Honour the Son Just As You Honour the Father
Jesus deserves honour as God's chief representative, but not equal worship.
Worship belongs exclusively to Jehovah. The Watchtower teaches that 'any
who use Jesus' name in their worship but fail to give the greater honour
to Jehovah do not manifest a genuine love of the light.'
Open their NWT to and read it together. Press the phrase 'just as' (Greek kathōs) — it creates an equation: honour-of-Son = honour-of-Father. Ask how they honour the Father — through worship, prayer, praise. Then kathōs demands the same for the Son. Point out the negative clause: 'whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father.' This means withholding worship from Jesus means they are not truly honouring Jehovah either. Finally, raise the idolatry dilemma: if Jesus is a creature, commanding equal divine honour is commanding idolatry. If he is God, the command makes perfect sense. This argument sidesteps the proskuneō/obeisance debate entirely because uses timaō ('honour'), not proskuneō.
The Greek kathōs ('just as') creates a logical equation — the honour given to the Son must match the honour given to the Father in kind and degree. Since honouring the Father means worship, 'just as' demands the same for the Son. No creature can rightly receive equal divine honour without it being idolatry.
'Honour' (timaō) doesn't mean worship — you can honour a king without worshipping him.
The verse says honour the Son 'just as' (kathōs) you honour the Father. How do you honour the Father? Through worship, prayer, and praise. Kathōs demands the same kind and degree. You cannot change the meaning of 'honour' mid-sentence — the kathōs ties them together. As Barnes notes: 'If our Saviour here did not intend to teach that he ought to be worshipped, it would be difficult to teach it by any language which we could use.'
Jesus is honoured as God's appointed representative — like an ambassador receives honour for a king.
An ambassador does NOT receive honour 'just as' the king. Ambassadors receive derivative, lesser honour. But kathōs demands equal honour in kind and degree. Moreover, shows Jesus performs the same works as the Father — giving life, judging — these are divine prerogatives, not ambassador activities. The Son 'gives life to whom he wishes' (v.21) — he makes his own sovereign decisions.
The honour is because the Father entrusted judgment to the Son — it's functional, not about his nature.
The logic runs the other direction. The Father entrusted ALL judgment to the Son SO THAT (Greek hina — purpose clause) all may honour the Son equally. The equal honour is the PURPOSE, not a side effect. And the scope is 'all' — universal. No creature warrants universal divine-level honour. Only if the Son IS divine does universal equal honour make sense.
We DO honour Jesus — we just don't worship him. Worship belongs to Jehovah alone.
Then you are not honouring the Son 'just as' you honour the Father, because you honour the Father through worship. The Watchtower's own statement that 'greater honour' must go to Jehovah directly contradicts 'just as' (equal honour). Moreover, Jesus says 'whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father' — withholding worship from Jesus means you are not truly honouring the Father either.
The proskuneō given to Jesus is 'obeisance' (respect), not 'worship' (sacred service).
does not use proskuneō — it uses timaō ('honour') with kathōs ('just as'). The proskuneō debate is a red herring here. The question is what 'just as' demands. And even within the proskuneō debate, the NWT translates it 'worship' over 30 times when directed to the Father, but 'obeisance' all 14 times when directed to Jesus — same Greek word, different translation based on theology, not linguistics.
'The Father is greater than I' (John 14:28) — so Jesus can't receive equal honour.
refers to the Father's positional greatness during the incarnation — the Son voluntarily subordinated himself (). But , spoken by the same Jesus in the same Gospel, demands equal honour without qualification. The Son is equal in nature () while voluntarily subordinate in role during the incarnation (). This is consistent with Trinitarian theology but incoherent with JW theology, which cannot explain why a lesser creature would demand equal divine honour.
Don't get pulled into the proskuneō/obeisance debate — John 5:23 uses timaō, not proskuneō, so the distinction is irrelevant here. Also avoid getting bogged down in John 14:28 ('the Father is greater than I') as a separate topic — address it briefly if raised, then redirect to the 'just as' demand.
Read in one sitting so you can show how verses 19-23 flow: the Son does what the Father does, gives life to whom he wishes, and receives all judgement so that all may honour him. Learn verse 23 by heart from the NWT, including 'whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father'. Practise the doorstep question aloud and keep 'just as' at the centre. Expect 'honour is not worship', and rehearse answering by asking how your friend honours the Father. If comes up, read beforehand so you can answer briefly and return to 'just as'. Leave the proskuneo debate aside; this verse uses a different word.