Trinity proof texts: John 19:7

Trinity Proof Texts

Click to View

John 19:7

The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God."

Click to View

The irrefutable argument stated:

The Jews wanted to stone Jesus, for claiming to be the "Son of God". Such a claim was not a misunderstanding in the minds of the Jews.

The fact that the term "sons of God" is used 5 times in the Old Testament of created, non-divine beings, proves that when Jesus applied the term to Himself, he was claiming equality with God and divinity itself!

The Jews were fully aware that Jesus claimed to be sent/ordained/appointed of God in John 19:7, THEY REJECTED THIS CLAIM!

John 19:7 proves that the gospel of John uses the following terms interchangeably: "Son of God" "God" "Equality with God" "calling God His own Father"

Comments:

The Jews understood that Jesus claimed to be divine on many previous occasions. There they wanted to stone Jesus because he claimed "equality with God". Anti-Trinitarians say that Jesus never claimed to be "equal with God", but that they misunderstood Him to claim such. Anti-Trinitarians say Jesus actually claimed He was merely God's son in the same created sense as we are "sons of God". But now, in John 19:7, at the end of Jesus public ministry, having been grilled endlessly by the Jews, they still wanted to kill Jesus but the charge was because he claimed to be the "son of God". This proves that the term "equality with God" and God's son, were viewed as claims of deity by the Jews in a sense distinct from any creature.

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttals:


Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #1	The Jews misunderstood Jesus' claim to be the "Son of God". They mistakenly thought Jesus claimed to MAKE HIMSELF the "Son of God", when in fact Jesus actually claimed that GOD MADE HIM the Son of God. They wanted to stone Jesus for being a human usurper, not for claiming to be divine. (Winner of the "STINC" trophy)
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal refuted	This argument is so outrageous and desperate, we have awarded it the "STINC" trophy. The term "made himself out to be" means, "this is how Jesus described himself", not that he was self appointed. There is no way to make the expression "made himself out to be" to have any connection with self appointment. Jehovah's Witnesses would have us believe that the Jews would stone Jesus because he claimed to appoint Himself the Son of God, but would not stone him if God appointed him the Son of God. Utterly Ridiculous! Jehovah's Witnesses would have us believe that the Jews did not take issue with the fact that Jesus was the "Son of God", it was merely a question of if God had called him "Son of God". Utterly Unbelievable! Since the term "sons of God" is used 5 times in the Old Testament of created, non-divine beings, all Jesus had to was say, "Hey, I am not God, I am a creature, just like you". But nowhere in scripture does Jesus ever say "He is not God" or that "He is a creature"!
Domino Verse	John 19:7 is a "domino verse". Anti-Trinitarians know that if the Jews wanted to kill Jesus in John 19:7 for correctly understanding that Jesus was the Son of God, that it seriously erodes their ability to argue that the Jews misunderstood Jesus claim to be equal with God in John 5:18 and 10:33. So they are forced to say that the Jews didn't understand Jesus' claim to be the Son of God in John 19:7. This shows just how desperate Jehovah's Witnesses are! Bible student's never need to make such desperate arguments!

Unscholarly and inconsistent logic of Jehovah's Witness:

Does "Made" [Strong's: 4160 poieo] in John 19:7 mean "appoint"?

The Greek behind "made himself" is identical in all three passages: John 5:19; 10:33; 19:7


Jesus "Made Himself"	The JW Interpretation of John 19:7
John 19:7 He made Himself out to be the Son of God."	JW's argue that "Made Himself" means that the Jews thought that He was a self appointed the Son of God rather than God appointed Son of God. JW's argue that the Jews correctly understood that Jesus was the Son of God, they misunderstood that Jesus did not appoint himself, but God appointed him the Son of God.

Lets apply the Jehovah's Witness logic of John 19:7 to John 5:18 and 10:33
John 10:33 You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."	"Made Himself" means that the Jews thought that He was a self appointed God rather than a God appointed God.
John 5:18 He was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.	"Made Himself out" means that the Jews thought that He appointed himself equal with God rather than God appointing Jesus equal to God.

Does "Made" [Strong's: 4160 poieo] in John 19:7 mean "appoint"?

The identical Greek phrase is used in both John 5:18; 8:53; 10:33; 19:12 and there Jehovah's Witnesses certainly agree it does not mean "appoint". It should be quite obvious that consistency demands it means the same thing in these three identical contexts. The word "make" is [4160 poieo] I all these verses:

-John 5:18 He was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. (Because he was equal with God)

-John 8:53 Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?" (Because he was greater than Abraham)

-John 10:33 You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (Because he was God)

-John 19:7 He made Himself out to be the Son of God." (Because he was the Son of God)

-John 19:12 As a result of this Pilate made efforts to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, "If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar." (Because he was a King)

Jehovah's Witness Inconsistent Logic:


Verse	Jesus Claim	Jehovah's Witness interpretation:
John 5:18	God His own Father	Jews understood
John 5:18	equal with God	Jews misunderstood
John 8:53	greater than Abraham	Jews understood
John 10:33	God	Jews misunderstood
John 19:7	Son of God	Jews misunderstood
John 19:12	a king	Jews understood
It has never occurred to Jehovah's Witnesses that the claim to be the "Son of God" in John 19:7 is equal to the claim that "God was His own Father" in John 5:18. They are the identical claim! Yet Jehovah's Witnesses say the Jews understood "God was His own Father" in John 5:18 but misunderstood "Son of God" in John 19:7. Inconsistent nonsense!

The specialized word for "appoint" in the New Testament is [Strong's: 2525 kathistemi] or [4400 procheirizomai], not [4160 poieo]. If the meaning of John 19:17 HINGES and centers on "self appointment" vs. "God appointment", the use of the word, [poieo] does not make this clear, whereas the use of the word, [kathistemi] or [procheirizomai] would make it clear.

-Acts 7:10 "Pharaoh, king of Egypt; and he made [2525 kathistemi] him governor over Egypt and all his household."

-Acts 7:35 'Who made [2525 kathistemi] you a ruler and a judge?' is the one whom God sent [649 apostello] to be both a ruler and a deliverer with the help of the angel who appeared to him in the thorn bush.

-Titus 1:5 "you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint [2525 kathistemi] elders in every city"

-Acts 22:14 "And he said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed [4400 procheirizomai] you to know His will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear an utterance from His mouth"
-Acts 26:16 'But arise, and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint [4400 procheirizomai] you a minister and a witness"

If John 5:18 & 10:33 used a different word for "make", than in John 19:7 our point could still be right, but not irrefutable. The fact that the same word is used in all three, and that John 19:7 did not use the specific word for appoint, makes this argument irrefutable.
If the generic word "made" [4160 poieo] was used in John 5:18 & 10:33 while the specialized words for appoint, [2525 kathistemi] or [4400 procheirizomai] were used in John 19:7 (neither are used) we would conclude that a very strong case could be made for the validity of the Jehovah's Witness argument. We would simply stop using John 19:7 as irrefutable evidence and rely on the mass of other irrefutable passages!
In Acts 7, Stephen meticulously discusses the issue of "self appointed" vs. "God appointed". Observing his choice of words, proves that John 19:7 is not discussing who "appointed" Jesus as Son of God.


The Texts in Acts 7	Acts 7:10 "Pharaoh, king of Egypt; and he made [2525 kathistemi] him governor over Egypt and all his household." Acts 7:27,35 'Who made [2525 kathistemi] you a ruler and a judge?' is the one whom God sent [649 apostello] to be both a ruler and a deliverer with the help of the angel who appeared to him in the thorn bush.
Observations:	Notice the question of who appointed Moses: Himself or God. Exactly the same argument that Jehovah's Witnesses make in John 19:7. But here, the specific word for appoint is used three times!: [2525 kathistemi] Notice that the corresponding word for appoint is "sent" [649 apostello]. Question: "Who appointed [kathistemi] Moses?" Answer: "God sent [apostello] Moses". Therefore the word sent [apostello] is used to in a sense of appointment! The final, crushing blow to the idea that John 19:7 is questioning who appointed Jesus is the fact that this same word, sent [apostello] was used by Jesus within the same discourses of both John 5:18,36-37 and John 10:33, 36. How could the Jews not know Jesus claimed to be ordained of God in John 19:7, when in both the previous times the same subject came up, Jesus flatly told them he was ordained by God. This proves that the expression "make himself out to be" cannot mean "appointed".

It is impossible that the Jews in John 19:7 would want to stone Jesus because he claimed to appoint Himself the son of God, but would not stone him if God appointed him the Son of God. Three times they wanted to kill him over who Jesus made himself out to be, the first two, (John 5:18,36-37 and John 10:33, 36) Jesus flatly told him he was appointed by God!


John 5:18 He was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.	John 5:36,38 "But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent or appointed [649 apostello] Me. ... "And you do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent [649 apostello].
John 10:33 You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."	John 10:36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent or appointed [649 apostello] into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

The Jews would not stone Jesus for claiming to be the "self appointed Son of God" because Jesus himself had made it crystal clear everywhere he went that he was "God appointed" throughout his ministry. (John 5:18,36-37 and John 10:33, 36)
Jehovah's Witnesses correctly affirm that one of the central and key elements of Jesus teaching who He was, was the fact that Jesus was "sent/ordained/appointed of God". To imply therefore, that in John 19:7 the Jews would not stone Jesus if he told them AGAIN (for the millionth time), that He was sent/ordained of God , is the worst example of Bible interpretation.
The truth is, that the Jews would stone Jesus for claiming to be either "self or God appointed". For Jehovah's Witnesses to suggest otherwise is, well, ... silly!
The ultimate proof that the issue in John 19:7 IS NOT "self vs. God appointment" is in John 10: 36-39"

"do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." 39 Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp. John 10: 36-39

Here Jesus tells the Jews that the Father sent him (God appointed)
Then he asks them why they just tried to stone him since He is "the God sent/appointed Son of God".
He again chides their ORIGINAL unbelief ("claim to be God")
Then they try to stone him a SECOND TIME after he explained he was the "the God sent/appointed Son of God".

The Jews were fully aware that Jesus claimed to be sent/ordained/appointed of God, THEY REJECTED THE CLAIM!
The gospel of John was written to tell us who Jesus is! These examples of unbelief in Jesus being equal to God, being God, and being God's Son are never reproached in John's narrative by him, but match up perfectly with John 20:28-33, "My Lord and God" where the gospel of John concludes. "These things are written that you may believe Jesus is the Son of God."


Domino Verse	John 19:7 is a "domino verse". Anti-Trinitarians know that if the Jews wanted to kill Jesus in John 19:7 for correctly understanding that Jesus was the Son of God, that it seriously erodes their ability to argue that the Jews misunderstood Jesus claim to be equal with God in John 5:18 and 10:33. So they are forced to say that the Jews didn't understand Jesus' claim to be the Son of God in John 19:7. This shows just how desperate Jehovah's Witnesses are! Bible student's never need to make such desperate and outrageous arguments.
Conclusion:	The expressions