the poor and caring for those in prison,” “to serve the less fortunate during the holidays” rather than seeing the holiday season as an opportunity to publish bulletin articles “stressing that December 25 is not the birthday of Jesus” (Image [Jan./Feb. 1992] 30). Churches are building “family life centers” so that they can minister to the whole man. The ministering takes the form of gymnasiums for basketball and volleyball, aerobic classes, drives for blood donations, and other social gospel ministries. Despite these apostasies, some brethren are ready to extend the right hands of fellowship to the liberals.

The rapidly growing divorce and remarriage apostasy marks a turning away from the revealed word of God by some among us. Brethren are openly advocating that the guilty party in a divorce for fornication has the right to remarriage, that the teaching of Matthew 19:9 does not apply to marriages contracted before baptism, and that one need only repent of “adultery” (which is redefined to mean the act of “divorcing”) and then continue living with his second (or third, fourth) mate. Another group of brethren among us is writing articles and preaching that we should accept these brethren who are publishing their books and conducting their debates defending these false doctrines. They hold meetings at churches which practice what they themselves label as false doctrine on divorce and remarriage but never preach on what the Lord taught about divorce and remarriage during the meetings. Those who publicly teach the false doctrines of divorce and remarriage are encouraged by these brethren. If we can understand that we cannot join with those who pervert the work and worship of the church, we certainly should be able to see that we cannot join with those who destroy the moral purity of the saints!

Conclusion

Paul saw the Lord’s church in a life and death struggle with false religion. He demanded that Christians separate themselves from false religion. We cannot improve on the divine instructions God gave regarding our conduct toward those who have separated from the truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 7, pp. 194, 214-216
April 2, 1992

By Jerry Crolius

We must accept that it is impossible for finite man to fully comprehend an infinite God. Man, in his finite thinking, is limited by time and space. Therefore, he cannot fully understand how God can do such things as be present everywhere at the same time, know the future, or create the world from nothing. Man believes such things because the Bible teaches them, but he does not fully understand them.

Likewise, man has difficulty understanding fully how God became a man; or how three persons are one God. How do three persons possess completely and perfectly all the same attributes and qualities of one Deity? Or, as some think of the question, how can three equal one? The following discussion does not provide an answer to every question we may have about this subject, but it is intended to provide the extent of understanding God has revealed to us in his Word. We must be satisfied with that much, and believe what God has said.

Three Persons In One God?

Have you noticed that man’s greatest problems often stem from his tendency to assume as true things that are not necessarily so? For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses assume that when the Bible speaks of “one God,” it is referring to one person. That is an unprovable assumption!

The Witnesses tell us that Jesus cannot be God because, after all, the Father is God, and there is only one God.(1) But if the Witnesses would look a little more deeply into God’s Word they would find that the idea of “one” as applied to Deity includes more than just the finite mathematical idea of “one and only one.” It also includes the idea of unity. In other words, the biblical idea of one Deity is more than just a numerical oneness, but also a unified oneness. Therefore, the phrase “one God” does not prevent a plurality of persons in the one unified Deity.

To prove the above point from the Scriptures, notice that the Hebrew word for “one” (achad) used to describe God is also used to describe the unity of Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:24), the unity of the Tabernacle curtain (Exod. 26:6,11), and the unity of Israel (Ezek. 37:17).(2)

Similarly, the Greek word for “one” (heis) in the New Testament often refers to unity and uniqueness. Paul the planter and Apollos the waterer are “one” (1 Cor. 3:8), the multitude of the believers is “of one heart and of one soul” (Acts 4:32), Jesus prayed that we may be “one” even as he and the Father are “one” (Jn. 17:22).(3)

There is only one Deity, but is that one Deity one person? Where does the Bible say so? No, instead the Bible says in John 1:1 that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Notice that the Word was “with God, ” present with and united together in one mind and purpose with Deity – and was himself Deity. There is only one God, but where does the Bible say that our one God is only one person?

We don’t have any trouble understanding that we are “humanity.” No one would insist that because there is only one humanity (Acts 17:26) there is only one person who can rightly be called human! No one would insist that all humans are not inherently equal in essence and nature! Let me suggest that in this sense there is one Deity. And there are three persons who are equally Divine. Why should that be so difficult for us to accept?

These three persons are infinitely and intimately united together in one mind and purpose! They are the “Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” into whose name (singular) we are baptized (Matt. 28:19). They are the “us” of Genesis 1:26 that said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” They are the three that worked together to reveal God’s Word as the Father spoke through the Son (Jn. 8:26-28; Heb. 1:1-2) and the Son spoke through the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:10-16).

The Witnesses’ false doctrine on the Deity of Jesus Christ stems from their determination to impose on the Scriptures a false assumption that limits the meaning of the “oneness” of Deity to a numerical oneness of persons. The Bible teaches that there is one and only one Deity, but that three persons are intimately united in the one Deity, and all three are equally Divine. The Witnesses’ unwillingness to accept this plain truth leads them to blasphemy. We must accept what the Bible says about God’s oneness and Jesus’ Deity without forcing our own ideas on the Scriptures.

But Isn’t Jesus Subordinate To God?

In their attempt to show that Jesus Christ is not Deity, the Witnesses cite many passages in the New Testament that depict Jesus as subordinate to or in subjection to the Father.(4) They reason that since Jesus is depicted as a man in subjection to God, then Jesus cannot be God.

First, we have shown above that it is presumptuous and unscriptural to insist that only one person be Deity. Second, the Witnesses commit the logical fallacy of converse accident (assumption that what is true in a special case is true in every case).(5) It is illogical to assume that because Jesus was not equal to God in his special role as man’s redeemer, he must by nature be unequal to God and is therefore not God. That is not a necessary or valid conclusion. Third, and most important, their position assumes that the nature of the inequality of the man Jesus with God the Father was a matter of Deity. Jesus’ humanity and subordination to the Father has no necessary bearing on the question of whether or not he was in essence and by nature Deity. It is purely an assumption to conclude that it does! Let the Bible explain in what way Jesus, in his role as redeemer, was not equal with the Father!

The sense in which Jesus gave up his equality with the Father rests on the statement that he emptied himself of “the form of God” and took upon himself “the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:6-7). But what does that statement mean? We are told in John 17:5 that Jesus was living in glory with the Father before the world began. Jesus made himself unequal to God by willingly giving up the glory he had with the Father and humbling himself to the role of a servant. Where in this does the Bible say Jesus gave up his Deity? It says he gave up the form of God; it says he gave up his glory! That is all we may say!

God the Word became the man Jesus of Nazareth in order to be tempted in all things even as we are and yet commit no sin, and then offer himself up as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. To fulfill his role as man’s redeemer, God the Word placed himself in a subordinate position to God the Father. This act had nothing to do with giving up his inherent nature as Deity. Deity can do whatever Deity wants to do! In fact, it is ludicrous to insist that Deity stop being Deity, just because we don’t understand how Deity could become a man.

The Witnesses point out that Jesus was subordinate to the Father, and then assume this means he could not be Deity. Their doctrine is pure assumption without any basis in Scripture. It is the result of man imposing his finite thinking upon an infinite God, with apparent disregard for the truth God has revealed about himself on the matter.

Naturally, the New Testament speaks of Jesus Christ most often in the context of his human relationship to other men and to God. Jesus has a God – the Father – just as all men do; he prays to God the Father just as all men are supposed to do; he obeys the Father just as all men are supposed to do; he declares the Father to be the one true God to the exclusion of all false gods, just as all men are supposed to do. Jesus is in subjection to the Father because he is a man! And all men are supposed to be in subjection to God! Thus, Jesus’ subjection to the Father as a man has nothing to do with determining whether or not he is Deity. The Scriptures plainly assert that the Word was, is, and always will be Deity, regardless of whether or not we are able to completely understand just how God could be a man.

Similarly, God the Father’s relationship to the man Jesus is that of God to man. He commands Jesus, sends Jesus, gives authority to Jesus, raises Jesus from the dead, and places him in an exalted position in the heavens at his right hand. But, again, these examples of the Father’s authority over Jesus in no way have any bearing on whether or not Jesus is Deity.

The point for us to understand is this: All statements in Scripture referring to the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must be viewed in terms of Deity’s relationship to man, not in terms of the equality or inequality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Deity. The Bible declares they are all Deity and that is enough. References to the Father’s authority over Jesus and the Holy Spirit do not in any way reflect upon their Divine relationship of equality, but only reflect upon the relationship between the roles they took upon themselves in their plan for man’s redemption.

The Scriptures teach that Jesus was and is in every aspect Deity. He gave up the “form of God” to take the “form of a servant.” He then arose from the dead and returned to the glory he had with the Father before the world began (Jn. 17:5). Jesus was Deity in heaven, was Deity on earth, is Deity now, and will forever be Deity (Heb. 13:8).

Let the following passages speak and let their truth be accepted. John 1:1 says that “in the beginning the Word was with God and the word was God”; Colossians 2:9 says that in Jesus “dwells all the fulness of Deity bodily”; Philippians 2:6-8 says that Jesus did not hold on to “equality with God”; Revelation 22:13 describes Jesus as the “Alpha and the Omega,” the “first and the last,” and the “beginning and the end”; John 8:58 speaks of Jesus as the eternal “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. The writer of Hebrews 1:8 calls Jesus “God.” We will look in detail at many of these passages in the next article.

Endnotes

1. Should You Believe In The Trinity? (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989) 12-13.

2. H. Wolf, “achad, ” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird Harris, Ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981) 30.

3. K. Bartels, “One,” New International Dictionary Of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, Ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976) 724-725.

4. Should You Believe In The Trinity? 18.

5. Copi, I, Introduction To Logic (New York: MacMillan), 1982, 107.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 7, pp. 200-201
April 2, 1992