podcast 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists

Rivers,

1. We both agree Christianity teaches there is only one God.

2. Since you believe Jesus is not God, you have to cling to your interpretation that Thomas was addressing two persons when he said to Jesus (one person) “My Lord and my God.” 100% of the scholars I am aware of agree that Thomas called Jesus Lord and God. What noted Greek scholars can you come up with that agree Thomas is speaking to two persons?

I do realize Jesus addresses the Father and calls him my God in John 20:17: “Jesus said, ‘Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'” You are asking what the Jehovah’s Witnesses ask, how can the Father be Jesus’ God and he still be God?

In context the word “God” here in 20:17b is referring to the Father. The human Jesus is calling the Father his God, submitting himself to the Father. The Son took on a human nature and gave up certain divine prerogatives or privileges. Jesus was still fully God but chose not to utilize his divine abilities (Phil. 2:5-8). As Paul writes in Philippians 2, Jesus as a human submitted himself to death, something the Father cannot do. A difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.

In John 17 the focus is on the human aspect of Jesus’ identity. He identified himself with his “brothers” (Disciples). The human Jesus had “brothers” and the divine nature does not. Notice also he says “My Father and My God.” He taught others to say “Our Father.” My Father affirms he is the Son of God. By using “MY” he saying he is equal with the Father. In John 5:17-18 (NASB) “But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” 18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” Jesus calling God “My Father” was a way to proclaim equality with God the Father and the Jews knew this and wanted him dead.

3. John 1:1 says Jesus was God (theos). John 1:14 says Jesus, as God, took on human flesh. Jesus has two natures, fully God and fully man. In Revelations 19:13 the second Person of the Trinity, the incarnate Son of God is called The Word of God because He is the revelation of God. He is the full expression of the mind, will, and purpose of God, “the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature” (Heb. 1:3). Revelations 19:13 reaffirms the truth of John 1:1, that Jesus was God.

4. You said referring to Titus 2:13, “However, you are assuming that “the glory of God” is referring to God himself.” If God in your sentence means the Father, then that is not what I am assuming. The truth I am assuming nothing, I am going by what Paul writes. The text says the appearing refers to Jesus at his second coming. He is the great God and savior as all the scholars I quoted contend.

5. What NT Greek scholars agree with you that Paul is addressing two persons?

6. All you showed in Hebrews 2:12-14 is that Jesus had a human nature. I agree…where we disagree is believing he also had a divine nature. In Luke 1:35 “The angel answered and said to her, ‘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.’” What do you believe the Son of God means? The Jews believed in John 5:17-18 that the Son of God (called God my Father) meant he was equal with God.

I agree the Father raised Jesus from the dead. However, he said he raised himself. John 2:19-22 “Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ 20 The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.” Jesus clearly says he will raise himself from the dead. Thus he affirms he is fully God and fully man. As man he could die (God cannot die) and as the second person of the Trinity he had the power to raise himself from the dead.

Steve

Rivers,

Thanks for some background info in your last post. I looked up Biblical Unitarians and on their web site I found some interesting information.

To help us refine our discussion, I’d like to focus on these scriptures; John 1:1 (1:14) and John 1:3. It is here I believe the Bible teaches Jesus is truly God and truly man. At another time we can return to some of the other Scriptures we have been discussing.

I noticed you part ways with the view on the web site concerning John 1:1. You believe the Word (LOGOS) is the human Jesus, after the resurrection. John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Important for our discussion, John 1:1c says Jesus was God. I am not sure how you navigate that verse. It seems obvious to me, from the beginning, Jesus was God. And then in John 1:14 “And 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.” Here we see God taking on human flesh and becoming a man and dwelling among us.

Jesus as the God/man works well with verse 3. John 1:3 “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” This verse teaches Jesus is the creator of all things (similar to Colossians 1:16-18). It says that nothing has been created apart from the agency and authority of Jesus. Jesus is the uncreated creator since he has created all things and he cannot create himself. John 1:3 seems to perfectly support John 1:1 that Jesus is God.

John 1:3 also has implications for your view that John 1:1 is a resurrection text. If Jesus is the uncreated creator he obviously was creator before the resurrection.

Where does the Bible teach that John 1:1 is a resurrection text?

Steve

Rivers,

I am trying to understand your view so bear with me as I work through your take on John 1:1. We both agree the Word is Jesus Christ. And we agree God is referring to the Father in 1:1b. So far so good. Here comes the part that has me scratching my head. If I understand you correctly we part company on 1:1c. Is this how you seem to interpret John 1:1 (I will remove the Word and God to identify the persons). “In the beginning was Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ was with the Father and Jesus Christ was Father.” Or clause 1:1c could read “and the Father was Jesus Christ.”

Did I understand you correctly?

Steve

Rivers

You seem to try to downplay 1:1c when John writes, “The word was God.” John did not say equal with God but was God. Here “theos” points to the fact Jesus had the nature of deity. To help support what I am saying in John 1:1, I am going to use scholar Phillip Harner and highlights from his article in the Journal Of Biblical Literature: Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1.

Harner found that 80% of anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nouns in Mark and John are qualitative and 20% are definite. None are exclusively indefinite, which supports Colwell’s conclusion as well. Harner notes that some qualitative nouns, such as HAMARTÔLOS (“sinner”) in John 9:16 (NASB) Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, “This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.” But others were saying, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” And there was a division among them.” Though best translated with the indefinite article due to English idiom, should actually be considered qualitative. Again the qualitative aspect of the predicate is most prominent; they [the Jews] thought Jesus had the nature or character of one who is a “sinner.” There is no basis for regarding the predicate as indefinite, although in this instance we would probably use the indefinite article in English translation.

Harner stresses that when considering whether a pre-verbal predicate noun is definite, indefinite, or qualitative, it is important to consider how the writer might have expressed his intentions using another, and possibly less ambiguous, syntax as well as what he actually wrote. Dr. Harner wrote: “As an aid in understanding the verse, it will be helpful to ask what John might have written as well as what he did write. In terms of the types of word-order and vocabulary available to him, it would appear that John could have written any of the following:

A. hO LOGOS ÊN hO THEOS – [The Word was the God]

B. THEOS ÊN hO LOGOS – [God was the Word]

C. hO LOGOS THEOS ÊN – [The Word God was]

D. hO LOGOS ÊN THEOS – [The Word was God (a god or divine)]

E. hO LOGOS ÊN THEIOS – [The Word was Divine]

Clause A, hO LOGOS ÊN hO THEOS – [The Word was the God] with an arthrous predicate, would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no ho theos which is not also ho logos. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of 1:1b, in which John writes the Word was with God. This clause suggests relationship, and thus some form of “personal” differentiation, between the two.

So, Harner, in agreement with Robertson, Dana & Mantey, and most other scholars notes that if both THEOS and LOGOS were arthrous, the two terms would be convertible. If John had employed the article before theos, he would have made the terms theos and logos interchangeable, amounting to Sabellianism [modelism]. Since John did not use this syntax, his intended meaning must be something else. Harner continues:

Clause D, hO LOGOS ÊN THEOS – [The Word was God (a god or divine)] with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the logos was “a god” or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos.

Clause E hO LOGOS ÊN THEIOS – [The Word was Divine (theios)] would be an attenuated form of D. It would mean that the logos was “divine,” without specifying further in what way or to what extent it was divine. It could also imply that the logos, being only theios, was subordinate to theos.

Thus, Harner notes that had John wished to express the idea that the LOGOS was “a god,” or a divine being distinct from hO THEOS, he had at least two unambiguous ways of doing so. Since he did not, we may conclude that John in all likelihood chose the syntax he did because he wished to express something else with regard to the LOGOS.

Clauses B THEOS ÊN hO LOGOS – [God was the Word] and Clause C hO LOGOS THEOS ÊN – [The Word God was] with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. This would make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they would then contradict the preceding clause of 1:1 (1:1b).

Harner continues: As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would imply in B or C that they share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos. Clauses B and C are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis. C would mean that the logos (rather than something else) had the nature of theos. B means that the logos had the nature of theos (rather than something else). In clause B (THEOS ÊN hO LOGOS – [God was the Word]), the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis.

The meaning of 1:1c as Harner himself translates it: “The Word had the same nature as God” (p. 87).

Thus, Harner says that not only is John attributing the nature of THEOS to the LOGOS, but emphasizes that nature by placing THEOS at the head of the clause. The emphasis of THEOS would seem unaccountable if John intended an indefinite nuance, but is perfectly understandable if THEOS is qualitative, signifying that the Son’s nature is that of God.

If one is to assert that any anarthrous noun must be indefinite and translated with an indefinite article, one must be able to do the same with the 282 other times theos appears anarthrously. For an example of the chaos that would create, try translating the anarthrous theos at 2 Corinthians 5:19 (NASB) namely, that a God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

So to sum up the article, Harner states that if John had wished to say that the Word was “a god” or “divine,” he had two ways, even a different word, by which he could have done so. But it is evident that he wished to say something even stronger about Jesus. He did not wish to say that Jesus and God are the same person, since he has already stated that they are two persons and there was a way in Greek for him to have done so if he had wished. What John does say is that Jesus and God share the same nature; that Jesus, no less than God, has the nature of deity. This is an extremely strong statement, since it rules out any interpretation that Jesus was merely acting in God’s place, but was not God Himself. Rather, Jesus was God in his very nature and essence. John’s words echo Paul’s in Colossians 2:9 when he says that in Jesus, “all the fullness [nothing excepted] of deity dwells.”

Steve

Sean,

I appreciate your insights from your blog posts. I am an apologist and not a grammarian (probably obvious from my writing).

The primary issues you bring up seem to do with how the authors Dixon and Harner arrive at their conclusion the noun QUES as qualitative. If I understand you correctly, the noun could be qualitative, as you didn’t seem to rule that out, but you sense their bias moves them to illicitly reject the indefinite and definite articles to make their conclusions. Did I get that right? Whether the noun is qualitative has to do with the process of interpretation according to the context and other hermeneutical rules.

The problem I find with the English “a god” is that it seems to have baggage. In a discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness years ago, I pointed out words with an “a” don’t automatically mean part of a group, it could point to nature. With the JW no matter what examples I gave he still clung to his Arian mentality; that “a god” meant Jesus was a lesser created god. That was the last time I tried that strategy.

I think “the God” also carries similar baggage but I don’t want to go into detail concerning it. John could have used “the God” but he didn’t. We probably would arrive at two different conclusions as why he didn’t but I am okay with agreeing to disagree here.

Do Dixon, Harner, and I have Trinitarian biases? Yes! But I would argue so do you. You have a horse in the race and you believe your anti-Trinitarian bias helps you to properly interpret the Bible. I would say all of us base our bias on a cumulative case concluding either for or against the Trinity. I don’t want to get hung up defending John 1:1 because it is only part of the larger picture.

Steve

Hi Steve,

You said:

“I appreciate your insights from your blog posts. I am an apologist and not a grammarian (probably obvious from my writing)….The primary issues you bring up seem to do with how the authors Dixon and Harner arrive at their conclusion the noun QUES as qualitative. If I understand you correctly, the noun could be qualitative, as you didn’t seem to rule that out, but you sense their bias moves them to illicitly reject the indefinite and definite articles to make their conclusions. Did I get that right? Whether the noun is qualitative has to do with the process of interpretation according to the context and other hermeneutical rules.”

I appreciate the fact that you took the time to consider my perspective. I actually have a number of issues with what I call the ‘Q hypothesis’ as it was formulated by Harner and later “refined” by Dixon, and I hope to elaborate more when I finally post on Harner on my blog (I’m a bit shy about posting an encyclopedic argument here!). I would say first of all, though, that neither of them “arrive[d] at their conclusion that the noun QEOS is ‘qualitative’”. I think that they both came to realize that Colwell’s Rule had been misapplied, which left them with a problem to solve. As they pondered a potential solution, they came to sincerely believe that a ‘qualitative’ QEOS was the only QEOS that could sit comfortably within their Christological worldview, and so they assumed it to be so before ever picking up pen and paper.

From my perspective, what Ken Ham does vis a vis modern science is what Harner and Dixon did vis a vis Greek. Don’t get me wrong, I like Ken Ham, but because he reads the creation accounts as speaking of a literal six day creation, he has to chuck a pretty large part of modern science, including Big Bang Theory (one of the most well established thoeries of our time), and come up with novel counter arguments to make YEC seem plausible. Most of us aren’t about to chuck Big Bang Theory, however, because of the YEC notion that moon dust tells us that the universe is young (as just one example of the sort of goofy counterargument that YEC’s have offered).

Harner was probably motivated by apologetic concerns, and Dixon certainly was, as one can infer when reading the introduction to his thesis. Not only did he explicitly state that both a definite and an indefinite QEOS were unacceptable (i.e. the two valid options, IMO), but he also presented his case as evidence specifically against the ‘a god’ rendering found in the Watchtower Society’s New World Translation. The folks at DTS, which is the Seminary Dixon attended when he wrote his thesis, have historically been a bit obsessed with the NWT. When I see the odd contortions that those folks have gone through to try and disqualify one of the two patently valid renderings, I find myself echoing Queen Gertrude by observing that “The lady doth protest too much”;-)

The Q hypotheses appears to be founded on assumptions about how language works that are confused, unsubstantiated, and rather easy to disconfirm if you’re willing to look at the data dispassionately. The following are what I consider the most conspicuous, critical problems:

a. The notion that if a noun is used in a context where nature is inferred, then it may be “technically” indefinite, but in some self-serving way that somehow renders use of the indefinite article as inappropriate.

b. The notion that ‘qualitative’ is a separate distinct category of noun, when one can easily demonstrate that the very ‘qualitativeness’ they infer — if it’s even really there in a given context — actually depends on a bounded noun’s definiteness or indefiniteness.

c. The confused conflation of ‘definiteness’ and ‘indefiniteness’ with meaning itself, when in reality these are more like syntactical tools that contribute to meaning, but aren’t meaning in and of themselves.

d. The ridiculous notion, seemingly born from utter desperation, that if John wanted readers to infer an indefinite QEOS then he would have placed it after the verb rather than before the verb. I suffered third degree burns from spilling my coffee in my lap the first time I read that nonsense, so bemused was I to see a professed ‘authority’ utter what any first year student of Greek can plainly see is not true. Indeed, statistically, it is more common for a pre-verbal anarthrous predicate bounded noun to be indefinite than anything else, and usually when they’re definite there are contextual factors that make this probable, even unavoidable in some cases. The reason the English translations of all those verses I posed on my blog make such good sense in context even with the indefinite article is because they accurately convey the sense of the underlying Greek, not merely because the use of the indefinite article conforms to English syntax, but because said English syntax captures the sense of the Greek.

e. In conjunction with ‘d’, the bizarre notion that merely placing a noun before a verb causes the noun to change meaning, when everyone who’s studied Greek at all knows how flexible the language is vis a vis word order. As far as I can tell, the most that is achieved by fronting may be a mild though useful shift in emphasis, similar to what occurs in English when we rearrange a sentence from the active to the passive voice. If we rearrange a sentence from the active to the passive voice, there is no shift in meaning at the word level; there is merely a shift in emphasis at the sentence level.

You continued:

“The problem I find with the English “a god” is that it seems to have baggage. In a discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness years ago, I pointed out words with an “a” don’t automatically mean part of a group, it could point to nature. With the JW no matter what examples I gave he still clung to his Arian mentality; that “a god” meant Jesus was a lesser created god. That was the last time I tried that strategy.”

Well, if the JW felt that the mere grammatical feature of an indefinite QEOS by itself meant that Jesus was a lesser god, then I’d say that he was clearly mistaken. One could say that the Father is “a God who is slow to anger”, or “a God of the living, not of the dead”, or “a God who designed us in a way that is fear-inspiring”, etc., without in any way suggesting that He is something other than the absolute Ruler of the universe. However, if the JW you conversed with was also considering context, not just the indefinite QEOS by itself, then I would have to agree with him. IMO, in the context of John 1:1 and the Bible as a whole, the LOGOS could only be a subordinate ‘G-god’. In arriving at this conclusion I obviously take different things for granted than you do. For example, I look at the Jewish worldview as expressed in pretty much every form of writing available at the time and note that in every case, without exception, whenever an agent of God has a divine title applied to him, the subordination of the agent to the principal is taken for granted. Most scholars today recognize how much the agency principal sheds light on the Son’s relationship to the Father and us, and while it’s quite striking to realize that his work as agent began with the act of original creation itself, it was still work performed ‘as agent’.

You concluded:

“I think ‘the God’ also carries similar baggage but I don’t want to go into detail concerning it. John could have used ‘the God’ but he didn’t. We probably would arrive at two different conclusions as why he didn’t but I am okay with agreeing to disagree here.”

I agree, though I’ll simply point out that QEOS wouldn’t need the article at John 1:1c to signify that it’s definite. Though Colwell’s Rule was misapplied for decades, the part that was misapplied actually appears to be valid (as stated, not as restated in the converse):

“Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article” (A Definite Rule…, p. 20)

In other words, since QEOS appears before the verb, it’s actually statistically more likely that it would not have the article.

It’s true that I too have an ax to grind, and theology can influence my judgement just as it can anyone else’s. But when it comes to John 1:1 I consider myself to be somewhat less biased than most people I’m familiar with who’ve used the text apologetically. I happily embrace both the traditional translation (‘the Word was God’) and the one that sticks in the craw of the folks at DTS (‘the Word was a god’) as legitimate possibilities, grammatically, contextually, and theologically. What disappoints me the most isn’t that Trinitarians favor the traditional rendering, or even some paraphrase that stresses ‘qualitativeness’, but that it’s virtually impossible to find a willingness on their part to honestly admit the real grammatical possibilities and express their preference in an evenhanded way.

~Sean

Rivers,

I have never seen an interpretation of John 1:1-18 as you have presented, especially verses 1-3, which we have discussed. Red flags come up when a novel interpretation is presented. This doesn’t mean it is wrong but my mind asks, why didn’t anyone see this for the last 2,000 years? Now it is possible someone has interpreted these verses (1-3) the way you have and I am not aware of it. If you could, let me know who and when.

Here is what I believe is the most natural reading of John 1:1 –

JOHN 1:1a … “In the beginning [eternity past, before creation], was the word [Jesus Christ],

JOHN 1:1b … “and the word [Jesus Christ] was with [or toward] God [in relation to and interacting with the Father from eternity past – 1 John 1:2-4; John 17:5],

JOHN 1:1c … “and the word [Jesus Christ,] was God [Same essence or nature as the Father. The word is true Deity.]

I believe this interpretation not only fits naturally verse 1:1 but explains the flow of the verses to follow. Jesus as God is a cumulative case and not solely based on John 1:1c.

1. First there are the verses that directly affirm Jesus as God. We have discussed a few of them.

2. Then there are the passages where Jesus receives titles elsewhere in Scripture given to God.

3. Jesus possesses incommunicable attributes of God that are unique to him.

4. Jesus does things that only God can do (such as creates and sustains creation).

5. Jesus receives worship, even though he taught only God can receive worship.

6. Jesus receives prayer, which is only to be addressed to God.

When you say there isn’t much difference between saying Jesus was God or equal to God, I can say this is part of the definition of the Trinity. Theologian James White writes: Within the one being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is coequal with the Father and is the second person of the Trinity.

Questions I have for you:

1. Is your view novel?

2. When you say, “In the beginning [of the gospel]”, what do you mean by gospel? How did you come to this conclusion?

3. You seem to take John 1:1 and place it after the resurrection. I asked you previously but I couldn’t find your answer as to how you came to that conclusion. Maybe I missed it.

Thanks,

Steve

Rivers

1. So for 2,000 years, scholars all over the world have missed your unique interpretation. This is a major problem with your view. You say you are trying to come up with the most consistent and comprehensive explanation. However, I think you are trying to reach that goal by denying the Trinity, which is the most consistent and comprehensive explanation of the scriptures. As I said in my previous email, the Trinity best explains… 1) Verses that directly affirms Jesus as God. 2) Passages where Jesus receives titles elsewhere in Scripture given to God. 3) Jesus possesses incommunicable attributes of God that are unique to him. 4) Jesus does things that only God can do (such as creates and sustains creation). 5) Jesus receives worship even though he taught only God can receive worship. 6) Jesus receives prayer, which is only to be addressed to God. I can and will provide scriptural support for all these points. Your view has to take into account all 6 major points that only the doctrine of the Trinity solves. Under #4 I will begin this process.

2. Where did you get the idea to expand the prologue to include all of chapter 1? Here again is a novel explanation. Based on my limited research, every scholar I’ve seen says the prologue consists of verses 1 – 18 and has nothing to do with John the Baptist. It forms the basis for our understanding that Jesus is fully God and fully man and the implications that flow from that truth. So your conclusions that include John the Baptist are not supported. You then said it fits the way “the beginning” is usually used throughout the 4th Gospel and the John letters (e.g. John 8:25; John 15:27; John 16:4; 1 John 2:24). This assertion doesn’t seem to follow the evidence. John 1:2 “He was in the beginning with God.” Here is using beginning in a similar fashion as John 1:1b. John 8:44 speaks of Satan lying from the beginning, likely referring to the time of Adam and Eve. However, the strongest evidence against your view comes from Revelation. Revelation 21:6 “Then He said to me, ‘It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.’” God the Father is basically saying I am eternal, no beginning, and no end. Then in Revelation 22:13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” These are the words of Jesus. He is making the claim he is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Jesus makes a powerful claim to deity. His divine nature has no beginning and no end. I am comfortable with the interpretation of the beginning pointing to the creation of the universe (mirroring Genesis 1:1). Combined with John 1:1b & 1:1c we know Jesus existed before creation.

3. Your explanation of John 1:1b now doesn’t work. We know that the prologue has nothing to do with John the Baptist and the word beginning refers to creation. From the beginning the second person of the Trinity has been “with God” or shall I say with the Father. As I posted previously Jesus alludes to being with the Father before the creation of the world in John 17:4-5 “I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” Jesus was with the Father before creation, which fits nicely with John 1:1a.

4. Now for the verses the directly teach Jesus was God, as John 1:1c teaches. We have discussed some of these. John 1:1, “the Word [Jesus] was God.” In John’s gospel Jesus repeatedly assumed for Himself the divine name “I am” (cf. 4:26; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19:18:5, 6, 8). In 10:30, He claimed to be one in nature and essence with the Father (that the unbelieving Jews recognized this as a claim to deity is clear from their reaction in v. 33; cf. 5:18). Nor did Jesus correct Thomas when he addressed Him as “My Lord and my God!” (20:28); in fact, He praised him for his faith (v. 29). Jesus’ reaction is inexplicable if He were not God.

To the Philippians Paul wrote,” [Jesus] existed in the form of God,” possessing absolute “equality with God” (Phil. 2:6). In Colossians 2:9 he declared, “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” Romans 9:5 refers to Christ as “God blessed forever”; Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 call Him “our God and Savior.” God the Father addressed the Son as God in Hebrews 1:8: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.” In his first epistle John referred to Jesus Christ as “the true God” (1 John 5:20).

These verses support the Trinitarian view of God which supports the most consistent and comprehensive explanation of the scriptures.

Steve

Rivers,

1. You are right John the Baptist is mentioned in the prologue, but what is he doing. He is a witness to the light (Jesus). John later writes in 1 John 1:5 that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all. God the Father is the light and so is Jesus. This makes sense if Jesus is God. Therefore my point still stands: The prologue forms the basis for our understanding that Jesus is fully God and fully man and the implications that flow from that truth.

2. I believe John 1:1a beautifully mirrors Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning” in both). If John had wanted it to read “the beginning of the gospel” (Mark 1:1) he would have written it that way. Even though it doesn’t say the word creation, the flow beginning at John 1:1 says Jesus is God (1:1c) and he is the creator of all things (1:3) and he made the world (1:10). Jesus is the uncreated creator (Also Col. 1:16-18 & Heb. 1:2). Both verses 3 & 10 make reference to the creation event, which fits nicely with the word beginning, which I contend harkens back to Genesis 1:1.

3. Trying to dismiss my interpretation of John 17:5 looks to be a desperate effort to save your view. John 17:5 “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” You are taking a very plain sounding text and I contend you are reading your beliefs into it. John 17:5 teaches the second person of the Trinity was with the Father (John 1:1b) and asking for the glory he had before the world was created.

4. Concerning Colossians 2:9, in context there doesn’t seem to be any leeway for Paul to be speaking about the church. This entire section is about Jesus Christ. Colossians 2:8-12 “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” Jesus is central in verses 8-12. Verse 8 ends with “…rather than according to Christ.” Then verse 9 begins with, “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” Jesus has the fullness of Deity dwelling in bodily form. The verses immediately before verse 9 are about Jesus and the verses that follow are all about Jesus.

5. Last post I presented the Bible affirms that Jesus is God. Now I will focus on how the Bible teaches Jesus Christ receives titles elsewhere in Scripture given to God. As noted in the direct statements, Jesus took for Himself the divine name “I am” (Rivers, I noticed you are in a discussion on this topic). In John 12:40 John quoted Isaiah 6:10, a passage which in Isaiah’s vision refers to God (cf. Isa. 6:5). Yet in verse 41 John declared, “These things Isaiah said because he saw His [Christ’s; cf. vv. 36, 37, 42] glory, and he spoke of Him.” Jeremiah prophesied that the Messiah would be called “The Lord [YHWH] our righteousness” (Jer. 23:6).

God and Jesus are both called Shepherd (Ps. 23:1-John 10:14); Judge (Gen. 18:25-2 Tim. 4:1, 8); Holy One (Isa. 10:20-Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:27; 3:14); First and Last (Isa. 44:6; 48:12-Rev. 1:17; 22:13); Light (Ps. 27:1-John 8:12); Lord of the Sabbath (Ex. 16:23, 29; Lev. 19:3-Matt. 12:8); Savior (Isa. 43:11-Acts 4:12; Titus 2:13); Pierced One (Zech. 12:10-John 19:37); Mighty God (Isa. 10:21-Isa. 9:6); Lord of lords (Deut. 10:17-Rev. 17:14); Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8-Rev. 22:13); Lord of Glory (Ps. 24:10-1 Cor. 2:8); and Redeemer (Isa. 41:14; 48:17; 63:16-Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12).

Steve

Rivers,

As much as I have enjoyed our online conversation, it seems we have hit a wall based on our presuppositions. As I have demonstrated my explanations align with my Trinity viewpoint and your responses do not. Since my view is cumulative and I think is well supported by the Bible, I will conclude my defense of the Trinity with the last 4 points of why I believe Jesus is God.

1) Verses that directly affirms Jesus as God. (Previous post)

2) Passages where Jesus receives titles elsewhere in Scripture given to God. (Previous post)

3) Jesus Christ possesses the incommunicable attributes of God, those unique to Him. Scripture reveals Christ to be eternal (Mic. 5:2; Isa. 9:6), omnipresent (Matt. 18:20; 28:20), omniscient (Matt. 11:27; John 16:30; 21:17), omnipotent (Phil. 3:21), immutable (Heb. 13:8), sovereign (Matt. 28:18), and glorious (John 17:5; 1 Cor. 2:8; cf. Isa. 42:8; 48:11, where God states that He will not give His glory to another).

4) Jesus Christ does the works that only God can do. He created all things (John 1:3; Col. 1:16), sustains the creation (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3), raises the dead (John 5:21; 11:25-44), forgives sin (Mark 2:10; cf. v. 7), and His word stands forever (Matt. 24:35; cf. Isa. 40:8).

5) Jesus Christ received worship (Matt. 14:33; 28:9; John 9:38; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:6)—even though He taught that only God is to be worshiped (Matt. 4:10). Scripture also records that both holy men (Acts 10:25-26) and holy angels (Rev. 22:8-9) refused worship.

6) Jesus Christ received prayer, which is only to be addressed to God (John 14:13-14; Acts 7:59-60; 1 John 5:13-15).

It has been a pleasure interacting with you but this will be my last post. I will give you the last word in this conversation.

Steve

Hi Steve,

You raised a number of points, and I don’t want to hijack your conversation with Rivers, but I would like to offer a few brief comments about a few particulars.

1. Actually, taking “the beginning” as a reference to the beginning of the Gospel isn’t unique to Rivers. It was promulgated by Socinian-type Unitarians going at least as far back as the early 1800s. One finds the following footnote in “The New Testament in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation:

“+ in the beginning.] Or, from the first, i.e. from the commencement of the dispensation, or of the ministry of Christ. This is the usual sense of the word in the writings of the evangelist. John vi. 64, Jesus knew from the beginning, or from the first; ch. xv. 27, ye have been with me from the beginning. See ch. xvi. 14; ii. 24; iii. 11; also 1 John i. 1; ii. 7, 8; 2 John 6, 7. Nor is this sense of the word uncommon in other passages of the New Testament. 2 Thess. ii. 13; Phil. iv. 15; Luke i. 2.” (p. 200, footnote ad loc cit).

2. Compelling arguments have been offered to suggest that Jesus is not called the Alpha and Omega in Revelation. Have you encountered any of those in your dialogues? Here’s a very good one:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/hcmkfsh

3. IMO, the Harner-Dixon-ion interpretation of John 1:1c is about the least likely understanding. Aside from their desperate butchering of language itself to try and secure their ‘Q hypothesis’, the context seems to speak much more loudly for a functional application of QEOS than it does for an ontological one. The LOGOS’s work _as an agent of God_ begins with original creation itself and extends into his life as a man, and after his resurrection.

Marianne Meye Thompson helps us to understand why “God” was applied to the LOGOS:

“The opening words of the Gospel raise the problem of Johannine Christology in acute form when they say both that the Word was with God, thereby implying a distinction between the Word and God, and that the Word was God…

…Here the category of agency sheds light…A common saying in the rabbis was ‘the one who is sent is like the one who sent him’ or ‘a man’s agent is equivalent to himself’ (m. Ber. 5:5;b. B. Mes. 96a; b. hag. 10b; b. Menah. 93b; b. Nazir 12b; b. Qidd. 42b, 43a). Because the saliah may act on behalf of the one who sent him, when one deals with the saliah it is as if one is dealing with the one who sent that person.

Jesus is presented in the Gospel against the backdrop of the Jewish concept of agency and, furthermore, against the understanding that there is one chief agent through whom God acts…. Clearly the Word is understood as God’s chief and exclusive agent in creation (1:3).” (Marianne Meye Thompson, in “Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels”, Intervarsity Press, 1992), pp. 376, 377

This understanding lines up very nicely with what James D.G. Dunn expressed:

“The fact that even when describing the Logos as god/god (1.1), John may distinguish two uses of the title from each other is often noted but too little appreciated. The distinction is possibly made by the use of the definite article with theos and the absence of the definite article in the same sentence… As we see in Philo, in his exposition of Genesis 31.13 (De Somniis 1.227-30)…John’s Gospel does not attempt similar clarification in his use of God/god for the Logos… But in possibly making (or allowing to be read) a distinction between God (ho theos) and the Logos (theos) the Evangelist may have had in mind a similar qualification in the divine status to be recognized for Christ. Jesus was God, in that he made God known, in that God made himself known in and through him, in that he was God’s effective outreach to his creation and to his people. But he was not God in himself.” (Did the First Christians Worship Jesus), pp. 134 & 135

I think it’s impossible to deny that what Dunn there describes, i.e. that Jesus “…made God known, in that God made himself known in and through him, in that he was God’s effective outreach to his creation and his people,” and this lines up beautifully with the agency paradigm.

5. You make much of the potential application of divine titles to Jesus, but during that time this was not that uncommon. Angels, Moses, judges, and kings had such titles applied to them in the OT, DSS, Philo, etc., without any suggestion that the writers meant to abandon monotheism, and the subordination of such individuals was taken for granted. As I’ve said before, this was common enough that it’s not only not surprising to find that divine titles were applied to Jesus, but it would be downright shocking if they weren’t!

About Philippians 2 and “Morphe”, you might enjoy this article by Hellerman:

http://www.etsjets.org/files/J…

Note this comment in particular:

“Given the meaning of [hARPAGMON] outlined above, it is somewhat difficult to discern how Christ could potentially have regarded his [OUSIA] or essential nature as ‘something to be exploited.’ How does one exploit one’s essence? The problem is immediately resolved by taking [EINAI ISA QEWi] (and, by extension, [MORFHi QEOU]) in a non-substantial sense, referring to rank or status. For it is quite easy to see how Christ could have regarded his position of power and prestige as ‘something to be exploited.’ And ‘position of power’ or ‘authority’ is precisely the way in which the idea ‘equality with God’ is used in several biblical and extrabiblical parallels” (ibid, p. 788)

The most extensive study of Morphe that I’m aware of is the one done by Daniel J. Fabricatore, entitled “Form of God, Form of a Servant: An Examination of the Greek Noun [MORPHE] in Philippians 2:6-7”. He concluded his study with these words:

“This study assumed a synchronic approach over a diachronic approach for determining word meaning…an exhaustive lexical examination of [MORPHE] was undertaken in various areas of Greek literature. The overwhelming majority of uses of [MORPHE] in all of Greek literature denoted the idea of the form or shape of someone or something, but even more critical, the uses expressed the fact that [MORPHE] denoted a form or shape that was observable by sight. The majority of uses then fell into the category of visible appearance. A SMALL MINORITY OF EXAMPLES WERE FOUND THAT DENOTED THE ESSENCE OR NATURE OF A PERSON OR THING [emphasis mine]. However, even in several of these uses, the [MORPHE] was referring to the visible appearance that described the underlying nature. This semantic range was stable and remained in place for over 600 years.”

Donald Macleod studied the usage of Morphe, and presented his findings in “Jesus is Lord, Christology Yesterday and Today”. Here’s a brief snippet:

“The clue to the meaning of [MORPHE] is probably to be found not in the classical philosophers but in the Septuagint…[MORPHE] is virtually synonymous with eidos and homoioma, the usual words for appearance. This can be seen from such passages as Job 4:16, Isaiah 44:13 and Daniel 3:19. Job 4:16, for example, reads: ‘It (a spirit) stood still, but I could not discern its appearance. A form was before my eyes; there was silence, then I heard a voice’ (RSV). The parallelism here makes clear that appearance and form (homoioma and [MORPHE]) are synonymous. [MORPHE] is the appearance appropriate to God.”

He goes on to point out that the appearance appropriate to God is his glory, and we know that man is the glory of God (1 Cor 11:7).

So Hellerman observed that understanding Morphe to suggest “nature” may be contextually problematic, and the other quoted studies eliminate the problem by showing that (a) that’s not what the word normally signifies in general usage and (b) it’s not what it signified in the Bible.

I would say that if MORPHE does suggest “nature” at Philippians 2, then the “nature” probably in view would be “spirit” (Jn 4:24), which could yield this paraphrase:

“Although he was a powerful spirit being like God (his heavenly ‘image’), he did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped for”

~Sean

“Thanks for pointing out the footnote regarding the “usual” use of “the beginning” in the 4th Gospel.”

Well, I was just trying to help Steve recognize that the view wasn’t idiosyncratic to you. Happy to help.

“Regardless of what people thought several hundred years ago, anyone today can quickly search how “the beginning” was used in the John books and see that the writer normally used it with reference to the time when the
human Jesus was with his disciples. It’s hard to imagine that “Socinian-type Unitarians” were the first to figure it out.”

I would put it differently, as I’m sure you probably realize. I wouldn’t say that Socinian-type Unitarians figured it out, but that they mistakenly assumed that those other usages inform John 1:1, where such an understanding doesn’t really seem to be a very good fit in my opinion and in the opinion of the vast majority of interpreters. It’s really quite striking how diverse the various perspectives can be.

~Sean

Sean,

Yes I am familiar with the JW answer to the Alpha and Omega issue. The resource you sent was very helpful and appreciated. Sorry for the length of my reply.

1. The Book of Revelations is all about Jesus Christ. Revelation 1:1-3 “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.”

The question is, how was the information communicated in the book of Revelations? I would say in verses 1-3 there were four stages in the transmission: God the Father to Christ, Christ to his angel, the angel to John, and John to his servants. It seems we occasionally find direct quotes by the Father and other times Jesus.

Verses 1:6 & 7, leading into 1:8, are about Jesus. Revelation 1:6-7 “…and He [Jesus] has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. 7 BEHOLD, HE [JESUS] IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.” Many scholars connect 7 with 8, and that Jesus is announcing he is the Alpha and Omega. I will not make that case. For sake of argument, I will allow you to say the Father speaking.

I am more interested beginning my argument in Revelation 1:17-18 “When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.”

Jesus identified Himself as the first and the last (cf. 2:8; 22:13), a title used of God in the Old Testament (Isa. 44:6; 48:12; cf. 41:4). When all false gods have come and gone, only He remains. He existed before them and will continue to exist eternally, long after they have been forgotten. Jesus’ application of that title to Himself is another powerful proof of His deity.

Another title of deity Jesus claimed is that of the living One (cf. John 1:4; 14:6). That also is a title used throughout Scripture to describe God (e.g., Josh. 3:10; 1 Sam. 17:26; Ps. 84:2; Hos. 1:10; Matt. 16:16; 26:63; Acts 14:15; Rom. 9:26; 2 Cor. 3:3; 6:16; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:15; 4:10; Heb. 3:12; 9:14; 10:31; Rev. 7:2). God is the eternal, uncaused, self-existent One. In John 5:26 Jesus said to His Jewish opponents, “Just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself,” thus claiming full equality with God the Father.

Now let’s examine the key verses, Revelation 22:12-13 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Beginning in Revelations 22:1, we see John writing about what the angel has shown him. Then starting in verse 6 the angel speaks to John. In verse 7 the angel quotes Jesus. We know this because in v. 20 it says Jesus is coming quickly. I couldn’t find any verse that says the Father is coming quickly.

Back to Rev. 22:12-13, the first piece of evidence is the speaker claims to be the first and the last, a title for God in the OT. As I said previously, Revelation 1:17, 18 Jesus claims to be the first and the last. Second, who is coming quickly? We know Jesus is coming quickly because he says he is in Revelation 22:20 “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” Jesus says he is going to come suddenly in Revelation 3:3 “So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I [Jesus] will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you.” Later Jesus says, Revelation 3:11 “I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown.” And as shown above Jesus is coming quickly in Rev. 22:12 and 22:20. When does the Father say he is coming quickly? In the booklet you sent me, the verses it listed did not show the Father coming quickly. The Father is to come (1:4) but not in this unique way. It is only Jesus who is said to be coming quickly and therefore identifies himself as the speaker. Next we know Jesus is going to render to every man according what he has done (Matt. 16:27 and Rev. 2:23).

In Rev. 22:16 we see Jesus summarizing all that was said in the Book of Revelations. He reiterates that he sent his angel to reveal this information to John (1:1), who made it known to others. Therefore, I conclude it is the words of Jesus in Revelations 22:12 & 13.

2. On the issue of Philippians 2, I contend it is best to translate the Greek word “morphe” as nature based on the context. You quoted a few scholars who disagree (I have no idea their background) and I could easily counter with my scholars who agree with me. In fact after reading your explanation, I quickly checked Vines Greek Dictionary (I’ve had JWs accept Vines) and here is what it said:

Denotes “the special or characteristic form or feature” of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phil. 2:6, 7, in the phrases “being in the form of God,” and “taking the form of a servant.” An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: “morph? is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists. … Thus in the passage before us morph? Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ. … For the interpretation of ‘the form of God’ it is sufficient to say that (1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and (2) that it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the ‘form,’ at another separated from it. …

The true meaning of morph? in the expression ‘form of God’ is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, ‘form of a servant.’ It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that ‘form’ must therefore have the same sense in both.” * [* From Gillford, “The Incarnation,” pp. 16,19,39.] Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old Testament and New Testament Words

As Vine’s states, the expression ‘form of God,’ is confirmed by the phrase ‘form of a servant.’ I usually ask JWs was Jesus a human. They always say yes. I tell them this corresponds to what is said in Philippians 2:6-8. If he was in the form of a servant = fully human, then he must be fully divine as Jesus was in the form of God.

Also Jesus as God fits with what is said about him a few verses later in Philippians 2:9-11 “For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” These words support the deity of Christ, as they are found to be quoted about God in Isaiah 45:23 “I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, that to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” In Isaiah these words were spoken by God about himself and in Philippians, they are applied to Jesus. Jesus is truly God and truly man.

Steve