Perhaps John 1:1 is the most controversial verse in the entire Bible. It is particularly significant in the theology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Biblical Unitarians. Not only so, it is of great interest to many who do not claim to be Christian. John’s Prologue is certainly a portion of Scripture that attracts the attention of many people, and for good reason. Its meaning gives definition to the Deity and presents a worldview that is inconsistent with all other worldviews. I recently offered a study on John’s Prologue, which can be found in the HERE . I wrote it with a bent toward answering the objections of the Biblical Unitarians. This time I wish to simply read through it for what I see there.
Let’s look at the first three verses of John’s Gospel:
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God (2) The same was in the beginning with God (3) All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The context of the beginning is the time of creation. What the text tells us is that whoever the Word is, everything that came into existence did so through him. He participated in bringing all things into existence. In Genesis 1:1 we are told that in the beginning God created… everything in existence. What does this mean?
First of all, what I see here in John’s Gospel is that the Creator is taking responsibility for all that is. Notice that John refers to the Creator as God. What does it mean to be God of anything? Psalm 82 seems to be saying that god (small “g”) can be a ruler of any kind. God calls mere men who rule gods. Jesus, himself, refers to this Scripture later in the book of John. If we apply this idea to John 1:1, what is the implication? It seems to me that John in referring to the Creator as God is saying he is the Ruler, but the Ruler of what? There was, as yet, nothing in existence! What I see occurring is that the Creator instituted first his office as Ruler – God, if you will – over what he is about to do. So, before anything is brought into existence, the Player is defined. The office of God or Ruler (LORD) comes into existence at the moment of the first creative act. It is like the moment my first daughter was born. I wasn’t a father until she came into existence. Whatever I was before that moment, I was not a father. However, at the precise moment my daughter was born, I became her father—I was responsible. I initiated her coming into existence.
So, in the beginning (of creation) was the Word. That is, whoever the Word is, he was at the beginning. He preceded whatever the beginning might be. John continues to say that this Word was “with” (the) God [i.e. the article “the” is present in the Greek, which is at the heart of controversy among those who deny the deity of Jesus]. The Greek then reads: “the Word was with the God.” The only point I perceive being made here is that whoever the Word is, he was there in the beginning – before anything was created – together “with” the God. A distinction between the two is being made, but we must not be too quick to read anything into this distinction. On the contrary, we need to let the text, itself, tell us what it has to say.
Next, John writes that “the Word was God.” The article is absent before the word God, and this, viewed with the previous clause where the article is present with God, proves to be very controversial within the doctrine, teaching Jesus is truly God. The argument is: “God cannot be with God. This would be illogical.” Well, I believe there is more to all this than what some are trying to read into this verse. For example, what if the article were present in both clauses, wouldn’t this be an error saying God is beside himself? How, then, should John have expressed the idea that would show the Word is truly God, if this is what he meant?
I believe John’s choice to use the term, the Word, to describe Jesus, before he became man, expresses emphatically that Jesus was truly God come in the flesh. John was working with a Hebrew tradition, but most folks like to say he is drawing upon the Greek philosophical tradition of the Logos – the Greek for the Word. In the Jewish Targums, the writers often replace the name YHWH in the Hebrew with Memra, which is Aramaic for the Word, when the targumist interprets that YHWH in the text takes on a personal form. I believe that John brought this Jewish tradition into the New Testament. In fact, the targumist translates Genesis 1:27 into:
“And the Word of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created them” (Jerusalem Targum).
Another writes:
“And the Word of YHWH created man in his likeness, in the likeness of YHWH, YHWH created, male and female created He them (Targum Jonathan, Genesis 1:27).
What does this mean? It seems to me that John sought to bring into the New Testament the Jewish idea of God. He is ONE, but God is more complex than what we would term a singularity. In fact, it takes two—male and female—to express God’s image properly for our understanding. I could say that I brought my daughter into this world through my wife, and without my wife no child of mine had been brought into this world. This, in a sense, would reflect what we see in John 1:1-3 and Genesis, chapter 1. God, the Father, spoke or willed the creative act and the Word brought the will of the Father into physical existence. I don’t mean to imply that God is male or female. He has no gender, but humanity, as male and female, is the image God created to point to himself. So, just as in my analogy above, my wife is no less a parent than I am and no less human than I am, so too the Word is GOD just like the God (the Father) in the third clause of John 1:1. John is saying that the Word is no less GOD than the Father is. Both share equal responsibility for and authority over creation.
Smoodock's Blog 
27 responses to “Is Jesus Truly God?”
Eddie, I love discussing this, but we are running into what often happens in such discussions… we are both bringing in other scriptures that we disagree on, thus expanding the scope of the discussion beyond the original disagreement. For example, Philippians 2:6. We have different views of that verse (I discuss it in my blog), so unless we are in agreement of *its* meaning, using it doesn’t help either one of us. It is a whole other discussion in itself!
You wrote that Jesus refers to himself as God. I’m certain that is yet another area we disagree regarding the meaning of the text, but which verse or verses do you cite for that claim?
Hi Beverly, I agree that it makes no sense to use Scripture we both disagree upon to try to prove a point of contention in an argument. So, we’ll set Philippians 2:6 aside until such a time we can agree to discuss it. However, I don’t believe my argument depends entirely upon Philippians 2:6. The tense of the verbs have not been addressed.
Concerning which Scripture(s) I have in mind that point to Jesus claiming he is God, there are four outright claims to Deity. Three Scriptures you may have already heard about, but I believe I present a stronger argument than is usually found on the discussion boards. At least I haven’t found anyone who is able to contradict them, or present a reasonable alternative. The fourth you probably have not heard of. I was challenged by a Jew to come up with a claim to Deity made by Jesus outside of the Gospel of John. The fourth argument is the result. They are all found HERE.
I have had to really question this doctrine, because of its numerous opponents, not that numbers mean anything. Nevertheless, within a great number, one is more apt to find some challenging statements. I’ve had to keep reinventing the wheel, so the basics are all there, but I’ve also had to come up with something more, not only for the sake of standing against my opponent, but to reassure myself that what I believe is not built upon a shaky foundation. In any event, at the end of the day, if nothing else came out of those debates, I came away with a new respect for the opposing argument. Not that I believe it “might” be true, but I have come to understand how difficult it is to get beyond some points of contention. Therein lay my thinking that this doctrine could not possibly be a litmus test of one’s Christianity. Many will believe either side, but few could prove or build an argument in an effort to support what side they take.
Are you referring to the Luke 22 “Son of God” passage? “Son of God” is equivalent to “Christ”:
(Matthew 16:16 NASB) Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
(Matthew 26:63 NASB) But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.”
(Mark 1:1 NASB) The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
(Luke 4:41 NASB) Demons also were coming out of many, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But rebuking them, He would not allow them to speak, because they knew Him to be the Christ.
(John 11:27 NASB) She *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.”
(John 20:31 NASB) but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
Also, according to Luke 1:34-35, Jesus would be called the Son of God because of his miraculous birth from the womb of a virgin. That’s the only reason given that I can see, and would warrant being called the “only begotten” son of God.
The designation “son of God” is applied to a person whom God has raised up for His purpose, whether it be as king, messiah, or deliverer? I would suggest even prophet and priest might apply. Even the first Adam (called son of God in Luke 3:38) was a king and a priest; he was given “dominion.”
Question: For this blog, to use HTML in my posts, do I use angle brackets or square brackets?
Hi Beverly! to use the HTML for your comments you need to use the angle brackets to make it work.
Yes, I am referring to the Luke 22 Son of God passage. I also agree with you that it is a term used to identify the Messiah, so some passages carry only that meaning. However, during his trial, Jesus was accused of “blasphemy” for saying he was the Son of Man who would sit at the right hand of power, come in the clouds of heaven and judge his people, Israel. This Son of Man is not only the Messiah, the term, as used by Jesus sitting upon the throne of God, was understood to literally be the Son of God. The high priest’s own reply shows this is how he took it; otherwise how could Jesus be accused of blasphemy? To simply claim one is the Messiah was never considered blasphemous, even if one was wrong. Neither would it have been wrong for Jesus to claim he was the Son of God by virtue of his being a son of Abraham–all Jews saw themselves as God’s children in this sense (John 8:41). Neither was it blasphemous to claim to be the Son of God if one were the King of Israel. Psalm 2, a coronation hymn, was used in the ceremony of every new king of Judah. If none of these are blasphemous, then in what sense did the high priest take Jesus remark that he considered the claim Son of God to be blasphemous? Jesus was crucified under the accusation of blasphemy–admitting to being the Son of God–a charge the centurion admitted was not false, after witnessing the things that occurred during Jesus’ crucifixion (Matthew 27:54).
Good morning, Eddie. Hope you are having a good day.
John 10:33-36 NASB
(33) The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
(34) Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’?
(35) “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
(36) do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Everything between verses 33 and 36 is Jesus justifying why it is not blasphemy for him to say he is the Son of God; that justification being that even the scriptures (which cannot be broken) acknowledges that there are other gods that are not God.