Eamon Younis: God the Son

By John H. Fish III

Jack Fish is a faculty member at Emmaus Bible College and the Editor of The Emmaus Journal. This is the third article in a six-part series on the subject, “Understanding the Trinity.” The six articles were originally lectures delivered at a symposium on the Trinity held at Emmaus Bible College on October 10-12, 2002.

Introduction

The doctrine of the Trinity is the distinctive doctrine of Christianity which distinguishes it from all other views of God. Christians are monotheists like Jews and Muslims. We believe that there is only one true God. Yet unlike Judaism and Islam, Christians believe that there is a differentiation within the Godhead. The one true God consists of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These are not three gods. Christians are not polytheists who believe in many gods.

This is, admittedly, difficult to understand. Yet Christians have not come to believe in the Trinity because of abstract philosophical reasoning about the nature of God; it was because of the truth about God as he is revealed in the New Testament that the truth of the Trinity was accepted by the church. This does not mean that the Trinity was revealed in the language which is found in textbooks of theology. There is no statement about the nature of God which says that within the Godhead there are three eternal, co-equal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Rather, while continuing to insist that there is only one God, the New Testament taught that Jesus Christ the Son was distinct from the Father and yet also fully God. The truth of the Holy Spirit is also taught in the New Testament, but it is not developed as extensively as that of the Son. The purpose of this article is to examine the teaching of the New Testament as to the person of Jesus Christ and his place within the Godhead.

The Foundation of the Doctrine of the Trinity

It is the teaching of the New Testament concerning the person of Jesus Christ which led to the doctrine of the Trinity. In the Gospels the question is continually raised as to who Jesus Christ really is (Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21; cf. 7:49; Matt. 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25; 9:9; Matt. 16:13, 15; Mark 8:27, 29; Luke 9:18, 20; Matt 21:10; 22:42). Jesus himself challenged the Pharisees with the enigma of how the Messiah could be both David’s son and David’s Lord (Matt. 22:41–46 referring to Psalm 110:1). The viewpoint of the disciples in the New Testament in answering that question was different during the period before the Resurrection than it was after the Resurrection. The disciples in the Gospels were first confronted with Jesus in his human life here on earth. They recognized early that he was the Messiah (John 1:41). Many recognized that he was a prophet sent from God (Matt 16:14; cf. John 3:2), but the disciples had further insight into his person when God revealed to them that he was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16–17). It was not until after the Resurrection that they confessed him as “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28). On the day of Pentecost Peter proclaimed him as “Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36) in the context of the message that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21). Salvation comes from confessing “Jesus as Lord” (Rom. 10:9). Paul preached “Jesus Christ as Lord” (2 Cor. 4:5). The earliest doctrinal confession was this statement, “Jesus is Lord” (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3). The viewpoint of the New Testament is that Jesus is now the risen Lord, highly exalted, and one day every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Phil. 2:9–11).

Thus, even though the Gospel writers present the story of Jesus in the days of his earthly life and ministry, they know that this is not the whole story. They know that he who humbled himself is really the risen Lord. He is the Son of God (Mark 1:1). He who was in eternity with God was God become flesh (John 1:1, 14). The glory the disciples witnessed while Jesus was here on earth was the glory of “the One and Only who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14, NIV).

It is this teaching in the New Testament as to who Jesus is that led to the doctrine of the Trinity. The Christians in the New Testament never questioned the monotheism of the Old Testament. Yet while continuing to hold to the truth that there is only one God, they also recognized that Jesus Christ was more than just a man, he was also deity. They distinguished him from the Father but never hinted that this might imply that there were two Gods. All through the New Testament they saw him as the risen Lord, one with God, and more than man. He is the eternal, uncreated Creator, who became man for us and for our salvation. He is the Son of God. The deity of the Holy Spirit is also assumed and taught throughout the New Testament, but the nature of the New Testament writings demands that there will be much more emphasis on the person and work of Christ than on the person and work of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel is about Jesus Christ, who he is and what he has done for our salvation. Thus it is the teaching about Christ which is the essential foundation which leads us to the doctrine of the Trinity. If Jesus is fully God, is distinguished from the Father, and yet there is still only one God, then the essentials are there for a Trinitarian understanding of God. The additional requirement for the Trinity is the teaching that the Holy Spirit is one with and yet distinguished from the Father and the Son.

Denials of the Trinity

There are basically four ways in which the doctrine of the Trinity is denied.

One is to say that this is not a Trinity, but Tritheism. That is to say that there is not just one God in three persons, but that there are actually three Gods. This is not a position that has been taught and defended by Christian theologians. Indeed, there have not even been heretics who have tried to defend Tritheism. All Christians insist that there is only one true God. But anti-Trinitarians have often represented the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as Tritheism. Jews, Muslims, Liberals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other anti-Trinitarians often argue that the Trinity is illogical. One, plus one, plus one, equal three. It does not equal one. If the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, then there must be three gods and not one.
A second anti-Trinitarian position is that the distinctions between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are just nominal. There is one God who sometimes is referred to as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Holy Spirit. This teaching has sometimes been called Modalism, as teaching that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just three different modes or manners in which the one God manifests himself, and sometimes it is referred to as Sabellianism, after Sabellius, a Unitarian teacher of the third century. [1] Essentially they deny that there are any real distinctions between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
A third position (Socinianism) is that Jesus was just a human being. [2] He did not exist until he was born by the ordinary process of generation from Mary and Joseph. One may hold that he was a great prophet and teacher, or that he was an exceptionally holy man, but the essential point of this position is that he was only a man and nothing more. This is the position of Judaism, Islam, modern Liberalism, and Unitarianism. Socinus himself accepted the miracles of Jesus and the virgin birth. He even held that after the Resurrection he received some of the divine nature. But essentially Jesus was by nature merely human, and any divine qualities he received were such that any godly human being might receive.
The fourth anti-Trinitarian view of Jesus that might be held is Arianism. It was the teachings of Arius that led to the Council of Nicaea in a.d. 325 where the full deity of Christ was emphatically affirmed and Arianism condemned as a heresy. Arianism teaches that Christ was more than a man, but less than fully God. He was a creature, yet created before all other creatures and of a higher rank than all other creatures. He was like God, and yet not fully God. Modern Jehovah’s Witnesses are the spiritual descendants of the Arians.

Any anti-Trinitarian teaching is going to be a variation of one of these four viewpoints. In this paper we will show the New Testament basis for the doctrine of the Trinity as it relates to Jesus Christ, God the Son. In the first section we will establish from Scripture his essential deity. This can be seen in the titles ascribed to him which indicate his deity (Lord, God, Son of God, and Son of Man). It can also be seen in the implicit evidence of the deity of Christ. (He does the works that only God can do; he possesses the attributes of God; he is worshipped as God; and he is the Savior who can save us from sin). In the second section we will look at the passages of Scripture which seem to deny the deity of Christ. In the third section will look at the relationship between the Father and the Son. The concluding section will deal with further reflections on the importance of the Trinity and the deity of Christ for us as Christians and for the Christian faith.

The Titles of Christ

Jesus as Lord

From the beginning of the church at the day of Pentecost, Christians confessed and proclaimed that Jesus Christ was Lord (cf. Acts 2:36; Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; 2 Cor. 4:5; Phil. 2:9–11). The risen, exalted Christ was Lord of all. The expression, Maranatha, which is found in 1 Corinthians 16:22, shows that early in the life of the church Jesus was referred to as Lord. This is an Aramaic word which means our Lord, come! Mar means “lord” and Marana means “our Lord.”

The tha means “come!” [3] The fact that this untranslated Aramaic expression is found in a Gentile church indicates that it had become a slogan among the Christians. It is also an indication that early on both Jewish and Gentile Christians recognized and confessed Jesus as Lord. In acknowledging Jesus as Lord, they were confessing that he was Lord in the highest sense. He is Lord in the sense that he is God. This can be seen by the way the term Lord is used of Jesus in the New Testament.

The Meaning of the Term Kύριος (Kyrios)= “Lord”

The Greek word κύριος is used to refer to “one who has power or authority.” [4] It can be used of one who is the owner of a house or a piece of property (such as a slave), or of a person who is in a position of authority (a husband, father, or any person of high position). It is frequently used as a form of address to a respected person in the way we would use the term “sir.” All of these uses refer to human beings of respected position or authority. [5] There are numerous instances of Jesus being addressed in the Gospels in this way as a term of respect. [6] Besides its secular use, the word also took on a religious significance and was used in Hellenistic Greek to refer to sovereign divinities. [7] In the Orient kings and emperors were considered to be gods and were addressed as “Lord.” In Rome the earlier emperors Augustus (31 b.c.-a.d. 14) and Tiberius (a.d. 14–37) did not accept the titles themselves although in the East they were referred to as “Lord.” Caligula (a.d. 37–41) was the first to allow himself to be called “Lord,” and by the time of Nero the emperors were accepting their “divine” status. Christians were persecuted because they would not confess that “Caesar is Lord.” The best-known example of this was Polycarp at Smyrna in a.d. 155, who was martyred for refusing to make this confession. [8] For Christians there was only one Lord, Jesus Christ. It was because of the divine connotations of the word “Lord” that they refused to say “Caesar is Lord.”

Most significantly, in the Septuagint the term κύριος was used to translate not only the Hebrew word אָדוֹן (ʾād̠ôn) but also יהוה (yhwh = Yahweh), the name of God in the Old Testament. אָדוֹן (ʾād̠ôn) means “lord, master, owner” and is properly translated by κύριος. But יהוה is the personal name of God and is more properly rendered “Yahweh.” However, there was an increasing reluctance among the Jews to pronounce the sacred name in order to avoid the risk of taking the Lord’s name in vain. An example of this is seen in Luke 15:18, where the prodigal son, instead of saying “I have sinned against God,” said, “I have sinned against heaven.” The word “heaven” is used as a substitute here for “God.” The Septuagint’s use of κύριος (kyrios) to translate the word Yahweh is an illustration of this tendency. The process of avoiding the sacred name Yahweh culminated in the Massoretes reading aloud the word “Adonai” whenever the word Yahweh was written. In the Septuagint the result of the translation of Yahweh by κύριος (kyrios) was that while the word κύριος can be used in its secular sense to refer to human beings, the vast majority of its over eight thousand uses in the Old Testament refer to God.

The Christians in the New Testament confessed Jesus as Lord. But in what sense? Was he Lord merely as an honored and respected human being? Or was he Lord in a higher sense?

David’s Son and David’s Lord

Jesus himself posed the enigma found in Psalm 110:1, where David refers to his son (descendant), the Messiah, as his Lord. “The Lord (Yahweh) says to my Lord (Adoni): ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for your feet.’” The Tuesday on the week before the crucifixion was a day of conflict with the Jewish religious leaders. They had been indignant over children praising Jesus as the Son of David (Matt. 21:14–15). They challenged his authority to cleanse the temple (Matt. 21:23), and sought to trap him with trick questions (was it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar; whose wife would the woman who had seven husbands be in the Resurrection; and what was the greatest commandment in the Law?). But Jesus had silenced them with his masterful answers. He then challenged them with one question. How can the Messiah be David’s son and at the same time David’s Lord, as Psalm 110:1 states (cf. Matt. 22:41–46; Mark 12:35–37; Luke 20:41–44)? His purpose was not just to stump his opponents and break off the conflict by asking them a baffling question. The answer to this question not only answered the issue of his authority, it also challenged them to think about their very conception of the Messiah. The title “son of David” did not ascribe too much to Jesus, but it ascribed too little. The Messiah was not merely an earthly king descended from David; he was also David’s Lord.

There are four key things which are essential to the point that Jesus made.

First, the Messiah is the son of David, i.e. a physical descendant of David. This is clearly established in the Old Testament [9] It is also recognized here by the Pharisees. [10]
Psalm 110 is a psalm written by David. The superscription of the psalm entitles it a Psalm of David, and Jesus accepted the first verse as a statement by David. “My Lord” is referring to David’s Lord. If this is not a statement by David, the whole argument falls apart.
The third point assumed is that Psalm 110 is messianic. The one referred to as David’s Lord is the Messiah. The king of Psalm 110 is referred to in verse 4 as “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” Melchizedek was the “king of Salem” (Jerusalem) in Genesis 14:18 and also “a priest of God Most High.” This combination of the offices of priest and king was found in none of the historical kings of the Old Testament. This is a prophecy of the Messiah of the future and not of any king of the past. [11]
Fourthly, the phrase “My Lord” assumes the superiority of the person addressed. In the majority of cases it refers to God (over 400 times), but it is also used (over 300 times) with reference to men (or angels) to refer to a master, a husband, a prophet, a prince, a king, a father, Moses, a priest, a theophanic angel, a captain, and as a general recognition of superiority. [12] David in addressing the Messiah as his Lord was acknowledging him as his superior. In the New Testament there is a play on words with the term κύριος (kyrios) referring to both God and the Messiah. The Lord (God) said to my Lord (the Messiah). There is no ambiguity in the Old Testament where it says, “Yahweh says to my Lord.” The argument is not built on the fact that Kyrios can refer to God as well as man; the argument is built on the fact that David addresses the Messiah as his superior.

“My Lord” is not a term that a father would employ in addressing his son. Furthermore, David was the greatest king in Israel’s history. He would naturally receive the homage of his son Solomon, and indeed of all his descendants. It is inconceivable for these roles to be reversed in reference to any of the Old Testament kings of the Davidic line. How could David ever refer to any one of them as “Lord”?

There are only two alternatives. Either the Messiah, who is David’s superior, is not David’s son, or he is more than just the physical son of David. Some have indeed used this to say that Jesus was arguing that the Messiah was not the son of David. [13] This is inconceivable. (a) It would foolishly prejudice his position with the people who generally held to the Davidic descent of the Messiah (John 7:42). (b) It would make Jesus contradict the clear teaching of the Old Testament. (c) It would make Matthew and Luke contradict themselves since they have already established the Davidic descent of Jesus (Matt. 1:1, 6; Luke 1:32, 69. (d) The early church would not have emphasized that Jesus, the Messiah, was the son of David if Jesus himself had argued that the Messiah was not from David.

Jesus does not deny that the Messiah is the son of David. Rather he forces us to the conclusion that the Messiah must be more than just the physical offspring of David. He must have an origin or a relationship to God which would make David call him “my Lord.” What it is that gives David’s son, the Messiah, that superiority is not spelled out in this passage. There is an inherent ambiguity in this term which can be used to refer to both God and man as superiors. We must go to the rest of the New Testament to see what was meant when the early Christians confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Old Testament Passages referring to Yahweh as Lord are Applied to Jesus

What the New Testament writers understood when they referred to Jesus as Lord can be seen most clearly when we look at quotations from the Old Testament which are applied to Jesus. There are a number of Old Testament passages which refer specifically and exclusively to Yahweh and which are applied to Jesus.

Hebrews 1:10-12 (Psalm 102:25-27)

In Hebrews 1 the writer of this book is showing us the superiority of the Son. He is superior to the prophets in the Old Testament because the revelation of God given through him was a superior revelation (1:1–4). In 1:5–13 he demonstrates from Scripture that the Son is superior to angels. There are seven quotes from the Old Testament which are designed to show his superiority as Son (vv. 5–6), his superiority as heir of all things (vv. 7–9), and his superiority as Creator of the world (vv. 10–12). Each Old Testament passage (except Psalm 104:4 in verse 7 which is said to refer to angels) is applied to Christ. Note verse 8: “But to the Son He says….” The quote that follows in verses 8 and 9 from Psalm 45:6–7 is said to refer to the Son. Verse 10 begins with the word “and”. This is another passage which refers to the Son, specifically Psalm 102:25–27. Jesus is addressed as “Lord” (v. 10). He is said to have created the earth and the heavens (cf. v. 2 where the Son is the one through whom God made the world). But unlike the creation which is temporary, he is not. He is eternally the same (vv. 11–12).

Who is the one in Psalm 102 who is referred to as Lord? Psalm 102 is a lament Psalm where the psalmist utters “a Prayer of the afflicted when he is overwhelmed and pours out his complaint before the Lord” (the superscription). The term that is used to refer to God in the Psalm is predominantly the name Yahweh. It is found in the superscription and in verses 1, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, and 22. The LXX translates each of these references to Yahweh by the word “Lord” (κύριος (kyrios). In verses 1–2 he addresses Yahweh and asks him to hear his prayer. Verses 3–11 are the personal lament of the psalmist, which is followed by his address to Yahweh (vv. 12–22). In the midst of the grief that has met him and the nation of Israel along with the city of Jerusalem, his desire is to see the return of Israel from captivity and the future glory of Zion (v. 13). This will be a time when the nations will fear the Lord [Yahweh] (vv. 15, 21–22). This is his great desire. But because of his weakness and the brevity of life (v. 23) he prays that his life not be prematurely cut short (v. 24), not because he is clinging to life itself like Hezekiah (Isa. 38:10–11), but because he desires to see God’s glory manifested in the restoration of Israel.

His confidence is in the one who, unlike himself, does not change. God is the Creator (v. 25). But unlike his creation which perishes, he is eternal and unchanging (vv. 26–27). It is clear that the One described here in verses 25–27 is God himself. He is the Yahweh who has been named seven times earlier in the Psalm, and he is specifically addressed as “my God” in verse 24.

Thus the writer of Hebrews in quoting this passage is saying that Jesus is the “Lord” of Psalm 102:25–27. He is the Creator, the eternal one who never changes. He is the Yahweh of Psalm 102.

Romans 10:13 (Joel 2:32)

In Romans 9 Paul has been looking at God’s sovereign election, particularly as it relates to the nation of Israel. The last four verses of chapter 9, as well as all of chapter 10, are designed to show that God’s sovereign election does not relieve Israel of its responsibility and blame. [14] Israel is rejected because of its own unbelief. They were ignorant of God’s righteousness and had sought to establish their own righteousness (10:1–4). Legal righteousness through obedience to the Law is impossible because it requires perfect obedience (v. 5), but the righteousness which comes through faith (“the word of faith which we preach,” v. 8) is accessible to all (vv. 6–8).

Verse 9 specifies what that gospel message is that we preach. This is the heart of the Christian faith. It is the message that “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” Paul mentions two conditions of salvation, confessing with the mouth and believing in the heart, not as two separate requirements, but as the outward and inward expressions of faith. Confession with the mouth is the outward expression of the inward belief. They are essentially one as is seen in verse 11 where Paul gives scriptural proof for the truth that “with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” The verse cited is Isaiah 28:16, “whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” He does not say, “whoever believes and confesses,” but simply, “whoever believes.” Faith is the essential requirement for salvation, while confession is the expected result of that faith. The fact that he mentions both confessing with the mouth and believing in the heart (“the word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart,” v. 8) comes out of the quote of Deuteronomy 30:14.

The important thing is to note the content of the faith that is necessary for salvation. It is to believe that Jesus, risen from the dead, is Lord. [15] The following context makes it clear what Paul meant by the term “Lord” in this confession. Verse 11 is the proof from Scripture (Isa. 28:16) that faith is the condition of salvation: “everyone who believes on Him will not be disappointed.” Verse 12 shows that it is the same condition of salvation for both Jews and Gentiles. There is one means of salvation for all men, because there is one Lord of all men. Just as there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile because of their sinfulness (Rom. 3:22–23), so there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile as recipients of God’s mercy, because they both have the same Lord. “The same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him” (v. 12). In the light of verse 9 the “Lord of all” must be Jesus. Verse 13 then gives the scriptural proof that this salvation is available to all, both Jew and Gentile. “For whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Who is this Lord that one is to call on? It can be none other than Jesus, who is confessed as Lord in verse 9, a confession which results in salvation (v. 10), and who is the Lord of all men in verse 12.

There are two things which indicate the significance of Jesus being addressed as Lord in this passage. The first has to do with the expression “to call upon the Lord,” or “to call upon the name of the Lord,” and the second has to do with the quotation of Joel 2:32 in verse 13.

In the New Testament the expression “to call upon the name of the Lord Jesus” was a way of designating Christians. This is seen in such passages as Acts 9:14, 21; 22:16; and 1 Corinthians 1:2. In the 1 Corinthians passage Paul is writing to those who are saints by calling, “along with all who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place.”

However, in the Old Testament “to call upon the name of the Lord” was a way of expressing worship to God, especially in prayer. For example:

Abraham “went on his journeys…to the place of the altar which he had made there formerly; and there Abram called on the name of the Lord” (Genesis 13:3–4, cf. Gen. 21:33; 26:25).
“Oh give thanks to the Lord, call upon His name” (Psalm 105:1).
“Moses and Aaron were among His priests, And Samuel was among those who called upon His name; They called upon the Lord, and He answered them” (Psalm 99:6).
“I will bring the one-third through the fire, Will refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name,
And I will answer them. I will say, ‘This is My people’; And each one will say, ‘The Lord is my God.” (Zechariah 13:9).
“And there is no one who calls on Your name, Who stirs himself up to take hold of You; For You have hidden Your face from us, And have consumed us because of our iniquities” (Isaiah 64:7).

There are numerous references in Deuteronomy to the place where God chose to have his name dwell (cf. Deut. 12:11, 21, 26; 14:23, 24; 16:2, 6, 11; 17:8, 10; 26:2). The LXX translators rendered these passages by the expression “the place where God chose to have his name called upon there.”

Cranfield notes that the verb ἐπικαλεῖσθαι (epikaleisthai, “call upon”) was well established in pagan Greek for invoking a god in prayer. [16] Paul is using familiar language from Greek as well as the OT, used to address God in prayer and worship him. But he is using that language in reference to Jesus. It is by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus that one is saved. The language indicates that Paul is looking on the Lord Jesus as God.

It is even more significant that Joel 2:32, “for whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved,” is quoted as the scriptural proof that “if you confess Jesus as Lord…, you shall be saved” (Rom. 10:9). The “Lord” of Joel 2 is Yahweh, and Paul is taking this passage, which clearly refers to God in the Old Testament, and applying it to Jesus.

Joel’s theme is the terrible day of judgment known as the day of the Lord, a day which is near and will come as destruction from the Almighty (1:15). “In the Old Testament ‘the day of the Lord’ may refer to either a particular historical event or an eschatological battle which will culminate the present age.” [17] In chapter 1 he uses the destruction caused by a locust plague to picture God’s judgment of Israel historically. In chapter 2 there is a warning that the day of the Lord is coming (2:1). The language of the destruction of the locusts is used to describe the destructive power of a coming, invading army. While there may be here a reference to a historical invasion in Old Testament times, that historical judgment is a preview of the eschatological judgment at the end of the age. Verses 1–11 are a warning describing the terrible devastation of that judgment, followed in verses 12–17 by an exhortation to repent and return to the Lord (Yahweh). In verses 18–27 there is a promise of deliverance. “The Lord (Yahweh) will be zealous for His land, and will have pity on His people” (v. 18). “Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord (Yahweh) your God and there is no other” (v. 27). In these verses the historical reference point merges with the future. Verse 19, “And I will never again make you a reproach among the nations.” Verse 27, “And My people will never be put to shame.” It is ultimately the future judgment of the day of the Lord and the future deliverance which is in view. Verses 28–32 particularly refer to the time of spiritual renewal and deliverance of God’s people at the time of his judgment at the end of the age. God will pour out his Spirit on all mankind so that they will exercise prophetic gifts (vv. 28–29). There will be awful signs in the heavens as portents of the impending doom (vv. 30–31). But at this time of universal judgment, everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (Yahweh) will be delivered (v. 32).

The Lord who is referred to in Joel 2 is Yahweh. His name, Yahweh, is found thirty-three times in the book, and each one of them is translated in the LXX by κύριος (kyrios). It is by calling on the Lord God that a person will be saved. Yet Paul uses this verse to say that if a person confesses Jesus as Lord and calls upon him, he will be saved. He associates Jesus with Yahweh in such as way as to imply that they are in some way “one”.

Philippians 2:11 (Isaiah 45:23)

Another key passage in which an Old Testament passage referring to Yahweh is applied to Christ is Philippians 2:11. This great Christological passage (verses 6–11) is found in the context of Paul’s exhortation to the Christians at Philippi to show love, humility, and selflessness in their relationships with one another. They are to have the mind of Christ, the supreme example, who humbled himself and sacrificed himself for others (v. 5). In verses 6–8 Paul looks at Christ’s humiliation, and in verses 9–11, his exaltation. He who in a past eternity existed in the very form of God and who therefore enjoyed the glorious manner of existence on an equality with God gave up this manner of existence by becoming a man. He then further humbled himself by subjecting himself to the death of the cross (vv. 6–8). As a result of this obedience and selflessness, God highly exalted him, restoring to him the glory that was his before the world was (cf. John 17:5). God also gave him the supreme name which is above every name. The name in Semitic thought, besides identifying the individual, also signifies the character, dignity, office, or rank of that person. The “name above every name” indicates that Jesus is exalted to the position of supreme honor, dignity, and authority. [18] He is not only exalted (v. 9), but it is also the purpose of God that all created intelligences acknowledge him and render the homage which is due him. [19] They will bow the knee to him and confess that he is Lord (vv. 10–11). This involves acknowledging his supremacy and submitting to his sovereign lordship. “Paul is not speaking here of voluntary obedience.” [20] Unbelieving men and fallen angels, including Satan, will never voluntarily and willingly in thankful confession bow to Christ and acknowledge him as Lord. But the whole universe in its sinful rebellion will ultimately be subdued and forced to acknowledge the uncontested authority of the one who is Lord of lords.

What is meant in this passage by the term “Lord,” when it says that every tongue will confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord?” The significance is best seen when we notice that Paul is using language from the Old Testament which refers to God. In Isaiah 45:23 God says, “I have sworn by myself. Surely righteousness will go forth from my mouth. My words will not return, because to me every knee will bow and every tongue will make confession (or acknowledgment) to God” (LXX). [21] In Romans 14:11 Paul quotes this verse in reference to God the Father. In Philippians 2:10–11 he uses it in reference to Christ. Just as all will bow the knee and acknowledge the sovereignty of God the Father at the judgment seat of God, so all will bow the knee and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

It is especially important to notice that in Isaiah 45 this homage is reserved exclusively for God alone. Seven times it is expressed that Yahweh is exclusively God. Besides him there is no other. [22] In this chapter God is called by his name Yahweh sixteen times. After the first four verses which continue to speak of Cyrus, verse 5–7 stress the unique existence and almighty power of the Lord. [23] “I am the Lord, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me” (v. 5). “There is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other” (v. 6). Verse 8 is a doxology followed by a statement of the sovereignty of God who, as the all-wise Creator, has a beneficent purpose in all that he does (vv. 9–11). Verses 12–15 present his power and his determination to free his people. The nations will acknowledge that “surely, God is with you, and there is none else, no other God” (v. 14). In verse 16–19 there is the folly of idol worship contrasted with God’s mercy to Israel. Verse 18 repeats again the fact that “I am the Lord, and there is no other.” Verses 20–21 are a challenge to idolaters and a declaration that Yahweh is the only God. “And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me” (v. 21). Finally in verses 22–25 we have God’s saving purposes for all the ends of the earth. Verse 22 is an exhortation to turn to the Lord because of the fact that he is uniquely God. “Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.” It is because Yahweh is exclusively God, the Creator, Savior, and sovereign Lord that every knee will bow to him and every tongue swear allegiance (v. 23).

In using Isaiah 45:23 to refer to Jesus, the apostle Paul is indicating that the homage that belongs to the only true God will rightfully be given to Jesus Christ. Yet there is no sense that Jesus is usurping the rights of God or stealing the honor due God, as if he were some competitor. Philippians 2:11 says that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord “to the glory of God the Father.” The Father and Son are linked together in such a way that both are acknowledged as God, and yet there is no hint that this leads us to the thought that there are two Gods. Further, we cannot merely say that Christ is exalted to the position as sovereign Lord and therefore is functionally in the position of the Lord God. His function or his position is also linked with his person. He cannot receive the homage due to Yahweh in Isaiah 45 without being in his person one who is on a par with Yahweh.

Mark 1:2; Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:27 (Malachi 3:1)

Mark begins his Gospel of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ with three preparatory events — the ministry of John the Baptist (1:2–8), the baptism of Jesus (1:9–11), and the temptation (1:12–13). He particularly notes that the coming of John was a fulfillment of Scripture (1:2–3), namely Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3.

In referring to John the Baptist as the fulfillment of Malachi 3:1, Mark follows the interpretation of Jesus found in the parallel passages of Matthew 11:10 and Luke 7:27. In Matthew 11 the Lord was answering one of John’s questions and then proceeded to remark about John himself and his ministry. John, languishing in prison, was baffled by the current circumstances. He had heard the voice of God at the Baptism which identified Jesus as his beloved Son (Mark 1:11). He had witnessed the Holy Spirit come upon him, and he had borne witness that Jesus was the Lamb of God, one greater than he himself, even though he came after him (John 1:26–37). John’s disciple, Andrew, was one of those who heard this message and followed Jesus, and who then found his brother, Peter, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (John 1:41). But to John the program of the Messiah was getting bogged down. Instead of the king coming in power and glory and judgment, he, the forerunner, was in prison, and the Messiah himself was receiving opposition. He therefore sent two of his disciples to ask whether Jesus was the Coming One [24] or not. Jesus’ reply in Matthew 11:4–5 indicates that his works, which correspond to the picture of the Messiah in Old Testament passages like Isaiah 29:17–19, 35:5–6, 42:7, and 61:1, demonstrate who he is. But there follows a statement in verse 6 which implies some rebuke of John (“And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me.”) Then to make it clear that John had not fallen in his estimation, Jesus describes in Matthew 11:7–19 John’s position in God’s program.

He was not a morally unstable, fickle, and feeble person, nor a fancy courtier. Rather, he was a prophet, and even more than a prophet. He not only prophesied of the coming of the Messiah as did other prophets, he was himself the subject of prophecy. Malachi spoke of his unique position as the forerunner of the Messiah in Malachi 3:1. “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You” (NKJB).

In the way in which Christ cites this verse from the Old Testament, and as also quoted by Mark, there are three persons involved: There is the speaker who sends, referred to in the first person (I send, my messenger), there is the messenger, and then there is the one whose way he prepares, referred to in the second person (your way, before you). Yahweh is the speaker (“I”), addressing the Messiah (you), and John the Baptist is the messenger who prepares the way. John the Baptist was sent by Yahweh to prepare the way before the Messiah as Malachi had predicted.

As the verse is found in Malachi there are only two who are mentioned, Yahweh and the messenger he sends. The charge of Malachi in 2:17 is an indictment of the nation in their complaints against Yahweh. They had wearied him with two charges, both of which imply that the moral government of the world was “out of whack.” There was no justice. The majority of Israelites were saying that those who do evil must be considered good in God’s sight, and he must delight in them, because there is no evidence of his justice in judging those who are evil. (“You have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet you say, ‘How have we wearied Him?’ In that you say, ‘Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and He delights in them,’ or, ‘Where is the God of justice?’”). God is unjust in that he allows evildoers to prosper. This feeling arises out of the fact that he delays his coming in judgment.

The answer in 3:1 to the question “where is the God of justice,” is that while evil may seem to prevail now, the Lord himself is coming soon, and the wrongs of the present age will be righted. The distinctive feature of Malachi’s prophecy is that the Lord’s coming involves two acts: first, the coming of a messenger to prepare the way before the Lord, and secondly, the coming of the Lord himself suddenly to his temple. [25] The delay of the Lord is actually merciful. Justice delayed is not blessing delayed, since the Lord’s coming to the sinful members of the nation will only mean judgment. The Israelites need first the preparatory work of the messenger who will clear the way before the Lord (3:1; cf. Isa. 40:3–5). In the context of Malachi this involves the messenger preaching a call to repentance so that the Lord’s coming would be in blessing rather than judgment, for in its present moral condition the nation was not ready to receive the Lord.

In 3:1 Yahweh is speaking and says that he is going to send his messenger who will prepare the way before him. He then refers to himself as “the Lord whom you seek:” “And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple.” That “the Lord” (הָאָדֹון, hāʾād̠ôn) is a reference to Yahweh is clear from the fact that (1) it is his temple, and (2) the phrase “whom you seek” points back to the question of 2:17, “Where is the God of justice?” He is also the one referred to in the second half of the verse as “the messenger of the covenant:” “And the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the Lord of hosts.” The messenger of the covenant is not “my messenger” (3:1a), but is Yahweh himself. The parallelism of the verse shows that this phrase is in apposition to “the Lord whom you seek.” The phrase “in whom you delight” is parallel with “whom you seek” and both refer back to the seeking and delight expressed in the question, “where is the God of justice?” The nation had longed for the coming of the Lord, and Malachi said that the Lord, preceded by his messenger, would come suddenly to his temple (3:1). But that day will be different from what was expected. No one will be able to endure the day of his coming, as he will come in judgment, purging and cleansing a morally impure nation (3:2).

There is thus a striking variation in the New Testament. In the Old Testament it is Yahweh who is coming. “Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple” (3:1). Yahweh speaks about the messenger preparing the way before Me. In the New Testament it says, “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.” The “Me” is changed to “you.” The one who is coming is the Messiah. Jesus deliberately modifies the wording of the Old Testament text in order to apply directly to himself the words Malachi uses with reference to Yahweh. By changing the pronouns, Christ puts himself in the position of Yahweh.

No one else could have quoted the Old Testament in this way. Jesus was not being presumptuous or usurping the position of God. He was revealing a fact here which was undisclosed in the Old Testament and which has its fullest development in the doctrine of the Trinity. There is a distinction not specified in Malachi 3:1 between Yahweh the Father and Yahweh the Son. The coming and appearance of Yahweh prophesied by Malachi would be fulfilled by the Son and not by the Father. Christ changes the wording to clarify and interpret the quotation to make it clear that it is Yahweh the Father who sends the messenger, and Yahweh the Son whose way is prepared. It is necessary to make this distinction in persons since Christ, when speaking of himself, never confounds himself with the Father. [26] The Old Testament is interpreted in the light of the progressive revelation in the New Testament and is faithful to the text and context of Malachi, although the fulfillment is not in the form expected by Malachi.

John 12:37-43 (Isaiah 6:10)

In chapter 12 John comes to the end of the presentation of our Lord’s public ministry. Since chapter 5 he has shown the developing conflict between faith and unbelief which will finally issue in the cross. In 12:37–43 he takes up the mysterious subject of Jewish unbelief. How can Messiah’s failure to reach his own people be explained? The Jews were God’s own chosen nation. They had been prepared by God through the work of John the Baptist to receive the Messiah. Yet when he came to his own, his own did not receive him (John 1:11). John here deals with the explanation of that unbelief just as Paul does in Romans 9–11.

Verse 37 indicates that this unbelief was actually irrational. Even though the Jews ask for signs (1 Cor. 1:22) and Jesus performed many signs, “yet they were not believing in Him.” John’s explanation of this is that it was the fulfillment of prophecy. He cites two passages, Isaiah 53:1 (v. 38) and Isaiah 6:10 (v. 40). Isaiah 53, which predicts the suffering and death of the Servant of Yahweh, asks the question, “Who has believed our report and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” The implied answer is no one, or at least very few. Verse 39 then says they not only did not believe, they could not believe. The reason they could not believe is because of what Isaiah said in 6:10, that God had judicially hardened them. He had blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts. “From the paralysis of these two organs unbelief must necessarily result.” [27]

In verse 41 John justifies the use of Isaiah 6:10 in this context by saying that Isaiah said this when he saw the glory of Christ and spoke of him. “These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.” The pronouns “his” and “him” in the context can only refer to Jesus. The passage starts in verse 37 by referring to the fact that the Jews were not believing in him (Jesus). Verse 39 says that they could not believe because of what Isaiah said (Isaiah 6:10), and in verse 41 Isaiah said these things when he saw his glory and spoke of him. Note particularly the following words, “nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him” (v. 42). The one they were not believing in and confessing was Jesus. He is the one whose glory Isaiah saw and spoke about in Isaiah 6. This is a startling statement, because John is identifying Adonai, Yahweh, the Lord of hosts, whom Isaiah saw in Isaiah 6 with Jesus.

Isaiah’s vision was clearly a vision of God. Before Isaiah was called and commissioned as a prophet (Isaiah 6:8–13), he was given an awesome vision of the majesty, greatness, and holiness of God (6:1–7). In the year Uzziah died he saw “the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple” (6:1). The Lord here is Adonai described in his exalted and majestic sovereignty. In verses 2–3 Seraphim above and around the throne worship the Lord and cry out “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.” Here the word for Lord is Yahweh. It is the Lord Yahweh who is the thrice holy one.

Isaiah’s reaction was that of one who was conscious of his own sin in the presence of one who was perfectly holy, God himself. He said, “Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The Lord of hosts.” The King, the Lord he had seen, was Yahweh of hosts. There is no question that Isaiah 6 is the prophet’s description of his vision of Yahweh.

The significant point about this passage in John 12 is that John is clearly and unambiguously connecting Jesus with Yahweh. When Isaiah saw the Lord Yahweh high and lifted up, he was seeing Jesus in his preincarnate existence.

What was it that led John to connect the Yahweh whom Isaiah saw with Jesus? It is not simply that John believed that Jesus was God (John 1:1), and therefore it was legitimate to substitute the name Jesus wherever God was mentioned in the Old Testament. Donald Carson suggests the following reasoning:

If the Son, the Word, was with God in the beginning, and was God, and if he was God’s agent of creation, and the perfect revelation of God to humankind, then it stands to reason that in those Old Testament passages where God is said to reveal himself rather spectacularly to someone, it must have been through the agency of his Son, his Word, however imperfectly the point was spelled out at the time. [28]

John has already said that “no man has seen God at any time” (1:18). This is said with the conscious knowledge of such passages as Isaiah 6 where the prophet saw the Lord of hosts. John is expressing the truth also found in 1 Timothy 6:16 that God “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see.” God in his essence cannot be seen. It is because of this that the Word, “God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known” (1:18, NIV). Jesus is the Word, the expression and revelation of God to man. Therefore visible appearances of God in the Old Testament were not appearances of Yahweh the Father but of Yahweh the Son. Thus, it was the glory of Jesus which Isaiah saw when he saw Yahweh of hosts.

Conclusion: Jesus is Lord

The term Lord, Κύριος, is one of the most frequently used titles of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. While it was used as a polite term of address by many in the Gospels, it was the characteristic term to describe the risen and exalted Lord Jesus in the book of Acts and the Epistles. It is clear from the passages we have discussed that the New Testament, in referring to Jesus as Lord, does so in the highest sense. He is the Lord in the sense of deity. The clearest evidence for this is the fact that Old Testament passages referring to Yahweh are quoted as referring to Jesus. He is the Lord who is the Creator of the universe. He is to be confessed as Lord and called on as Lord in order to be saved. He is the Lord who is the object of worship. He is the Lord coming in judgment before whom John the Baptist prepared the way. He is the glorious Lord whom Isaiah saw. In each case specific references in the Old Testament referring to Yahweh are applied to Jesus. He is no one less than Yahweh the Son.

Jesus as God

The title Lord clearly implies the deity of Christ in the New Testament. The title θεός (theos, God) goes even further. Theos may be used to describe the gods of the pagans which are false gods and do not really exist (cf. 1 Cor. 8:4–6), but the term is basically used of the one true God of Jewish and Christian monotheism. The great majority of the 1,317 uses of the term theos in the New Testament refer specifically to God the Father. [29] There are a number of times, however, where theos is used as a title of Jesus Christ. This usage is not as frequent as we might suppose. For us the great Christological issue is the deity of Christ, and we will readily affirm, as Christians have done since the Council of Nicaea in a.d. 325, that the Lord Jesus Christ is “very God of very God.” [30] In the New Testament this title of our Lord is more restricted. Some scholars see as many as ten references where Jesus Christ is called theos, others as few as two. [31] There are at least seven passages according to Harris which are clear. [32] We will discuss each of these passages below. This usage is of extreme significance. The deity of Christ is assumed and implied throughout the New Testament. With the title theos the truth is explicitly stated that Jesus Christ is God.

John 1:1

John begins his Gospel with a statement that is simple, profound, and somewhat startling. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1:1). While John is writing his Gospel about Jesus Christ, he does not mention Christ by name, but instead refers to him as the Logos, the Word. There are three simple clauses. The subject of each statement is the Logos. The verb in each is the verb “was.” Jesus Christ, the Word, who was in the beginning with the Father is, by his very nature, God. This is the perspective from which the life and ministry of Jesus Christ is to be understood and evaluated. His earthly life is to be seen from the perspective of eternity. He is eternal, distinct from God the Father, and yet in nature deity. John 1:1 is one of the strong statements affirming the deity of Christ.

That the Logos in verse 1 is a reference to Jesus Christ becomes clear only in the following verses. This is not a common reference to Christ in the New Testament. The only passages where the Greek word Logos refers to Christ are John 1:1, 14, Revelation 19:13, and possibly 1 John 1:1. What distinguishes John 1:1 and John 1:14 is that the Logos is personal. That this is a reference to Christ is seen in verse 14 where “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John clearly has Jesus Christ in mind. He is the one in whom was life and who was the light of the world (1:4–5). He is the one to whom John the Baptist bore witness (1:6–8). He came to Israel, his own nation, and yet his own people did not receive him (1:9–11). Receiving him and believing in him bring the authority to become children of God and to possess eternal life (1:11). In verse 17 Jesus Christ is specifically identified by name, and in verse 18 the same truths are affirmed about him which were stated about the Logos in verse 1. His existence is timeless. He has an intimate relationship with God. He is called God, and he is the One who explains God to man.

Why does John begin by referring to Jesus Christ as the Logos, instead of having the reader gradually make this identification as he reads through the passage? John chose a word which was very common in the ancient world, but a word which had a broad range of meaning. Liddell and Scott give fifty-two English words as different translations of λόγος (logos). [33] These various meanings may be summarized under two heads (viz. inward thought and the outward expression of thought in speech.)34 In classical Greek and among the philosophers the main idea was the first, the idea of “reason.” For the Stoics, who were pantheists, the Logos was the rational principle which governed the universe. This meaning of “reason,” however, is not found in the New Testament. Rather, the second meaning is the norm. Logos refers to a word or message in a variety of expressions. The background of John’s use of the term is not that of the Greek philosophers, but rather the Old Testament. He uses a term that Jews and Greeks would readily recognize, but his thought is that of the Old Testament. In Genesis 1 God spoke and creation came into existence (cf. John 1:3). In Genesis God distinguished light from darkness (cf. John 1:4–5). The “Word” was also the message of God which came to the prophets as his revelation to men (cf. Jer. 1:4, 9). The word of God is also life giving, bringing salvation (cf. Ezek. 37:4–6). These themes of creation, revelation, and salvation brought about by the Word of God are the main themes of John’s prologue (1:1–18).35 Carson summarizes:

In short, God’s ‘Word’ in the Old Testament is his powerful self-expression in creation, revelation and salvation, and the personification of that ‘Word’ makes it suitable for John to apply it as a title to God’s ultimate self-disclosure, the person of his own Son. [36]

Thus Jesus Christ is God’s Word. He is the personal expression of God to man. He who from all eternity was with God and who was one with God is uniquely able to express God’s thoughts to man. God spoke in times past through the prophets, but his Son is his Word, his supreme revelation to man (cf. Heb. 1:1–2). He is the only one who is able to explain the unknowable God, who cannot be seen, in a way that man can come to know him (John 1:18).

The Logos was in the beginning. “In the beginning was the Word” (᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, En archē ēn ho logos). John’s first statement is that the Logos was “in the beginning.” The word “beginning” could refer to a number of different things, but in this context it is clear that John’s mind is going back to Genesis 1:1. The wording here is identical to the LXX of Genesis 1:1. [37] These words would be rooted in the minds of John’s readers. Just as the words “Four score and seven years ago” readily bring our minds to Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, so the words “in the beginning” take John’s readers back to the beginning of the Old Testament. The themes of creation, light, and darkness, main ideas in Genesis 1, follow in quick succession (John 1:3–5).

Some however have thought that the word beginning does not refer here to the beginning of creation, but to the period before creation. [38] Barrett says that by the word beginning is “meant not the first point in a temporal sequence, but that which lies beyond time.” [39] This is confusing the meaning of the specific word “beginning” with the overall point of the context. The beginning is the beginning of time and the universe in Genesis 1:1. But there is a difference in the viewpoint of John and Genesis. Genesis 1 goes back to the creation of the universe as the starting point and then traces God’s action from that point on. John goes back to that starting point of the created order and describes what already was. At the very beginning of the created order the Word already existed. He is before creation and is above time.

This indicates the preexistence of the Word, the preexistence of Jesus Christ. The first Christmas in Bethlehem was not the beginning of our Lord’s existence. When the created universe came into being, he already was. This truth is referred to again in John 17:5, “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” See also John 8:58, “Before Abraham was born, I am.” He who was before Abraham and before the creation of the world preexisted before his earthly life described in the Gospels. This refutes the notion of modern liberals that Jesus was an ordinary man exalted by God to some divine status. No; he existed long before he came into this world.

But the wording of the statement and the context go even further. This statement not only refers to his preexistence; it refers to his eternal existence. In verse 3 he is the one who created all things. He is not part of the created order, that which came into being in Genesis 1:1, but is prior to it and distinct from it. Furthermore there is an important contrast in John 1 between two verbs. In verses 1-2 John says the Word “was.” This is the imperfect tense (a past tense in Greek) of the verb ἐιμί (eimi), the verb “to be.” In verse 3, referring to the created order, the verb is “came into being, was made.” This verb ἐγένετο, egeneto, means “to become, to be made, to come into being.” Likewise in verse 10 the world “came into being” (ἐγένετο, egeneto). But the Word did not come into being. He already was. This looks at his continuous existence. “Now that which did not begin with things, that is to say, with time, the form of the development of things, belongs to the eternal order.” [40] Murray Harris says, “He who existed ‘in the beginning’ before creation was himself without a beginning and therefore uncreated. There was no time when he did not exist.” [41] Admittedly the concept of time is philosophically difficult to define. But whether one says that the Word existed before time or above and beyond time, the point is the same. The Word is eternal.

Arius, a teacher in the early church whose doctrine was condemned by the Council of Nicaea in a.d. 325, taught that Christ was different from the rest of the creation. He was of a higher order. He was preexistent, but prior to all of the rest of creation. He was created out of nothing. He was first in the order of creation, but still part of it. There was a time when he was not. This Arian theology today is still found in the doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They believe that Christ, as the beginning of the creation of Jehovah, existed with God as a spirit being, a mighty angel, the chief of angels, before he entered into this world and became man. There is therefore a tendency for Jehovah’s Witnesses to resist the conclusion that John is referring to the beginning of Creation in Genesis 1:1. They do not want to say that he existed before the absolute beginning of time and creation. This would mean that he was eternal. However, they have no other basis for their view than their own dogmatic assertion. John 1:1a is a strong assertion of the eternality of the Word. This necessarily leads us to the deity of the Word, for only God is eternal.

The Logos was with God. “And the Word was with God” (καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon). While the first statement about the Logos has implied that he is deity in that he is eternal, the second statement makes a distinction between the Logos and God. He was with God. God here is a reference to God the Father. This is seen in verse 18 which expresses in different language the same points that verse 1 does. The Logos, who was with God, became flesh. He is the one “who is in the bosom of the Father” and who reveals him. One might also refer to 1 John 1:2 where the “Word of life” was “with the Father (πρὸς τὸν θεόν). Harris also argues that the word “God” in John’s Gospel usually is a specific reference to the Father. [42]

But what is meant by the preposition “with”? John does not use here the normal prepositions that mean “with” in the sense of accompaniment or presence, μετά or σύν (meta or syn). He uses the preposition πρός (pros) + the accusative case which is normally used with verbs of motion to mean “to” or “toward.” Because of this, many commentaries have suggested that πρός (pros) here should be understood as having a “dynamic” sense, that is it combines the idea of “with, in the presence of” with the active idea of motion towards. For instance, Macgregor says that this preposition “expresses nearness combined with the sense of movement towards God, and so indicates an active relationship.” [43]

This is undoubtedly reading too much into the preposition. In Hellenistic Greek, the Greek of the New Testament, the distinction between prepositions of motion and prepositions of rest were beginning to break down. [44] There are numerous examples in the New Testament where πρός (pros) is used with the verb εἰμί (eimi, to be) meaning “in the presence of” without any sense of movement or action. [45] In Mark 6:3 the Jews in the synagogue in Nazareth say, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with (πρός) us?” In Mark 14:49 Jesus says, “Every day I was with (πρός) you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me.” What is interesting and significant, however, is that when pros is used with the verb “to be,” it is usually referring to a person being with a person. It is not used of one thing being “in the presence of” another thing, but of one person in a relationship with another person. That is why Harris says, “when πρός describes a relationship between persons it must connote personal intercourse rather than simple spatial juxtaposition or personal accompaniment.” [46]

John is telling us that the Word, the Logos, in a past eternity was a person who had a close personal relationship with God the Father. By pointing out this relationship, he is implicitly distinguishing the Word from the Father. Scripture tells us that “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16). Love to be expressed requires an object, and we might assume (falsely) that God could not have expressed his love before the creation of the world. But here we see an eternal communion between the Logos and the Father in which God’s love was expressed person to person.

The Logos was God. “And the Word was God” (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, kai theos ēn ho logos). The third statement about the Logos is that He was God. Having just distinguished the Logos from God the Father, John makes the affirmation that he is still in the category of God. John begins his Gospel with a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ. He also ends it the same way with the confession of Thomas “my Lord and my God” (20:28). [47] These two statements form a ring around the book which is the theological formation for interpreting all within. The Word was God.

This is a tremendously important statement, but most Christians are also familiar with the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses dispute this interpretation by questioning the translation of the verse. They insist that their New World Translation is more accurate in translating it “the Word was a god.” Their basis for saying this is that since the word theos does not have the article in Greek, it must be indefinite, i.e. “a god.” In the following discussion I will explain the significance of the Greek and the grammar involved as well as the translation. The only way to evaluate one translation over another is by reference to the original language, in this case the Greek of the New Testament. Even though many do not know the language, the specific issues of this verse can be explained in a way that they can be understood to the “non-Greek.” When a person does understand the Greek, he can then discuss this verse and the translation involved.

The word order. In the second clause, “the Word was with God,” the word “God” has the definite article in Greek, while in the third clause, “the Word was God,” it does not have the article. What is the significance of this? In sentences with the verb “to be” (εἰμί) the article is used to distinguish the subject from the predicate nominative. Note the Greek of John 1:1c: kai [and] theos [God] ēn [was] ho [the] logos [Word]. The word God is the first word of the clause. How do we know whether it should be the subject or the predicate nominative? Both subject and predicate nominative are in the nominative case. Should it be “God was the Word” or “the Word was God?” The rule in Greek is that when one noun has the article and the other does not, the noun with the article, “the” [ho], is the subject. [48] Thus it is clear in the Greek that ho logos is the subject. A. W. Pink is wrong when he says that “and God was the Word” is a more literal translation. [49] That is an inaccurate translation. Murray Harris is also wrong in saying that it is “possible” to take theos as the subject because theos without the article is the subject in 1:18. [50] That is not a parallel verse. It is in sentences where there is the verb “to be,” as in verse 1, that this rule applies. There is no predicate nominative in verse 18 which needs to be distinguished from the subject. This is a rule that is valid for distinguishing the subject from the predicate nominative.

Why then is theos first in the sentence? This is a way in Greek of emphasizing a certain word. In English we emphasize a word by the stress in our voice. In writing we will sometimes use italics to indicate stress. Greek uses word order. A word at the beginning of the sentence is in the stress position. John is emphasizing that the Word was God. This is an important truth.

Theos without the article. Why does the word theos not have the article? Two things should be noted. First, in English we have two articles, the definite article the and the indefinite article a or an. Greek has no indefinite article. Secondly, Greek and English are different languages and do not use the article in the same way. Wallace notes, “It is not necessary for a noun to have the article in order for it to be definite. But conversely, a noun cannot be indefinite when it has the article. Thus it may be definite without the article, and it must be definite with the article.” [51] In Greek a noun without an article can signify one of three things. It can indicate the noun is (1) indefinite; (2) it is definite; or (3) it has a qualitative sense. [52] We will consider each of these possibilities.

(1) The interpretation that “theos” is indefinite, “a god.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses assume that because the noun does not have the article it must be indefinite. This is simply not true. A noun in Greek without the article may be indefinite, but it is not necessarily indefinite. In John 1:6 there is reference to “a man sent from God.” The word man (ἄνθρωπος, anthrōpos) does not have the article and it is indefinite. But there are many other nouns in this same passage which do not have the article and yet are not indefinite. In fact, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are selective and inconsistent in the way they apply their “rule.” In verse 1 and 2 they add the word [the] in brackets before the word “beginning,” even though there is no article in Greek, because the translation “in a beginning” is nonsense. In verse 6, 12, 13, and 18 the word theos appears without the article and is translated by the New World Translation as “God,” not “a god,” but “God.” They argue that theos must be indefinite in verse 1 because it does not have the article, but they recognize that this is no “rule” in Greek by the way they translate the rest of this passage.

While this interpretation is grammatically possible, consider what that would mean. This verse would be saying that the Word, referring to Jesus Christ, was “a” god. If he is “a god,” he is either a true god or a false god. To say he is a true god is polytheism, which is contrary to the whole Bible. In Acts 28:6 the pagans on the island of Malta thought that Paul was a god, but that was part of their polytheistic superstition and was totally false. The apostle acknowledges that there are “so-called gods,” but they have no reality. There is only one true God (1 Cor. 8:4–6).

Sometimes 2 Corinthians 4:4 is cited as an illustration where Satan is called “the god of this world.” But Satan is not a real god. He is a usurper who tries to act like God and assume the place of God. He is a pretender who has already been defeated and is awaiting his judgment. John 1:1 is surely not saying that the Word was a “pretend” god.

There is an unusual use of the term “God” in a couple of passages in the Old Testament where it refers to human judges. In Exodus 21:6 when a Hebrew slave did not wish to go free in the sabbatical year, his master was to bring him to the “Elohim.” In chapter 22:8–9 in a case involving a breach of trust, the parties had to appear before the “Elohim” for judgment. “Elohim” is the normal Hebrew word for God in the Old Testament. It is plural in form, but is used with a singular verb when referring to the true God. The fact that a plural verb is used in Exodus 22:9 (“he whom the Elohim condemn”), and the fact that the other verses have the definite article with the word Elohim would indicate that Elohim is not a proper name in these verses, but a reference to human judges. Psalm 82 is another passage where human judges are called Elohim. In verse 1 God “judges among the gods” (NKJB). In verse 6 “I said, ‘You are gods.’” The English translations are very inconsistent in the translation of these verses. In Exodus 21 the NKJB has “judges” while the NASB has “God” as the translation. In Exodus 22 they have “judges” while the NRSV renders it “God.” In Psalm 82 the NKJB, NIV, NRSV, and JND translate it “gods,” but the NASB has “rulers.” That Psalm 82 is a reference to human judges is clear from an examination of the Psalm which is an indictment against unjust judges who are called “Elohim.” These judges were God’s representatives, acting in his authority and in his name. In Deuteronomy 1:17 Moses says, “the judgment is God’s.” In Genesis 9:6 the authority to judge over life and death was transferred to man. But God did not give up the right of judgment. Human authorities where his representatives and were called “gods” because of their unique relationship to him. They were gods, as Perowne says, “as His vice-regents, as embodying in themselves the majesty of the Law, as those in whom men look to find the most perfect earthly pattern of Divine attributes, of truth and justice, and mercy and impartiality.” [53]

Jehovah’s Witnesses like to take refuge in passages like these where human judges are called “gods” and use them as an explanation of John 1:1. But the fact that human beings are called “gods” in Exodus 21–22 and Psalm 82 does not mean that John was calling Jesus, the Logos, god in that sense. This is John’s opening statement and is of extreme importance for his whole Gospel. It is parallel to his concluding statement in John 20:28 where Thomas worships and confesses that Jesus is “my Lord and my God.” Human representatives of God are not to be worshipped. In John 1:18 Jesus Christ is called “the only begotten God” in the earliest Greek manuscripts. [54] The Greek word “only begotten” (μονογενής) looks at his uniqueness. He is not God like any human judges. He is unique. In 5:18 the Jews were seeking to kill him because he “was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” In 5:23 Jesus said “that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” If he is not God in the highest sense, this is blasphemy. When he claimed in John 10:30 “I and My Father are one,” the Jews present wanted to stone him for blasphemy, because, they said, “You, being a man, make yourself God” (10:33). John identifies Jesus Christ as God in the highest sense in his Gospel. The translation that the Logos is just “a god” is misleading and inaccurate.

(2) The interpretation that “theos” is definite. In seeking to defend the deity of Christ, some Christians have gone too far in insisting that the word theos in John 1:1 is to be understood as a definite noun. It is quite true that a Greek noun does not have to have the article to be definite. Here, a study by E. C. Colwell of definite predicate nouns which appeared in The Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933 is of great importance and has often been cited in reference to John 1:1. [55] Colwell demonstrated that definite predicate nouns simply as a matter of Greek style do not have the article when they come before the verb, but do have the article when they come after the verb. For instance, in John 1:49 Nathaniel answers Jesus, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” The English quite correctly translates both predicate nouns (Son of God and King of Israel) with the definite article. In Greek the phrase “the Son of God” comes after the verb and has the article. The phrase “the King of Israel” comes before the verb and does not have the article. σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ (sy ei ho huios tou theou, sy basileus ei tou Israēl. [The word ei is the verb “you are” while huios is the word for Son with the definite article ho and basileus is the word for “king” without the article]).

Applying Colwell’s rule to John 1:1, some have said that the reason theos lacks the article is simply a matter of word order. Some have even used Colwell’s rule as a proof that theos “must” be definite even without the article, because it precedes the verb. This is a misuse of Colwell’s rule. Colwell was only examining definite nouns and showed that those definite nouns lack the article when they precede the verb. He didn’t show that every predicate noun preceding the verb must be definite. [56]

The issue can be formulated another way. If John had changed the word order so that the predicate noun followed the verb, could he have said, “The Word was ho theos” (ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός)? The problem with that is that John has just said that “the Word was with God” (ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ho logos ēn pros ton theon). Here, theos has the article which identifies the person of God the Father. John is not saying that the Word is the Father. That would be the heresy of Sabellianism or modalism. [57] Theologically it is correct to say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But these statements cannot be reversed. We cannot say God is the Father, because that would omit the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor can we say God is the Son, or God is the Holy Spirit. The Logos is God, but he is not the only person of whom that can be said. John is not identifying for us who God is (which he would do if theos had the article), but is describing his nature.

(3) The interpretation that “theos” is qualitative. A third use of a noun in Greek without the article is to give it a qualitative emphasis. By “qualitative” is meant the qualities or characteristics, the kinds of things, involved in the noun. In 1 Thessalonians 1:9 Paul says that the Thessalonians “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.” The first mention of God here has the article in Greek, identifying the God to whom they turned. They had been worshiping idols. They turned to God. The second mention of God does not have the article. But it does not mean that they just served “a god.” Without the article the emphasis is on the kind of God he is, the kind of God who is living and true. The emphasis is on his character rather than identifying his person. [58]

Other statements should be noticed. God is love (1 John 4:8); in him was life (John 1:4); the Word became flesh (John 1:14). These nouns are not indefinite; they are qualitative. John 1:14 looks at the nature the Logos assumed at a point of time. He became “flesh” when he was born with a true human nature. John 1:1 looks at his nature from the perspective of eternity. [59]

John is saying that the Word, who is distinct from the Father, is still in the same category of being. He is God. He is deity. Theos without the article looks at his nature or his essence. The Word is not an inferior being to the Father. He is the same kind of being. He is not the person of the Father, but he does have the same nature. We could translate this verse “the Word was divine,” but that would be misleading in English. We use the word divine to indicate something which has godlike qualities but is less than God. It is too weak a term. John is beginning his Gospel with the same strong statement of the deity of Christ with which he ends it in John 20:28. Barrett says, “John intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God; if this be not true the book is blasphemous.” [60] Jesus was not a man who made himself to be God, as in the charge that was leveled in John 10:33 and 5:18. Rather, he was God who became man (1:14).

This verse does not give us the doctrine of the Trinity, but it does force us to start thinking in a way that moves us toward it. The Word who became flesh was from all eternity with God, so that he is distinguished from God, and yet he was God. The New Testament will not let us compromise the essential truth of monotheism, but it does indicate that within the Godhead there are two distinct persons who may be identified (three, when we come to the further revelation about the Holy Spirit).

John 1:18

A second verse in John’s Gospel where Christ is explicitly called God is John 1:18. There is however a textual problem here, and the relevancy of this verse to our whole discussion depends on it. The NKJB translates John 1:18, “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” The NASB renders it, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” The difference between the translation “the only begotten Son” (NKJB) and “the only begotten God” (NASB) is not so much a difference in translation as it is a difference in the underlying Greek text behind the two translations. The majority of later manuscripts have the word Son (υἱός, huios) while the earliest manuscripts, those considered the better manuscripts by most textual critics, have the reading God (θεός, theos). [61] Two of the earliest papyrus manuscripts P66 and P75 dating from around a.d. 200, along with the two best manuscripts of the New Testament א and B, have the reading “God.” This is strong external evidence. In addition, the expression “the only begotten God” sounds strange in comparison to “the only begotten Son” which is familiar to us from three passages in John (John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). It is more likely that a scribe would change the more unusual phrase to the more common one. Not all scholars agree with this. Harris has a chart which lists the different scholars, editions of the New Testament, and translations which support the different readings. I would accept the reading “God” as the original and therefore include this passage in our discussion. However, since there is some question about this key word, our discussion of this verse will have to be considered provisional in relation to our topic.

The Context. Verse 18 is the climax to John’s Prologue where the Logos, who is Jesus Christ, is the ultimate revelation of God himself. John has declared that the Logos who was with God in a past eternity and who was himself God (v. 1), the one who created all things (v. 3), the one who was the source of life and light (vv. 4–5), became a man, so that the glory of the Father, particularly his grace and truth, might be seen in him (v. 14). Verse 18 repeats the essential ideas of verse 1 so as to tie the whole Prologue together. The one who was “with God” was “in the bosom of the Father.” The one who “was God” is the “only begotten God.” He is the “Word” who has “explained” God and made him known. Verse 17 mentions his name, Jesus Christ, for the first time. The rest of the Gospel presents his life here on earth. Verse 18 is the transitional verse which enables us to see how this one whose glory was seen here on earth was able to give the true revelation of God.

No one has seen God at any time. How can man know God? Verse 18 presents the essential problem of man, his limitations and inability to have any direct knowledge of God. No one has ever seen God. This statement is at once self-evident and may reflect the statement to Moses, who has just been mentioned in verse 17, when God said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live” (Ex. 33:20). But Moses, hidden in the cleft of the rock, was allowed to see a glimpse God’s glory passing by, seeing God’s “back” but not God’s “face.” “My face shall not be seen” (Ex. 33:23). This is a way of saying that all of the theophanies of the Old Testament where God was said to be seen were not direct visions by sight. Jacob, after wrestling with the angel of Yahweh, said, “I have seen God face to face” (Gen. 32:30). Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders “saw the God of Israel” (Ex. 24:9–10). Isaiah “saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted.” Isaiah was overwhelmed and exclaimed, “Woe is me,… For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts” (Isa. 6:1, 5). Men have “seen” God in the sense that he has allowed them to have some glimpse of his person and character. But no one has seen him as he truly is. The reality is that God “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Tim. 6:16). This verse would indicate that even glorified man will never be able to see God as he truly is.

When John says that no one has ever seen God, the word God comes first in the sentence, the place of emphasis, and is without the article in Greek, indicating that it is the character of God, the divine nature which is in view, rather than the person. No one has seen God as God, i.e. as he truly is. This is in accord with what we have seen in the previous paragraph.

Here is the dilemma of man. Man was created in the image of God, and was designed to know God and to have fellowship with him. But our finiteness prevents us from having a direct vision and knowledge of God. The message of the Gospel of John which is presented here is that God himself has taken the initiative in making himself known to man. This truth of God came through Jesus Christ. He is an exception to the statement that “no one has seen God at any time.” John 6:46 says, “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.” He does have a direct knowledge of God the Father. He is “the only Son, who is God” (μονογενὴς θεὸς, monogenēs theos), and he is the one “who is in the bosom of the Father” (ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς, ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou patros). He has seen God because he shares the same nature as God the Father and has always been in intimate fellowship with him. He therefore can explain God to men in a way that we can know God truly, although not exhaustively.

μονογενὴς θεὸς, monogenēs theos, The only begotten God (NASB) or God the One and Only (NIV). The first of the two expressions which indicate the basis for Christ’s being able to reveal God to man is that he is “the only Son, who is God.” The expression in Greek,(μονογενὴς θεὸς, monogenēs theos, is very difficult to translate. The word theos indicates that he is God. This is the truth that has been stated in verse 1. He shares the divine nature with the Father and he may be called God. The word monogenēs has been traditionally translated “only begotten.” It is a difficult word to comprehend and the two words together, monogenēs theos, have been translated into English, according to Harris, at least thirty-three different ways. [62] Most modern translators and commentators reject the translation “only begotten” and prefer something like “unique” or “one and only.” Consideration must be given to the meaning of this word monogenēs.

The Greek word monogenēs has two meanings according to BDAG. It refers (1) “to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship” and can be translated “one and only, only;” and (2) “to being the only one of its kind or class,” translated “unique (in kind).” Neither of these definitions stresses the idea of birth or begetting, but rather the idea of uniqueness. The difference between the two is that the first definition is used in reference to children, an only child, while the second to things.

The word is found nine times in the New Testament. It is used in Luke to refer to an only child (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38). Hebrews 11:17 says that Abraham offered up his “only” son, Isaac. The word is used in John’s Gospel to refer to Jesus Christ as “God’s only Son, his unique Son” (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). In John 1:14 there is no noun expressed. He is monogenēs from the Father. In 1:18 he is monogenēs theos. In the other three passages he is the monogenēs Son. The emphasis is that Jesus is the unique Son of God. There is no other who is the Son of God like he is. While Paul refers to believers as the “sons of God” (υἱοι θεοῦ, huioi theou, Rom. 8:14, 19; Gal. 3:26), John never does. Believers become “children of God” (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna theou). For John there is only one Son of God, Jesus Christ, the Word who became flesh. Christ himself recognizes that his Sonship is different and that God is his Father in a different way than he is our Father. He tells Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection, “go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God’” (John 20:17). He does not say “our Father,” but specifically makes the distinction “my Father and your Father.” We become children of God by regeneration and by adoption. He is by nature the Son of God. His Sonship is unique, one of a kind.

There is a third definition of the word monogenēs which goes further and stresses the idea of birth, of begetting, of derivation, and this is found in the definition “only begotten.” This definition comes from identifying the genēs part of monogenēs with the verb γεννάω, gennaō, which means “to beget.” This was stressed more and more after the fourth century in the Christological debates with the Arians. The Arians argued that the Son was a creature who had a beginning to his existence. The Orthodox developed the doctrine of “eternal generation” to say that the Son was “begotten” not “made.” But his generation was unique. It was a process of eternal generation which had no beginning. The Nicene Creed in a.d. 325 seems to have distinguished the two thoughts of the generation of the Son and the unique being of the Son when it used the two expressions γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, μονογενῆ (gennēthenta [begotton] ek tou patros, monogenē). [63] The addition of the term monogenē shows that it did not mean the same thing as “begotten of the Father.” It stressed the unique nature of Christ’s Sonship. “But in the interval which elapsed before the council of Constantinople the important distinction between the sonship and the generation of the Son was beginning to be obscured, and the μονογενής was treated as μόνος γεννηθείς [only begotten], so as to include both the fact of the uniqueness of the Nature of the Son and the ground (if we may so speak) of His uniqueness.” [64]

In spite of this development and the familiar ring of “only begotten,” the word monogenēs itself does not carry the connotation of birth or begetting. “Only begotten” is a definition based on etymology, a practice which is always dangerous. [65] Even here the fact that there is only one n in monogenēs and not two as in gennaō shows that this is not even precise etymology. Hebrews 11:17 is very important because it shows that the word monogenēs does not mean “only begotten.” Isaac was not Abraham’s only begotten son. Abraham’s firstborn was Ishmael, born of Hagar. Isaac was “one of a kind,” unique.

He was the child of promise, the only child of promise. The stress is on the uniqueness of his sonship, not the birth or begetting. Clement of Rome uses the word monogenēs to describe the Phoenix, the mythical bird from the districts near Arabia which lives five hundred years, dies, brings forth a worm from its flesh that grows and puts forth wings, and becomes a new Phoenix. Clement says that this bird is “the only one of its kind” (monogenēs). [66] In this passage the stress is on the uniqueness of this bird. In the apocryphal book, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” it is said with reference to Wisdom that “there is in her a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, manifold…” (ἔστιν γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ πνεῦμα νοερόν ἅγιον μονογενές πολυμερές, Wisd. of Sol. 7:22). This passage is not describing the derivation of Wisdom, but its essential nature. It is unique. [67]

There is nothing in the usage of the word monogenēs that indicates or requires the idea of birth or begetting. It may denote something that is one of a kind, unique. In the New Testament, however, it is particularly used in terms of family relationships. It is used of an only son or daughter, an only child. In John 1:14 Christ is the monogenēs from the Father. It thus indicates that he is the only Son of the Father. The idea of Sonship comes from this Father-Son relationship. What it does not say is anything about the origin of this Father-Son relationship. It does not say that the Son became a son by the process of birth or begetting. It does not say anything about an “eternal generation” of the Son. It simply says what is indicated when Jesus is called the “Son of God,” with the additional stress that he is the only one who is in this relationship with God. He is the one and only Son of God.

There are additional issues of translation with the phrase monogenēs theos, but the essential point here is that Jesus is explicitly called God. He is particularly God the Son. He is the unique Son of God. No one is Son of God like he is. It is because he has the same divine nature as God the Father that he is able to do what finite men are not able to do. He is able to know and reveal God.

The one who is in the bosom of the Father (ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς, ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou patros). The second description of the Son of God which gives the ground for his ability to reveal God is the phrase, “the one who is in the bosom of the Father.” This is a description of closeness, of intimacy, of affection. Because of the Son’s intimate relationship with the Father he knows the Father and is able to reveal him.

The word translated bosom, κόλπος (kolpos), is not a particular reference to the female anatomy but refers to the breast or chest area of a person. It has a number of other meanings, such as the folds of a garment, or a bay of the sea, which are related to a curved or hollow shape. There are a number of figures for which this expression is used. It can be used of the wife in the arms of her husband (Gen. 16:3; Deut. 28:34), or the husband in the embrace of his wife (Deut. 28:56). It may also refer to a child in the lap of its mother or nurse (Ruth 4:16), or to the position of the honored guest at a banquet in relation to the host (Luke 16:22–23; John 13:23). This use arose from the position of reclining at table when eating. The head of the person on the right side of the host was level with the chest of the host. Thus, Lazarus in Luke 16 was carried to Abraham’s bosom in the place of honor at the banquet of the next world. The disciple whom Jesus loved was lying in his bosom in the upper room (John 13:23). The expression has the idea of an intimate, affectionate, personal relationship. In John 1:1 John says that the Word was with God in a past eternity. This indicates a personal relationship. This expression in verse 18 indicates the closeness of the relationship between the Father and the Son. The NRSV translates this “who is close to the Father’s heart.” Because of this closeness the Son knows the Father and so can reveal him.

There are two additional interpretive questions with this phrase that relate to Greek grammar. First, the preposition that is used, “in the bosom of the Father,” is the Greek word εἰς (eis). It is the preposition that is normally used with verbs of motion (to go into a place, to carry something into a location) as opposed to the preposition “in” (ἐν, en) which is used with verbs of rest (to be in a room, to stand in a circle). Here the verb is “to be,” “the one who is,” a verb of rest. Some have therefore suggested that this preposition eis must have a dynamic sense in this verse, combining the ideas of rest and motion. It refers to access, movement into the innermost being of God as well as abiding there.

This is probably reading too much into the preposition. The distinction between eis and en which had been maintained in Classical Greek was being blurred in Koine Greek. “There are many NT passages where a real distinction between εἰς and ἐν is impossible to draw without excessive subtlety.” [68] Moulton particularly says, “But it must be confessed that our evidence now makes it impossible to see in Jn 1:18 (ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον) ‘the combination…of rest and motion, of a continuous relation with a realization of it’ (Westcott).” [69]

The second question relates to the time of the participle, “the one who is in the bosom of the Father” (ὁ ὢν). There are three basic interpretations of this present participle. (1) Some have referred it to the present position of the ascended Christ. He is now in the bosom of the Father. (2) Others have looked at this like verse 1 as referring to a past eternity, “the one who was in the Father’s bosom.” (3) A third interpretation says that the participle is timeless and refers to his fellowship with the Father in a past eternity which was not interrupted during his incarnation and still continues today. The second of these is undoubtedly the primary reference. Participles in Greek do not have absolute time, but relative time. A present participle usually describes an action which takes place at the time of the main verb. But even that is not absolute when we are dealing with substantival or adjectival participles. It was his fellowship with the Father that was the basis for his making the Father know. The verb in “He has explained Him” (ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο) is an aorist tense, a past tense in Greek. Unless this is referring to the revelation of the ascended Christ, this must refer to the fellowship of the Son with the Father prior to or during the incarnation. The continuation of the presence of the Son with the Father during the present age is not precluded by this, but it is not the point of emphasis.

He has explained him (ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο)

Man as he is cannot know God as he is. The only one who is qualified to reveal God is the one who knows God fully. Because the Son is himself God and yet distinct from God the Father, and because of his intimate relationship with the Father which he has had from all eternity, he knows the Father and can reveal him to us. “The divine nature is not foreign to the Son, for as μονογενὴς θεὸς he possesses it and is therefore qualified to reveal it.” [70] But one who was not God by nature could not have the kind of intimate relationship to “see” God and know him fully. Nor could he reveal God to man as Christ can. John uses the pronoun “he” to refer to the one whom he has just mentioned. The only Son who is God, the one who has been near to the heart of God from all eternity, that is the one who has explained God to man.

The word translated “explained” (ἐξηγήσατο, exēgēsato) is found six times in the New Testament and means (1) “to relate in detail, to recount a narrative, to describe experiences” (Luke 24:35; Acts 10:8; 15:12, 14; 21:19). It can also mean (2) “to set forth in great detail, to expound.” It was even used in secular Greek (3) as a technical term of priests and soothsayers who expounded or revealed divine secrets. The basic idea expressed by the verb is that the Son, who is God and who has an intimate knowledge of the Father, is able to explain to men what God is like. This is the word from which we get the English word “exegesis,” the explanation of the meaning of a passage of Scripture. The Son is the exegete of the Father. He makes God known to us. Since man has never seen God and cannot know him in his essential nature, the Son’s making known the Father to us has the idea of revelation. “Jesus Christ made visible the invisible nature of God.” [71] “The knowledge of God, which Christ had as God, He set forth to men as man.” [72]

John 20:28

John 20:28 is the climax of the Gospel of John in its development of faith among the disciples of Christ. This is the ultimate confession of faith in Jesus Christ. John has begun his Gospel with the theological statement that “the Word was God.” When the resurrected Christ appeared to the skeptical Thomas, the response of Thomas was to confess, “my Lord and my God.” Coming as it does just before John’s statement of purpose as to why he wrote the Gospel (John 20:30–31), this seems to be the conclusion and the climax of the book. Chapter 21 may be considered an Epilogue so that the confession of Thomas is “the final pinnacle of his Gospel and the zenith of his Christology.” [73] John 1:1 and 20:28 enclose the body of the book as “literary bookends.” [74] John 1:1 begins with a statement of the deity of Christ and says that in a past eternity he was God. In John 20:28 Jesus is confessed as “my God” and is the object of his worship. This truth of the deity of Christ is not just something of the past, but is a present reality.

John 20 begins with the discovery of the empty tomb, first by Mary Magdalene, and then by Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved (vv. 1–10). This is followed by Resurrection appearances to Mary (vv. 11–18), to the ten apostles excluding Thomas (vv. 19–25), and then to the apostles along with Thomas (vv. 26–29). The skepticism of Thomas has been proverbial in the Christian church. When told by the other apostles that they had seen the Lord, he responded by saying that he would in no way believe [75] unless he (a) saw the imprint of the nails in his hands, (b) put his finger in the imprint of the nails, and (c) put his hand in his side (v. 25). On the following Sunday Thomas was with the other apostles, again behind closed doors, when Christ appeared to them. This time his words were directed pointedly to Thomas using the very words that he, Thomas, had spoken the week earlier. “Then He said to Thomas, ‘Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing’” (v. 27). Thomas’ response was the worshipful confession addressed to Jesus, “my Lord and my God” (v. 28).

Efforts to avoid the significance of these words are vain. They cannot be dismissed as shocked profanity addressed to God, a blasphemous version of a stunned, ‘My word!’ [76] Nor can these be considered as words addressed to the Father. They were introduced by the statement, “Thomas answered and said to Him.” They were words addressed to Jesus. They were not a mere exclamation, they were Thomas’s answer to the resurrection appearance. Further, in verse 29 “Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed.” Verse 28 is acknowledged by Jesus to be a statement of Thomas’ faith. [77] Nor can it be considered an extravagant, emotional exaggeration of an excited Thomas. The words of Jesus in verse 29 are an acceptance and commendation of his faith. [78]

In Greek the nominative case of ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου (ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou) is used with a vocative meaning, i.e. as a term of address. This is a common usage in the NT. There are almost six hundred nominatives used as vocatives in the New Testament, around twice as many as there are true vocatives. [79] God is frequently addressed as ὁ θεός with a vocative meaning in the LXX. [80]

Thomas had been instantly transformed from a doubter to a believer, and the statement “my Lord and my God” was the expression of his faith. While it was an address to Jesus and not a formal doctrinal statement, it was undoubtedly the expression of what Thomas truly believed. Raymond Brown called it “a cross between a vocative and a proclamation of faith.” [It is the recognition of the truth], “You are my Lord and my God.” [81] Jesus had said that all should honor the Son as they honor the Father (John 5:23). John gives this climatic illustration of such worship on the part of Thomas.

What is so significant about this passage is that it not only shows Thomas addressing Jesus as “my God,” but it also shows Jesus accepting that confession and title. When Cornelius fell at the feet of Peter and worshiped him, Peter immediately made him stand up, saying “I too am just a man” (Acts 10:25–26). When the people of Lystra responded to Paul’s healing of the lame man by calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, and by wanting to offer sacrifice to them, Barnabas and Paul “tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out and saying, ‘Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you,” (Acts 14:14–15). In Revelation 19:10 when the apostle John fell at the feet of the angel, announcing the revelation to him in the prophecy of that book, the angel said to him, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God” (cf. Rev. 22:9–10). No creature should be worshiped, whether man or angel. When Herod Antipas addressed the people in Caesarea and they cried out “the voice of a god and not of a man” (Acts 12:22), “immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, (12:23). Silence in this case was acceptance of their calling him a god. But this silence was blasphemy, and God judged him for it.

What a contrast when Jesus accepts the confession and the worship of Thomas! [82] He is acknowledging and accepting the truth of what Thomas was saying. He is “Lord and God.” This becomes not just the confession of Thomas but also the confession of Jesus. He is acknowledging his own deity and commending it as the true expression of faith which all believers are to express. [83] Furthermore, the place of this in the Gospel of John shows that this is the climax of John’s doctrinal presentation of Christ. Carson says:

(1) Thomas’ confession is the climactic exemplification of what it means to honour the Son as the Father is honoured (5:23). It is the crowning display of how human faith has come to recognize the truth set out in the Prologue: ‘The Word was God…; the Word became flesh’ (1:1, 14). (2) At the same time, Jesus’ deity does not exhaust deity; Jesus can still talk about his God and Father in the third person. After all, this confession is set within a chapter where the resurrected Jesus himself refers to ‘my Father…my God’ (v. 17). This is entirely in accord with the careful way he delineates the nature of his unique sonship (5:16–30). (3) The reader is expected to articulate the same confession, as the next verse [v. 29] implies. John’s readers, like Thomas, need to come to faith; and this is what coming to faith looks like. [84]

Romans 9:5

In Romans 9 the apostle Paul explicitly affirms the deity of Christ. He has concluded Romans 8 with the magnificent prospect of believers enjoying the love of God in Christ for all eternity. But by contrast, Paul’s own countrymen, the Jews, were missing out on this great salvation because of their unbelief. This caused great distress and sorrow to the apostle (Rom 9:1–2), so much so that he says that he could wish that he himself were accursed, separated from Christ, if only his Jewish kinsmen could be saved (9:3). What makes Jewish unbelief so surprising and perplexing is that the Jews were God’s chosen nation with great privileges, eight of which are enumerated in 9:4–5. What Paul will explain in Romans 9–11 is how this nation, with its unique promises and privileges, could, at the present time, be excluded from the blessings of salvation.

In the enumeration of Jewish advantages, the climax and greatest privilege is that the Messiah came from them (9:5). In the first seven blessings listed in verses 4–5 Paul says that these are privileges that belong to the Jews. [85] The Messiah, however, did not belong to the Jews; he came from them. He was the fulfillment of the promises made to the fathers and the culmination of the hopes of the nation Israel. What makes this such a climactic privilege is the uniqueness of the person of the Messiah. He was not just from the Jews as far as his human nature is concerned. He is also the one who is Lord of all, God blessed forever. To say that he is “over all” points to his universal supremacy. But he is more. He is God blessed forever. He is not merely a human being coming from the nation of Israel. He is also God in his divine nature. The mystery and the gravity of Israel’s rejection comes from the uniqueness of the person of their Messiah, the one who is “God blessed forever.” What is significant for us in this verse is that Paul explicitly says that the Messiah is “God.”

This is the natural way to understand Romans 9:5. It is the way that most of the commentators, translators, and theologians in the history of the church have understood it. That is not to say, however, that all have understood the verse this way. In fact this is one of the most hotly disputed verses in the whole Bible. Sanday and Headlam said over a hundred years ago that “the interpretation of Rom. ix. 5 has probably been discussed at greater length than that of any other verse of the N.T.” [86] The statement that Christ is “God blessed forever” is so explicit that some have felt it extreme. They would say that Paul does not specifically call Christ “God” anywhere else, and it would be surprising if he does so here. They further would say that doxologies (the expression “blessed be God”) are only found in the New Testament of God and not of Christ. For this reason some commentators, since the time of the Reformation, have sought an alternative interpretation of this verse.

This alternative interpretation is based on the fact that the earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament did not have any punctuation. [87] A period may be inserted and a verse broken up according to the best sense of the passage. Romans 9:5 reads in the NASB as follows: “Whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” Here Christ is called “God.” Some would put a period after the word “flesh.” The RSV reads “of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever.” Others would put the period after the word “all.” The NIV margin reads “Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised.” By these punctuations these latter two translations are able to interpret the word “God” as referring to God the Father.

Does Romans 9:5 call Christ “God,” or is this a reference to God the Father? There is only one fundamental argument that this is a reference to the Father. Paul, it is said, always stops short of specifically calling Jesus “God.” If that were not felt to be a problem, there would be no question that the natural way of taking this verse would be that Christ is here called “God.” The following reasons should be noted.

1. The word order. Notice in the translation of the NASB “from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever” the relative pronoun “who” follows the word “Christ” and precedes the word “God.” Normally a relative pronoun follows the word to which it refers. [88] Here “Christ” is the antecedent and the word “God” follows. To take this as “God, who is over all be blessed forever” would violate the normal word order. [89] The only person specified in the verse is “Christ” and the relative pronoun naturally refers to him. There is a very similar construction in 2 Corinthians 11:31. There Paul says, “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying” (NKJB). [90] The “who is” clearly refers back to “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” and statement is made that he is “blessed forever.” In Romans 9:5 we have “the Christ according to the flesh, who is ….” What we do not have is “God who is over all.” To solve this problem of word order one would have to place the period after “flesh” as in the NIV margin mentioned above and then take the rest of the verse “God be forever praised.” Note, however, the following.

2. A doxology begins with the word “blessed.” The normal form of a doxology in Hebrew, Greek, and English is “Blessed be God.” The word “blessed” occurs first. In Greek this is εὐλογητός ὁ θεός (eulogētos ho theos). This phrase is found four times in the New Testament and twenty-five times in the LXX. [91] Any interpretation which takes the word “God” as a reference to the Father in Romans 9:5 must reverse this normal word order and take the word “God” as followed by the word “blessed.” [92]

3. A doxology to the Father is out of place in Romans 9:5. A doxology to the Father would be a statement of praise to God for something that has just been mentioned. In this passage the tone is not set by the mention of the privileges to Israel, but by the sorrow over the disobedience of the Jews and their lost condition. In another passage the enumeration of Israel’s privileges might well be followed by an expression of praise to God. But how inappropriate for Paul to express his great sorrow over the fact that his fellow countrymen, in spite of incredible privileges, are separated from Christ, and then to add “Praise the Lord!” On the other hand, to say that Israel was lost in spite of their greatest privilege would be natural and appropriate. The Messiah who had come from them in his human nature was the sovereign Lord over all, God blessed forever,.

4. The phrase “according to the flesh” suggests that there is something more to Christ than just his human ancestry. Paul says that Christ comes from Israel “as far as the physical side of things is concerned,” or “as far as his human nature is concerned.” If he had just said that one of the privileges of Israel was that from them came the Messiah, that would be sufficient. But when he says that from them came the Messiah as far as his human nature is concerned, something more is implied. Those who refer the name “God” to the Father leave us hanging. The contrast is found in the statement that Christ is “over all, God blessed forever.” The human side of him is not all that there is. He shares the very nature of God.

5. The appropriateness of referring to Christ as “God.” The only reason for saying that the word “God” is not applied to Christ is that it is inappropriate and contrary to Paul’s usage. This is greatly overstated. Paul does call Jesus God. In Titus 2:13 he says that we are to be “looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (NKJB). Jesus Christ is “our great God and Savior.” We have already seen in Romans 10:13 Paul thought of Jesus as God when he applied an Old Testament passage referring to Yahweh to him. We also made the same point in Philippians 2:10–11. [93] He refers to Jesus as the one in whom “all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col. 2:9). He is the “Lord both of the dead and of the living” (Rom. 14:9). He “existed in the form of God” and “on an equality with God” (Phil. 2:6, cf. ASV). Furthermore, he was preexistent (Gal. 4:4; 2 Cor. 8:9). The fact that Paul does not normally use the name “God” to refer to Christ is probably to avoid confusion with the Father. But he clearly thought of him in the category of God. In Romans 9:5 he calls him theos. The noun is without the article and looks at the divine nature of Christ as in John 1:1, rather than the divine person.

Conclusion. [94] The whole of Romans 9:5 refers to Christ. The arguments for this interpretation greatly outweigh the arguments that part of the verse refers to God the Father. Paul is making three statements about Christ. He is (1) the sovereign Lord over all, (2) he is God by nature, and (3) he is eternally praised. But these three statements are related. He is the sovereign Lord because he is God by nature, and because he is God by nature he is worthy of everlasting praise.

Titus 2:13

In Titus 2 Paul begins by addressing different groups in the church as to their conduct. Their conduct should be such that they “adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect” (v. 10). Verses 11–15 then give the theological basis for the exhortations just given. “The apostle proceeds in these verses to ground the whole of his exhortations respecting the behaviour of Christians in the essentially moral nature and design of the grace of God as now manifested in the gospel.” [95]

In verse 12 it says that the grace of God bringing salvation to all men has appeared to all men teaching us how we should live, namely soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age. There are two participle clauses which modify the verb “live” and further define what this godly living involves. The first clause is negative: “denying ungodliness and worldly lusts” (v. 12, NKJB), while the second is positive: “looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (v. 13, NKJB). This second clause looks at the expectant attitude of the church as the early Christians were to be eagerly awaiting Christ’s Second Coming.

The coming of Christ is here called “the blessed hope” of believers. “Hope” is used in the sense of the content of what was looked for and confidently expected. It did not mean something merely wished for. They were looking for the time when their hope would be realized at the Second Coming of Christ. It is called the “blessed” hope because it will be a particularly joyful time when the culmination of the saving work of Christ in the believer will be fully realized.

The “blessed hope” is also referred to as the “glorious appearing” of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. There is one article in Greek with these two phrases which links them closely together in a unity (προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης, prosdechomenoi tēn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tēs doxēs). The “blessed hope” is the “glorious appearing.” The latter phrase (epiphaneian tēs doxēs), however, has been translated two ways. It may be translated the “glorious appearing” (KJV, NKJB) or “the appearing of the glory” (NASB). The word “glory” is in the genitive case and may be used in an adjectival sense “glorious.” [96] Or the genitive may be a subjective genitive, what appears is the “glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Both are possible and make good sense. The word δόξης (doxēs) occurs twenty times in the Pauline epistles following a head noun, and according to Murray Harris it may be translated “glorious” in seven of them (not including Titus 2:13). [97] This would mean that the two phrases are more parallel, the “blessed hope” and the “glorious appearing.” Both nouns are qualified by an “adjectival” idea. On the other hand the word “appearing” is found three other times in the New Testament followed by a genitive, and in each of them the genitive indicates what appears or is manifested. [98] Arguing for the latter interpretation is the observation that there is a parallel between verse 11 and verse 13. In verse 11 the grace of God bringing salvation has appeared. In verse 13 the glory of our great God and Savior will appear. [99]

The important issue in this verse, however, is whether it is referring to the appearance of one or two persons. The King James renders this “the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” This seems to be making a distinction between God the Father who is called “the great God” and the Son who is called “our Savior Jesus Christ.” The New King James translates it as the “glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” In this translation Jesus Christ is explicitly called “our great God and Savior.” Most of the modern English translations take this verse as an explicit reference to the deity of Christ, calling him “our great God and Savior.” [100] This is undoubtedly correct, and this is an important passage on the deity of Christ.

The grammar of this passage makes it quite clear that Paul is referring to Jesus Christ as our great God and Savior.

In Greek, when two nouns are connected by καί and the article precedes only the first noun, there is a close connection between the two. That connection always indicates at least some sort of unity. At a higher level, it may connote equality. At the highest level it may indicate identity. When the construction meets three specific demands, then the two nouns always refer to the same person. [101]

The two words in this verse are “God” and “Savior.” They meet the three conditions which Wallace specifies and therefore refer to the same person. Jesus Christ is both our God and our Savior.

This grammatical rule was originally discovered by an Englishman Granville Sharp (1735–1813). Studying the deity, of Christ he noticed that several passages had the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where the noun can be substantives, adjectives, or participles). In this construction the second noun refers to the same person as the first noun when: (1) they are both personal nouns, (2) singular, and (3) neither is a proper name. The tendency among many grammarians has been to overlook or neglect Sharp’s rule because they have overlooked these three restrictions. For instance, Murray Harris, in his excellent work Jesus as God, has an appendix on the article in which he discusses Granville Sharp’s rule and tries to simplify and extend it to include all constructions where there is article-noun-καί-noun. He shows that the construction implies some kind of unity between the nouns, but not necessarily identity. [102]

A fresh and comprehensive study of this construction has been made by Daniel Wallace in a Ph.D. dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary.The results of that study are summarized in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 270-290. There are eighty examples of the construction with the three restrictions in the New Testament which do not deal with the deity of Christ. There are no exceptions. When the article-noun-καί-noun construction is found and the nouns are personal nouns in the singular which are not proper names, the second noun always refers to the same person as the first. [103] For example, in 1 Peter 1:3 Peter says, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, emphasis added). In Greek the article is before the word “God” but not before “Father.” The words “God” and “Father” both refer to the same person. The word “God” is found a dozen times in the New Testament in this construction and always (even if we exclude any texts which might be a reference to Christ) refers to one person. [104]

This means that in the phrase “our great God and Savior” (τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν) the words “great God” and “Savior” are both referring to the same person. That person is specified as “Jesus Christ.” Jesus Christ is “our great God and Savior.”

Opposition to that conclusion has chiefly come from dogmatic grounds rather than grammatical. Winer, one of the leading grammarians of the nineteenth century, admitted that grammatically “God” and “Savior” could be coordinate under the one article (both referring to Christ). But he says that it was “dogmatic conviction derived from Paul’s writings that this apostle cannot have called Christ the great God” that led him to separate “the great God” as a reference to the Father and “our Savior” as a reference to Christ. [105] That however ignores the objective grammar on the basis of prejudice. It rejects what Paul did say on the basis of what one thinks he could have or could not have said.

The argument from grammar is very strong and is sufficient to show that Titus 2:13 is a passage where Paul refers to Jesus as God. One should note in addition that the word “appearing” (ἐπιφάνεια, epiphaneia) is never used of the Father in the New Testament, but it is frequently used of the Son (1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8). The phrase “God and Savior” was a stereotyped phrase constantly applied to deities in the ancient world. [106] So here the two words should be kept together and not separated. This is the only place in the New Testament where the word “great” is used of “God.” Bernard says that it would be pointless if applied to God the Father, but of great significance as a description of God the Son. It calls attention to the glory of his advent. [107] In verse 14 Paul ascribes to Jesus the functions of redeeming and purifying a people for his own possession. This is language of what Yahweh did in the Old Testament. In the book of Titus Paul refers to God as “Savior” and then to Christ as “Savior” in each chapter (1:3–4 2:10, 13; 3:4, 6). The title “God” is thus appropriate for the Son.

The argument that God the Father is separated and distinguished from Jesus Christ is fundamentally based on the assumption that Paul would not call Jesus God. It is frequently said that the term “Savior” had become a technical term which was losing the article. It was more like a proper name, so that the Granville Sharp rule does not apply. This again overstates the evidence. The word “Savior” (σωτήρ) is found ten times in the Pastoral Epistles. In seven of the ten it has the article. In 1 Timothy 1:1 it does not have the article because it is in apposition to θεοῦ (theou), which does not have the article. Θεοῦ (theou) does not have the article because its head noun, “commandment” does not have the article.

In constructions like these, both nouns have the article or neither does. 1 Timothy 1:1 does not prove any technical sense of the word σωτήρ. It is normal Greek style and the article would be out of place. In 1 Timothy 4:10 the word “Savior” is a predicate nominative (where the article is often lacking). In the New Testament the phrase “our Savior” regularly has the article unless it follows the word “God” without the article. [108]

We have already seen in the discussion of Romans 9:5 that Paul both thought of Jesus as having the nature of God, and was willing to call him God. Here is a second passage where Paul uses the title “God” in reference to Christ. The coming of Jesus is the coming of “our great God and Savior.” His appearing is glorious because of who he is. His glory is the glory of God.

Hebrews 1:8-9

The reference to Christ as “God” in Hebrews 1:8 is unusual in that it is part of a reasoned proof of the divine nature of the Messiah. Charles Hodge notes this particularly:

The doctrines of the Bible are generally stated with authority, announced as facts to be received on the testimony of God. It is seldom that the sacred writers undertake to prove what they teach. The first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews is an exception to this general rule. The divinity of Christ is here formally proved. [109]

Hebrews 1:4 states the point that the writer to the Hebrews is proving in these first two chapters. The Son is superior to angels. Verses 1:5–14 are a series of seven quotations from the Old Testament which show that the Son is vastly superior because of his godhood. The author has said in verse 3 that the Son is the “radiance of God’s glory” and the “exact representation of His nature.” He is being described as “the intrinsic possessor of the nature of God.” [110] The superior name which he has inherited (v. 4) is the name “Son” (1:5), a name never given to angels. He is the “first-born,” the heir who has the preeminence over all things, and is specifically the object of angels’ worship (1:6). In contrast to the angels who serve (1:7), he reigns (1:8). They change their form (“who makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire”), whereas he is “God;” his throne continues forever (1:8). The eternal nature of his reign is based on the eternal nature of his person, which comes from the fact that he is “God.”

Verse 8 is the first of three times in this section in which the Father addresses the Son. In verse 8 he addresses him as “God.” In verse 10 he calls him “Lord,” and in verse 13 he speaks to the Son and says “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” The title “O God” and the title “Lord” show the essential deity of the Son. Verses 8 and 10 make explicit what was implied in verse 3. [111] In the exercise of his divine rule he is just and righteous (1:8–9), his kingdom is characterized by joy (1:9), he is the exalted Lord who created the heavens and the earth, who does not change (1:10–12), and who is also God’s exalted coregent (1:13). [112]

A key point in the argument is the fact that in verse 8 Christ is explicitly addressed as “God.” It is not just that the Son has a superior status and more important functions in redeeming and ruling. He is a different category of person. He is a different kind of being. No angel can be addressed as “O God.” He can, because of his divine nature.

There are a number of details that should be noted here. First, the beginning of verse 8 should be translated “to the Son” [113] he says, and not “about the Son” he says. [114] In verse 7 the word πρός in the phrase πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους λέγει (pros men tous angelous legei) means “of” or “about” in the sense of speaking about someone or something. Because of the μὲν…δέ contrast some have wanted to translate πρός in verse 8 the same way (“he says about the Son”). While this is possible, there are several considerations against it. (1) The usage of the phrase λέγειν πρός (legein pros) is against it. The expression is found thirty-five times in the New Testament. Only twice does it mean “to speak about” (Rom. 10:21; Heb. 1:7). Twenty-six times it means “to say to” and six times it means to speak for or against. [115] Thus the normal meaning of πρός in λέγειν πρός is to speak “to” a person. When the rest of the passage is considered it becomes clear that verse 8 must also be translated in the same way. (2) When the phrase “to speak” with a dative of indirect object, or with πρός is followed with a second person address (you/your), the meaning must be “say to” and not say about (cf. 1:5, 13; 5:5; 7:21). (3) Verse 10 connects the quote in verse 10–12 with the quote in verse 8–9. This is a second passage where God speaks πρὸς τὸν υἱόν. But since verse 10 contains the words of direct address, “you, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,” the phrase should be understood as “to” the Son he says.

The second thing to notice is that the Son who is addressed by the Father as “O God” in verse 8 is distinguished from God in verse 9. “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” God the Father is called “your God.” The Son is “God” but he does not exhaust the conception of God. The Father also is God. He is distinguished from the Son. Yet there is no indication that the essential monotheism of the Bible is compromised.

As with the other passages in the New Testament where Jesus is called “God,” so with this text there have been attempts to explain away the obvious meaning. The main objection has been to say that Psalm 45, which is being quoted, is a psalm referring to the king of Israel or Judah on the occasion of his wedding, and for the psalmist to address the king as “God” would be unthinkable. In responding to this we must consider two things separately. First what was the meaning of the quote in the original setting in the Psalm, and secondly what was the meaning and intention of the author to the Hebrews when he quoted the Psalm? In the Hebrews passage the overwhelming majority of English translators, grammarians, commentators, and authors of specific studies take the word “God” to be a vocative of address to the Messiah. [116] The grammar and the context seem decisive.

If “God” is not vocative, then it must be either the subject of the sentence or the predicate nominative. As a “subject” it would mean “God is your throne forever and ever.” No where else is God called a throne. To say that God is my throne is not a parallel to say that God is my rock or my fortress. Rock and fortress look at the place of protection. God protects me and watches over me in all my circumstances. But the throne signifies the kingdom, or the dynasty, or the rule of a king. God is not the throne, nor is the throne a figure of God. God is the foundation of the throne. God as the subject of the sentence does not fit the thought well. The alternative is to take the verse “your throne is God.” Very few translators or commentators have chosen this interpretation. It does not give any suitable meaning. The throne is not “God.” The RSV translation has “Thy divine throne endures forever and ever.” That simply is not an allowable translation of the Greek, Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος. Ὁ θεός (“God”) in the nominative cannot be translated as an adjective. There is no use of the nominative in Greek which allows it to have an adjectival use like this. Even if that were a permissible translation of the Hebrew of Psalm 45:7, it is not a way the Greek can be translated. The New Testament, following the LXX, understood ὁ θεός as a vocative, “O God.”

Further, it has been seen from the context that Hebrews 1 is specifically arguing for the deity of the Son. He is addressed as “God” in verse 8 and as “Lord” in verse 10. He is superior to angels because they are creatures and he is “God.” They are changeable, while he is unchangeable. They are creatures, while he is the Creator. They are temporal, while he is eternal. Angels worship him.

But is this use of Psalm 45 by the writer to the Hebrews in accord with the meaning of the Old Testament setting of the psalm? Psalm 45 was a royal psalm of praise for the king on the occasion of his wedding. Verses 1–9 describe the king with lavish praise for all his splendor, majesty, and righteousness, while verses 10–15 are advice that is given to the bride. The psalmist is overflowing with joy as he contemplates the king (v. 1). The king is the greatest and fairest person that he knows (v. 2). He is a mighty warrior who champions the cause of truth, humility, and righteousness (vv. 3–5). His kingdom is eternal and is characterized by righteousness and joy (vv. 6–7). In his exuberance he even addresses the king as God (v. 6). Verses 8–9 describe the splendor of the king on his wedding day with the wedding garments, the perfumes for the occasion, the décor of the palace, and the wedding guests. After giving advice for the bride on her wedding day (vv. 10–15), the psalmist predicts that people will honor the king forever because of the descendants who will be born to him (vv. 16–17).

Could the psalmist really have addressed the king as God? Could any earthly king be addressed as God? This Old Testament Psalm must be seen in the context of the promises made to David in the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7). David was promised an eternal throne, an eternal seed, and an eternal kingdom. In the kings of the Davidic dynasty, the kings of Judah, lay the hopes, desires, and dreams for the nation. With each new king hope was kindled anew that in this one the ideal promises of God might be realized. But those hopes were dashed as each of these kings fell far short of the ideal.

In this Psalm the psalmist addresses the king in a way that expresses his hopes, dreams, and expectations of all that the ideal king promised by God would be. He would be just and would love righteousness. In him God would be fully manifested. He would be God’s ideal representative. The monarchy would be a true theocracy with God ruling through the king (cf. 1 Chron. 28:5; 2 Chron. 9:8; 13:8 where the Davidic kingdom is associated with the kingdom of God). In describing the king in his heavenly beauty, his irresistible glory, his divine holiness, and the perfect righteousness of his rule, he addresses him as God.

This does not mean that the psalmist thought that the Old Testament king was literally God. In his office as king he stood in the place of God and was the representative of God. [117] The psalmist is describing the ideal. There is a sense of hyperbole or exaggeration which went beyond any earthly king or kingdom in the Old Testament. In this Psalm the psalmist describes the king not as he was, but as he hoped him to be. All of the actual kings in the Old Testament fell miserably short.

When the writer of Hebrews read this Psalm, he realized that the ideal portrayed in the Psalms and the Prophets had been literally realized. The Psalm was not describing any king of the Old Testament as he actually was, but was a perfect description of the Messiah, and that Messiah was Jesus Christ. While the psalmist may have used exaggerated, idealistic language to describe the king, he was carried beyond himself by the Spirit of God, so that his words were prophetic. They spoke of the one who would fulfill the ideal of all that was hoped for in the Old Testament. They were literally true of Jesus Christ. In fact he could be addressed as God, not simply because he was the representative of God or because God ruled through him, but because he was himself God. This is part of his argument that the Son is superior to angels. No Davidic king in the Old Testament was superior to angels simply because he was the representative of God. Jesus Christ, the Messiah, was superior because he was “God” (v. 8) and “Lord” (v. 10).

Actually the writer of the Hebrews was not the first to recognize that this Psalm ultimately referred to the Messiah. The Targum (the Aramaic translation of the Jews after the Babylonian captivity) translates verse 2, “Your beauty, O King Messiah, surpasses that of ordinary men.” Also Isaiah 9:6 says that the Messiah will be called “Mighty God” (ל גִּבֹּור, ‘ēl gibbōr). The two words ‘ēl which means “God” and gibbōr which means “mighty one” come from Psalm 45. Psalm 45:3 says, “Gird Your sword on Your thigh, O Mighty One.” Verse 7 says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” The “Mighty One” is the word gibbōr, while the word ‘ēl in Isaiah 9:6 is the short form of ʾēlô̄hîm in Psalm 45:6.

Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45:6 because there the king, the ideal king who is the Messiah, is addressed as “O God.” The Messiah is not the mortal king of the Old Testament times. He is the eternal Son whose rule is eternal. He is not superior to angels simply because he is a righteous king whose rule does not end. He is greater than angels, because they are creatures, while he shares the divine nature with God.

2 Peter 1:1

Peter begins by writing “to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” Jesus Christ is referred to as “our God and Savior” and is therefore specifically called God. The construction here is similar to that in Titus 2:13. Even though there have been some who have taken “God” and “Savior” to refer to two different persons, the great majority of translators and commentators ascribe both to Jesus Christ.

The reason for taking both “God” and “Savior” to refer to one person, that person being Jesus Christ, is because of the Granville Sharp rule mentioned above. [118] Peter is writing “to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ” (tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). The one article (tou) modifies the two nouns (theou and sōtēros) which are joined by καί. In this construction both nouns are referring to the same person. Jesus Christ is our “God and Savior.” In the light of Wallace’s demonstration of the validity of this rule, any rejection of this conclusion is not based on grammatical exegesis but on dogmatic prejudice. Three times in 2 Peter we have reference to τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (tou kyriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” 2 Peter 1:11; 2:20; 3:18). There is only one word which is different from verse 2, the word “Lord” instead of “God.” There is no one who would question the translation “our Lord and Savior” or deny that both titles refer to Jesus Christ. It is the identical construction in 2 Peter 1:2 where Jesus Christ is called “our God and Savior.” In 2 Peter 3:2 he is called “the Lord and Savior” without the word “our.” The one who is called “our Lord and Savior” is also called “our God and Savior.”

In the five verses cited in the previous paragraph we see all of the uses of the word “Savior” in 2 Peter. They are all in phrases where there is one article with two nouns, and are all referring to Christ. Just as the other four are expressions referring to one person, so 1:2 should be taken in the same way. [119] Warfield also points out that the term “Savior” is a divine title in the Old Testament which is transferred to Christ. [120]

Conclusion

I have examined seven passages in the New Testament where Jesus Christ is referred to as God: John 1:1; John 1:18; John 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; and 2 Peter 1:1.

What these seven passages do indicate is that Jesus Christ has the nature of God. This is more than a functional statement. Christology in recent years has been dominated by a functional viewpoint which says that the question “Who is the Christ?” is asking, “What is his function?” rather than “What is his nature?” He speaks for God. He reveals God. He forgives sins. In other words he stands in the place of God and performs divine activities. He functions as God. But these are not ontological statements, and they do not indicate anything about his nature.

There is a danger in setting up a false dichotomy. There is no divorce between function and nature. The reason that Christ can perform divine activities is because he is a divine person

What these seven passages clearly show is that Jesus was more than just a representative of God. He is called God because he has the nature of God. The emphasis on being and nature is not just an imposition of Greek philosophical thought on the New Testament by the Nicene fathers in the fourth century. This emphasis goes back to the New Testament itself.

Having said this, why is the designation of Christ as “God” so infrequent in the New Testament? Normally the word God refers to God the Father. It has become like a proper name of the Father. When used of the Son it is not a proper name. It is a title which describes a category of being. It does not say that the Son is the Father or that the Son is all that there is in the conception of God. It says that the Son has the nature of God. He is a divine being. He has the same nature as God the Father. He is fully God, but he does not exhaust the conception of God.

The infrequent references to Christ being God in the New Testament may reflect the desire to avoid confusing the Son with the Father, who is normally called God. Even in the passages where the Son is specifically called God, there is often a specific statement distinguishing him from God the Father. “The Word was God,” but the Word was also “with God” (John 1:1). The New Testament writers are careful to distinguish the Father from the Son. It may be also that they usually reserved the title “God” for the Father to avoid the impression of two gods in a polytheistic world. The Greco-Roman world was full of many gods.

At the same time they did not minimize the question of who Jesus Christ was, and they taught in many ways that he was a divine Savior who was able to accomplish the work of redemption that only God could do.

Jesus as the Son of God

It is clear in the New Testament that one of the most important titles of Christ was “Son of God.” It is not just in the confession of Peter that Jesus is acknowledged as “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). John the Baptist testified that “this is the Son of God” (John 1:34). At the baptism and transfiguration God spoke from heaven and said “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased” (Matt. 3:17; 17:5). Satan as well as demons acknowledged him as the Son of God (Matt. 4:3; 8:29). John writes his Gospel that “you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31). Fifty-one times in the Synoptic Gospels, and over one hundred times in John, Jesus speaks of God as Father. The usage substantiates the importance of the title.

There is also a great deal of confusion over the title “Son of God.” It has often been said, “Jesus was not deity. He was not God. He was the Son of God.” John Murray observes, “The title ‘Son’ is far too liable to convey to our minds the thought of derivation, and with that the idea of his being secondary and subordinate in his intrinsic being and station.” [121] This viewpoint totally fails to grasp the New Testament significance of this title. In John 5:18 the Jews were seeking to kill Jesus because he was calling God his own Father. In doing so he was “making Himself equal with God.” Jesus did not deny the inference they were making as improper. Rather he substantiated their conclusion in the surrounding verses. He, like the Father, works on the Sabbath (5:17). He does whatever the Father does (5:19). He gives life to whomever he will (5:21). He executes all judgment. All are to honor the Son just as they honor the Father (5:23). And he has received from the Father to have life in himself (5:26). As Carson observes, “Whatever functional subordination may be stressed in this section, it guarantees, as we have seen, that the Son does everything that the Father does…and now Jesus declares that its purpose is that the Son may be one with the Father not only in activity but in honour.” [122] “Son of God,” as properly understood, is a title which supports the deity of Jesus Christ.

Part of the confusion arises from the fact that the title “Son of God” is used several different ways in Scripture.

Adam in Luke 3:38, along with Satan and angels in Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7, are called “sons of God.” The “sons of God” of Genesis 6:2, 4 may also be fallen angels. Those in this category were “sons of God” as directly created by God.
There is a messianic Sonship announced in 2 Samuel 7. In the Davidic covenant God promised that he would raise up a descendant to David to rule and reign on David’s throne. “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me” (2 Sam. 7:14). The Davidic king became a “son of God” when he was installed into his office as king. [123] Psalm 2 refers to this when it says, “I have installed My King upon Zion, My holy mountain. I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten you’” (Ps. 2:6–7). When Jesus is called “the Christ, the Son of God” in the New Testament, part of the meaning involved is that of messianic Sonship.
Jesus in his human nature is also called the Son of God. In Luke 1:35 the angel said to Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.” [124]
All believers, as born-again and adopted into God’s family, are also called “sons of God.” “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26; cf. Rom. 8:14, 19). Vos calls this the “moral or religious” sense of the title. These are all different ways that the term “son of God” is used in Scripture, but they do not fully explain the way Jesus was the “Son of God” in the New Testament.
There is also a Trinitarian Sonship. The Sonship of Christ is an eternal Sonship which looks at his essential relationship with the Father. It is a term which indicates his deity.

The Sonship of Christ was absolutely unique. That is the essential significance of the term monogenēs which we looked at earlier. [125] There is no other who is the monogenēs Son. The practice of Jesus addressing God as “my Father” was unique. In the Old Testament God is referred to as Father only fifteen times, and then only in his relationship to the people of Israel or the king. [126] Jeremias says, “To date nobody has produced one single instance in Palestinian Judaism where God is addressed as ‘my Father’ by an individual person.” [127] The reason for this can be seen in the John 5 passage where the Jews sought to kill him because he called God his own Father, making himself equal with God (5:18). In Jewish thought the claim to be the Son of God involved the claim to be God, or at least equal with God.

Paul says in Galatians 4:4 “when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.” [128] The one sent was “His Son.” He was the Son before he was sent. This is particularly seen in Romans 8:3. “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin.” Sending him “in the likeness of sinful flesh” refers to the incarnation. He did not become Son by being sent or after he was sent. He was in heaven with the Father prior to the incarnation. It was the Son who was sent. In fact it was because he was Son that he was able to accomplish the work that he was sent to do.

In John 3:16 “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.” The next verse says that “God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world.” Giving the Son in John 3:16 did not just involve the cross. It included the incarnation and the whole work of our Lord here on earth. God did not give him to be the Son. Rather it was as Son that he was given.

“Son” is a term that describes the preincarnational relationship between the Father and the Son. The Father is eternal Father and the Son is eternal Son. It is these two terms that the New Testament has chosen to describe the relationship between the first two persons of the Trinity. Just as a human father and son have the same nature, so God the Father and God the Son have the same nature.

In John 10:30 Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” This is not a mere functional unity. He is not saying that they are one in fellowship, will, purpose, or revelation. The Jews took up stones to stone him because they said, “You, being a man, make yourself to be God” (John 10:33). They understood that his claim to be one with the Father was a oneness of nature. This is certainly what John is intending to convey here in the light of the fact that he began his Gospel saying “The Word was God.” They are one because “the Father is in me and I in the Father” (10:38). This is an absolute unity because it is the unity of the Father and Son who are both God by nature.

In Matthew 11:27 the divine nature of Christ’s Sonship is also seen. “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” Christ claims an exclusive and intensive knowledge of God which can only be true of deity. The converse is also true. The only one who truly knows the Son is the Father. What is significant here is that it is as Son that he knows the Father and it is as Father that the Father knows him.

Thus “Son of God” is also a title which points to the deity of Christ. He is not a son in the way that believers are sons of God. Nor does his messianic Sonship exhaust the meaning of the title Son of God in reference to Jesus. His unique Sonship is that of one who was God the Son from all eternity.

Jesus as the Son of Man

Many may be surprised to find out that the title, “the Son of Man” is actually a title which indicates the deity of Christ. It is commonly assumed that the title “Son of God” looks at the deity of Christ, while “Son of Man” looks at his humanity. The trial of Christ before Caiaphas in Matthew 26 shows that more is involved in this phrase than just the humanity of Christ. When Jesus was silent in the face of witnesses giving false testimony, the high priest, Caiaphas, said, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (26:63, NIV). “‘Yes, it is as you say,’ Jesus replied. ‘But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’” The response of the high priest was to tear his robes and to cry out, “He has blasphemed!” (26:65). What was it that caused him to cry blasphemy when Jesus said that he was the Son of Man who would come on the clouds of heaven?

In itself, the title “son of man” may simply be a reference to a person as a human being. Ezekiel, in the book of his name, is characteristically addressed as “son of man” (ninety-three times). Nothing more was meant by this than the fact that Ezekiel was a human being. The term is also found a number of times in the Old Testament parallel to the word “man” with an obvious synonymous meaning. In Psalm 8:4 it says, “What is man that You take thought of him, and the son of man that You care for him?” [129]

When we come to the New Testament the title “Son of Man” is found sixty-nine times in the Synoptics and thirteen times in John. It is the characteristic expression by which Jesus referred to himself. In fact all of the uses in the Gospels are directly in the mouth of Jesus, or in two cases where others where quoting him (Luke 24:7; John 12:34). It was not a term which the Christians used in the epistles to refer to Christ. The only exceptions to this were Acts 7:56, where Stephen saw the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God, and Revelation 1:13 and 14:14. What is the significance of this? Why did Christ characteristically refer to himself as the Son of Man?

It seems best to recognize the fact that Jesus referred to himself so often as the Son of Man because the title was ambiguous. Because the Jews were thinking of the Messiah chiefly in terms of the glorious political conqueror, Jesus used a term which “could conceal as well as reveal.” [130] On the surface level it was a term that indicated humanity. The Son of Man was a human being. But the Matthew 26:64 passage shows us that Jesus ultimately had a view of the Son of Man which was much more significant. Whether he was speaking about the present ministry and authority of the Son of Man, the suffering and resurrection of the Son of Man, or the future coming of the Son of Man, he was looking at the Son of Man as the one spoken of in Daniel 7, a human being who is also a heavenly figure.

The words of Jesus to the high priest, “you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven,” are a quote from Daniel 7:13. Daniel 7 is a prophetic vision of the Gentile world empires which will rule from Daniel’s day until they are succeeded by the world-wide kingdom of the Son of Man. These worldly kingdoms are pictured as savage, wild animals. They reveal God’s view of human history as man’s inhumanity to man. Kingdoms rise and fall by the sword with blood and slaughter. One kingdom devours another like wild animals. The kingdom of the Son of Man which succeeds them will be characterized by all that is human in its noblest sense. God created man to rule over the earth (Gen. 1:28; Ps. 8:6).

The Son of Man will fulfill that goal for man as created by God. But he is also a heavenly being who comes with the clouds of heaven to approach the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:13). He is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom which will not ever end, that all men might serve him forever (7:14).

The earliest interpretation of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 understood him to be the Messiah (Enoch, 37–71). With this Jesus agreed when he quoted this passage in answer to the high priest’s demand, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63). The Son of Man is more than just a man. He is more than just a heavenly being. He is a divine being. There are two things which indicate this in Daniel. First, he comes “with the clouds of heaven.” “The majority of the occurrences of ʿānān [clouds] (58 out of 87) are used in relation to God’s theophanic presence.” [131] Clouds in the Old Testament, when not referring to the clouds in the sky, invariably are found in company with an appearance or intervention of God. “They are His carpet, His mark of identification.” [132] The clouds of heaven mark the Son of Man as a divine being.

Secondly, the verb “serve” in verse 14, “that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve him” (פלח, plḥ) is found nine times in the Aramaic portion of Daniel and always refers to the service of a deity. [133] The deity of the Son of Man is thus indicated by the reference to the clouds and by the verb “serve.” This explains why the high priest tore his robes and cried that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy. He recognized the implications of the reference to Daniel 7. In referring to himself as the “Son of Man” of Daniel 7:13, Jesus was making a claim to deity.

Implicit Evidence of the Deity of Christ

We have looked at scriptural passages where Christ is specifically called God and where Old Testament passages referring to Yahweh are specifically applied to him. These passages are sufficient to demonstrate the deity of Christ. The doctrine of his deity does not depend on these passages alone. Even when the New Testament writers were not calling him God, they everywhere conceived of him as God. Here there is a wealth of evidence of a more indirect nature. The New Testament writers were not trying to prove a specific point, yet they continually spoke of Christ in a way that one can only speak of God. We will look at four specific areas. The New Testament shows us that Christ (1) does those works that only God can do, (2) possesses attributes which are only true of God, (3) receives the worship and honor which rightfully can only be given to God, and (4) accomplishes the work of salvation which only God can accomplish.

He Does the Works That Only God Can Do

There are some things that only God can do. There are some things which a finite creature is not capable of doing and which only God because of his nature and character can do. It is therefore most significant when the Bible describes Jesus Christ as doing these works. This can be seen in four areas: (1) Christ has performed the unique work of creation which the Bible ascribes to God; (2) Christ sustains this creation which is also the work of God; (3) Christ forgives sins, a work which only God can do; and (4) the Son is the joint source of blessings with the Father in a way that puts him on a par with God.

The Work of Creation

Creation is the work of God. It is the exclusive work of God. According to the Bible this universe is not eternal. It was brought into being by an act of God when he called into existence that which was not. Only God is eternal himself, and only God has the power to create all things which have been created. When we come to the New Testament, it is specifically said that the member of the Godhead who actually performed the act of creation was the Son. He is God the Creator.

We sometimes use the word “create” in a secondary sense. When we take existing materials and rearrange them to make something new, we say that we have created something new. We must distinguish from this the ultimate act of creation which was the work of God alone. That God is the unique Creator is a truth found throughout Scripture. It is his work as Creator which distinguishes him from the pagan idols which are powerless in this area. Genesis 1–2 is an extended narrative describing creation. It says in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). He spoke and that which was not came into being. The world was not formed from preexisting matter. It was the creation of God.

Note the following Scriptures:

You alone are the Lord. You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them. You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You (Neh. 9:6).
For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), “I am the Lord, and there is none else (Isa. 45:18).
Thus you shall say to them, “The gods that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.” It is He who made the earth by His power (Jer. 10:11–12).
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast (Ps. 33:6, 9).
For all the gods of the peoples are idols, But the Lord made the heavens (Ps. 96:5).

In the New Testament God is worshiped because he is the Creator.

Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created (Rev. 4:11).
And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, “O Lord, it is You who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them” (Acts 4:24).

The New Testament writers also use creation as that which distinguishes the true and living God from the false deities of the pagans.

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them” (Acts 14:15).
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things (Acts 17:24–25).

Since creation is the work of God, it is most significant that the New Testament specifically attributes the work of creation to the Son. In John 1:3 we read, “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” John has said that the Word, the Logos, was before all things, both in his relationship to the Father as God and in his fellowship with God (1:1–2). Now he further particularizes his relationship to creation. He is the one who created all things. John says this first positively, and then negatively. “All things came into being through Him.” All things, not in their totality (τὰ πάντα, ta panta), but individually (πάντα, panta) came into existence through him. The verb does not mean simply “was made” but “to come into being, to come into existence” (γίνομαι, ginomai). [134] Creation is the work of God, but it was the Logos, God the Son, who was the agent through (διά, dia) whom the work of creation was accomplished. Then in order to stress the point that the Logos was the absolute Creator of all things, John makes the same point negatively and from the viewpoint of the present. “Apart from Him not even one thing came into being which has come into being” (literal translation). Looking at all of those things which have ever come into being and now exist, [135] John says that not one of them came into being apart from him. He is the Creator of all things without exception. In Genesis 1 God “spoke” and creation came into existence. Here it is the Logos, the Word, by whom all things exist. Yet John is careful to separate him from the creation. He did not “come into being;” he always “was.” [136] Since “not even one thing which has come into being came into being apart from him,” he cannot be one of those things which “has come into being.” He was not the original creation of God who was responsible for the rest of creation. He is totally apart from creation. He is the God of creation.

This is not an isolated passage in the New Testament. In Colossians 1:16 Paul says, “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him.” The reason that Christ is the sovereign Lord of verse 15 is that he is the Creator of all things. All created things are said to be created “by him.” [137] He is the author of creation. The “all things” is then spelled out to include the things in heaven and on earth, i.e. the whole material creation including both living and non-living things. This is further specified as the things which are visible as well as those invisible. To the whole visible creation of Genesis 1 is added the invisible things which are not mentioned there. This would include the invisible world of spirit beings such as the thrones, dominions, rulers, or authorities. Paul is spelling out as comprehensively as possible the same idea of John 1:3 that not even one thing which was created was created apart from him. The whole creation as it presently exists [138] was created through him and for him. He is not only the author and builder of the universe; he is also the goal of creation. It was made for him.

Creation is also attributed to Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 8:6 in a context in which Paul affirms the unity of God and also the diversity of persons in God. In verse 4 Paul denies the reality of idols and affirms that “there is no God but one.” This is an uncompromising statement of monotheism. The gods of the pagans are “so-called gods.” They exist in the minds of their worshipers, but they have no objective reality as gods (v. 5). [139] When he says that “for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him” (v. 6), he is making a confession of the fundamental truth of the oneness of God in the same way the Jews did when they recited the Shemah from Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” But he makes it a Christian confession because he adds, “and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” The “one God” and “one Lord” stand in contrast to the many so-called gods and lords of the pagans. The title of Christ, that he is Lord, is the name that was used for God in the Old Testament, the name Yahweh. He says that the Father is the source and Creator of all things (“from whom are all things”), and he is the goal of creation (“and we exist for Him”). Indeed our very existence is “for him.” When he adds of Jesus Christ “by whom are all things, and we exist through Him,” he indicates that the Son is the one “through whom” God created all things. This is a reference to the whole creation and affirms that the Son is the Creator. The Father is source and originator of creation. The Son is the executor who actually brings the creation into existence. [140]

In this passage Jesus Christ is not only said to do the work of creation, he is confessed as “one Lord” and this confession of “one God” and “one Lord” is directly opposed to the polytheism of the pagans. Fee remarks, “Although Paul does not here call Christ God, the formula is so constructed that only the most obdurate would deny its Trinitarian implications.” [141] While affirming monotheism, he differentiates between the persons of the Father and Jesus Christ. Fee also says, “This means that the emphasis is not on the unity of the godhead, although that may be assumed, but on the uniqueness of the only God. The God whom Christians worship as Father and Son stands in singular contrast to all others who might be thought to be gods but are not.” [142]

Creation cannot be the work of a creature. It must be the work of God. This is inherent in the notion of creating something out of nothing. The Bible says that this is the work of God alone. It distinguishes him from idols, and marks him out as the Sovereign Lord of his creation. The fact that Christ is designated in the New Testament as the one who actually performed the work of creation marks him out as being in the category of “God.” He is Creator rather than creature.

The Sustaining of Creation

The power of God is required not only to bring the universe into existence, it is also required to sustain that existence. The created world does not have an independent existence. Nothing created is self-sufficient. There is no innate power inherent within anything created which enables it to remain in existence. The God who created this universe is also the one who holds it together. He is not the god of Deism which says that the Creator started the process and then left it to run on its own.

In Colossians 1:17 Paul says that Christ, having created all things, now continues as the head of his creation. “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” All things are sustained and maintained by his powerful word. He is the uniting force which brings all things together and holds them together so that they exist and continue.

In Hebrews 1:3 “the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature…upholds all things by the word of His power.” The word translated “upholds” has the idea of movement, the carrying of something from one place to another. The Son is not an Atlas sustaining the dead weight of the world, he is carrying all things to their appointed goal and destiny. There is a providential government of the whole creation which rules and directs all things to the fulfillment of their purpose. “Aquinas points out that as the absence of the sun means the withdrawal of light from the sky so ‘the removal of the divine power would mean the cessation of the being and the coming into being and the continuing in being of every creature.’” [143]

Chrysostom calls this work of preservation of the universe a greater work than that of creation.

For, to hold the world together, is no less than to make it, but even greater (if one must say a strange thing). For the one is to bring forward something out of things which are not: but the other, when things which have been made are about to fall back into non-existence, to hold and fasten them together, utterly at variance as they are with each other: this is indeed great and wonderful, and certain proof of exceeding power. [144]

For Christ to have this power and to do this work, he must be deity.

The Forgiveness of Sins

Forgiveness of sins is a work of God. In the account of the healing of the paralytic, Jesus forced the religious leaders in Capernaum to face the issue of who he was. The account is found in each of the Synoptics (Matt. 9:1–8; Mark 2:1–12; Luke 5:17–26). When a paralyzed man was carried by four of his friends to Jesus to receive healing, they were unable to approach the Lord because of the crowd. Their ingenious solution to the problem was to take him to the roof, dig through, and lower him into the house where Jesus was teaching. The response of the Lord was totally unexpected. Instead of healing the man immediately he said, “Son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5). This immediately provoked opposition from some of the scribes who were there. They were outraged. This was blasphemy. Only God is able to forgive sins. While there is some question as to what precisely constituted blasphemy, this particular act was considered blasphemy because it was usurping a divine prerogative. Christ was claiming to do what only God can do. According to Leviticus 24:10–23, blasphemy was a capital offense.

Their theology was correct; only God can forgive sins. God says in Isaiah 43:25, “I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins” (cf. Isa. 44:22). Only the one who has been sinned against can forgive, and sin is ultimately against God. David said, “Against You, You only, I have sinned and done what is evil in Your sight” (Ps. 51:4). A prophet like Nathan, speaking for God, can announce that a person is forgiven (2 Sam. 12:13). But even here Nathan could only say, “The Lord also has taken away your sin.” Jesus was claiming something more. He was claiming the right to forgive sins himself. He said, “But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” The scribes recognized his claim, and assuming that he was just a man, they thought that this was blasphemy.

In the ensuing events Jesus does not directly make the claim that he is God, but what he does clearly imply it. He demonstrates his authority and right to do what only God can do. Yes, only God can forgive sins. But by demonstrating his right to do that very thing, he justifies his right to divine prerogatives. They assume that he is not God and therefore blasphemes. If he can show that he has the right to forgive sins, then he is God. The issue is clear. He is either God or a blasphemer.

The challenge of Christ came through a question. “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven;’ or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’?” There are two ways of viewing this question. From one point of view they are both equally easy to say, and equally impossible to do. Both require divine power. From another point of view it is easier to say “your sins are forgiven.”

If you tell the paralytic to rise and walk, your words are immediately put to the test, and it becomes evident whether or not you have the power to do it. But how can you prove or disprove that a person’s sins are forgiven after making a pronouncement? What Christ does is demonstrate his authority in the invisible spiritual realm by demonstrating his divine authority in the visible physical realm. The physical healing demonstrates his authority to forgive sins, his authority to do what only God can do.

The Joint Source of Blessing with God

There is another form of evidence that is more indirect, but still very significant, in that Christ is linked together with God as the joint source of blessing. There are three sets of passages we will look at.

1. Paul characteristically begins his epistles with the expression, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph 1:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 2 Thes. 1:2; Philem. 3; Tit. 1:4). [145]

There are several observations which can be made. (1) The words “grace” and “peace” are key terms which describe the gospel and the blessings of God bestowed in salvation. They are not earthly blessings. They are blessings which can only come from God. (2) The Father and the Son are linked together as the common source of grace and peace. This is clearer in the Greek text. There is one preposition (apo) which governs both nouns (χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, charis humin kai eirēnē apo theou patros hēmōn kai kyriou Iēsou Christou). There is no distinction made between the Father and the Son. They are both equally the source of grace and peace. (3) When Paul says “Grace to you and peace from…” he is addressing this as a kind of prayer to the Father and Son jointly to bestow these blessings. (4) Prayer itself is to be addressed to God. (5) The nature of what is prayed for, “grace and peace,” which include the infinite blessings of salvation, suppose a source which is sufficient to bestow those blessings, an infinite source. Such a source can only be God himself. (6) Since the Son is linked equally with the Father as that source, he must like the Father have the power and resources to bestow such blessings. We would not argue that this argument by itself is sufficient to prove the deity of Christ. It does show that Paul associates the Father and Son in the closest of ways without making any distinction in their work. In the light of the other evidence for the deity of Christ, this is a strong confirmatory argument.

2. There is a similar use of language in the Thessalonian letters. Paul writes “To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1). [146] Here again there is one preposition used with God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. [147] The church is jointly in the Father and the Son.

3. There are two prayers expressed in Thessalonians which are also significant. In 1 Thessalonians 3:11 it says, “Now may our God and Father Himself and Jesus our Lord direct our way to you.” The following points should be noted.

(1) This is a prayer addressed jointly to both God our Father and Jesus our Lord.148 (2) The subject of the sentence is “God our Father and Jesus our Lord,” a plural subject, but the verb is a singular verb (κατευθύναι, kateuthynai). [149] This is unusual since the normal rule in Greek is for there to be agreement between a subject and a verb. A plural subject has a plural verb. This is especially true when the plural subject precedes the verb, as it does here. There is a oneness between God the Father and Jesus our Lord so that they can be addressed jointly in prayer. There is a oneness between them so that they will jointly answer that prayer. (3) This prayer is a prayer that God would direct their way so that they would be able to go to Thessalonica. The reason for this prayer is seen in 1 Thessalonians 2:18. Paul had wanted to come to Thessalonica more than once, but he had been prevented from doing so by Satan. If God himself would clear the way, then his efforts to come would be successful. (4) What power is it that is able to overcome Satan and enable this prayer to be answered? It must be a power greater than that of Satan. It must be a supernatural power. Paul is able to make this prayer because he is confident that God himself has that power. But as the prayer is addressed jointly to the Father and the Son without distinction, there is implied an equality of power, a unity of will, and a oneness of operation in the answer to that prayer. The Son is viewed on a par with the Father. [150]

The argument of this section is that Christ does the works that only God is able to do. This includes creation, the sustaining of creation, and the forgiveness of sins. He is also linked with God as an equal source of the divine grace that is needed for Christian living. The New Testament writers constantly view the Lord Jesus Christ as a divine person.

He Possesses the Attributes of God

There are certain ways in which God is different from all created things. Only God is eternal, unchanging, and omnipresent. Even in the ways in which we, as created in God’s image, are like him, we are never completely like him. Theologians refer to God’s communicable attributes, those characteristics which we share with God, such as knowledge, wisdom, truthfulness, holiness, goodness, and love, just to name a few. Even in these areas there is a difference between man and God. We have knowledge, but only God possesses complete and exhaustive knowledge of all things actual and possible. We can imitate God’s love, but there is a vast difference between his perfect love and our love.

What we see in the New Testament is that Jesus makes claims for himself, and the New Testament writers describe him as one who has attributes and perfections which are only true of God and cannot be true of any created being. He is pre-existent, before all created things. In fact he is eternal. He is immutable, omnipresent, in him is the fullness of deity in bodily form, and he is the perfect revealer of God.

His Preexistence

His Preexistence as Sent by the Father

Galatians 4:4 says that “when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.” [151] Romans 8:3 says, “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin.” These two passages look at the Father sending the Son. Before he was ever born in Bethlehem the Son existed in the presence of the Father. The fact that the Father sent him is evidence of his preexistence before the incarnation.

His Preexistence as Creator

Creation takes us back further. We have already seen that creation was the work of God the Son. In John 1:1 at the beginning of creation, he already was. He then caused the whole created universe to come into existence. In Colossians 1:16 he is proclaimed as the Creator of all things, whether the things in heaven or on earth, whether visible or invisible. Verse 17 says that he is “before all things.” That means that he is prior to the whole material and immaterial creation of verse 16. He is not a creature but existed before all creatures.

Preexistence, of course, does not prove deity. The characteristic of God that is unique is his eternal existence.

His Eternal Existence

John 1:1

This has been discussed above.

John 8:58

The ministry of Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7–8) resulted in a conflict with the Jews in which their unbelief became particularly intense. Although many believed in him, this was a superficial, not a real, faith. They were still slaves to sin (v. 34); they were not receiving his word (v. 37); they were not the true children of Abraham (vv. 39–40); they were not children of God (v. 42); they were children of the devil (v. 44); they were not of God (v. 47); they did not know God (v. 55); they were liars (v. 55); and they sought to kill Jesus (v. 59). Using pejorative language they accused him of being a Samaritan (v. 48), and they said he was demon-possessed (v. 48, 52).

This discussion, particularly as it centered around Abraham, led to one of the most explicit claims to deity made by Christ. In verse 51 Jesus claimed to be the destroyer of death. If anyone keeps his word, he will never see death. The Jews objected in verse 52. God had spoken to Abraham and the prophets. They had kept God’s word and still died. His claim seems to place himself on a higher plane than Abraham, and they asked, “Are you greater than our father Abraham?” (v. 53). The question expects a negative answer. [152] But the answer found in verse 56 is a plain assertion that he is greater than Abraham. “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” He was in fact the one Abraham looked for and the object of all his hopes. Some have understood this to mean that Abraham in Hades (Luke 17:22) was still alive and saw Christ just as Moses and Elijah did at the mount of transfiguration (Matt. 17:3). [153] In the following verses, however, the question of the Jews and the point of Jesus is not that Abraham was co-existent with Christ at the time of his earthly life, but rather that Christ was co-existent with Abraham when Abraham was alive. [154] Although some have taken this to mean that he literally saw Christ as one of the three men of Genesis 18:1–3, [155] most have taken this to mean he saw with the eyes of faith. Just as Abraham was “looking” for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God (Heb. 11:1), so he was looking for the fulfillment of the promise that involved the Messiah, the promised seed through the line of Isaac, bringing blessing to all the nations of the earth. Whether that seeing was through a special revelation given to Abraham in his day, or whether it was based on the spiritual perception that saw the outcome of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant, is not clear. The point, however, is that Jesus Christ was the culmination of the hopes of Abraham.

To the Jews the inference that Abraham had seen Jesus must have meant that Jesus had also seen Abraham. That seemed preposterous, since Abraham lived almost two thousand years earlier. The response of Jesus in verse 58 is that he was not only Abraham’s contemporary, he existed before him. In fact, his statement is even stronger. He is not just claiming preexistence, but eternal existence. “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” The verb translated “was born” means to become or to come to be (γίνομαι, ginomai). [156] It is the verb used in John 1:3 of creation coming into existence. There was a time when Abraham did not exist, and then a time when he came into existence. Jesus says “I am” (ἐγὼ εἰμί, egō eimi). He did not say “Before Abraham was, I was,” which would indicate existence prior to Abraham. He said “I am.” He is uncreated and eternal. There is no predicate expressed, nor can one be supplied. For instance, he does not say before Abraham came into existence, I am the Messiah. The verb genesthai for Abraham cannot have a predicate, nor can the verb which is used for Jesus. Furthermore, the question was whether Jesus had seen Abraham. The answer points to his existence before Abraham to prove that he is greater.

The language that is used here is the language of deity. Note the same contrast between the verb γίνομαι, (ginomai) and the verb εἰμί, (eimi) in Psalm 90:2. “Before the mountains were brought forth…, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.” In the LXX this is rendered, πρὸ τοῦ ὄρη γενηθῆναι…καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος σὺ εἶ. The final phrase is simply “You are.” This is the same contrast between the creation which came into existence versus God who “is.” In the LXX of Isaiah 43:10 this expression ἐγὼ εἰμί, (egō eimi) is used to describe God in his eternal existence as opposed to the false gods of the pagans. “Be my witnesses, and I am a witness, says the Lord God, and my servant whom I have chosen, in order that you might know and believe and understand that I am. Before me there is no other god and there will be none after me.” [157] Büchsel says:

This verse ascribes to Jesus consciousness of eternity or supra-temporality. To the Son who is equal to the Father (5:18ff.) there is here ascribed what Scripture attributes to the Father; cf. the אֲנִי הוּא in Is. 43:10 (LXX: ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι), in which the whole Godhead of God is discerned, i.e., all that distinguishes Him from false gods. [158]

The response of the Jews who heard these words was to attempt to stone Jesus. “Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.” They understood the significance of what he was saying. Stoning was the punishment for blasphemy. “Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death” (Lev. 24:16). Raymond Brown says, “No clearer implication of divinity is found in the Gospel tradition, and ‘the Jews’ recognize this implication.” [159] Abraham, as well as all created things, are temporal. Jesus is timeless. But timelessness is an attribute of God alone.

His Unchangeableness

God does not change. He does not change in his nature. He does not change in his attributes. He does not change in his will or purposes. There is no development or growth in God. He was the same in the Old Testament times as in New Testament times. He is the same today as he was in biblical times. He is unchangeable in his nature, his attributes, and his plans.

Note the following Scriptures: Malachi 3:6: “I, the Lord, do not change. Therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” James 1:17: “Every good and perfect gift is from above, from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” Numbers 23:19: “God is not a man that He should lie, not a son of man that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken and will He not make it good?” Psalm 102:25–27: “Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.”

Unchangeableness is a perfection of God. In Hebrews 13:8 the writer to the Hebrews says that Jesus Christ is also unchanging. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” In verse 7 he recalls to his readers their past leaders: their guidance, their faith, and their example. Yet they died and were no longer available for help. But there is one who does not fail and that is Jesus Christ. He is always available for help, for power, for grace, and for guidance because he does not change. He is “the same yesterday and today and forever.” The practical point being made is that he is, always has been, and always will be, reliable and available. The direct point is not a statement about his eternal nature. But the work he is able to do cannot be divorced from his person. He says that Jesus Christ is “the same” (ὁ αὐτὸς, ho autos). These are the same words quoted from Psalm 102:25–27 in Hebrews 1:10–12. [160] There, the words in the Psalm are a contrast between the things we think of as permanent, the things that do not change, and God. The things we look on as permanent, the earth itself and the heavens, are temporary. They will all become old and perish. But God remains the same. He is unchangeable. In Hebrews 1:10–12 these words are applied to the Son. He has the divine perfection of unchangeableness. In 13:8 the author takes the same truth and shows its practical importance. Jesus Christ can always be relied upon. But the ground for his reliability lies in who he is. Unless he has the divine attribute of unchangeableness, then the statement of Hebrews 13:8 is a qualified statement (that is, he can be relied on within certain limits). But the earlier statement in 1:10–12 shows that it is not to be qualified. He is unchangeable as God is unchangeable. That is why he can be relied upon for time and eternity.

In Him Is the Fullness of Deity in Bodily Form

Paul’s answer to the heretical philosophers at Colossae who were seeking to offer a deeper knowledge was to explain the believer’s union with Christ. In him “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). He denounces the false, speculative, human philosophy as empty deceit (2:8), and nothing compared to Christ. There is no higher wisdom or deeper knowledge because in Christ “all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col. 2:9). This is a very strong expression of the deity of Christ. Each word is significant.

He begins with the words “in Him” (ἐν αὐτῷ, en autō) which are emphatic by position. It is in Christ and in Christ alone that deity dwells. It is not in angels or any created beings that the fullness of deity dwells. The word “dwells” (κατοικεῖ, katoikei) is not the simple word οικεῖ (oikei) which means to live or reside in a place. It is intensive with the prefix kata. This indicates a more permanent dwelling. Lightfoot translates it “has its fixed abode.” [161] The fullness of deity dwells in him not temporarily, but permanently. By the expression “all the fullness” (πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα, pan to plērōma) Paul is referring to the whole fullness, the fullness in its entirety. The fullness of deity is totally and exclusively found in Christ.

The word θεότης (theotēs) is the abstract noun for θεός and means “deity.” Paul uses a closely related word theiotēs in Romans 1:20. “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature (θειότης, theiotēs), have been clearly seen.” The word in Romans comes from the word theios, an adjective which means divine. Theiotēs means “divinity.” It looks at the characteristics of a deity. Theotēs looks at the divine nature itself.

Paul is saying that the fullness of deity resides permanently in Christ “in bodily form.” “In bodily form” (σωματικῶς, sōmatikōs) looks at Christ in his incarnation. He assumed a bodily form in the incarnation. But in the glorified body of his resurrection he continues to be in bodily form. Paul seems to be making two distinct statements about Christ. The first is that the totality of the Godhead dwells in Christ. The second is that this fullness of deity dwells in him in bodily form. [162]

It is because of the fullness of deity dwelling in Christ (v. 9) that Paul can say that “you are made full in him” (2:10). Human philosophies, angelic speculations, and deceptive traditions of men are all wrong roads. If you have Christ, you have all you need. You have everything. He is the fullness of deity in bodily form. If he is not the fullness of deity, then any fullness derived from him would not be that significant and would not be much different from what was being offered by the speculative philosophies of the false teachers. Christ is more than just an instrument of God, one through whom God works. He is in his very nature the fullness of deity.

He is Omnipresent

God is infinite and not limited according to space. He is present everywhere. This is beautifully expressed in Psalm 139:7–10:

Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, Even there Your hand will lead me, And Your right hand will lay hold of me.

David is conscious of the fact that he can never escape God. God is omnipresent because he is infinite. This is a characteristic that can only be true of God. No created thing is, nor can be, infinite.

Yet this same characteristic of omnipresence is ascribed to Christ. He told the disciples that “Where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst” (Matt. 18:20). He also sent them out in the great commission and told them, “Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt. 28:20). These verses are not meant to be understood in some sentimental, mystical sense, i.e. “Jesus is with us in spirit.” This is the presence with us of Immanuel, “God with us.” It is the one who abides in us, as we in him (John 15:4, 5; 17:21, 23, 26). Christ is with each believer throughout the whole age to guide and strengthen. That requires him to be omnipresent.

He is the Perfect Revealer of God

In Matthew 11:27 the Lord Jesus said, “No one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” There is a unique revelation of God through the Son. It is because of who he is that he knows God and can reveal God. No one else has this kind of true, intimate, and perfect knowledge of God, and no one else can reveal God as the Son can. If the Son himself is not God by nature, then he cannot know God fully and cannot reveal God as the New Testament says he does.

This is clearly seen in John 1:1–18 which has been discussed above. [163] In John 1:1 he is the Logos, the Word through whom God has spoken. But he was not just a prophet through whom God spoke. He was with God in a past eternity. His intimate fellowship with God gives him an intimate knowledge of God. Furthermore, he is God. It is because of who he is that he is able to be the Word, the message of God to man. He is one with the one whom he reveals.

In verse 14 it says that the Word became flesh. Because of the incarnation John says we were able to see his glory, the glory of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. It was his unique relationship to the Father as the only Son which made the incarnate life of Christ a revelation of God. Through him the grace and truth of God were seen in a unique way.

Verse 18 starts by expressing the inability of finite man to see God. It then reiterates in different language the point of verse 1. The one who has become flesh, the one who is God the only Son, who was in a unique relationship of intimate fellowship with God, has revealed God to us.

There are several things that can be seen in this passage. (1) The revelation of the Son is a unique revelation. (2) It is only because of who the Son is that he is able to reveal God. It is because he is God the Son that he knows God intimately. It is because he has become man and has adapted himself to our capacity that we have been able to see him and understand. (3) The revelation that comes from the Son is totally different from that received from the prophets. They were mere men who received a message from God through a dream, a vision, or some other kind of experience. God spoke to them and they in turn delivered that message to men. Sometimes they did not fully understand the message that they transmitted. Peter wrote that that they searched their own writings to try to discover when the predicted sufferings and glory of Christ would take place (1 Pet. 1:10–11). That is not like the revelation that came through the Son. The Son knows God. He is called God. He has the nature of God. He has existed in intimate communion with God from all eternity. He has become man and through his words and deeds he has shown us God. It is his person as both God and man that is the basis for his ability to explain God to man. He could say to Philip, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). No mere man could say that. Rather it is because “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me” (14:10) and because “I and the Father are one” (10:30) that he said this. It is because of their unity and the sameness of their nature that seeing the Son is like seeing the Father. Otherwise this statement is not true.

A similar thought is expressed in Colossians 1:15, “He is the image of the invisible God.” The word “image” indicates that there is some likeness or resemblance between Christ and God and that this likeness is manifested in Christ. In saying “he is the image of the invisible God,” Paul is saying that there is some kind of visible manifestation of God which is seen in him. In itself this expression does not indicate the deity of Christ. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27). The context of Colossians 1, however, points to a much stronger relationship to God than that of ordinary men. He is the Creator of all things (1:16). He is before all things, and he is the sustainer of all things (1:17). His authority is much greater than that of any man or any creature. He, the Creator, is the visible image of the sovereign authority of God. His authority is not a delegated or diminished authority. It is the authority of one “in whom all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form” (2:9).

The writer of Hebrews particularly contrasts the revelation given through the Son with the revelation that came through the prophets (Heb. 1:1–3). The revelation that came through the prophets was partial and fragmentary (1:1). The revelation which has come now in the New Testament era was not given through another prophet. It came through such a one as God’s own Son (1:2). [164] As Son he was the one who was the heir of all things. He is the one through whom the ages of history were created (1:2). He guides the created universe to its appointed goal (1:3). Further, he is “the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature” (1:3). The words “radiance” and “exact representation of his nature” are key terms here. The term “radiance” (ἀπαύγασμα, apaugasma) has an active and a passive meaning, radiance (active) or reflection (passive). Here, the active sense is in view. “The correct comparison would be sunlight, not moonlight. The Son flashes forth the glory of God.” [165] In the Old Testament the shekinah glory of God signified the presence of God in the midst of his people. [166] At the Transfiguration the Son manifested the glory which was his own, not just the reflection of a glory which was not his own. [167] The glory radiated by the Son was the glory of God.

He is the “exact representation of His nature.” The word “exact representation” (χαρακτὴρ, charaktēr) was the image and superscription on a coin which corresponded exactly to the device on the die. [168] The word “nature” (ὑπόστασις, hypostasis) means “the essential or basic structure/nature of an entity.” [169] “What God essentially is, is made manifest in Christ. To see Christ is to see what the Father is like.” [170] The Son is able to give a true and reliable revelation of the Father because he exactly corresponds to the Father in his very nature.

All of these passages in the New Testament point to the revelation of the Father through the Son as a revelation which is different in kind from the revelation that has been given through the prophets. That difference is based on the fact that the Son has the same divine nature that God the Father has, that he has an intimate relationship with God, that he knows God intimately, that he perfectly manifests the character and glory of God, and that seeing him is the same as seeing God the Father.

He Is Worshiped and Honored As God

Two fundamental principles of the biblical revelation are: (1) there is only one true and living God; and (2) he alone is to be worshiped. These both come from the first of the ten commandments which states, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Ex. 20:3). The command forbidding worship of other gods is repeated in numerous passages and is especially clear in Deuteronomy 6:13–15:

You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His name. You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, for the Lord your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the Lord your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth. [171]

God jealously guards his honor. He alone is God and he alone may be worshiped.

This truth is reinforced in the New Testament by those who refused to receive to themselves or to give worship to anyone but God. We have seen earlier how Peter, Paul, and Barnabas refused worship offered to them (Acts 10:25–26; 14:14–15), and how the angel in Revelation who spoke to John likewise refused the apostle’s worship (Rev. 19:10; 22:8–9). [172] In the two passages in Revelation the angel specifically concludes by saying, “Worship God.” When Satan offered the Lord Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world if he would fall down and worship him, the Lord responded saying, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve’” (Matt. 4:10, NKJB). He quotes the passage in Deuteronomy 6:13 that worship is reserved exclusively for God.

But we see in the New Testament that Jesus was worshiped by his disciples. The Magi came to Bethlehem with their gifts and “they fell to the ground and worshiped Him” (Matt. 2:11). In Matthew 28 Jesus met the women who had gone to the tomb and they “took hold of His feet and worshiped Him” (28:9). Likewise, when the eleven saw him, “they worshiped Him” (28:17). After the Ascension the disciples “after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy” (Luke 24:52). While some bowed before Jesus in his earthly ministry and paid homage to him without recognizing his deity (cf. Matt. 8:2), the disciples after the Resurrection had a dawning recognition of who he really was. This is clearly seen in the worship of Thomas in John 20 which we looked at above. [173] Thomas confessed Jesus as “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus acknowledged and accepted that worship. He had said that all should honor the Son as they honor the Father, and the one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father (John 5:23). He claimed the right to equal worship with the Father, and he accepted the worship of the disciples. What a striking contrast to the disciples when men attempted to worship them!

In Philippians 2:9–11 Paul says that after Christ had humbled himself by coming into the world and going to the cross:

God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This is not homage given to a creature, but the homage reserved exclusively for God. This is seen (1) in the fact that it is universal. Every knee of every rational creature, men and angels, bows to him. (2) Every one bows and pays homage to him. (3) Everyone confesses that he is Lord. The statement of verse 11 has been examined above. [174] It is in the context of an Old Testament quote from Isaiah 45. “The Lord” in Isaiah is Yahweh, and the context of the chapter stresses that Yahweh is exclusively God and worship is to be given to him alone.

In Hebrews 1:6, where the writer to the Hebrews is showing the superiority of the Son to angels, he quotes Deuteronomy 32:43 which says, “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” He is — and rightfully should be — the object of angels’ worship. It is significant that in three of the passages we have mentioned where Christ is worshiped, he is referred to as either “God” or “Lord” in the sense of Yahweh (John 20:28; Phil. 2:11; Heb. 1:6, 8, 10). The worship given to him is the worship that is given to God.

Revelation 5 is a magnificent chapter expressive of worship. In Revelation 4:10–11 the twenty-four elders fall before the throne in heaven and worship God saying, “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” In chapter 5:8 they fall down before the Lamb and burst forth in praise to him. [175] They sing to him in 5:9–10 as the one who is worthy. They are joined in 5:11 by a great host of angels and others who cry out “Worthy is the Lamb.” In 5:13 every created thing worships God and the Lamb jointly saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” Finally in verse 14 “the four living creatures kept saying, ‘Amen.’ And the elders fell down and worshiped.”

What homage! What praise! What worship! If the Lord Jesus Christ is not truly God, then this is all blasphemy. But in the New Testament this is his rightful due. He who is God the Son deserves to be worshiped.

It is particularly noteworthy in Revelation 5:13 that the form of worship to God and the Lamb is that of a doxology. Doxologies are ascriptions of glory and praise to God in the form “To whom/him/you (be/is) the glory for ever. Amen.” [176] Doxologies are regularly addressed to God as in Luke 2:14, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.” In Romans 11:36, after expressing his amazement at the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God (11:33), Paul says, “To Him be the glory forever. Amen.” [177] Doxologies are expressions of the glory and honor that belong to God alone.

In 2 Peter 3:18 Peter addresses Christ in a doxology. “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” This is particularly clear in that it is addressed to “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Other examples can be found in 2 Timothy 4:18, Revelation 1:5–6, and Revelation 5:13 where there is the joint praise “to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb.” Bauckham says:

The attribution of doxologies to Christ is particularly clear evidence of unambiguously divine worship, i.e., worship that is appropriately offered only to the One God.

There could be no more explicit way of expressing divine worship of Jesus than in the form of a doxology addressed to him. [178]

The joint praise of the Father and the Son is a step to the Trinitarian praise of all three members of the Godhead which developed later in the history of the church.

Prayer is Addressed to Him

Prayer is to be directed to God alone. The nature of prayer is such that it is addressed to an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God who can hear and answer prayer. In the New Testament prayer is usually directed to God the Father, but there are examples of prayers to Christ which show that the New Testament disciples recognized him as God.

In John 14:13–14 the Lord, speaking to his disciples in the upper room, said, “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” There are two things to note in these verses. (1) It doesn’t say, “if you ask, the Father will do it.” The Lord Jesus himself will be the one who answers the prayer, which indicates that he is the one addressed in the prayer. (2) In verse 14 it says that “whatever you ask Me in My name.” Here he specifically says that they will be asking him. They will pray to him. [179]

The specific examples of prayer directed to Christ by name are not numerous, but they are clear and significant. The most important of these is the dying prayer of Stephen as he was being martyred in Jerusalem.

They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” Having said this, he fell asleep (Acts 7:59–60).

Stephen addressed the Lord Jesus and prayed to him. The words of his prayer are very similar to the words Jesus used as he prayed to God while on the cross. “But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). “And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (23:46). There is the same request for forgiveness for those killing him and the same request for the Lord to receive his spirit. Stephen asked the Son the very same things that the Son asked the Father. “That the request made by our Lord to the Father should so soon be repeated to himself by Stephen is evidence of the early date of the belief in the essential deity of Christ.” [180]

A second example is found in Revelation 22:20. “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” John responds to the promise of the Lord, “I am coming quickly,” with an “Amen” and a prayer, “Come, Lord Jesus.”

The Christians at Corinth were characterized as “saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2). The expression “to call upon the name of the Lord” comes from the Old Testament and combines the ideas of prayer and worship. “Calling on the name of the Lord” is a prayer in Lamentations 3:55 which is answered in verse 56. “I called on Your name, O Lord, Out of the lowest pit. You have heard my voice.” Zechariah says of those that remain in the nation of Israel who experience the chastening judgment of God, “They will call on My name, and I will answer them” (13:9). Joel says that “whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered” (2:32). [181]

In 1 Corinthians those who “call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” are Christians in general. In fact the expression “those who call on the name of the Lord” was a specific description of Christians. Ananias, speaking to the Lord, said that Paul had come to Damascus with “authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name,” and Paul, after his conversion, began preaching Jesus in the synagogues so that his hearers were amazed and said, “Is this not he who in Jerusalem destroyed those who called on this name” (Acts 9:14, 21). The Lord whom they called on was the Lord Jesus. A general invocation of God would characterize Jews as well as Greeks. But Christians were those who “called on the name of the Lord” (cf. 2 Tim. 2:22). In Romans 10:13 and Acts 2:21 the verse from Joel 2:32 is quoted that “whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” In both cases the Lord whom they are to call on for salvation is the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 10:9; Acts 2:36). Christians were those who called on the name of the Lord Jesus, or in other words, prayed to him. They even prayed to him for their ultimate salvation.

There is even a Trinitarian prayer addressed to the Lord Jesus Christ along with God the Father and the Holy Spirit in 2 Corinthians 13:14. “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” The Corinthians had experienced the grace of the Lord Jesus through his work of salvation for them. Through this they had also come to experience the love of God and had received the gift of the Holy Spirit who was not only united to believers by his indwelling, but also united believers to one another in the one body of Christ. This prayer, which relates equally to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is a recognition of the deity and personality of each member of the Godhead. It is a spontaneous recognition of the truth of the Trinity without expressing it in doctrinal form.

There are several other prayers in the New Testament which are addressed to the Lord. “Lord” was a title used of both God and Christ, so we cannot be dogmatic that these are all prayers to the Lord Jesus. But in the epistles the characteristic title for the Father is “God” and for Christ is “Lord.” 1 Corinthians 6:14 is a clear example where “Lord” refers to the Lord Jesus. “Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up.” Likewise Paul frequently begins his letter by saying, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” [182] In 2 Corinthians 12:8 Paul prayed three times to “the Lord” to remove the thorn in the flesh that afflicted him. Was this the Lord Jesus that he prayed to? Probably, in light of Paul’s use of the term Lord. In Acts 1:24 the disciples prayed to “the Lord” to show them which of the disciples should replace Judas to become an apostle. This could also be a reference to Christ. In Acts 9:10–17 Ananias interacts with the Lord who had appeared to him in a vision, and in 22:19–20 the Lord appeared to Paul in a trance. The context of both passages shows that the Lord is the Lord Jesus and that they were speaking to him.

1 Corinthians 16:22 contains the Aramaic watchword which even Greek speakers at Corinth would utter, “Maranatha.” The meaning of this word in Aramaic is not certain since it could either be divided Marana tha (= “Our Lord, come”) or Maran atha (= “Our Lord has come). [183] If it means “Our Lord, Come,” it would be a prayer. In the light of the similar expression in Revelation 22:20, “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus,” this seems the most probable.

We have seen a number of clear examples of prayer directed to Christ in the New Testament. We have also seen examples where he is worshiped. Worship and prayer are to be directed to God alone. The Christians in the New Testament worshiped Christ and called upon his name in prayer because they looked upon him as God.

He Is a Savior Who Can Save Us from Sin

Biblical Christianity is a supernatural religion. Man’s lostness because of sin requires a supernatural salvation. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Because of sin man is guilty, lost, and deserving of death, spiritually dead, and helpless. The biblical emphasis on salvation by grace is a necessary truth in the light of the fact that we are guilty and cannot save ourselves. We need a Savior, someone who can rescue us from our lost condition and give us life. What kind of a Savior is it that can save us from sin? Our sins must be paid for through redemption. God in his holiness and righteous anger against sin must be propitiated. Man in his sinful hostility to God must be reconciled. In the gracious plan of God he has provided a Savior who was holy and righteous himself, who took our sin on himself by paying the penalty we deserved, and who so satisfied the holy requirements of God that God is able to justify guilty men without compromising his own righteous character. The penalty that had to be paid was infinite, since it was the guilt of sinful men against an infinitely holy God. The Savior who could save from that kind of guilt must be a supernatural Savior, one who would be able to offer a sacrifice of infinite merit to pay the penalty for our sins. Only a divine Savior can save us from sin.

The teaching of the Bible is that salvation is the work of God. This is emphasized first in the Old Testament.

Salvation belongs to the Lord (Ps. 3:8).
The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold (Ps. 18:2).
But the salvation of the righteous is from the Lord; He is their strength in time of trouble (Ps. 37:39).
Lead me in Your truth and teach me, For You are the God of my salvation; (Ps. 25:5).
The Lord is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear? (Ps. 27:1).
Salvation is from the Lord (Jonah 2:9).
I will rejoice in God my Savior (Hab. 3:18).
But as for me, I will watch expectantly for the Lord; I will wait for the God of my salvation (Mic. 7:7).
Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; For the Lord god is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation (Isa. 12:2).
Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the Lord? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me (Isa. 45:21).

These are selected examples of the many in the Old Testament which depict the Lord as the one who saves. [184]

In the New Testament the word “Savior” (σωτήρ, sōtēr) is found twenty-four times. Eight times God is referred to as our Savior, [185] and sixteen times Christ is the Savior. [186] Ordinary men are never called “Savior” in the New Testament. In two of the passages where Christ is called “Savior” he is also called God: “our God and Savior” (Tit. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1). In four of the passages he is called “the Lord and Savior” (2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18). It is because he is Lord and God that he is able to be our Savior.

The Lord Jesus specifically came into the world to save us from sin. He was named Jesus because he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). He was born a Savior (Luke 2:11). “The Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14). “God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17; cf. 12:47). Paul says, “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all” (1 Tim. 1:15). This is the heart of the Gospel, that Christ is the Savior who can save us from sin.

In fact he is the only Savior who can save from sin. Peter preaching in Jerusalem said, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). In John 14:6 Christ said that he was the only way to the Father. Access to God and salvation from sin are exclusively in him. The way of salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. The one who trusts in him is saved (Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9–10), receives the forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43), is justified (Rom. 3:26), becomes a child of God (John 1:12), has eternal life (John 3:16, 36), and is sanctified (Acts 26:18). There is no special property in faith, in and of itself, which makes God pleased with a person. Faith is effective only if the object of faith is able to accomplish what a person trusts in him to do. The Lord Jesus is able to save from sin. The Word made flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ, was a true man. He became one of us in order that as man he might die and pay the penalty for our sins (Heb. 2:14–18). But unless he was more than just a man, unless he was also truly God, his sacrifice did not have the infinite value required to satisfy God for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). The one who was both God and man was able to be the Mediator to bridge the gap between man and God and bring us back to God.

Passages which Seem to Deny the Deity of Christ

Jesus’ Alleged Confession of Sin

In the account of the rich young ruler in Mark 10:17–31 and Luke 18:18–30 it has been said that the response of Jesus to this young man involved a questioning of his own goodness and a distancing of himself from God.

Following the blessing of the little children and the statement that no one will enter the kingdom of God unless he receives it as a little child, a rich young ruler appeared who was struggling to enter it a different way. He asked Jesus what good thing he might do to assure his presence in the kingdom. His question recorded in both Mark and Luke was, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18). Jesus replied, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). This reply is certainly startling and was designed to provoke thinking. It has been understood in several different ways:

(1) Some have said that Jesus was purposefully acknowledging his own sinfulness. “Why do you call me good? Only God is good. I am not God, and therefore I am not good.” The argument is that Jesus was distancing himself from God, and even confessing that he, like all creatures, was not sinless. To take Jesus’ words this way is to make them contradictory to the rest of the New Testament which teaches the sinlessness of Christ (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22). That interpretation is not necessary here.

(2) Jesus was directing his attention to the absolute goodness of God. This young man was superficial in his easy address of Jesus as good. If he really believed that Jesus was good, then he would be willing to follow the teaching Jesus was about to give him. There is an absolute standard of goodness which is in God. It is that standard which he confronts him with in the commandments of God. He “is here asserting God’s absolute goodness in the face of requests to earn eternal life.” [187]

(3) The traditional view says that the question was a veiled indication of his deity. Christ challenged the young man’s address of him as good. Only God is good. If I am really good, then I am God. There are two reasons which have been given against this interpretation:

(a) This is said to be reading too much into the passage. The young man would not have been able to understand this kind of theological argument. [188] However, it was not necessary that Christ’s reply be perfectly clear. The Lord constantly used an indirect method of making his identity known, e.g. in calling himself the Son of Man. He could have been confronting this man with his inadequate conception of his own goodness in comparison with the absolute goodness of God, and yet at the same time he taught the truth that would only be realized later, that he could be called “good teacher” because he really was God.

(b) Warfield objected that the word “me” was an unstressed enclitic pronoun in the Greek and could not bear any emphasis, as if there were any contrast between himself and God. He was rather directing attention to God as the true standard of goodness. [189] In reply, it cannot be insisted that enclitic με (me) is never stressed so as to allow a contrast. In Matthew 3:14 there is an obvious contrastive stress on the “me” when John the Baptist said, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” The same kind of contrast seems to be evident in this passage.

(c) Bock also adds that “Jesus saw his role as pointing people to God through him, rather than drawing exclusive attention to himself.” [190] This is setting up a false dichotomy. Jesus did point the way to God, but the way was exclusively through himself (John 14:6). He did say “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). He also confronted others with his authority to forgive sins, thereby drawing attention to the issue of his person. The only way he had a right to do that was if he were God.

This passage may actually be an intimation by Christ of his deity. It is certainly not a sufficient passage to warrant the conclusion that he was denying his divine nature.

Passages Where Christ is Distinguished from God

There are a number of passages where our Lord is distinguished from God and God is specifically referred to as his God. There are three letters which begin with the expression, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3), while two other times God is called “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 11:31). In Revelation 1:6 there is a similar expression, “He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father,” while in Ephesians 1:17 it is simply “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” There is a basis for this language in the Gospels where Christ cried out on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34; Matt. 27:46). He also said to Mary Magdalene, “I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God” (John 20:17).

We are not simply talking about passages where the Father is called God and is distinguished from the Son. We have considered a number of passages where Paul said, “Grace and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” [191] Rather here God is spoken of as the God of Jesus Christ. If the Son is himself God, how can God be called his God?

The answer is to be found in the truth of the incarnation and the office of the Son as Mediator. The Son is both God and man. The Father is not the God of God the Son. He is the Father of God the Son. But when God the Son became man, he humbled himself and put himself in a position of obedience and dependence. As man, and in his office of Mediator, he referred to God as his God. This is why he could say in the words of Psalm 40:7 which are quoted in Hebrews 10:7, “Then I said, ‘behold I have come (in the scroll of the book it is written of Me) to do your will, O God.’” That is why he needed to pray. He was dependent on God, and prayer was the normal response. He was obedient to God in his death (Phil. 2:8). When he cried out on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?,” this was not an expression of a separation between the members of the Godhead. He did not say “My Father, why have you forsaken me?” It was the judicial separation between God as God and Christ as the representative sacrifice for the human race. He was the divine Son, God’s anointed servant, but he was suffering as Man for man, and thereby bridging the gulf between man and God. [192] Charles Hodge says, “Our Lord had a dependent nature to which God stood in the relation of God, and a divine nature to which He stood in the relation of Father, and therefore to the complex person Jesus Christ God bore the relation of both God and Father.” [193]

Passages Which Imply that Christ is Less than God

Many of the objections to the doctrine of the deity of the Son are philosophical. It seems contradictory to say that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Father is not the Son, and yet there is only one God. This is the same philosophical argument that is raised against the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet there are also some arguments that relate to biblical passages. There are some passages which seem to teach that Christ is less than God and therefore cannot be God. We will now consider the following.

John 14:28

Speaking to his disciples in the upper room the Lord said, “You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” The statement “the Father is greater than I” has been used by the Arians of the fourth century, Socinians, and modern liberals to argue that Jesus Christ cannot be God because he is inferior to God. They would say that he is a created being who is essentially inferior to God. At best he could only be some lesser kind of god.

Some of the early Greek fathers who did hold to the full deity of the Son still took this to refer to his essential nature. The Son derived his deity from the Father. The Father was unbegotten, whereas the Son was begotten of the Father. The Father was the source, fount, origin, and cause of the divine nature of the Son. [194] Calvin objected to this notion that the Son derived his divine nature from the Father. The nature of deity requires that he be self-existent (αὐτοθεός, autotheos). When considering the divine nature, whatever can be said of the Father can be said of the Son. He argued that the name Yahweh was applied to the Son, and the name Yahweh implies self-existence. Yahweh is the eternal “I am who I am” (Ex. 3:14). Self-existence, necessary existence, as well as all of the other divine attributes, belong to the nature of God, and therefore belong to all of the members of the Godhead. To make a Trinity of Essence, Son, and Spirit, as if the Father were the Essence of the Godhead and the Son and Spirit were derived deities, annihilates the essence of the Son and the Spirit. [195]

The context would indicate that this statement has nothing to do with the essential divine nature of Christ, but with the state of his humiliation as the incarnate one during his days on earth. Jesus had told the disciples that he was going away, and they were troubled. In 14:28 he said if they loved him, they would have rejoiced, because he was going to the Father. The word ὅτι (hoti, “for” or “because”) introduces the reason why they would have rejoiced at his leaving. The reason was that the Father is greater than he. He was speaking of his immediate circumstances. In John 17:5 he prayed, “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” When the Word, who was God, became flesh, he humbled himself and the glory that was rightly his was veiled. He was not recognized as the Son of God, nor was he honored. It is in describing his humble state that he said that the Father was greater. It is not looking at his nature or his person. The disciples were disappointed at his words that he was leaving. They wanted to keep him with them. If they had really loved him they would have rejoiced at his going to the Father. There, he would have that former glory restored, and he would once again be “on an equality with God” (Phil. 2:6, ASV). The contrast is not between the divine nature of the Father and the human nature of the Son as many have taught. The incarnation continues even now that the Son has been glorified. The contrast is specifically between the Son in his state of humiliation and the Father in his glory in heaven. Now glorified, he shares that glory with the Father.

Colossians 1:15

In Colossians 1:15 Paul says that Christ “is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” This verse has been used by ancient Arians to modern Jehovah’s Witnesses to say that Christ is a created being. Of all of the creation of God, he is the first one to be created. They could even admit his preexistence before Bethlehem and his priority to the rest of creation. But he is still a created being.

We admit that given this verse by itself, this is a possible interpretation. But it is not a necessary interpretation, and it is not consistent with the context or the teaching of the apostle Paul and the other New Testament writers.

It is not a necessary interpretation because the word “firstborn” has two distinct meanings. It can mean “first in time to be born,” but it can also mean “first in rank.” [196] An example is seen in Deuteronomy 21:15–17. The law supposed a situation where a man had two wives, but he loved one more than the other. Each of them was the mother of one of his sons. The law said in verse 16 that when he made his will, he could not reverse the legal right of inheritance and make the son born later the principal heir, that is, he could not make him the firstborn. “He cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn.” There was a position of being the firstborn as well as the fact of actually being born first. The right of the “firstborn” involved receiving a double portion of the inheritance (21:17). The law said that the second son could not be made the firstborn. It is obvious that the temporal order of the birth could not be reversed. What is said is that the second son could not be given the position, rank, and privileges of “firstborn.” In Psalm 89:27, a messianic psalm which speaks of the son of David, the king, it says, “I also shall make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” Here the reference is to the rank rather than any emphasis on “the first one to be born.” He will be “made” or “appointed” the “firstborn.” He will be made the highest ruler so that he is the highest of the kings of the earth. Both senses of the word are found in Exodus 4:22–23. Moses is instructed, “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, Thus says the Lord: Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.” The reference to Pharaoh’s firstborn son is literal, but Israel as God’s firstborn is used in a figurative sense. Israel was not the first of the nations in time. It had the position of first place in relation to God. This figurative use of “firstborn” is also found in reference to the church in Hebrews 12:23, “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven.” In the church all believers become “firstborn.” This involves having the position and the privileges of the firstborn.

The context of Colossians 1 makes Christ the Creator of all things rather than the created. He is the firstborn over all creation. [197] Verse 16 says, “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him.” The language is absolute, designed to include all created things. It does not say “by him all things were created except himself.” [198] In verse 17 he is “before all things” and he is the sustainer of all things. The context of the passage is emphasizing the supremacy of Christ over the creation and his distinction from it. The choice is whether to take the word “firstborn” in a legitimate sense, which fits the context and is in harmony with the rest of the New Testament, or to take it in a sense that contradicts the context and the teaching of the New Testament. Colossians 1:15 is looking at the rank and position of Christ as the firstborn, the highest one, over all of creation.

1 Corinthians 15:24, 28

In giving the order of the resurrection events in 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 Paul looks at the final consummation and says:

Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

The fact that the Son becomes subject to the Father seems to indicate an eternal subjection and therefore an eternal inferiority of the Son to the Father. This has been used to argue that the Son is less than God.

It is true that this passage speaks of the Son being subject to the Father. It is also true as we have seen that there are many passages which speak of the Son as having a divine nature and being equal with God. These truths should not be pitted against each other. We would make the following observations.

1. Jesus Christ as God in his divine nature and one with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit rules over all things. This divine authority and rule did not cease with the incarnation. He never emptied himself of any of his divine attributes, and he never ceased any of his divine works which characterized him from the foundation of the world. He who created all things and upholds them by the word of his power has always done so and continues to do so (Col. 1:15–17). This did not cease during his time on earth. This eternal rule is exercised by Jesus Christ as God the Son. It is part of God’s general rule which he shares with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

2. Scripture also says that a kingdom will be given to him.

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David (Luke 1:32).

I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed (Dan. 7:13–14).

(a) This kingdom rule of the Messiah is different from the sovereignty exercised by God in general.

(b) It is given specifically on the ground that he is the son of David (Luke 1:32) or the Son of Man (Dan. 7).

(c) In the Old Testament theocracy God (the Triune God) exercised his general rule through the Davidic king. In the kingdom of God promised to the Messiah, the instrument of God through whom God rules will be the Davidic king who will not be just a human ruler like the Old Testament kings, but will be the God-man.

(d) There is thus a difference between the sovereignty conferred upon him as the Messiah, the God-man, and the sovereignty which was always his as God the Son.

(e) When Christ receives the kingdom as David’s son, this will not require him to lay aside the sovereignty he, as God the Son, exercises with the Father. Reigning as Messiah will not mean giving up another aspect of his ruling. Even in the days of his humiliation on earth, he continued to uphold all things by the word of his power. In the future when he rules as son of David, the divine sovereignty he has as Son of God will continue.

3. In the nature of the case where the kingdom is given to him by God, he must be in a position subordinate to God. As the Mediator, the God-man, through whom God rules, he is subordinate to God.

(a) This subordination has nothing to do with his nature as God.

(b) It relates to his function as the one sent by God to redeem, to subdue and subject all enemies to God, and to rule as the representative of God.

(c) In 1 Corinthians 15:27 Paul adds the statement, “But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.” In order to avoid any possible misunderstanding, he specifies that subjection of all things to him as the Mediator through whom God exercises his rule has, of course, an exception: God the Father.

(d) What we see here is that the subordination of Christ in his office or role has nothing to do with equality of person. The Son is by nature God, has all of the attributes of God, and is fully equal with God the Father. There is no inferiority of the Son to the Father in their essential nature. There never has been or ever will be. There is a subordination of the Son to the Father in his role or function.

(e) There are two statements in Scripture which are both true. The Son is equal to the Father, and the Son is subject to the Father. These are only contradictory statements if he is “equal” and “subject” in the same sense. In one sense he is equal to the Father: in his nature. In another sense he is subordinate: in his office.

(f) It is not God the Son, the Second person of the Godhead, who is subjected to God the Father. The kingdom over which he reigns in 1 Corinthians 15 is the kingdom given to him as the Messiah, the Son of David. It is in this role that he is subordinate. The one who is given the authority to rule is subordinate to the one who gives him that rule. It is in his office as the Messiah, the Mediator, that the God-man is subject to the Father.

4. The specific issue comes from the Son handing over the kingdom to God the Father (v. 24) and subjecting himself to the Father (v. 27). The solution of Charles Hodge and many others is that when Christ reigns as the Mediatorial king, the dominion and authority which had been given to him will be carried to its goal and consummation. At that time Christ will cease to reign as the Messiah and Mediator, but will continue to reign as the Triune God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. [199]

5. This interpretation is sufficient to establish the important point which we are discussing. There is nothing here which requires an essential inferiority of the Son or contradicts other passages which teach his deity.

(a) However, there is a question as to whether it adequately deals with those Scriptures which teach that the kingdom of Christ will be an eternal kingdom. Luke 1:33, following the verse quoted above that the Lord will give him the throne of his father David, says, “And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” The passage in Daniel 7:14 says, “His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.” [200]

(b) To say Christ gives up his inheritance or dominion as the son of David is to contradict the teaching that his kingdom, his messianic kingdom, is an eternal kingdom which knows no end.

(c) Hodge’s view allows Christ to reign forever as God, but not as the God-man. The God-man is compelled to occupy a lower position than he had when he was ruling as Messiah.

(d) The only passage which seems to teach the ending of Christ’s kingdom as Messiah is 1 Corinthians 15:24–28. It is questionable if one passage like this should be used to overrule all of the passages which affirm the eternal nature of the rule of the Messiah, at least unless no other interpretation can be found.

6. There is an alternative which is suggested by G. N. H. Peters: [201]

(a) Christ will reign until he subdues all his enemies.

(b) By this all rule and power which is opposed to God will be conquered.

(c) Because his rule and authority have been given to him by God, when he brings all opposition under his own rule and authority, at the same time he brings them into subjection to God. The government is restored to God when it is restored to Christ. Since he in his office as Mediator is subject to God, the rule over the subjected enemies is delivered over to God the Father.

(d) When all things become subject to him, the Messiah, then will come the consummation. All things will be subjected to God, including the Mediator. He will still continue to rule as the God-man, but this rule will continue to be in subjection to God.

(e) In this interpretation the “when” and “then” of verse 28 give more of a logical sequence rather than referring to a specific future time. The dominion usurped by the enemies of God will be recovered and restored to the Godhead, but not in the sense that the everlasting dominion of the Son of Man will come to an end. God will continue to rule through his Messiah, the God-man, forever and ever.

However these verses are understood, they do not teach the essential inferiority of God the Son to God the Father in his divinity. They show that in his office as the Messiah the God-man has subjected himself to the will of God.

1 Corinthians 11:3; Hebrews 2:9; John 5:19, 30; 8:28

There are a number of passages which can be treated together. In fact they all speak of Christ’s function or role in the economy of God rather than his essential divine nature.

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ (1 Cor. 11:3).
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone (Heb. 2:9).
Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner” (John 5:19).
“I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 5:30).
So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me” (John 8:28).

When Jesus Christ came into the world sent by the Father, he did come in voluntary subjection to the will of God. There is an order in the Godhead. The Father sends and the Son is sent. The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14), and the Son in submission to the Father said, “Behold I have come (in the scroll of the book it is written of Me) to do Your will, O God” (Heb. 10:7). When the Son came into the world, he came in subjection to God his Father as his head and ruler (1 Cor. 11:3). He did not do anything from his own initiative, but acted only in concert with the will of God. For the period of his time here on earth he was made a little lower than the angels. But all of these verses speak of his role and function as Mediator. They do not speak of his divine nature. In their essential inner life the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same in their divine nature and perfections. In their work in creation, redemption, and sanctification, and as they are manifested in the world, each member of the Godhead has a different role. The Father is head as author and planner, while the Son is subordinate and dependent in executing the will of the Father.

Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32

In the Olivet Discourse Christ used the uncertainty of the time of his return as an argument to urge his disciples to be watchful. He said, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matt. 24:36). If the Son is God and God is omniscient, how can he say that he is ignorant of the hour of his Second Coming? This ignorance seems to show that he is less than God.

In considering the person of Christ we are contending for two truths which must be kept equally in mind. He is fully God and fully man. When he who was in the beginning with God became flesh, he did not cease to be God. But he did take upon himself a true human nature. Because of this there are things which are said of the God-man, the incarnate Son, which cannot be said of God the Son as the second person of the Trinity. In Luke 2:52 it says that he was “increasing in wisdom and stature.” Neither of these are true of him in his deity. He who is infinite and omnipresent cannot grow and increase in size. Nor can he who is infinite in his knowledge and wisdom increase in wisdom. What we see here is the true development of the Lord Jesus in his human nature. In John 4:6 Jesus was weary from his journey. We wonder how God the Son, the Creator of the universe (John 1:3), could be weary. It was not in his deity that he was weary. It was only in his human nature that this was true.

When it says that the Son does not know the hour of his return, that statement must be accepted at its face value. But, like the statement in Luke 2:52, it must be true of him only in reference to his human nature. In the incarnation the divine attributes of the Son of God were never diminished or lost. Even though he was weary in his humanity, he as God the Son still continued to sustain the creation which he had made. Even though in his human nature he increased in wisdom and did not know the hour of his return, he was still in his divine nature the omniscient God who knows all things actual and possible.

There is a great mystery here which goes beyond our ability to fathom. We cannot really understand the Trinity, nor can we understand the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, fully God, fully man, with the two natures united in one person. We cannot conceive how the omnipresence of deity and the confines of a physical body can be compatible. We cannot understand how the omnipotence of deity can go with the weakness and weariness of humanity in the same person. We cannot understand how the omniscience of deity can be harmonized with the ignorance of humanity. All this simply means that we cannot understand the God-man.

We tend to feel the problem more keenly when there is a statement of his ignorance because we cannot possibly understand the psychology of one person knowing something and not knowing it at the same time. What would be wrong for us to do is deny either side of the truth just because it is beyond our ability to comprehend it. It would be wrong to look at the person of Christ with his human limitations and use that as a basis for denying his divine perfections. It would also be wrong to look at his attributes as God and use that to deny any of his human limitations.

Buswell attempts to explain the psychology in this way:

In our experience with ordinary human psychology, we learn that there are different levels of consciousness. It is not a contradiction to say that a person knows in one sense what he does not know in another sense.…

I postulate that, prior to the incarnation, in the eternal decrees of God, the Son had proposed during the time of His life on earth to hold in His active consciousness that information and those feelings and reactions which are available to Spirit-guided men. Thus not through any amnesia, not through any inability of any kind, but by His own previous decision, Christ in His active consciousness went through all the normal stages of intellectual development. This is perfectly consistent with the doctrine that He did not give up His divine powers of omniscience. At any moment during His life on earth, He could have called to mind any aspect of His infinite knowledge, but He chose voluntarily and continuously to hold in His active consciousness only such matters as would make His earthly existence a genuine human experience. [202]

We would not insist that this is the explanation of the person of Christ. [203] There is a mystery here in the person of the God-man. On the basis of all the Scriptures we have considered we would hold to his undiminished deity. We would also accept the New Testament teaching, which hardly needs to be argued, that he was a perfect man. These two, his deity and his humanity, are united in the one person. What we are arguing for here is that the human limitations, so clearly seen in Scripture, cannot be used to deny the perfections of his divine nature.

The Anti-trinitarians

On pages 5–6 we outlined four different types of anti-Trinitarian viewpoints. The purpose of this paper has been to discuss the biblical evidence for the deity of Christ. This is a revealed truth and can only be accepted on the basis of the revelation of God. Given the truth of Scripture that there is only one God, acceptance of the deity of Christ involves the fundamental acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. Likewise, accepting the truth of the Trinity involves the acceptance of the deity of Christ. With some of the anti-Trinitarians the issue is the interpretation of Scripture. For others the issues are much broader and more complex. I would like to look at the different types of anti-Trinitarian views and outline the type of answer which is required for each, particularly as it relates to the person of Jesus Christ. Since the primary purpose of this paper is a presentation of the biblical evidence for the deity of the Son, this section will be merely suggestive.

The Answer to the Tritheist

There are probably no true Tritheists, those who believe that there are three gods. This is rather the way anti-Trinitarians would characterize the Christian position of the Trinity. Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, and rationalists often think that Christians believe in three gods. If the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then there must be three gods.

This, however, is a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. Christians do not believe that God is three persons and one person at the same time. This would be a contradiction. Christians believe that there is only one true God. This is the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture from the beginning to the end (cf. Deut. 6:4–5; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 45:5–6, 21–22; Rom. 3:30; 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 Cor. 8:6; James 2:19). To say that God is three persons is only a contradiction of this truth if the oneness of God required only one person in the Godhead. That is why Christians have said that God is one in his essence and that there are three persons in one nature or essence. This may be a mystery to us and beyond our ability to comprehend, but it is not a contradiction. Even in expressing the truth, we are pushing language beyond our powers. In Scripture the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have all of the characteristics of personality, and so we say that they are three persons. But for us three separate persons imply three separate individuals. We look at human nature divided among many individuals. It is difficult for us to understand how God is one undivided essence so that there is only one God, and at the same time to understand that there are three persons who are God. We accept it because it is revealed truth, truth that is beyond our understanding, but also truth that does not contradict the basic laws of logic. But we must also ask, should it surprise us that we have difficulty explaining God or fully understanding him? God, because he is God, surpasses our understanding.

The Answer to the Modalist

Modalism is a heresy which keeps reinventing itself. Christians who believe the Bible and who consider themselves fully orthodox will suddenly “discover” the true solution to the problem of the Trinity. God is not three separate persons, but only one person who has appeared to us in three different ways or modes. Sometimes he has revealed himself to us as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit. One of the foremost modalists was Sabellius in the third century, and so this view has also been called Sabellianism. There is a modern group of Pentecostals known as “Jesus Only” Pentecostals who hold to this view. Many of the attempts to illustrate the Trinity have in fact been modalistic. The illustration from water that it has three forms (ice, liquid, and steam) is basically modalist. There is simply one substance manifesting itself in three different ways.

The issue with the modalist is not philosophical, but scriptural. They emphasize the oneness of God. They also point to Scriptures like John 10:30, “I and the Father are one,” and John 14:9, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” John 10:30 does not in fact say that the Son and the Father are one person. The word for “one” is neuter (ἕν, hen), not masculine, not one person, but one deity, one divine nature, one divine essence.

The problem with modalism is that it has to deny all of the personal interaction between the Father and the Son in the New Testament. It simply becomes an illusion. For instance, at the baptism of Christ, the Holy Spirit came upon him and the Father spoke from heaven, “You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11). How could the Father address the Son as “you?” How could the Holy Spirit come upon him? The modalist cannot really explain this. Nor can he explain the prayers of Christ. John 17 is one example of many prayers of Christ where he addressed God as “you” and referred to himself as “I.” In verse 1 he prayed, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You.” In verse 4 he said, “I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.” For the modalist there is no real “I” — “you” interaction between the Father and the Son. The Son is speaking to himself, but acting as if he were speaking to a different person. In the modalist view the intercessory work of the Holy Spirit and of Christ lose their meaning. Romans 8:26 says, “the Spirit Himself intercedes for us,” and verse 27 says, “He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.” In verse 34 Christ is differentiated from the Father when it says that he “is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.” The intercession of the Son and the Holy Spirit become play-acting if the Father is not a separate person. They are like someone talking on the phone, pretending someone else is there, when there is no one else. The modalist cannot explain the whole plan of redemption where the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. How can the Father send the Son when they are the same person? Grudem also adds that modalism makes God dependent on his creation. If he is only one person, then “he has no ability to love and to communicate without other persons in his creation. Therefore it was necessary for God to create the world, and God would no longer be independent of creation.” [204]

The Answer to the Those Who Believe Jesus Was Only a Man

There have been very few who have denied the historical existence of Jesus Christ. Although the earliest heresy, Gnosticism, denied the reality of his humanity, the true humanity of Christ has been accepted by the great majority through the centuries. But many have believed that he was only a man. They have denied his deity. There are several different varieties of this claim:

The answer to the liberal, the rationalist, the Socinian. Modern liberals in their various forms are rationalists. They are products of the philosophy of the enlightenment which denies the supernatural and seeks a naturalistic explanation of everything. They reject the supernatural. They therefore reject the Bible, the supernatural person of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity. No careful biblical exegesis can convince them of the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. Their philosophical presuppositions will not allow them to accept this as truth. They may admit that this is the doctrine taught in Scripture, but will reject it for themselves. The answer to this point of view on the intellectual side is found in Christian apologetics. [205]

The answer to the Jew. For the modern Jew, Jesus is simply the founder of Christianity, “the first and greatest teacher of the Christian religion, and supreme figure in Christianity.” [206] Most Jews acquire their knowledge of Jesus only from secondary sources in the same way Christians do of Mohammed. Through the centuries many Jews have formed their view of Jesus on the basis of the actions of those who have called themselves Christians. To them he became the imagined originator of a hateful persecution. Modern Jews who read the New Testament find him quite different from how they may have imagined him.

One of the central features of Judaism is monotheism. This has affected their view of Christ and their view of the Trinity. But it must also be remembered that the earliest Christians were Jews. The apostles were all Jewish. The apostle Paul was Jewish, raised a strict Pharisee and taught by Gamaliel, the leading Jewish Rabbi of his day. All of the New Testament writers except Luke were Jewish. And yet they accepted the truth of the deity of Christ and the fundamental truths of the Trinity without a great struggle. There were two great influences on them.

First, there were the Scriptures. The apostles opened the Scriptures to them and proclaimed that Jesus was the Christ (cf. Acts 8:35; 17:2–3). With the Bible-believing Jew we have the common ground of Scripture. There are promises in the Old Testament that point forward to Christ. These promises and their fulfillment in Christ are an important argument for the Jew.

The second line of influence on the early Jewish Christians was the person of Jesus Christ himself. Through their close association with him, the apostles, all Jewish monotheists, came to the point of recognizing that he was the Son of God. Of course, this was not the product of their own discovery. Flesh and blood did not reveal it to them; the Father who is in heaven did (Matt. 16:17). But knowing him as they did, this was not a difficult truth to accept. There is no sense in the New Testament that the early Christians struggled with the deity of Christ and his oneness with God. The modern Jew can also make this discovery by reading the Gospels and discovering the real Jesus, not the distorted image they have imagined on the basis of persecuting “Christians.”

It should also be recognized that many modern Jews are culturally Jewish rather than religiously Jewish. Many do not even believe in God. They are very similar to liberal Christians in their viewpoint, and have to be approached in the same way.

The answer to the Muslim. The fundamental principle of Islam is that there is one and only one God. Because of this, the idea of a Trinity is unthinkable, and Jesus could not be the Son of God or a divine being. On the other hand, Jesus does hold an important and lofty place among Muslims. They believe that he was born of a virgin, that he is the Messiah, a prophet, a messenger of God, that he performed miracles, and that he will return before the Day of Judgment and destroy the Antichrist. [207] However, they do not believe that he actually died on the cross. They say either that his crucifixion was an illusion or that someone else was substituted for him so that he did not die. Actually, there would be no point to the death of Jesus according to the Muslim, because there is no real concept of atonement in Islam. Further, since Jesus was a prophet of God, God would not allow one of his prophets to suffer so.

Any witness to Muslims requires that many misconceptions of Christianity be dispelled. The biggest misconception is that of the Trinity. For the Muslim the doctrine of the Trinity means that Christians worship three gods. This seems to be a matter of simple logic. If there are three who are god, then 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. There must be three gods. Many Muslims are surprised to learn that Christians are just as strongly monotheistic as they are. The answer to the tritheist given above shows from both the Old Testament Scriptures and the New Testament (referred to as the Torah and the Injil, or Gospel, by Muslims) that there is only one God.

Coupled with their view that Christians believe that there are three gods, the references to God’s only begotten Son and to Jesus as the Son of God imply to the Muslim that Jesus was the product of a biological union between God the Father and Mary. In fact many Muslims look at the Trinity as the Trinity of God, Mary, and Jesus. God the Father had sexual relations with God the Mother and produced God the Son. This is blasphemous to Christians as well as to Muslims. God does not have a consort and produce children through sexual reproduction like the gods of Greece and Rome, with their seductions and adulteries. Such distortions of Christian truth are a great stumbling block to Muslims. The terms Father and Son express an eternal relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Godhead. Mary herself was a human being and nothing more. She was honored by God to give birth to Christ in his human nature, but she was sinful like all other humans and needed a Savior (Luke 1:47).

There are truths which Christians and Muslims have in common which give us a basis for reaching them with the truth of the Gospel. (1) We both believe that the Old Testament and the New Testament are the Word of God. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob revealed himself first through the prophets and then through Jesus Christ. (2) Both believe in high ethical and moral standards. (3) Both believe in prayer.

Because the New Testament is acknowledged by the Qur’an to be God’s Word, it can be accepted by Muslims. But there are many misconceptions Muslims have about Christ. There is the challenge to the Muslim not to be misled by those who have not examined the Scriptures, but to read them for himself.

In the Scriptures of the New Testament we are confronted with the uniqueness of Jesus. In the Gospels monotheistic Jews followed him and never gave up their monotheism. Yet they became convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and that he was sent from God. They heard his claims and saw his miracles and became convinced that he had the authority to do things that only God could do. He forgave sins (Mark 2:10), he will judge the world (John 5:22), he was worthy of worship (John 20:28–29). They believed that he was God.

This is how they came to accept the doctrine of the Trinity. The Son was God, and yet he prayed to God the Father and sent the Holy Spirit when he left this earth. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each are fully God, and yet each are separate persons. And yet there is only one God. The Trinity is an attempt to explain these truths which are taught clearly in Scripture. It is doubtful if many Muslims or Jews will come to accept the truth of the Trinity through abstract, philosophical reasonings. It is more likely that they will be convinced in the same way the apostles themselves were convinced, by being confronted with the person of Jesus Christ himself and being overwhelmed by who he is.

One of the ultimate differences between Christianity and Islam relates to the problem of sin. Islam has no answer to the problem of sin because it has no doctrine of atonement. We human beings are all guilty before a holy God. We have sinned against him and deserve judgment. But Islam has no answer to the problem of our guilt. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ does. God the Father so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. God gave his Son by sending him to the cross to die for our sins. The penalty for sin is death, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. But the blood of sacrificial animals, the blood of bulls and goats, could never take away sin. The atonement had to be through the sacrifice of one who was sinless, holy, and of infinite worth and merit in the sight of God. That is why God the Son had to become man. No one else could pay the price of our sin. The deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity are crucial for our salvation.

The Answer to the Arians

Arianism was a much more dangerous heresy than many others because it was more subtle. It originated with Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria, who was tall, handsome, a brilliant speaker, and a clever debater. Further he expressed his doctrines in verse so that they could be sung and spread among the people more easily. Music is very powerful, and his doctrines became very widespread.

The best counterfeit is the one which is closest to the original. Arius was able to sound very orthodox. In a statement of his private creed presented to the Emperor Constantine in a.d. 328 his beliefs sound very much like “The Apostles’ Creed.”

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty; and in the Lord Jesus Christ, his Son, who was begotten of him before all ages, the Divine Logos, through whom all things were made, both those in the heavens and those on the earth; who came down and was made flesh; and suffered; and rose again; and ascended to the heavens; and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; and in the resurrection of the flesh; and in the life of the world to come; and in a kingdom of heaven; and in one Catholic Church of God which extends to the ends of the earth. [208]

For Arius Christ was preexistent, the Creator of the world. He believed in the incarnation, the sufferings, death, and bodily resurrection of Christ. He also said that Christ was the perfect image of the Father, the executor of his thoughts, and he was even willing to call him God, Logos, and Wisdom (θεός, λόγος, σοφία). [209] Arius could affirm much about Christ that was true. But his heresy lies buried in what he omitted in his creed. Further he viewed the terms God, Logos, and Wisdom, as true of Christ only in a metaphorical sense. In reality he held that the Son was a creature, created out of nothing, the first creation of God. He was not eternal. There was a time when he was not. He was before and above all other creatures and was the agent used by God for the rest of creation. He was a created being who occupied a middle ground between God and the rest of creation. Schaff says:

Arius, after having once robbed the Son of divine essence, could not consistently allow him any divine attribute in the strict sense of the word; he limited his duration, his power, and his knowledge, and expressly asserted that the Son does not perfectly know the Father, and therefore cannot perfectly reveal him. [210]

The argument with the Arians was primarily over the interpretation of Scripture. The answer to the Arians is therefore what we have been discussing in this paper, the passages from Scripture and the proofs of the deity of Christ found in them. The modern day Arians are the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They also profess to believe the Bible; the issue is what the Bible really teaches.

The difficulty with the Arians at the Council of Nicaea was to find a statement that reflected the biblical teaching on the full and essential deity of Christ which the Arians could not reinterpret to fit their own theology. They would say he was God, and like God, but still a creature. The orthodox adopted the word homoousia to express the fact that the Son had the “same” ousia or essence as the Father. The Arians would say that Christ was homoiousia with the Father, that is, of a “similar” nature with the Father. Many have superficially said that this was a great quibble over words, even of a single letter. But the difference is great, even infinite. It is the difference between having a Savior who is fully God, who can bridge the infinite gulf that separates sinful man from God, and a Savior who is only a creature among creatures, one who cannot be a true mediator between God and man.

The Relationship of the Son to the Father

The doctrine of the Trinity is presented very simply in the New Testament. Warfield says that there are three simple statements that give us the Trinity. (1) There is but one God. (2) The Father and the Son and the Spirit are each God. (3) The Father and the Son and the Spirit are each distinct persons. When we have said these three things “we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness.” [211]

The doctrine is not articulated so simply in many textbooks on theology, and Christians through the years have struggled to try to understand this doctrine, particularly to understand the relationship of the persons of the Godhead to each other. How are they one and how are they three? The Bible does not treat this subject in a philosophical way. It does not seek to explain the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as they are in their eternal, essential being. The Bible presents the different functions and activities each has as they relate to creation and redemption. In the plan of God each relates to the world and to each other in different ways. In the unity of the Godhead each has his own particular part in creation and redemption. In this article we have been particularly looking at the relationship of the Father to the Son. [212] We will now look at their relationship and the differences between them in the area of creation and redemption, and then we will inquire as to how much we can know about their eternal relationships. [213]

The Relationship of the Father to the Son in Creation and Redemption

1 Corinthians 8:6 is an important verse because it expresses something of the relationship between the Father and the Son in the context of a Christian monotheism. Paul contrasts the many so-called gods and lords of the pagans with the God we worship. He says, “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from (ἐκ, ek) whom are all things and we exist for (εἰς, eis) Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by (διά, dia) whom are all things, and we exist through (διά, dia) Him.” Paul presents the God we worship and specifies that we worship him as Father and Son (whom he calls Lord). He then adds two prepositional phrases which express the particular activity of each.

God is called the Father, while the Son, whose name as Son is implied by the term Father, is called Lord. Of the Father he says that all things are “from” (ek) him and “unto” (eis) him. “Father” is the term which expresses his relationship to the Son and also, in this context, his relationship to believers. The prepositional phrases express his relation to creation and redemption. He is the source, the originator, the ultimate ground, and author of the whole universe. All things are “from him.” He is also the end and goal. But instead of saying “all things are for him,” Paul says “we are for him.” He personalizes this so that God is the goal for which “we” are headed. Those who are redeemed are brought to God, and we exist for his glory. The end of our existence and our redemption is the glory of God.

The Son is called Lord because he is the Lord of the universe, the sovereign director and ruler of all. In relation to creation Paul uses a different preposition for the Son. All things are “through” (dia) him. The word dia is used to express intermediate agency. The Son is the agent through whom God created the universe. The Father planned, the Son executed the work of creation. The expression “and we through Him” is not just a repetition of the fact that he is our Creator. We as part of creation are part of the “all things are through Him.” The “we are through Him” indicates that he is the instrument of our redemption. “We” is referring to Christians.

Thus God is the author and source of all things, including both creation and redemption, while the Son is the agent of the Father who created the world and who also redeemed us. This is the consistent pattern of the New Testament. In John 1:3 all things were created “through” (dia) him. In Colossians 1:16 all things were created “by” (en) him. In Hebrews 1:2 the Son is the one “through” (dia) whom God made the world.

In the plan of redemption the fixed order is that the Father sent the Son and gave the Son. He sent the Son to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14; cf. John 3:16; 10:36; 16:28; 17:3; 20:21; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:9–10). The Son was the one who was sent and who came to do the will of the Father (Heb. 10:7, 9; cf. John 4:34; 6:38–40; 17:4). He could pray in the Garden of Gethsemane “not as I will, but as You will,” and “Your will be done” (Matt. 26:39, 42). When he came into the world, he “humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8). The author and planner of redemption is the Father. He sent the Son to accomplish that work by dying for us. The Father did not die for our sins. That was accomplished by the Son. The Son now in heaven is our Advocate with the Father so that when we sin, he pleads for us the value and efficacy of his death for us (1 John 2:1–2). The Son came to reveal the Father (John 1:18). No man has ever seen God, so that Old Testament appearances of Yahweh as in Isaiah 6 were appearances of God the Son (John 1:18; 12:40–42).

It is clear that in the economy of creation and redemption the Father is the head and the Son is subordinate (1 Cor. 11:3). Scripture does not speak of the Father being submissive to the Son, but the Son submitting to and obeying the Father. There is a clear subordination of the Son to the Father as far as role and function. This does not argue for an inequality in regards to nature, attributes, and powers. We have argued that the Son is fully equal to the Father in his essential being. The evidence of the full and complete deity of the Son is presented throughout the New Testament. But there is a subordination of the Son in the economy of salvation.

The Eternal Relationship of the Father and the Son in the Godhead

This all relates to the Trinity in relation to creation and redemption. What do we know about the relations of the members of the Godhead in and of themselves in their essential nature? Here the evidence is much less clear and is much more inferential. “The Scriptures deal mainly with the trinity of revelation, and only hint at the trinity of essence.” [214] The guiding assumption for many theologians is that the way God has revealed himself in history is the way he is in eternity. The functional order of relationships that relates to creation and redemption is an indication of the essential order and relationship between the different members of the Godhead. There are two lines of evidence. First, there are the implications that come from the names of the different members of the Godhead, particularly the implications of the Father-Son relationship. Second, there are the implications from the Father sending the Son and the Son submitting to the will of the Father. This has resulted in three basic points of view.

The Son is Essentially Subordinate to the Father

The view of the Eastern church strongly emphasized the eternal subordination of the Son. The Father-Son relationship is an eternal relationship within the Godhead. There was a divine Sonship prior to the incarnation. The Nicene creed said:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance [essence] with the Father. [215]

Charles Hodge makes a distinction between the statements of the Nicene Creed and the doctrine of the Nicene fathers. The creed, he says, is a well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which concern the doctrine of the Trinity. But the Nicene fathers tried to explain these facts. What is the relation of the Father to the Son? What is meant by “only-begotten” Son? Their explanations related principally to the subordination of the Son. [216] They did insist that the Son was equal in nature with the Father. He is eternal and has the same power and perfections. This was brought out by the word “homoousia,” having the same nature. But in explaining the Father-Son relationship and what only-begotten means, they emphasized the subordination of the Son. The Son was begotten, the Father was not. The Father generates the Son. The Father himself is ungenerated. A son derives his being from his father. The term beget indicates that the Son derived his nature from the Father. To avoid the implication that this would indicate a beginning of the existence of the Son, the doctrine of “eternal generation” was formed. The Son in his nature is God and therefore eternal. But he is also begotten of the Father so that this begetting must be from eternity. This does not mean that he was “made,” which would indicate that he was a created being. But the Father was the source, the fount, the cause of the deity of the Son. God the Father was αὐτοθεός, autotheos, of himself God, self-existent. The deity of the Son is derived from the Father. John of Damascus, who lived later (̆ 754), expresses the same doctrine.

If we say that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater, we do not indicate that He is before the Son (προτερεύειν) in time or nature, nor in any other point except as being the cause (κατὰ τὸ αἴτιον); that is that the Son was begotten of the father, and not the Father of the Son, and that the Father is the cause of the Son naturally (αἴτιος φυσικῶς), as we say that the fire does not come from the light, but rather the light from the fire. When therefore we hear that the Father is the origin of and greater than the Son, we must understand it in regard of the cause (τῷ αἰτίῷ νοήσωμεν). [217]

The Son is Functionally Subordinate to the Father from Eternity

A second viewpoint as to the relationship between the Father and Son would emphasize much more the equality of nature, but would argue that there is a functional subordination in the Godhead which is eternal. Wayne Grudem starts with the fact that:

There are no differences in deity, attributes, or essential nature between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The only distinctions between the members of the Trinity are in the ways they relate to each other and to creation. In those relationships they carry out roles that are appropriate to each person. [218]

However, the functional relationships we see in creation and redemption are simply the outworkings of an eternal relationship between the three persons. The Father has been eternally the Father, the Son eternally the Son, and the Holy Spirit eternally the Spirit.

Grudem begins by asking whether the roles taken by the different persons of the Trinity in relation to creation and redemption are accidental or arbitrary. Could the Father have become incarnate and died for our sins instead of the Son? Could the Holy Spirit have sent the Son to apply redemption accomplished by the Father? To say “yes” would mean that the Father would have ceased to be the Father and the Son would no longer have been the Son. It is the nature of a father to command, direct, and send, and it is the nature of a son to obey. [219]

The eternal nature of the Father-Son distinction is seen in three areas. First, God is unchangeable. If God now exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then he has always had these relationships. Second, the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son is already seen in three areas:

In the teaching of election. God the Father chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:3–4). The Father regarded us as in Christ and chose us before we ever existed. This looks at him taking the initiative in the plan of redemption.
In the notion of one who sends and the one who is sent. The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14). In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son (Gal. 4:4). He was already the Son before he was sent. But further it is the nature of the sender to initiate, plan, and direct, and it is the nature of the one sent to obey and be submissive. It is always the Son who does the Father’s will and not vice versa.
In the order of creation. Creation was by the Father through the Son. This also indicates a relationship prior to creation. The Father was the originator; the Son was the agent. It was their relationship which made the roles they fulfilled appropriate. [220]

Thirdly, it may be asked who is the Father and who is the Son if these terms do not describe their eternal relationship? How can we designate the different persons of the Godhead if they are not eternally Father and eternally Son? If they are not, we are left with a Trinity without any distinctions. We do not know in any way how one member of the Godhead differs from the others.

The Son is Functionally Subordinate to the Father in Creation and Redemption

B. B. Warfield calls into question any kind of eternal subordination between the Father and the Son. He admits that there is a functional subordination in the roles of the several Persons of the Trinity in the redemptive process and the dealings of God with the world. [221] He also accepts that the Father is eternally Father and the Son is eternally Son. But he questions the basic assumption that the eternal relationships can be derived from the roles in creation and redemption. He says:

It may be natural to assume that a subordination in modes of operation rests on a subordination in modes of subsistence; that the reason why it is the Father that sends the Son and the Son that sends the Spirit is that the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son. But we are bound to bear in mind that these relations of subordination in modes of operation may just as well be due to a convention, an agreement, between the Persons of the Trinity — a “Covenant” as it is technically called — by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is voluntarily assumed by each. It is eminently desirable, therefore, at the least, that some definite evidence of subordination in modes of subsistence should be discoverable before it is assumed. [222]

What complicates this is that the Son in the incarnation assumed a human nature in which he was dependent on the Father. This was a new relationship which did not exist in a past eternity so that subordination and dependence in this period cannot be automatically projected into the previous period.

Warfield also notes the limited and questionable nature of some of the evidence to support the subordination of the Son in his eternal relationship to the Father. First, the positions above rely heavily on the designation of the three persons as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. While this is the customary Trinitarian terminology of John, it is not of Paul, who prefers “God,” “the Lord Jesus Christ,” and “the Holy Spirit.” “It remains remarkable, nevertheless, if the very essence of the Trinity were thought of by him as resident in terms ‘Father,’ ‘Son,’ that in his numerous allusions to the Trinity in the Godhead, he never betrays any sense of this.” [223]

Secondly, we tend to place great emphasis on the order of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is first, the Son second, and the Spirit third. This is the order of the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19: “baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” But the order is not fixed. In 1 Corinthians 12:4–6 and Ephesians 4:4–6 the Spirit is first, the Lord is second, and God the Father is third. In 2 Corinthians 13:14 it is the Lord Jesus Christ first, God second, and the Holy Spirit third. He argues that if the essence of the Trinity is embodied in their order, then we should expect a more fixed and less variable order of mention. [224]

Third, while it is natural for us to see in the term “Son” an intimation of subordination and derivation of Being, this was not the denotation of the term as it is found in Scripture. What underlies the concept in Scripture is “likeness.” What the Father is the Son is also, so that the term stresses the equality of the Son with the Father. In John 5:18 the Jews wanted to stone him because in calling God his Father he was “making himself equal to God.” It is also doubtful if the term “only-begotten” denotes derivation of being. [225]

Millard Erickson comes to the same conclusion as Warfield.

I would propose that there are no references to the Father begetting the Son or the Father (and the Son) sending the Spirit that cannot be understood in terms of the temporal role assumed by the second and third persons of the Trinity, respectively. They do not indicate any intrinsic relationship among the three. Further, to speak of one of the persons as unoriginate and the others as either eternally begotten or proceeding from the Father is to introduce an element of causation or origination that must ultimately involve some type of subordination among them.

An alternative would be to say that the person of the Trinity who became incarnate and thus also took upon himself the responsibility of dying an atoning death did so voluntarily, in conjunction with the decision of the other two persons. He did this not because he lost a two to one vote within the Godhead. On these grounds, the will of the Father to which he so clearly was subject was at that point the will that the Father asserted on behalf of the Trinity, but it was the will in which the Son had participated, in the original decision. Similarly, the work of the Spirit — calling to remembrance the words of Jesus, directing persons’ thinking toward him, and glorifying him — was the result in which the Spirit had participated. [226]

In this subject of the Trinity, and especially on the eternal relationship between the members of the Godhead, great caution should be exercised. Calvin reminds us that God, in revealing himself to us, has accommodated himself to our feebleness. He stoops down to speak to us as a nurse does to infants. “Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as to accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness.” [227] If he has so adapted himself to us, can we be sure that we are understanding his essential nature just because he has acted a certain way in relation to the world and redemption?

Here, indeed, if anywhere in the secret mysteries of Scripture, we ought to play the philosopher soberly and with great moderation; let us use great caution that neither our thoughts nor our speech go beyond the limits to which the Word of God itself extends. For how can the human mind measure off the measureless essence of God according to its own little measure, a mind as yet unable to establish for certain the nature of the sun’s body, though men’s eyes daily gaze upon it? Indeed, how can the mind by its own leading come to search out God’s essence when it cannot even get to its own. Let us then willingly leave to God the knowledge of himself. [228]

The Importance of the Deity of Christ and the Doctrine of the Trinity

The early discussions of the Trinity from the third century on were often very philosophical and speculative. Some have concluded that this is “heavy theology” that has little practical importance. Athanasius felt otherwise in the debates at the Council of Nicaea and the battles that followed, as he defended the doctrine of the Trinity. He saw that what was really at stake was the heart of Christianity. This is not idle speculation on how many persons there are in the Godhead. It is the issue of the nature of salvation and how we obtain it. Many other essential doctrines are affected by the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ.

We saw earlier that salvation is the work of God. [229] God provided for us what he required of us. God the Son became flesh in order that he might die and pay the penalty for our sin. Romans 5:8 says, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” This says that God loves us and Christ died for us. Particularly, Christ’s dying for us was a demonstration of God’s love. How is that? What kind of love is it if God loves us and sent someone else to die for us? If Christ was a creature, then to send Christ to die for our sins may have been a demonstration of his love for us, but it would have been cruel and unjust toward Christ. But the doctrine of the Trinity tells us that Christ’s death was a demonstration of God’s love because it was God’s own Son who died for us. In the council of the Godhead the Father sent the Son and the Son willingly came to be a sacrifice for our sin. This was God himself providing what he required.

What then was the situation of man which required such a sacrifice of God’s Son? The Bible says that there is an infinite gulf which separates sinful man and God who is holy. The wrath of God abides on sinful man (John 3:36). Salvation is needed. But how is salvation to be attained? If man can save himself by his moral or religious works, then many doctrines are affected. Man’s sinfulness is not as bad as the Bible depicts. Man is not helpless in regards to his own salvation. Man does not need a supernatural Savior. He becomes his own savior. Unitarian theology affects the doctrines of sin, depravity, and salvation.

But if man is lost, helpless, dead in trespasses and sins, spiritually blind, and separated from God, what kind of a Savior must he have? When man is convicted of his sin and convinced of the perfect holiness of God, the outraged holiness of God, he will cry out, “who can save me?” He will long for a Savior who can bridge that gap between him and God. But a Savior cannot bring us any closer to God than he is himself. We need a Mediator who is both man and God. Only an infinite Savior can bridge that infinite gap between a holy God and sinful man. What creature is both sinless and also sufficient to bear the full wrath of God against sin? Only if Christ is fully God was his death of sufficient value to pay the penalty for our sins. Those who deny the deity of Christ must also deny the doctrine of the substitutionary death of Christ. There simply was no one else good enough to pay the debt of sin.

The New Testament consistently answers the question, “what must I do to be saved?” with “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Salvation is by faith in Christ. But what kind of person is it that I am putting my faith in for my eternal salvation? Am I going to trust a creature to bring me to heaven and to save me from hell? It is because Jesus Christ is God the Son that we can have complete and absolute confidence that he will not fail us. He will save us as he has promised to do. No creature-savior is worthy of such trust on an issue this great.

We have seen that in the New Testament Jesus Christ is the object of worship and prayer. Worship should only be directed toward God. Prayer should be to God alone. It is very clear. If Jesus Christ is not God, if he is just a creature, then Christianity is a false religion.

Do we have a true revelation of God? Christianity claims that it is not only the true revelation of God, it is the ultimate revelation of God. There is a claim to exclusivity here. That is because Christ is the only one qualified to give us a true and complete revelation of God. How can we know God? We cannot see him. He is infinite and holy, and we are sinful and finite. We are separated from him by our sin. We saw in John 1:18 and Matthew 11:27 that no one knows the Father except the Son. No one can know God fully unless he is God himself. That is why the Son knows God and knows him perfectly. He is God. He is able to explain God to us so that we also can know God truly. We do not know him exhaustively, but we do know him truly. If Jesus Christ is not God, then we do not have this revelation. All we have is relative truth, man’s best attempt by himself to find God.

James Oliver Buswell makes an additional point relating to the Trinity. He says that the Cambridge physicist and philosopher, Sir Arthur Eddington (1882–1944), said that he could not accept the doctrine of creation by a personal God for the reason that he could not conceive of a personal subject existing for eternity past without any object, and then suddenly creating a universe. [230] What was God doing before creation? Eddington is saying that God would need the universe to have a relationship with something outside of himself. This questions the independence of God. But the doctrine of the Trinity solves this difficulty. God is completely sufficient in himself. He did not create the universe because he needed something outside himself. There was an eternal, personal relationship of love and communion between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Our purpose in this article has been to examine the biblical evidence of the deity of Christ as it relates to the Trinity. Warfield says, “The determining impulse to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the church was the church’s profound conviction of the absolute Deity of Christ, on which as on a pivot the whole Christian conception of God from the first origins of Christianity turned.” [231]

Notes

See Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols., Vol. 2, Anti-Nicene Christianity (Reprint 5th ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1963 [=1889]), 2:580–583.
The name comes from Faustus Socinus who was an anti-Trinitarian of the sixteenth century. Cf. P. Kubricht in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 1031.
Walter Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker, “Μαράνα Θά,” in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [BDAG], 3rd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 616. Some manuscripts and editors take it to mean “our Lord has come.”
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, “Κύριος,” in A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1940), 1013.
BDAG, “Κύριος,” 576–579.
BDAG, “Κύριος,” 578.
Cesla Spicq, “Κύριος, Κυριεύω,” in Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994), 344.
The Martyrdom of Polycarp, viii. 2.
See passages like 2 Sam. 7:11–16; Ps. 89:2–3, 35–36; Isa. 9:7; 11:1; Jer. 23:5; 33:15, 17, 21; Ezek. 34:23–24.
The Davidic descent of the Messiah is also clearly acknowledged in John 7:42.
It is of some significance that there is no messianic interpretation of this psalm in the rabbinic literature before the second half of the third century a.d. Billerbeck argues that the messianic interpretation was the commonly accepted one in the first century. This psalm is the most frequently quoted Old Testament passage in the New Testament. In this passage before us, unless the opponents of Jesus admitted the messianic interpretation, the whole argument would be useless. Billerbeck therefore concludes that the non-messianic interpretation which applied the psalm to Abraham arose in the period of antagonism between the church and the synagogue as part of an anti-Christian polemic. See Herman Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6 vols., 5th ed. (München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1922–28), IV.1: 452–65.
Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [BDB] (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1907), 11.
See Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching, Trans. from the original Hebrew by Herbert Danby (Boston: Beacon Press, 1925), 320.
John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NIC, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965), 2:41.
Verse 9 should be translated, “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord” (NASB), not “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus.” “Lord” is grammatically to be taken as an object complement or a predicate accusative. This is seen in the verses listed above (p. 2) where “Jesus is Lord” is the confessional cry of the early church. Note particularly 1 Corinthians 12:3 where Κύριος ᾿Ιησους (Kyrios Iēsous) is in contrast to ᾿Ανάθεμα ᾿Ιησους (Anathema Iēsous), “Jesus is Lord,” vs. “Jesus is accursed.” The words “Lord” and “accursed” must both be taken as predicate nominatives. Cf. 2 Cor. 4:5. Κύριος ᾿Ιησους (Jesus is Lord) was said in contrast to other confessions such as Κύριος Καίσαρ (Caesar is lord). The translation of the King James and New King James Version (“confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus”) is unfortunate and obscures the essential point of the content of the faith confessed, Jesus is Lord.
C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1975, 1979), 2:532. He mentions authors such as Herodotus, Xenophon, Plato, Polybius, inscriptions, and papyri.
Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., “Joel,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 1412.
What is that name which is above every name? There are many suggestions: 1) Jesus (from v. 10); 2) Jesus Christ; 3) Son; 4) God; 5) Lord. This last suggestion, the title “Lord,” is the most common and finds contextual support in the name κύριος (kyrios) found in the confession of verse 11, “Jesus Christ is Lord.” It is because of his exaltation to the position of sovereign Lord that every knee will bow to him (v. 10).
The three classes, those who are in heaven, those on the earth, and those who are under the earth, are a comprehensive reference to all created intelligences and not just to believers. If this were just believers, then “those under the earth” would be a reference to saints who have died, a rather strange way of referring to saints who have gone to be with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8). Further, in Greek religion the term καταχθόνιος (katachthonios) describes the subterranean regions controlled by Hades and Persephone who ruled over the realm of the dead. It is best to take the three classes of verse 10 to refer to 1) those in heaven (angelic beings and redeemed men and women who have died); 2) those on earth (all living human beings); and 3) those under the earth (all fallen men and angelic beings).
John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, trans. T. H. L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 252.
κατ᾿ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω eΗ μὴν ἐξελεύσεται ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου δικαιοσύνη, οἱ λόγοι μου οὐκ ἀποστραφήσονται ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ καὶ ἐξομολογήσεται πᾶσα γλῶσσα τῷ θεῷ. This is the text of Rahlfs following manuscripts AQSc. There are other manuscripts of the LXX which follow the Hebrew and have ὀμεῖται (to swear) instead of ἐξομολογήσεται (BS*LC).
See verses 5, 6, 14, 18, 212, 22.
The analysis of this chapter is that found in Alan A. MacRae, The Gospel of Isaiah (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), 88–91.
The phrase, “The Coming One,” was a virtual although not a technical title of the Messiah. Cf. Mark 11:9: Luke 13:35; 19:38; Heb. 10:37; Ps. 118:26.
Robert C. Dentan, “Malachi: Introduction and Exegesis,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick, 12 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956), 6:1137.
Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, trans. E. W. Shalders, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, [=1887]), 1: 350.
Federick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, translated with additional notes by Timothy Dwight, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969 [=1893]), 2:233. The strong statement that God would harden some so that they could not believe has provoked considerable discussion in passages like John 12:39–40 and in Isaiah 6:10. How could a God of love and grace who “desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4) prevent any from believing and being saved? There is a predestinarian statement here which comes from Isaiah. They could not believe because Isaiah had said that God would harden them to prevent their spiritual response. It should be noted that those who were the subject of this hardening were not guiltless. This is not referring to an eternal predestination of God before the ages. It is the judgment of God on those who had rejected him in the past and who would not be given further light. There is a principle expressed in Proverbs 29:1 that “He who is often rebuked, and hardens his neck, will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.” God has the right to judge sin, and that judgment may involve taking away the opportunity for repentance and salvation. Cf. John H. Fish III, “The Commission of Isaiah,” EmJ 4(1995):47-60.
D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 450.
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 40–47.
This is the translation of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer which represents the standard text of the Protestant churches. The Greek is θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ. See Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983 [1889]), 2: 57–59.
For a list see Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 274 n. 2.
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 274.
See John D. Grassmick, Principles and Practice of Greek Exegesis (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1974), 144.
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John (2nd ed., Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978), 152.
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 55.
D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 116.
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.
Raymond Brown, The Gospel according to John I-XII, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 4.
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 152.
Federick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:245.
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 54.
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 53.
C. H. C. Macgregor, The Gospel of John (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1928), 4.
Raymond Brown, The Gospel according to John I-XII, 5. Cf. Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek by James Hope Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), 250–251.
For example, Matt. 13:56; Mark 6:3; 9:19; 14:49; Luke 9:41; 1 Thes. 3:4; 2 Thes. 2:5; 3:10; 1 John 1:2. It is also found with verbs like πάρειμι (also. παρουσία), ἐπιμένω, παραμένω, and ἐπιδημέω which are verbs of rest and imply no motion. See BDAG, “πρός” 3 g, (p. 875).
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 57.
Chapter 20 is the concluding chapter of the body of John’s Gospel, with chapter 21 as an appendix. The body climaxes with this confession of Thomas.
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 43.
Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 3 vols. (Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1945), 1:22.
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 61. The NASB has “the only begotten God [theos] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” There is a textual problem in this verse. The NKJB has “the only begotten Son” instead of “the only begotten God.”
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 243.
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 243. There is a detailed discussion with examples in pages 244–254.
J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms (2 vols., 4th ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan [1878]), 2:105.
For a discussion of this passage see below pp. 35-43.
E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” JBL 52 (1933): 12-21. Colwell’s study is cited by Leon Morris as giving “the true explanation of the article” in John 1:1. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 68. Dan Wallace has done extensive study in the use of the article in Greek and has an outstanding presentation and evaluation of “Colwell’s Rule and its application to John 1:1.” Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 256–290.
This is the converse of Colwell’s rule which has often been assumed to be true, but that assumption involves a logical fallacy. Colwell said that a definite predicate noun which precedes the verb usually lacks the article. The converse of this would be that a predicate noun lacking the article and preceding the verb must be definite. Wallace uses an illustration to show the fallacy. “Suppose a little boy were to examine as best he could the relationship of rain to clouds. Every time it rains, he runs outside and notices that there are clouds in the sky. He will conclude the following principle: If it is raining, there must be clouds in the sky. In such a statement the only time the sky is examined is when it is raining. The study is not exhaustive to include all occasions in which the sky is cloudy. If this boy were to formulate the converse of his rule, we could all see its logical fallacy: If there are clouds in the sky, it must be raining.”
See above p. 5.
While some translations have “a” living and true God (NASB, NRSV, JND, Young), most render it “the” living and true God (AV, NKJB, NIV, NLT, TEV, REB, as well as the standard French, German, and Spanish translations). Regardless of the translation the point is the same. The emphasis is on the kind of God he is.
Wallace cites further studies of predicate nouns since Colwell, and cites as a general rule, “An anarthrous [having no article] pre-verbal PN is normally qualitative, sometimes definite, and only rarely indefinite.” Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 262. This means that the most likely interpretation is that this predicate noun is qualitative, and the least likely is that it is indefinite. In fact the “indefinite” meaning in this construction is quite rare.
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to John, 156.
The number of variations is actually more complicated than this. The essential difference however is between the reading “Son” and the reading “God.”
See Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 88–90.
B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St John, with a new introduction “Johannine Studies since Westcott’s Day” by F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 171.
B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St John, 171.
As, for example, words like manufacture which comes from the Latin manus (hand) and facio (to make), so that what is manufactured must be “made by hand.” Or gymnasium, which comes from the Greek γυμνός (gymnos), which means “naked.” The ancient Greeks did perform their athletic workouts without any clothes on, but that does not determine our attire when we go to a gymnasium today.
This is the translation of Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, Loeb Classical Library, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press), 1: 53. 1 Clement 25:2. The Greek reads, ὄρνεον γάρ ἐστιν, ὁ προσονομάζεται φοῖνιξ· τοῦτο μονογενὲς ὑπάρχον ζῇ ἔτη πεντακόσια·
B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St John, 169.
James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Vol. 1 Prolegomena, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908), 63
James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 1:234–235.
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 102.
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 102.
B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964 [1881]), 15
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 128.
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 128.
The verb construction known as the subjunctive of emphatic negation is the strongest way of stating a negative in Greek. The original is οὐ μὴ πιστεύσω (ou mē pisteusō).
A view referred to by Donald A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 658. No godly Jew could utter that kind of profanity because it would be a violation of the third commandment (Ex. 20:7).
It makes no difference whether this is punctuated as a question or as a statement. Thomas had believed on the basis of seeing Christ. His faith is put in contrast to that of those who believe without seeing.
It is also to be noted that the definite article is used with ὁ θεός μου here in contrast to John 1:1. This clearly shows that Thomas is not saying that Jesus is just “a god.” The article does not mean that the Son is here identified with the Father. It is to be expected when the possessive pronoun “my” is found.
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 57.
There are numerous examples in the book of Psalms. Psalm 3:8; 5:3; 21:2, 3; 24:1; 27:1; 35:23; 39:9; 42:4; 70:4, 12; 82:14; 83:4; 144:1 (The chapter and verse numbers are those of the LXX. They are often one chapter lower and one verse higher than in our English Bible.) The phrase ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου is found in Psalm 35:23 addressing God, while Psalm 5:3 and 83:4 have ὁ βασιλεύς μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου. Cf. Ps. 144:1 ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ βασιλεύς μου. The phrase κύριε ὁ θεός μου is found 21x, chiefly as a translation of יהוה אֱלֹהִים. Thus there is no difference in meaning between ὁ θεός μου in the nominative case with a vocative meaning versus the vocative case itself. In the New Testament the only example of θεός in the vocative is Matthew 27:46(2) θεέ μου θεέ μου where the parallel passage in Mark 15:33 has ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου.
Raymond Brown, The Gospel according to John XIII-XXI, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), 1026.
The statement that Jesus is Lord and God cannot be taken just as a functional statement, i.e. he performs the works of God or is the consummate mediator between God and man. No one has the right to be worshiped as God unless he is by nature God. No creature has the right to be worshiped. Even though this is a worshipful address of Thomas to Jesus, it has profound ontological implications. Jesus is rightfully worshiped as God because he is God. This is the truth of John 1:1 and is the exemplification of John 5:23 that all should honor the Son as they honor the Father.
Cf. Benjamin B. Warfield, The Lord of Glory (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), 182.
Donald A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 659.
He twice uses the relative pronoun ὧν in the genitive case indicating possession. “Who are Israelites, of whom is the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the service and the promises, of whom are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen” (literal translation).
William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), 233.
I am oversimplifying but there are in essence two different interpretations of the verse. The one sees the word “God” as a reference to Christ, while the other takes it as a reference to God the Father. For a more complete presentation of the variations within these two views see Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 143–172.
In Greek the “who is” is an articular participle ὁ ὢν used as a relative pronoun. For this construction see, F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. by Robert W. Funk (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961, §412. The ὁ ὢν is equivalent to ὅς ἐστιν. Cf. Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 235.
In Greek one may say ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων (the one who is over all), or ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς (God who is over all), or ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων (the one who is over all), but the construction ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς is not found, i.e. where there is article, participle, prepositional phrase, and noun.
The Greek reads ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ οἶδεν, ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι. Here we have the antecedent, ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ, the identical articular participle, ὁ ὢν, and the following εὐλογητὸς. The phrase ὁ ὢν clearly refers back to ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ.
Luke 1:68; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3. In Luke 1:68 and in fifteen of the examples in the LXX the phrase is εὐλογητός κύριος ὁ θεός. The only exception to the normal word order in both the New Testament and the LXX is Psalm 67:19 which has κύριος ὁ θεός εὐλογητός. What is unusual about this is that there is no Hebrew which these words translate, and the normal εὐλογητός κύριος follows immediately in verse 20. What the LXX translator did was create an unusual chiastic construction for emphasis. “The Lord God is blessed. Blessed be the Lord God.” This unique construction is an exception and cannot be used to support the interpretation “God be blessed” in Romans 9:5.
Sanday and Headlam note Socinus (notorious for his rejection of the deity of Christ) was convinced by the position of εὐλογητός that the whole verse must refer to Christ.
See above pages 12–17.
See Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 167.
Patrick Fairbairn, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956 [=1874]), 277.
This is the attributive genitive or Hebrew genitive. In Luke 18:6 “the judge of unrighteousness” is “the unrighteous judge.” The “body of sin” in Romans 6:6 is the “sinful body.” The “freedom of the glory of the children of God” in Romans 8:21 is “the glorious freedom.” These are examples from Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 86–88.
Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, 175. He lists Rom. 8:21; Eph. 1:17; 3:16; Phil. 3:21; Col. 1:11; 1 Tim. 1:11.
1 Thes. 2:8, “the manifestation of his coming;” 1 Tim. 6:14, “the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ;” 2 Tim. 1:10, “the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ.”
William Hendriksen says that both translations ultimately come down to “the appearing in glory” of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957), 373.
See for example NASB, NKJB, NIV, NRSV, NLT, TEV, REB, ESV.
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 270.
Murray Harris, Jesus as God, 307–310. Most of Harris’ examples are with nouns in the plural. He never really considers whether Sharp’s rule is valid with personal nouns in the singular which are not proper names.
Wallace’s restatement of Sharp’s rule is as follows: “In native Greek constructions (i.e. not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by καί (thus, article-substantive-καί-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, and (3) common nouns (not proper nouns or ordinals), they have the same referent.” Daniel Baird Wallace, “The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by ΚΑΙ´ in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance,” Unpublished PhD Dissertation (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995), 279.
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 276.
G. B. Winer, A Treatese on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, trans. with additions by W. F. Moulton, 3rd ed. rev. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1883), 162.
C. Spicq, Les Épitres Pastorales, EB (Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1969), 640. See Murray Harris, Jesus as God, 178–79.
J. H. Bernard, The Pastoral Epistles, CGTSC (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1922), 172–73.
See Harris, Jesus as God, 180–181.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 1:519.
Murray Harris, Jesus as God, 222.
Murray Harris, Jesus as God, 222.
Cf. Murray Harris, Jesus as God, 214, 220.
NKJB.
NIV
The statistics are from Murray Harris, Jesus as God, 215–216.
See examples in Murray Harris, Jesus as God, 217–218. This is not to ignore the fact that some important commentators such as Westcott have rejected the vocative. Cf. Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, (2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965 [1892]), 25–26.
Cf. pp. 21-22 above where human judges in their office as judge were God’s representative and were called “gods” (Ex. 21:6; 22:8–9; Ps. 82:6).
See page 52–55.
Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 251.
Benjamin B. Warfield, The Lord of Glory, 269. For example, Isaiah 43:11, “I, even I, am the Lord and beside me there is no Saviour.”
John Murray, “Jesus the Son of God,” Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols. (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1982), 4:77–78.
D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 254.
Notice that this is not an exclusive sonship that belongs to Christ alone. The rest of verse 14 says that “when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men.”
Geerhardus Vos calls this “the nativistic sense” of the term “son of God.” “The origin of the Messiah’s human nature is ascribed to the direct, supernatural paternity of God.” The Self-Disclosure of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 142.
See above pp. 38-40.
O. Hofius, “Father,” NIDNT, 1:617.
Joachim Jeremias, The Central Message of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965), 16.
See also Rom. 8:3, 32 where the Father is said to have sent his Son and did not spare his Son.
See also Num. 23:19; Job 25:6; 35:8; Ps. 80:17; 144:3; Isa. 51:12; 56:2; Jer. 49:18, 33; 50:40, 51:43.
D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:212.
Mark D. Futato, “ענן,” NIDOTTE, 3:465.
H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949), 308. Cf. Ex. 13:21–22; 19:9, 16; 1 Kings 8:10–11; Isa. 19:1; Jer. 4:13; Neh. 1:3; Ezek. 10:4; Ps. 97:2; 104:3.
Dan. 3:12, 14, 17, 18, 28; 6:17, 21; 7:14, 27; cf. Ezra 7:24.
Cf. BDAG, 197.
The perfect tense of the verb γέγονεν (gegonen) looks at the present results of the past creative act. The creation in its present state is the result of the past creative act of God.
John pointedly uses different verbs to distinguish the Logos who already “was” (ἦν, ēn), versus created things which “came into being” (ἐγένετο, egeneto).
The Greek is ἐν αὐτῷ (en autō). A number of translations have translated the preposition en “in him” to indicate the sphere in which creation took place (ASV, RSV, NEB, JB). That is possible but the preposition en can be used to express personal agency as well as its more usual sense of impersonal means (BDAG, 329). With the passive verb ἐκτίσθη (ektisthē) and the following “through him” (δι᾿ αὐτοῦ, di autou) the sense of agency, “by him,” fits better.
Paul used the word “created” twice in this verse. The first time the tense of the verb is aorist looking at the simple fact that all things were created (ἐκτίσθη, ektisthē). The second time the tense is perfect (ἔκτισται, ektistai). The perfect looks at the present results of the past action of creation, i.e. the created universe in its present state.
The two terms, “gods” and “lords,” reflect the two basic forms of Greco-Roman religion. The term “gods” was the traditional term for the deities while the term “lords” was the normal title for the gods in the mystery cults. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 373. Paul does acknowledge that there is something there behind the idols which the pagans worship. In 10:19–20 he says that they are actually worshiping demons. But demons are creatures, not real gods, and so he is able here to deny the objective reality of them as “gods.”
The final phrase “and we through him” indicates that he is not just the Creator of the old creation, he is also the Creator of the new.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 375.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 374.
Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 46.
Saint Chrysostom: “Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in A Select Library on the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. by Philip Schaff, 14 vols., the Oxford translation, rev. and ed. by Frederic Gardiner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 [=1889]), 14:372.
There are slight variations in 2 Thessalonians 1:2 and Titus 1:4 which do not affect the argument. The same point can also be made from Ephesians 6:23 which says, “Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
2 Thessalonians 1:1 is identical with the addition of the word “our” with “Father.”
This is the preposition “in” (ἐν, en), ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ, en theō patri kai kyriō Iēsou Christou.
The order is reversed in 2 Thessalonians, but the prayer is still addressed to both of them.
The verb is a 3rd singular aorist active optative of κατευθύνω. The optative mood is used to express a wish or a prayer, “May he direct our way to you.”
The identical point can also be made from 2 Thessalonians 2:16–17. “Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word.” Here also is a compound subject, “our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father,” with a singular verb in the optative. The prayer is addressed to both, and the answer comes from both.
See also Romans 8:3, 32 where the Father is said to have sent his Son and did not spare his Son.
In Greek, questions introduced by μή expect a negative answer.
Godet, The Gospel of John, 2:121–122.
James Montgomery Boice, Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 103.
E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Gospel of St John, translated from the German, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1980 [=1865]), 1:472–473.
πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.
γένεσθέ μοι μάρτυρες, κἀγὼ μάρτυς, λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός, καὶ ὁ παῖς, ὃν ἐξελεξάμην, ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε καὶ συνῆτε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, ἔμπροσθέν μου οὐκ ἐγένετο ἄλλος θεὸς καὶ μετ᾿ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔσται. See also Isaiah 41:4.
Friedrich Büchsel, “εἰμί, ὁ ὤν,” TDNT, 2:399.
Raymond Brown, The Gospel according to John I-XII, 367.
See above p. 11.
J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961 [=1879], 181.
Harris thinks that the separation of katoikei from sōmatikōs implies this. Murray J. Harris, Colissians and Philemon, EGGNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
See pages 24–43.
The Greek says literally, “God has spoken to us in Son”(ἐν υἱῷ, en huiō). There is no article (the) or possessive pronoun (his) with the word “Son.” Without the article the stress is on the quality or character of the noun, through this kind of person. It is a son-type of revelation as opposed to a prophet-type of revelation. Cf. David J. MacLeod, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Dubuque: Emmaus Bible College, 1998), 2–3.
David J. MacLeod, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 3.
This was seen in the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire which led the Israelites through the wilderness, Ex. 13:21, 22; 14:19, 24; 33:9, 10; Num. 14:14; Deut. 31:15; Neh. 9:12, 19; Ps. 99:7. This was the glory of God manifested in Ezekiel which was seen departing from the temple. Cf. Ezek. 3:23; 8:4; 9:3; 10:4, 18, 19; 11:22–23; 43:2, 4–5; 44:4.
Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 42.
F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 6.
BDAG, “ὑποστασις,” 1040.
F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 6.
Cf. Ex. 20:3–5; 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 8:19; 11:16; 30:17; 1 Kings 9:6; 2 Chron. 7:19; Jer. 25:6; 35:15.
See above p 45.
See pp. 43-46.
See pp. 15-17.
The same word “fall” (πίπτω, piptō) is used for the prostration of the four living creatures before the Lamb in 5:8 which is used in 4:10 when they fall before God.
Richard Bauckham, “Jesus Christ: The Worship of Jesus,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 3:814.
Other places where doxologies are addressed to God are Gal. 1:5; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 Pet. 5:11; Jude 24–25; Rev. 7:12.
Richard Bauckham, “Jesus Christ: The Worship of Jesus,” ABD, 3:813, 814.
There are a number of manuscripts which omit the “Me.” It is included in some of the earliest and best manuscripts including P66, א B W Δ Θ f 13 28 33 700 al. It is given a {B} reading in the UBS text. It is not in the Textus Receptus and therefore not included in the King James or New King James. The Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, however, lists it in their first apparatus with Mpt indicating that there is substantial division even within the Majority Text tradition.
F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 180.
Cf. Gen. 4:26; 26:25; Ps. 74:2 [75:1]; 98:6 [99:6]; 104:1 [105:1]; Isa. 64:6.
See above pp. 75-76.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT, 838.
In the LXX of the canonical books of the Old Testament the word “Savior” (σωτήρ, sōtēr) is found twenty-one times. In eighteen of these it refers to God as the one who is the Savior (Deut. 32:15; 1 Sam. 10:19; Ps. 23:5; 24:5; 26:1, 9; 61:3, 7; 64:6; 78:9; 94:1; Mic. 7:7; Hab. 3:18; Isa. 12:2; 17:10; 45:10; 45:21; 62:11). There are only three times where the Savior is not the Lord. The judges from the time of the book of Judges are also called saviors (Judges 3:9, 15; Neh. 9:27). Even here the ultimate Savior is the Lord. There are some situations where a human being can be the instrument of God for salvation. There are other situations where God himself is the only hope and refuge. Salvation from sin is a work which must be done by God.
Luke 1:47; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Tit. 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; Jude 1:25.
Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Eph. 5:23; Phil. 3:20; 2 Tim. 1:10; Tit. 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 2 Pet. 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2; 3:18; 1 John 4:11.
Darrell L. Bock, Luke, BECNT, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 2:1478.
I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 684; Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke, ICC, 5th ed. (Edinburg: T. & T. Clark, 1922), 422.
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, Christology and Criticism (Grand Rapids: Baker 1981 [= 1929]), 104–106.
Darrell L. Bock, Luke, 1477.
See above p. 75.
See the excellent remarks of Philip Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NIC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 10.
Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d. [= 1859]), 277.
There is a long note with many quotes in B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 213–216.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., ed. John T. McNeill, trans., Ford Lewis Battles, LCC (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), I xiii 25, pp. 153-54. Cf. John Calvin, “To Simon Grynee,” Selected Works of John Calvin, Tracts and Letters, eds. Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, 7 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 4:55–56; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:467. I am indebted to David MacLeod for this note that comes from an article on John 1:14, “The Incarnation of the Word,” which will appear in a future issue of Bibliotheca Sacra.
This comes from the fact that the Greek word “first” (πρῶτος, prōtos) can indicate “first in time” or “first in rank.” Cf. BDAG, “πρῶτος,” 892–894.
The genitive in πάσης κτίσεως is better taken as a genitive of subordination in this context rather than a partitive genitive. In the partitive genitive the head noun is a part of the noun in the genitive, i.e. Christ would be a part of creation. In the genitive of subordination the noun in the genitive is subordinated to or under the dominion of the head noun, i.e. Christ is over all creation. Both of these are legitimate uses of the genitive in Greek. It is the context and usage of “firstborn” which lead us to reject the partitive use and accept the genitive of subordination. Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 84–86, 103–104. Examples of a genitive of subordination can be found in Mark 15:32, “the king over Israel,” and 2 Corinthians 4:4, “the god of this world.”
The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses actually adds the word “other” to Colossians 1:16 which is in no Greek text. It reads, “because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth.” This is not translation, but changing the text to conformed to a preconceived theology.
Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969 [= 1857]), 326–336.
Cf. 2 Sam. 7:16; Heb. 1:8; Rev. 11:15; Isa. 9:7; 2 Pet. 1:11.
G. N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1957, reprint ed.), 2:630–638.
James Oliver Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 2:30.
Harold St. John would think that Buswell has gone too far in trying to explain the inexplicable, but he also admits that Christ clearly acknowledged his ignorance of the time of his return. His statement is as follows: “Theologians have spun webs of theory around these words in [Mark 13] v. 32 vainly seeking to evade the plain sense of our Lord’s language. The simple Christian believes that God is able to know all things that ought to be known (just as He is able to do all things that ought to be done, though He is not able to tell lies, nor does He delegate this task to any of his servants). We ought also to believe that our Lord was able not to know certain other things. It would be an intolerable impertinence for any one to pretend to possess such a knowledge of the interior workings of the mind of Christ, as to authorise him to affirm that Christ was unable to exclude from his consciousness such a detail as a date! Some have dared to say that Christ on earth knew as God what He did not know as Man; Admiral Nelson could put a telescope to his blind eye and pretend that he could not see his superior’s signal, but such an expedient would not be consistent with the simplicity that is in Christ. It such matters it is better to adore than to argue. Harold St. John, An Analysis of the Gospel of Mark (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1956), 141.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 242.
The ultimate problem is more than intellectual. “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor. 2:14).
“Jesus,” The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 10 vols. (New York: KTAV, 1942), 6:83.
Cyril Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam (San Francisco: Harper, 1991), 208–209.
“The Private Creed of Arius. A.D. 328” in The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols., ed. Philip Schaff, rev. by David S. Schaff (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983 [= 1931]), 2:28–29.
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols., 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964 [= 1910]), 3:645.
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3:645–646.
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity,” in Biblical Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981 [= 1929]), 147.
I am not trying to ignore the relationship of the Son to the Holy Spirit. There is more revelation on the relation of the Son to the Father, and the subject of the Holy Spirit will be dealt with in a related article.
Theologians have distinguished between the “economic” Trinity and the “ontological” Trinity. The word “economic” here has nothing to do with finances. An older sense of the word means “the management of one’s business” or “the ordering of affairs.” This looks at the different activities, roles, or functions each member of the Godhead has in the affairs of creation and redemption. Ontology has to do with essential being. The ontological Trinity has to do with the eternal relationships between the members of the Godhead as they are in and of themselves.
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3:681.
Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 2:58.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 462.
De Fide, i. 8. Cited in B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 215. I argue against this viewpoint of the derivation of the deity of the Son from the Father above on pp. 98-99.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 251.
This is not just projecting our experience of fathers onto God. Grudem would argue from Ephesians 3:14–15 that God is the pattern from whom human fatherhood is derived, so that these functions describe what is in the nature of the father-son relationship. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 250.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 250–51.
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity,” 165. There is a strange complication that has recently entered this issue. “Evangelical” feminists have come out strongly against any idea of eternal subordination in the Godhead. One of the leaders is Gilbert Bilezikian (“Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead,” JETS 40 [1997]: 57-68). Members of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood have come out strongly opposing Belezikian and supporting a position of eternal subordination. Both sides act as if this were a crucial point that affected the issue of egalitarianism vs. complementarianism. I fail to see this. Belezikian admits a subordination of the Son to the Father in the economy of redemption. This concedes the crucial point which bothers the feminists so much. There can be a subjection in terms of role or function while there is still an essential equality in nature or person.
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity,” 166.
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity,” 162.
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity,” 162.
See above pp. 38-40.
Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 309–310.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I xiii 1, p. 121.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I xiii 21, p. 146.
See pp. 93-95.
James Oliver Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 1:127.
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity,” 169.

Eamon Younis

Monday, 29 April 2019

God the Son

No comments:

Post a Comment