Revelation 3:12 states:
The one who conquers I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven and my own new name. (ESV)
If Jesus is God and he is obviously in heaven at this point, how can he be God himself and have a God?
Jesus calls the Father, "My God" in many places such as: Matt 27:46, John 20:17, Rom 15:6, Eph 1:3, 17, 2 Cor 11:31, Heb 1:9, 1 Peter 1:3, Rev 1:6, 3:12.
Therefore, the central question is, if Jesus calls the Father "God" then Jesus cannot be "God". What is the evidence? The reason that many refer to Jesus as God is because the NT regularly refers to Jesus as "God".
1. Jesus is called "God" frequently in the NT. See appendix 1 below.
Now, either Jesus is God or He is not and according to the NT, Jesus is God. Therefore, is Jesus the same kind of God as the Father or a lesser God? If Jesus is a lesser God, then the NT teaches (contrary to Deut 4:35, 6:4, 32:39, Isa 44:6, 45:5, 6) that there are two gods. This is impossible!
2. The Father calls Jesus "God"
Note that we have the Father addressing Jesus as "the God" (ὁ Θεός)
Note that in Heb 1:10-12 we have a quotation from Ps 102:25-27 about Jehovah/YHWH that is applied to Jesus. This is not unique in the NT as we also have:
3. The OT references are regularly used by the NT to show that Jesus is given the unique title and attributes of God - see Appendix 2 below.
Now, all these means what Jesus said in John 5:23,
“so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father."
What theology one makes of this is another question entirely; whether one is a "binitarian" or "trinitarian" is another matter.
APPENDIX 1 - Jesus is God in the NT
APPENDIX 2 - Jesus is Jehovah of the OT
The NT often takes unique title of YHWH of the OT and applies them to Jesus. Here is a good example:
Here is a longer list that is far from exhaustive.
| Unique Title | Old Testament | New Testament |
|---|---|---|
| “I AM” | Ex 3:13-15; Deut 32:39, Isa 41:4, 43:10, 13, 25, 45:19, 46:4, 48:12, 51:12, 52:6 (LXX) | Matt 14:27, Mark 6:50, Mark 13:6, Luke 21:8, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70, John 4:26, 6:20, 8:24, 28, 58, 13:9, 18:5-8. |
| Creator | Isa 44:24, 45:18 | John 1:3, 10, Col 1:16, 17, Heb 1:2 |
| Savior | Isa 43:3, 11, 45:17, 21 | Matt 1:21; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:4, 2:13, 3:6; 2 Pet 1:1, 11 |
| Glory | Isa 42:8, 48:11 | John 17:5, 24 |
| First & Last | Isa 41:4, 44:6, 48:12 | Rev 1:17, 18, 2:8, 22:13 |
| Lord of Lords | Deut 10:17, Ps 136:3, 26 | Rev 17:14, 19:16 |
| Lord of All | Deut 10:17, Josh 3:11, 13, Ps 97:5, Zech 4:14, 6:5, Mic 4:13 | Acts 10:36, Rom 10:12, Col 1:15 |
If Jesus is not Elohim of Tanakh, How could the "Stulos" στῦλον [Pillar] in Heaven's Temple (referenced in Revelation 3.12) be rewarded to observant disciples called 'Χριστιανούς' [Acts 11:26] by Jesus the Nazarene who "having abolished in his flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in himself one new man" [Ephesians 2:15] ?
We learn the resurrected Jesus of [Revelation 3.21] is simply a new "ktisis" κτίσεως [creation] miraculously able to grant his devoted servants rewards of sitting (as pillars) at his right or left -- directly contradicting the earthly Jesus the Nazarene from [Mark 10:40] who once stated "but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give" (10:40 τὸ δὲ καθίσαι ἐκ δεξιῶν μου καὶ ἐξ εὐωνύμων μου οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸν δοῦναι ἀλλ᾽ οἷς ἡτοίμασται). -- And now the new ideal Jesus of [Revelation 3.21] claims : "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." - [Revelation 3.21] supplanting the authority of The-God (Ha-Elohim) from Tanakh.
Noting the repetitious stating of this fact in Rev 3:12, it must be important to grasp Jesus is clearly not God here. Maybe one could explain that away with fancy theology of the 'Jesus who is God construct' by focussing on the favourite proof-texts that support the God/man Jesus, OR, simply ignoring this passage.
Seeing that Jesus is now ascended and exalted above all others is a strong message that Jesus cannot be God if he still has a God - the same God as he said he had to Mary before his ascension.
Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” John 20:17
The bible is clear about who God is. He says He is one. Yet somehow, we have Him also being three, without clear biblical mandate, just conjecture and post-Apostolic doctrine.
The bible is clear about when Jesus originated. The Gospels tell us about Mary and her miraculous conception by the power of God over her. Anything other than this reliable biblical explanation which tells of an imaginative pre-existence of Jesus is mistaken and of men, not God.
…it seemed fitting to me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in an orderly sequence, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught Luke 1:3 (excerpt from here)
Of course Jesus has a God - he is but a man - 'made like us in every respect' Heb 2:17
This man who lived without sin, though severely tempted (which God cannot be), was raised from the dead by his God (in over 20 places, and a few that mention the Father raised him, so he could not have raised himself as some purport or the bible must be telling lies) now sits next to God Acts 2:33.
Yes, you are correct, having a Jesus/God who sits next to God and has a God, even when ascended, exalted, made heir (Heb 1) to all God's creation, is a very strange idea that scripture does not support. Rev 3:12 is but another scripture that supports many others in describing and explaining with perfect clarity who Jesus is - and who he is not!
While it is perfectly acceptable to call Jesus a god, he is not THE God who created all life. God gave Jesus the life he now has - an immortal life that he did not have before. Satan is called the god of this world, Jesus certainly is the god of the new age, the new world that God made everything for, yet he is under the true God and subordinate in every possible sense.
for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. 1Cor 8:6
Postscript
Despite such simple to grasp revelation of the "one God, the Father", many seem to insist on complicating the inspired text with a flurry of proof-texts brought to bear on this simple matter - partly quoted verses, biased translations calling Jesus God, placing Jesus in places where he does not belong like John 1:1-3 - the list goes on, making him God for some things and a man for other things - none of this, 'dual-nature' is from the bible, but the creeds written 100's of years after the Apostles. And these being modified for 100's more years to try and plug gaping holes in the theory, while it drifts further from the biblical text with every iteration. God has not inspired the additions to His word or the myriad translations with the audacity to rewrite as they please.
How can Jesus be God? - according to Rev 3:12 and complimentary scripture - all of it, when read in context and of a reliable translation, he cannot be!
These are hard questions without a definition of “God”. Christ says He and the Father are one. If God is a title of authority it may be equally applied to a father and son. If a parent authorizes a child to speak in the parent’s name, the authority is the same. It is not a separate authority but “one” and the same.Thus, if “God” is a title of authority it could be applied to the Son and still be one authority, or one God. Just a thought...
The Lord says that Father is His God also in John's Gospel (John 20:17), and this does not annul in any way the fact that He is God, as He is called in the same Gospel (John 1:1-3).
The Lord here speaks with regard of His human nature, for with regard of Him as human, God the Father is His God, how otherwise? Could the Lord's humanity, that is created, be outside of being subjected to God? But who created this humanity? Only the Father or also the Son? Of course also the Son, for we know that nothing is created or, in fact, can be created by Father alone without His Logos, the Latter being the ontologically necessary means for the Father to create anything. Therefore, we can say that with reference of Christ's human nature, Logos is also, alongside with the Father God of Jesus Christ; thus, yes, paradoxically (to avoid horrible Nestorian pitfall that puts two persons in Christ, one divine uncreated Person of Logos and the second created person of Jesus), we can say that Christ is God of His own human nature alongside with the Father, necessarily so, because Both have created this human nature and Creator is God with reference to the created.
Indeed, when He says in John's Gospel "I ascend to the Father" (John 20:17), does He speak from the perspective of His human nature or divine nature? Of course from the perspective of His human nature, for as Father-God's co-eternal Logos-God He is always there with the Father inseparably, on the same level, so how He can ascend to where He already and eternally and inseparably is? ("Even the Son of Man, who is in Heaven" (John 3:13), i.e. in Heaven, that is to say, on the same level, with the Father who is also in Heaven (Matthew 6:9).
And even in this very passage the divinity of Christ is very clearly seen, for He features here as the Principle who puts divine name in humans, who will therefore have this name in them, thus, derivatively, through Christ; and just like the Principle of creation of humans is the Son alongside with the Father, so that the Father cannot ontologically create them without the Son-Logos, similarly the Father can divinize humans - which is the meaning of the expression "His name being put on them" - only through Christ, who is just as ontologically necessary for the Father in this deed, as He (Christ) is ontologically necessary for Him (Father) to create the universe. Now, anything or anyone which is necessary for God to do something, that is to say, anything or anyone without which or whom God is impotent to do something, is God also, just like, to use a patristic simile, the sun-disc is impotent to enlighten without its rays, the latter being also the sun (as we say, usually, "sun has burned my skin" meaning both the disc and the rays of the sun).
And moreover Christ features in this passage as the Principle who makes the pillarhood of the saved men eternal in the Temple ("never shall he go out"), thus Himself possessing the eternal abiding out of His own authority through which He confers the eternal abiding also to humans derivatively. And, furthermore, the "conquerers" will become such abiding pillars, but conquerers of what? Of course of their sins and demonic powers, for nobody snatches or forces his way into the Kingdom without this conquering (Luke 16:16), but men cannot conquer without the Him who is the first Conquerer, the Lord Jesus Christ (John 16:33), for only through Him being and working in us, by co-working with Him, we can defeat the enemy (1 John 4:4) and go to the Father.
Thus, Christ is God and the Father is His God, - no theological problem or contradiction whatsoever!
In Revelation 3:12 God the Son is talking about what will be actually written on the pillars "My God", "the name of the city of My God", "My new name".
He's talking about himself in the third-person, three times.
God is(and always was) three persons in One. A Trinity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
Old Testament:
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
New Testament:
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Secular texts support the Textus Receptus/KJV which manifests the evidence that the comma was removed in the critical text.
https://www.bereanpatriot.com/the-johannine-comma-of-1-john-57-8-added-or-removed/
From the page:
Cyprian clearly quotes the Comma. He lived from 200 – 258, and so also predated Aruis and the Arian controversies.This is a crystal clear allusion to the Comma.
“The Lord says, “I and the Father are one; “ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”
(Treatise I:6)
In 484, the Vandal King Huneric called the council intending to persuade many North Africa Bishops to convert to Arianism. The king failed in his attempt. The North African Bishops chose Eugenius of Carthage as their spokesman in defense of the Trinity. Eugenius indisputably used the Johannine Comma to defend the doctrine of the Trinity.
“. . .and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, ‘there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.“
In my mind, this is absolutely convincing evidence all by itself. Even if there was no other evidence (and there is more evidence) this single piece of evidence is extremely convincing. To use an example: it’s as convincing as finding a videotape of a criminal suspect committing the crime.
Why is it so strong?
Because this was a conference of Bishops from both sides of the debate. If the Johannine Comma was added to the scriptures, the Arian Bishops would have thrown a major fit and called foul. If there was any doubt about it’s authenticity, the Arians would have made a HUGE issue out of it.
But they didn’t.
Not one peep.
~~ End of page quotation ~~
Christians believe that Jesus the Messiah is God incarnate. This means that God took on a human nature, and as such — as a true and real man — has a God, namely, the Father. This is an artefact and necessary consequence of the incarnation. However, it does not imply that the Son is not God Himself, since to 'have a God' only means to acknowledge a God as God, and treat Him as God, and give Him what He is owed as such. This Jesus gave to His Father. And to withhold this would be to sin, which Jesus didn't. Hence, for everything God gave Jesus, He thanked Him. He acknowledge, and had — has — a God, namely, the Father.
It's this simple. When the Son, who is eternally united with the Father, and equal with Him, becomes man, it is fitting and necessary, that He not sin, but instead, give the Father what is His due — thanks, acknowledgement, etc. And again, Jesus fully gave this to His Father.
Psalm 45 has God annointing God.
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;
