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?”
Hi Beverly! It was a good morning, thank you. I hope you had the same.
I agree it would not be blasphemy for Jesus to claim he was the Son of God–literally or spiritually. As man and a son of Abraham, he would be considered a child of God (John 8:41). If he meant the term literally, neither could it be blasphemy, if it were true–which is what I believe. Jesus based his claim upon Psalm 82 which he quotes here in John 10:34. Those who ruled Israel were called gods, because they shared in the power or authority of God. However, it says in Psalm 82:8 (KJV) “Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.” To whom does this refer? He who inherits the nations according to Psalm 2:7-12 is there referred to as the Son of God, but here in Psalm 82:8 he is called God. The point in John is that Jesus’ adversaries believed Jesus made himself out to be God, and Jesus didn’t contradict them. He merely claimed he had the right because of who he was.
Hiya Eddie. You wrote: “I agree it would not be blasphemy for Jesus to claim he was the Son of God–literally or spiritually.” I’m confused because in your post previous to the one where I took this quote, I thought you were attempting to make a case for Jesus’ deity based on the high priest’s accusation of blasphemy: “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?”
I think you may be assuming that Psalm 82:8 refers to the Son, but nothing in the psalm indicates that. I don’t usually like to appeal to other sources, but it’s my bedtime, so for expediency, I’ll refer to the NET Bible translation and to Albert Barnes commentary:
(Psalms 82:8 NET) Rise up, O God, and execute judgment on the earth! For you own all the nations.
(Albert Barnes; emphasis added) For thou shalt inherit all nations – Or rather, All nations belong to thee as thine inheritance; that is, as thine own. The word “inherit” is used here, as it often is, merely to denote possession or proprietorship, without reference to the question how the possession is obtained. The word strictly refers to what has been received from parents, or what people are heirs to; and, in this sense, it is commonly applied to the land of Palestine, either as what was derived by the Jewish people from their ancestors the patriarchs, or as what they had received from God as a Father. Exo_32:13; Deu_1:38; Deu_12:10. It is here used simply in the sense of possessing it. That is, the whole earth belonged to God, and the administration of its affairs pertained to him. As those had failed who had been appointed under him to the office of judges – as they had not been faithful to their trust – as no confidence could be reposed in them, – the psalmist calls upon God to interfere, either by appointing other magistrates; or by leading those who were in office to just views of their duty; or by his own direct judgments, punishing the wicked, and rewarding the righteous, by the interpositions of his providence.
Hope you have a good night!
Hi Beverly, I did have a good night thank you. Up early to take my wife to a Bible study class she leads, and now I am home again. I hope your night and morning were enjoyable.
You said:
I think you may be assuming that Psalm 82:8 refers to the Son, but nothing in the psalm indicates that. I don’t usually like to appeal to other sources, but it’s my bedtime, so for expediency, I’ll refer to the NET Bible translation and to Albert Barnes commentary:
While I do believe Psalm 82:8 refers to the Son of God, I believe it is more than mere assumption, but we’ll see how you address your argument. I, too, prefer to let Scripture interpret Scripture, but at times one must refer to authorities. For example, when emphasizing the use of language, I must refer to scholarly input, because I am neither proficient in ancient Hebrew or Greek (sorry to say). Here you refer to the NET translation. I do like the NET Bible for a modern translation. I especially like its abundance of notes. I usually use the KJV not because I am a KJ only person, but because it is the bible I used when I first learned the word of God. It is my preferred study and reading Bible—I like how it flow. However, I often refer to the NET and the NASB for help and for reading from time to time. Concerning the translation above, the scholars also have a note pointing to the verb. It admits to what is probably the preferred translation that it is future. That can be seen in a note HERE.
Concerning the Hebrew it is not like the English, having a past, present and a future. It has two tenses: perfect and imperfect. The perfect tense refers to a completed action, while the imperfect refers to an action that is incomplete. You can verify this HERE.
Since the verb is in the “Qal Imperfect Active”, I don’t see how this could refer to God’s ownership of the nations in the sense that they are and always have been his. If this were the sense, why not use the “Qal Perfect Active”, and there would have been no question. Nevertheless, the imperfect tense is used in the Hebrew to express the future tense, because the subject’s (God) possession is not yet complete. Therefore, I believe the NET should have chosen its alternate option of translation—which, remember, the scholars admit there is.
You added a comment by Barnes. I have found Barnes to be very instructive. I really like his point of view for most instances, but not this one. Your emphasis above is: “The word “inherit” is used here, as it often is, merely to denote possession or proprietorship, without reference to the question how the possession is obtained.”
I looked up nachal (H5157) and found it occurs 60 times in the Old Testament. Of those times only 5 are not translated with “inheritance” in mind in the KJV (to which my bible helps are keyed). They are: Job 7:3, Isaiah 14:2, 57:13, Zephaniah 2:9, Zechariah 8:12. Perhaps the some of the more modern translations would contain more than 5, but in Barns’ day I don’t think that would have been the case. I don’t know why he concludes the above.
Another point of emphasis was: “It is here used simply in the sense of possessing it. That is, the whole earth belonged to God, and the administration of its affairs pertained to him.”
As I said above, I don’t know why Barnes would draw such a conclusion. Clearly, the word is usually translated with “inheritance” in view, but not only so, the Qal Imperfect would be used to express an incomplete action which is often translated into the future tense in the English. If the nations ARE the possession of God in Psalm 82:8, why would this be expressed in a manner that shows his “possessing” them is incomplete.
I referred to Psalm 2 to shed light upon who “inherits” the nations, and that would be the Son of God, called God in Psalm 82:8. I still stand by that conclusion, and I don’t believe Barnes has proven his case. The scholars of the NET translation admit to the alternate future translation, so this authority is moot. Moreover, we still cannot get passed the fact that the Jewish authorities understood Jesus’ remark to be a claim that he was God in the flesh. The text doesn’t show Jesus contradicting their understanding, as he did on other occasions (Matthew 22:29).
Hi Eddie. You wrote: “Moreover, we still cannot get passed the fact that the Jewish authorities understood Jesus’ remark to be a claim that he was God in the flesh.”
The Jews don’t have a very good track record for being right about any of their conclusions about Jesus or what he said. Examples:
(These are just a small sample of those collected from the Gospel of John)
John 2:19-20
Jews think: he means the literal temple in Jerusalem.
Reality: his body rising from the dead
John 5:17-30
Jews think: he’s a sabbath-breaker and claiming equality with God
Reality: the accusations are false. He’s fulfilling the principles of the sabbath and only doing what God told him and gave him power to do.
John 6:51-52
Jews think: he means eating his literal flesh
Reality: Uniting with him in his death and resurrection
John 7:33-36
Jews think: he’s literally going somewhere else in the world
Reality: He is going to his Father in heaven
John 8:18-19
Jews think: a human father
Reality: God is his father
John 8:21-22
Jews think: he will kill himself
Reality: They will have him killed
John 8:24-27
Jews think: They are baffled
Reality: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God
John 8:31-33
Jews think: literal slavery
Reality: Slavery to sin
John 8:38-41
Jews think: Abraham is our father
Reality: The devil is their father
John 8:47-48
Jews think: he is demon-possessed
Reality: Jesus is of God; the Spirit of God dwells in him.
John 8:49-53
Jews think: will never experience literal physical death
Reality: will never experience eternal death
John 10:1-6
Jews think: (clueless)
Reality: Jesus’ followers follow him as sheep follow a shepherd
John 10:18-20
Jews think: (clueless)
Reality: Jesus has been commanded by his Father to lay down his life
John 10:30-39
Jews think: Jesus is claiming to be God
Reality: Jesus is claiming to be the Son of God
That’s why I have a problem with using any claims or beliefs of the Jews about Jesus as a basis for argument. They were pretty much always wrong!
Hi Beverly. Perhaps I didn’t state my point clearly, because you seem to be making my point for me here. In nearly all of your Scripture references above, you say the Jews misunderstand. I agree and so does either John (the writer of the Gospel) or Jesus. This is the point I am making for John 8. The Jews claim Jesus is making himself God, but, if this isn’t Jesus’ point, he doesn’t correct them; neither does John say they are wrong. The Jews’ accusation stands as though it were approved by both Jesus and John who records what is said. Elsewhere, either Jesus or John is quick to point out that the Jews are mistaken.
Another point to consider is that most of the Scriptures you are using to make your point are Scriptures we have a different opinion upon–just like you pointed out for my pointing to Philippians 2:6-7. John 5 represents Jesus first claim to Deity. My blog on this is found HERE. John 10 represents Jesus third open claim to Deity–found HERE.
Have a nice evening.