The God
OF
Chapter Fourteen
Colossians, Chapter One
Certain comments made by Apostle Paul in chapter one of his letter to the
Apostle Paul begins his letter to the
Colossians 1:15: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
The Greek word translated image in this passage means image, likeness and representation. It is argued that because Jesus is seen as being in the image of God He must be God. Is being in the image of something or someone equal to being that something or someone? In all three gospels is the account of Christ asking whose image (same Greek word) is on the coin that was handed to Him. It was the image of Emperor Caesar. The coin represented Caesar as the imperial ruler of
It should also be noted that Paul tells the Roman Christians to be conformed to the image of Jesus (Romans 8:29). If Jesus is God, then being conformed to the image of Jesus is to be conformed to the image of God and if being in the image of God is being God then we are as much God as Jesus is God. This, however, is not the case for us or is it the case for Jesus.
The NIV shows Paul writing that Jesus is “the firstborn over all creation.” Most other versions translate it as “first born of all creation.” The Greek language does not have a preposition “of.” In this passage, the phrase “of all creation” is in a genitive form where the word “of” is implied. Greek scholar Jason Beduhn flatly states that “over” in no way can be derived from the Greek in this phrase and that the NIV translators make their translation on the basis of doctrine rather than language (Beduhn, Truth In Translation, page 81). Colossians 1:15 should read, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” This is the reading found in most translations.
Paul writes Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. What creation is Jesus the first born of? In verse eighteen Paul writes of Jesus being the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead. What is it Jesus is the beginning of?
Colossians 1:18: And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
We have seen that because Jesus is the firstborn from the dead, we can also be born from the dead and made a new creation in Christ. It should be evident that the creation Jesus is seen as first born of is the new creation involving our reconciliation to God through His death and resurrection. In the Revelation Jesus speaks of Himself as being the beginning of the creation of God.
Revelation 3:14: And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; (KJV and most other translations).
The Greek for “beginning” in both Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 3:14 is arkee. Greek lexicons show this word means beginning, origin and in some cases ruler. Where this word appears in the NT in conjunction with a genitive expression, which is the way it appears in this passage in Revelation, arkee always denotes a beginning or first part of something. In view of what we have seen in the writings of Paul relative to the resurrection of Jesus being associated with our becoming a new creation, it appears Jesus is referring to Himself in the Revelation as the beginning or first part of the new creation God was facilitating for mankind through Christ.
The NIV translated Revelation 3:14 as “the ruler of God's creation.” “Beginning,” however, is the natural expression in view of the Greek genitive grammatical construction found in this passage. The KJV, NKJV, RSV, NAS and most other translations have translated this passage as “the beginning of the creation of God.”
In Apostle John’s first letter, he speaks of Jesus having been born of God and being the one who keeps others born of God from succumbing to sin.
I John 5:18: We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him.
The NIV has a footnote to this passage that reads, “The one who was born of God. Jesus, the Son of God.” The translators recognize it is Jesus who is being referred to as the one born of God that keeps those born of God safe. The RSV actually capitalizes "He" in reference to Jesus. It is apparent this passage is dealing with spiritual rebirth of the Christian. Jesus became sin for us on the cross and died as a sinner in our stead. Through resurrection Jesus was born to eternal life. We are in the process of being born to eternal life. By Jesus being born to eternal life, He is seen as able to keep those being born safe from the evil one.
In view of the association seen in Scripture between Jesus being the first to be born from the dead and the new creation that proceeds from that event, we need to see Paul’s statement in Colossians 1:16-17 within this context.
Colossians 1:16-17: For by (Greek ev) him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by (ev) him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
The NIV and KJV render the beginning of this passage as “For by him all things were created.” The Greek word translated “by” is ev. This Greek preposition appears 2,781 times in the NT and is variously translated as in, on, at, with, by and among. Context must determine how it is translated. The context of Colossians chapter one is Christ being the first to be born from the dead and having supremacy in all things. Jesus is repeatedly seen in Scripture as the starting point for establishment of a new creation. In the passage under consideration, Paul is not writing about Jesus being the creator of the physical universe or physical life. This passage is addressing the new creation in Christ that we are invited to participate in. Therefore, this passage should read, “For in him all things were created.” This is the translation in the Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, the New Jerusalem Bible, Concordant Literal New Testament and other translations.
1 Peter 1:3: Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...
Peter instructs that praise should be directed to the God and Father of Jesus. It is because of the mercy of the God and Father of Jesus we can be born again because the God and Father of Jesus resurrected Him from the dead making Jesus the first fruits of those who slept and the first to be born from the dead to eternal life. Because of this we have opportunity for a new birth as well.
The “all things” created in Jesus (Colossians 1:16-17) is everything connected with the new creation God was and is facilitating through the Christ event. It is in and through Jesus that God is reconciling the world to Himself and making it possible for humanity to be born to eternal life just as Jesus was born to eternal life.
Philippians, Chapter Two
Philippians 2:5-8: Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature (Greek morphe) God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, (Greek heauton ekenosen) but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!
It is argued that in Paul saying Jesus is in very nature God, He must be God. Some see in this passage the Son emptying Himself of being God in becoming Jesus and returning to being God at the time of His ascension. Several versions translate the Greek heauton ekenosen as “emptied Himself.” For example, the Revised Standard Version translates it this way:
Philippians 2:6-7: who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, (Greek: heauton ekenosen ) taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”
Greek Lexicons show heauton ekenosen to mean “to empty or make empty.” If Jesus is God, He would be eternal having neither beginning nor end. To empty oneself of being eternal is an oxymoron. The Son could not have emptied himself of being God in order to become the man Jesus. Those who recognize this as an oxymoron theorize the Son emptied Himself of the glory He eternally had with the Father but did not empty Himself of his deity. It is believed the Son did not give up His divine nature but added human nature to His divine nature in becoming the human Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is seen as totally divine and totally human, the “God/man.” It is believed when Jesus died his humanity died but His deity did not die as it isn’t possible for an eternally existing God to die. When Jesus was resurrected He was resurrected as the fully human and fully God Being He was believed to be before the crucifixion.
The problem with this perspective is that if only the humanity of Jesus died and was resurrected, and the divinity of Jesus did not die, the whole of Jesus was not resurrected. All Scripture relating to the death and resurrection of Jesus indicates the entire entity called the Son of God died and was resurrected.
The postulation that Jesus was both God and man is not based on Scripture. Nowhere does Scripture identify Jesus as being totally God and totally human. As previously pointed out, being totally God excludes being totally human and vice versa. They are mutually exclusive. To be God is to be immortal. To be human is to be mortal. Nowhere does Scripture identify Jesus as being totally immortal and totally mortal at the same time. The Scriptures identify God the Father as the only one having intrinsic immortality. Jesus was granted immorality as a result of God resurrecting Him from the dead. God began the process of granted immortality by resurrecting His Son who was dead.
The word translated “nature” or “form” in the passage under consideration is the Greek word morphe. This word appears only here in Philippians 2:5-8 and in Mark 16:12 where it is recorded Jesus appeared in a different form to two of His disciples after His resurrection. Trinitarian discussion of Philippians 2:5-8 often defines morphe as describing the very essence or nature of Jesus. It is concluded that for Jesus to be in the morphe of God is to be of the same essence/nature as God. Greek lexicons, however, show morphe to define outward appearance. It is used in the Greek literature of the first century to express outward appearance. In the Septuagint morphe is used to show outward appearance. It occurs seven times in the Septuagint and in every case can be seen to mean outward appearance. A recent Greek to English translation of the Septuagint and New Testament Scriptures called the Apostolic Bible Polyglot consistently translates morphe as “appearance.” For example, in Daniel's account of King Belshazzar seeing the handwriting on the wall (Daniel, chapter five), this translation records that his (Belshazzar's) appearance (morphe) changed. Obviously his essence or nature did not change.
Morphe does not speak to the essence or nature of a person as some teach. Translations such as the NIV that render morphe as “nature,” appear to do so not because the Greek implies this meaning but because of a predisposition toward Trinitarianism. This word is translated as “form” in most translations and as appearance in some. The KJV translates it this way:
Philippians 2:6-8:Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery (Greek harpagee) to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Some interpret the phrase “being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation” as meaning Jesus had equality with God which He thought it not robbery to have. He was willing to give it all up to become a human sacrifice for sin. Greek lexicons show harpagee literally means to rob or steal and take by force. The KJV translates it as “robbery” but most translations use the word “grasp.” Jesus is seen as not grasping or wanting to take by force equality with God despite being in the form of God which Trinitarians interpret as being the same as being God.
This view is problematic because if Jesus being in the form of God means He is God, why would Paul speak in terms of Jesus not wanting to rob (to steal or take by force) or grasp at being God? This would be tantamount to Jesus seeking to be what He already was. Under Trinitarian thought, Jesus would already have equality with God the Father and wanting or not wanting to have it would be irrelevant. You don’t grasp for something you already have.
It is argued that Paul is speaking in terms of Jesus not seeking to retain His equal status with the Father, Son and Spirit but was willing to give up such status to become the human Jesus. If this is the case, what did the Son of God give up in becoming the human Jesus while still remaining fully God? What did He empty Himself of? God is considered omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Did the Son empty himself of any of these qualities? If these are all eternal qualities associated with being God, how could Jesus, as God, empty Himself of such qualities and still be God. If the Son did empty himself of these qualities, He wasn’t God in the flesh as claimed. If Christ was fully God while being fully human He would have had these qualities while in the flesh.
The primary question is what does Paul mean when He writes of Jesus being in the form or appearance of God but taking on the form or appearance of a servant? As already discussed, the Greek morphe relates to outward appearance. English words such as endomorphic (a stocky person), ectomorphic (a slim person) and mesomorphic (a big boned, muscular person) are derived from this Greek word. These are all words that describe outward appearance.
Some have suggested that because Paul says Jesus was in the form (outward appearance) of God but took the form (outward appearance) of man, it was the outward appearance of God that the Son gave up to take on the outward appearance of the human Jesus. Therefore, Jesus was a human only in outward appearance while His essence remained divine. This was the position of the second century theologian/philosopher Marcion, a position called Docetism. This position is problematical because the Scriptures show the Son of God died and not just an outward appearance of the Son of God.
Throughout the NT it is implicitly and sometimes explicitly stated that Jesus came to reveal the Father. As we have already covered in this book, Jesus was a perfect manifestation of the logos of God. As such, Jesus was in appearance as God. There is no Scriptural reason to believe when Paul writes about Jesus being in appearance as God he is saying Jesus is God in essence and substance. Paul plainly wrote to the Corinthians that the Father was the one and only God. Paul is not telling the Philippians Jesus is God. Paul is saying what Jesus said. Jesus said He was in the Father and the Father was in him. In his teaching and in His demonstration of power, Jesus represented God. He did this because He had a full measure of God’s Spirit and God granted Him the wherewithal to be what He was and accomplish what He accomplished.
When Paul tells the Philippians Jesus was in appearance as God, he is talking about the human agent to whom the one and only true God had given extraordinary power and authority. This power and authority was given to Jesus to demonstrate He was indeed the promised Messiah who would become the sacrifice for the sins of humanity and reconcile humanity back to God. Jesus was in the appearance of God because He perfectly represented God in everything He did. Jesus knew He was the promised Messiah and that God had given Him supernatural power and authority as God’s agent. Jesus new He was the heir to David’s throne. Jesus could have at any time used His granted power to overthrow the Romans and become the king of
Matthew 26:53-54: "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"
Jesus was apparently given the latitude to submit to the crucifixion or dramatically stop the whole process. While praying in the garden before His arrest, He petitioned His Father for a way out of the pending ordeal.
Matthew 26:39: Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
These recorded events in the life of Jesus demonstrate Jesus had His own human will and the God given power to exercise his own will. What he did, however, was to totally submit His will and His granted power and authority to the will and purpose of God His Father. Jesus was willing to humble Himself by emptying Himself of the power He had been granted and totally submit to the will of His Father. It was the power and authority God gave Jesus as the human Messiah that Jesus emptied Himself of in going to the cross to become the sacrifice for sin. Jesus didn’t use His power to deliver Himself from the ordeal of the crucifixion. Instead, He laid it all aside and submitted Himself as a powerless human Being in the face of his accusers and the Roman authority.
2 Corinthians 8:9: For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.
Paul instructed the Philippian Christians to have the same attitude of humility as Christ showed in not seeking power and authority over others but in humility serving others. If Jesus was a God/man as commonly believed, Paul could not have used Him as an example of giving up status in becoming a humble servant. As a God/man, Jesus would have retained his status of deity and would not have truly emptied Himself of anything. If the Son of God is eternal as is the Father, how can it be said the Son of God humbled Himself to the point of the cross? As an eternal Being, the Son could not die.
It is far more reasonable to see Paul writing about a purely human Son of God who was willing to lay aside the power and authority granted to Him and in humility submit to the will of the Father. In so doing, Jesus provided an example of how we should also in humility submit to one another and to God in obedience to His will.
Paul may have had in mind the comparison between the two Adams. The first Adam was made in the image of God and granted power and authority over creation. This Adam, rather than submitting himself to God in obedience to God’s command, sought to become like God by coming to know good and evil (Genesis 3:22). Jesus, who Paul refers to as the second Adam, was granted power and authority but did not seek to become like God but totally submitted to God’s will even to death on the cross.
When Paul writes of Jesus being in the outward appearance of God he is talking about Jesus reflecting attributes of God that God had conferred upon Jesus so He could fulfill God’s will. During his ministry, Jesus made it very plain that seeing Him was the same as seeing the Father.
John 14:7-11: If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
Is Jesus revealing Himself here as being God by saying He is in the Father and the Father is in Him? Are we seeing here a mutual indwelling of Father and Son that equates with Father and Son being co-equal, co-eternal and con-substantial? Jesus tells Phillip that seeing Him is seeing the Father. We know Scripture identifies the Father as God. Is Jesus telling Philip he is seeing God when seeing Jesus? If this is the case, then Jesus is blatantly contradicting what He said at other times during his ministry and what the NT authors say about Him. As previously seen in this book, Jesus identifies the Father as the one and only God. The Apostles do the same. Now let's look at John 1:18.
John 1:18: No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known (NIV).
The NIV translation of this passage implies that Jesus is the One and Only God who has made known the Father. The NIV translation is derived from a reading of Alexandrian Greek texts that predate the texts most commonly used when translating this passage. These Alexandrian texts have monogenes theos where the word mono means only and genes means to be born or begotten or, as more recent scholarship has identified, genes means kind, type or unique. Theos means god. Most Bible versions use later Greek texts that read monogenes huios where huios is the Greek word for son. Typical of such translations is the KJV:
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, (monogenes huios) which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Bosom is from the Greek kolpos which literally means “the front part of the body between the arms.” In Greek literature it is used both literally and figuratively. New Testament scholar Brian J Wright writes that the reference to being in the bosom of the Father is “an anthropomorphic metaphor for intimacy and fellowship” (page 248, Revisiting The Corruption Of The New Testament).
There has been much discussion in scholarly circles as to which Greek manuscripts reflect what John intended. Some argue that since the Alexandrian manuscripts are older, they better reflect what John said as they are closer to the time he wrote his Gospel. It’s to be noted that Theos instead of huios is found not only in ancient Alexandrian texts of the NT but in a variety of other Greek texts and early translations of the Greek into Syriac and Coptic. Huios, however, is found in a much wider number of texts than is Theos. Some scholars believe scribes altered the text to read “theos” in order to promote the belief Jesus was God against a first century teaching known as Adoptionism which taught Jesus was only a man born in the normal way and declared to be the Son of God sometime after His birth.
Some scholars see the Alexandrian renderings of this passage as spurious because these texts virtually say the One and Only God resides in the One and Only God which makes no sense. It is questioned that if the Son is the One and Only God then what does that make the Father? Jesus, Paul and John clearly taught the Father was the one and only God. It is also pointed out that the early Alexandrian and later Greek renderings of John 3:16, 18 and 1 John 4:9, all speak of Christ as the only unique Son (monogenes huios) of God which indicates this is how John understood the relationship of Christ to God and not that Christ was the one and only unique God (monogenes theos).
In view of the foregoing, it appears John was saying no man has seen God at any time but Jesus, as the one and only uniquely begotten Son of God, has declared Him which is to say has revealed Him. It should be noted that in the passage under consideration, John speaks of Jesus revealing God with the straightforward implication that the God being revealed is the Father. When John says no man has seen God at any time it is the same as saying no man has seen the Father at any time. If Jesus is God, as implied in some modern translations of John 1:18, you essentially have God the Son revealing God the Father. Yet, nowhere in Scripture do you see a reference to God the Son. Throughout the NT you see the Father as God and God as the Father. During His ministry you see Jesus always identifying God as Father with not a hint of God being something more. Now let’s look at the following passages.
John 10:30: I and the Father are one
John 14:10-11: Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
The fourth century theologian Athanasius largely based his Trinitarian theology on his exegesis of John 10:30 and 14:10-11. Athanasius interpreted Jesus as saying his whole Being was in the Being of the Father and the whole Being of the Father was in the whole Being of Himself, the Son. Let’s again look at these Scriptures.
A contemporary of Athanasius, Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, in reflecting on John 14:10, wrote: “Although these Beings do not dwell apart, they retain their separate existence and condition and can reciprocally contain one another, so that one permanently envelopes and is also permanently enveloped by the other whom he yet envelops.”
When Jesus speaks of He being in the Father and the Father being in Him, is He revealing to us that His Being is in the Father and the Father’s Being is in Him and, therefore, He and the Father are con-substantial (of the same essence)? Is Jesus talking about an indwelling of mutual substance of Being between He and the Father? Is Jesus telling us He and the Father are the one God?
I submit, on the basis of Jesus’ own words, that He is not speaking about reciprocal indwelling of Being when He speaks of He being in the Father and the Father being in Him. Jesus is not addressing substance of Being at all. Jesus is speaking of manifesting the Spirit of God which was reflected in the power and authority Jesus projected during His earthly ministry. Jesus being in the Father and the Father being in Jesus is not a statement of oneness of Being. It is a statement of oneness of Spirit. This is made very evident in the prayer Jesus offered up to the Father on behalf of his followers shortly before His crucifixion.
John 17:20-23, 26: My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Verse 26: I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.
When Jesus said He and the Father are one (John 10:30), He was not alluding to they being one in Being. When Jesus told Philip He was in the Father and the Father was in Him (John 14:11), He was not teaching He and the Father are a co-equal, co-eternal and con-substantial Being. Jesus is using relational language in showing how He and the Father are of the same mind and spirit. In the passage cited above, Jesus uses the same terminology in speaking of our relationship with Him and the Father as He does in regard to his relationship with the Father. Jesus being in the Father, the Father being in Jesus, we being in the Father and the Father and Jesus being in us are all relational statements pointing to being of like mind and spirit and participating in mutual love. There are multiple dozens of statements in the NT that speak of our being one in spirit with the Father, Jesus and each other.
Trinitarian theology teaches God is a mutual indwelling of Father, Son and Spirit. Therefore, God is seen as one Being in three dimensions or distinctions. The Scriptures, however, show God to be a single and separate Being above all other Beings including the Being Jesus. The concept of mutual indwelling is a valid concept only as it pertains to how the one God who is the Father spiritually indwells the Son and the Son spiritually indwells the Father. This has to do with shared spiritual dynamics, not oneness of Being. We humans can share in those same spiritual dynamics through mutual indwelling involving the Father, the Son and us. By participating in mutual indwelling with the Father and the Son we become one with the Father and the Son and they become one with us. This doesn’t make us one in Being with the Father or the Son anymore than it makes the Father and Son one Being. We all remain separate entities united by the Spirit of the one God which proceeds from that one God through Jesus and into us.
There is one additional passage in Philippians chapter 2 that is often used as a “proof text” to show that Jesus is YHWH and is therefore the one God.
Philippians 2:9-11: Therefore God (Theos) exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God (Theos) the Father.
This statement by Paul appears to be a quote or paraphrase of a passage of scripture found in Isaiah where YHWH is quoted as saying:
Isaiah 45:23: By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.
The context of Isaiah 45 clearly shows it is YHWH who is speaking. Because Paul is using an OT quote of YHWH that relates to YHWH, it is believed Paul must be identifying Jesus as YHWH by applying this quote to Jesus.
Paul writes that God (the Father) exalted Jesus to the highest place and that every knee should bow to Jesus and every tongue confess Jesus is Lord. All this is done to the glory of God the Father. YHWH is identified as Father some fifteen times in the OT. Paul consistently identifies God (YHWH) as the Father in the NT. If Jesus is as much YHWH as the Father is YHWH, Paul is saying YHWH the Father exalted YHWH the Son to the glory of YHWH the Father.
This is problematic because if YHWH the Son is co-eternal, co-equal and con-substantial with YHWH the Father, how can it be said YHWH the Father is exalting him to the highest place. How could YHWH, the Father make the Son to be greater than He already was and always has been. The very language of this passage and other passages like it show YHWH the Father to be superior and greater than the Son which the Son readily admitted when He said the Father was greater than He. Therefore, Jesus is not YHWH but is the exalted Son of YHWH.
Paul shows God the Father rewarded Jesus for humbling himself and becoming obedient to the point of being crucified (verse 8). The highest place Jesus was exalted to is shown in other Scriptures as being the right hand of God. YHWH the Father does the exalting of Jesus which in itself shows the Father being over the Son in power and authority as has already been shown in a number of other Scriptures. Rather than the passage under consideration showing Jesus is YHWH, it shows instead how YHWH is superior to Jesus. In applying an OT statement to Christ that applies to YHWH is not a proof that Christ is YHWH. Because of what Jesus accomplished as the Messiah, YHWH has exalted Him to His right hand. Therefore, YHWH has ordained that Jesus receives the level of respect and worship commensurate with who the Father has elevated the Son to be. Paul writes this is all done to the glory of God the Father who Paul consistently identifies as the one and only YHWH, the Most High God.