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, what part of John 8 are you referring to?
Thanks.
Sorry Beverly, I meant to say John 10, where Jesus quoted Psalm 82. John 8, however, does contain Jesus’ 2nd open claim to Deity. My blog is found HERE.
But, Eddie, Jesus does correct them in John 10. I posted about that in my second post on the 19th.
Getting back to Psalm 82:8. You wrote: “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.”
My source for my comments that follow is the BlueLetterBible. BLB’s first definition for the Imperfect tense or aspect is:
“It is used to describe a single (as opposed to a repeated) action in the past; it differs from the perfect in being more vivid and pictorial. The perfect expresses the “fact”, the imperfect adds colour and movement by suggesting the “process” preliminary to its completion.”
Using the NASB (my preferred, in most instances) this time:
(Psalms 82:8 NASB) Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the nations.
I will suggest that the imperfect was used because of the process implied by the call to God to judge the earth.
A look at Strong’s definition of H5157:
nâchal
naw-khal’
A primitive root; to inherit (as a (figurative) mode of descent), or (generally) to occupy; causatively to bequeath, or (generally) distribute, instate: – divide, have ([inheritance]), take as an heritage, (cause to, give to, make to) inherit, (distribute for, divide [for, for an, by], give for, have, leave for, take [for]) inheritance, (have in, cause to be made to) possess (-ion).
A call to God to judge because He is the only one who can; they are His inheritance, His possession.
Compare:
(1 Kings 8:53 NASB) “For You have separated them from all the peoples of the earth as Your inheritance, as You spoke through Moses Your servant, when You brought our fathers forth from Egypt, O Lord GOD.”
Hi Beverly. You said:
But, Eddie, Jesus does correct them in John 10. I posted about that in my second post on the 19th.
This is correct, and you took the position that “Son of God” meant he was claiming to be the Messiah. I responded in agreement that this term is indeed used to show the Messiah, but not always. For example, in Jesus’ fourth open claim to Deity (found HERE), he agreed to the high priest’s charge that he was the Son of God. When he agreed, the high priest tore his clothes and declared Jesus’ statement was blasphemous. Problem is, it is not blasphemous to claim to be the Messiah, so Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God means something else or something more than just to be the Messiah.
Here in John 10, Jesus claimed that the Father and he are ONE, but the authorities took up stones to kill him. Jesus asked if they intended to kill him for the good works he did. They said no, but because he had committed blasphemy by claiming to be God. Jesus did not say they were wrong in their estimation of his claim, neither does John say so in an editorial. Instead, Jesus points to Psalm 82 and claims he is the Son of God—but not in the sense that they assume they are (John 8:41), because they again try to seize him, presumably in an effort to kill him for what he said (John 10:39). The Jews would not have tried to seize him or to stone him, if they didn’t believe they had the right to do so, according to the Law of Moses, and neither Jesus nor John (in editorial) attempt to say the Jews misunderstood Jesus’ claims. Elsewhere, as you have pointed out in an earlier comment, both John and Jesus make sure the reader knows the Jews’ claims are false and that they misunderstood what was said—but not here. Why?
Concerning the Qal Imperfect, I quoted several linguistic authorities that would show a future tense in English is demanded of the translation of Psalm 82:8. You have used other authorities to counter the ones I proposed. I don’t know, but probably neither you nor I are qualified to judge which authority is correct, so I will attempt to drop the linguistic argument.
The bottom line is, as I see it, Jesus referred to Psalm 82 in his defense and claimed he was the Son of God, but this is out of place, if Psalm 82:8 does not refer to the Son of God—but I’ll continue from the proposition that Jesus merely pulled it out of the air and began a new argument (not so—but I don’t wish to argue about whose authorities are correct or who is using those authorities correctly). The end result is after Jesus claimed both he and the Father are ONE and the Jews considered it blasphemous, Jesus’ defense that he was claiming to be God’s Son didn’t change anything. Why? The Jews may have been prejudiced against Jesus, but they weren’t stupid. They may have misunderstood spiritual language, but even then, if Jesus repeated himself enough, they eventually caught on as a comparison of John 2:19-21 and Matthew 27:62-64 will show.
Now, Jesus could not mean he is the Son of God by virtue of being a Jew—all Jews believed they were a child of God in this sense (John 8:41). So this was not considered blasphemy. Neither was it considered blasphemy to claim that, as the Messiah, he would be the Son of God, because every king of Judah was considered the son of God, in that Psalm 2 was their coronation hymn. So, why is Jesus taking to himself the title “Son of God” considered blasphemous? It is not because he is a Jew, and it is not because he is the Messiah. Neither claim was blasphemous according to the Jews.
In John 10:36 Jesus equated the term “Son of God” with his earlier claim that he and the Father were “ONE” (John 10:30). The Jews wished to stone Jesus for blasphemy pointing to his statement in John 10:30. Jesus asked why they wished to stone him for blasphemy when he was claiming to be God’s Son (John 10:36)? So, both of Jesus’ remarks mean the same thing, i.e. Father and Jesus being ONE = Jesus is the Son of God.
In John 10:37 Jesus tells the Jews—Look, don’t believe me if I am not doing the works of my Father. Then he adds—But, if I am doing the works of my Father (God), i.e. miracles that no man can do—then believe me (that I am the Son of God—truly God in the flesh) for the very works sake. In other words, how can any man do the miracles Jesus is doing without God backing him up? This is his argument and, if true, Jesus dwells in God and God dwells in Jesus (John 10:38), which is something no mere man can claim.
The result is that the Jews tried to seize him, showing they didn’t wish to listen to reason. After all, “God is not a man and man cannot be God.”
The apostles performed miracles, too, but I don’t hear many people saying they are God.
Jesus and the Father being “one” is in purpose, intent, mind. Jesus prayed that the disciples be one “even as we (Jesus and the Father) are one.”
I’ve enjoyed our discussion, Eddie. It is relaxed and non-confrontational. I wouldn’t mind continuing it if we could keep it down to very small chunks. I have some neglected tasks demanding my attention. I have family and friends waiting to see photos from my vacation (I was gone the whole month of September), and I’ve just barely started processing the RAW images from the trip. I find it too easy to get pulled away by discussions like ours, which I find fun and interesting. But the deeper they get, the more time they take, and the louder my neglected tasks call out.