The Deity of Christ

Testimonies of His Closest Companions

     Thomas the Apostle. The first time the resurrected Christ revealed his crucifixion wounds to the doubting apostles, Thomas was absent and refused to believe their testimony until the same evidence was available to him (John 20:19-25). The next time Jesus appeared to the group, he provided the evidence Thomas needed to confirm his faith. Thomas was then compelled to say to Jesus, “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28).¹

     The English terms “Lord” and “God” are translated from the Greek kurios and theos respectively. Every time these words appear together in the Greek New Testament, they always refer to the Supreme Deity (Acts 2:39; 4:24; 7:37). Every time these words appear together in the Greek New Testament in a quotation from the Hebrew Old Testament, they are equivalent to Yahweh [God’s personal name] and ’ĕlōhīm respectively (Matt. 4:7, 10; Mark 12:29-30; Luke 1:68; 10:27; Acts 3:22).

     Both Jesus and Thomas had lived their entire earthly lives as ethnic Jews and were surely familiar with the foundational law: “Take not the name of the LORD [Yahweh] your God [’ĕlōhīm] in vain, for the LORD [Yahweh] will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).² Was Thomas guilty of blasphemy? Had he uttered the name of the LORD God in vain? Note that Jesus does not rebuke Thomas but commends him for his spontaneous confession prompted by his conviction of faith (John 20:29-31).

     John the Apostle. Around six decades after Thomas made his lofty confession and the Jesus movement had spread throughout the empire and beyond,³ the apostle John penned these words: “In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.⁴ He was in [the] beginning with God. All things were created through him, and without him not even one [thing] was created that has been created …. and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us …” (John 1:1-3, 14).

     Seeing that a “word” (Greek lógos) is an expression of an idea, Jesus came to earth to “reveal” or “make known” God to us (John 1:18).⁵ According to John’s testimony, the Word (Jesus) was not only with God in the beginning (as part of the triune Godhead),⁶ he was God. In other words, Jesus was already existing in the beginning as God, fully divine. In fact, John affirms the involvement of the Word (Jesus) in creation (“without him not even one [thing] was created that has been created”). Elsewhere in scripture the creator of all created things is identified as the LORD [Yahweh] God [’ĕlōhīm] (Gen. 1:1; Ex. 20:11; et al.).

     God spoke through the prophet Isaiah: “Thus says Yahweh, the king of Israel and its redeemer, Yahweh of hosts: ‘I [am] the first and I [am] the last; and besides me [there is] no ’ĕlōhīm’” (Isa. 44:6). Here a fundamental characteristic of deity is noted, in which the attribution “the first and the last” signifies eternality, i.e., Yahweh was in the beginning when history was initiated and will still be on the scene when it is consummated. Moreover, Yahweh himself is the initiator and the consummator, and there is no other entity about whom this truth can rightfully be said.

     Approximately eight centuries later, this divine ascription is applied to the Lord Jesus. In Revelation 1:8 the statement is made: “I am the alpha and the omega, says the Lord [kurios] God [theos],⁷ the one who is and who was and who is coming, the almighty [one].” Contextually the speaker here is Jesus Christ, as he is depicted in the previous verse as the one who was “pierced” and “is coming with the clouds.” In vv. 17-18 the Lord is further recorded as saying, “I am the first and the last and the living [one]; and I was dead, and look, I am living …” At the end of the book, once again Jesus speaks: “Look, I am coming quickly …. I [am] the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (22:12-13). And if there is still any doubt to whom these words directly apply, v. 16 continues: “I, Jesus …” The point is, Yahweh ’ĕlōhīm (Jehovah God) is the only one legitimately designated as “the first and the last” (Isa. 44:6); yet Jesus is described as “the first and the last” (Rev. 1; 22); therefore, Jesus is fully divine.

     John the Baptizer. In John 1:19-23 John the baptizer applies the prophecy of Isaiah 40:3 to himself. His primary mission, according to the prophecy, was to “make straight” [prepare, Matt. 3:3; 11:10; Luke 1:76] the way of “the LORD.” This is the English translation of Yahweh (the personal name of God) in the Hebrew text of Isaiah. John was to prepare the way for Yahweh, and the one whose way he prepared was Jesus (John 1:26-34; 3:28); therefore Jesus (in essence) is Yahweh.

Testimony of Paul

     To the Romans. In English translation, after Paul affirms the requisites of confessing “the Lord Jesus” (Romans 10:9) and calling upon “the Lord” (v. 12), he quotes Joel 2:32, “whoever calls on the name of [the] LORD shall be saved” (v. 13). In the original text of Joel’s prophecy, the name to be called upon is the Hebrew Yahweh (God’s personal name). The LORD [Yahweh] of Joel 2 is the Lord Jesus of Romans 10.⁸

     To the Philippians. In Philippians 2:6 the pre-incarnate Christ is described as “existing in the form of God,” who “counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped” (ASV). The term “existing” is the present tense of hupárchō (already in possession of and continuously existing) in the “form” of God. The word “form” is morphē, signifying the embodiment of the divine essence. His “equality with God” was not something Jesus selfishly “grasped.” Although harpagmós is a rare term (used only here in the NT) and could refer to the act of seizing, Paul applies it to something Jesus already possesses. In order to carry out the redemptive plan, Jesus did not “take advantage of” or “retain with an eager grasp” his equal status with God. Rather, he “emptied himself” in becoming human so he could suffer death (vv. 7-8). While Jesus maintained his divine essence (as noted above), he willingly took on a subordinate role. Moreover, vv. 10-11 are a clear allusion to Isaiah 45:23, where every knee shall bow to Yahweh ’ĕl[ōhīm].

     To the Colossians. In an environment where the preeminence of Christ was being questioned, Paul declares Jesus as the “image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15). The Greek prōtótokos, translated “firstborn” in English, signifies priority or superiority (cf. Ex. 4:22; Deut. 21:15-17). Note the future tense of Psalm 89:27, showing that “firstborn” (applied here to David, the youngest son of Jesse) is a title of preeminence. Ephraim is called the “firstborn” (Jer. 31:9), even though he was the youngest brother (Gen. 48:14). In Col. 1:15 Christ is called “firstborn” because he is superior to all created things, “because in him all things were created … all things have been created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (vv. 16-17). Further, Paul goes on to say that Jesus is “the beginning, the firstborn [prōtótokos] from the dead” (v. 18b), not that he is the first to have ever risen from the dead, but “that in all things he might be holding preeminence” (v. 18c; cf. Rom. 6:9; 8:29).

     In Colossians 2:9 Paul further writes concerning Jesus: “because in him dwells all the fullness of the divine nature bodily.” The noun theótēs carries the sense of divinity, deity, godhead, divine majesty, divine nature (BAGD 355; H. K. Moulton, Analytical Greek Lexicon 193; see also Rom. 1:20; cf. Col. 1:19).⁹

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² In the LXX version of Exodus 20:7, Yahweh and ’ĕlōhīm are rendered kurios and theos respectively.

     ³ See Rom. 1:8; 10:18; 15:23; Col. 1:5-6, 23; 1 Thess. 1:8; and compare Acts 17:6; 21:28; 24:5; 28:22.

     ⁴ In the Greek NT, word order is used for emphasis and the article distinguishes the subject from the predicate nominative. The only legitimate rendering of kai theos ēn ho lόgos in John 1:1 is, “and the Word was God.” The emphatic position of theos stresses essence or quality, and the absence of the article avoids the conclusion that ho lόgos is the Person of God [the Father]. The word order shows that ho lόgos has all the divine attributes of God. If the order and/or employment of the article were different, ho lόgos ēn ho theos (“the Word was the God”) = Sabellianism (Jesus is the Father) – see Responding to Sabellianism; or ho lόgos ēn theos (“the Word was a god”) = Arianism – see Responding to Arianism.

     ⁵ The Greek verbal exēgéomai in John 1:18 means to “reveal,” “explain,” or “declare.”

     ⁶ See The Triune Godhead.

     ⁷ These are the same two words, kurios (Lord) and theos (God), attributed to Jesus in John 20:28 and consistently used in the New Testament to translate the Hebrew Yahweh and ’ĕlōhīm. Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and the Textus Receptus includes the words archē kai télos (“beginning and end”) here in 1:8 (N/KJV), as in 22:13.

     ⁸ By the second century BC, the Jews considered the name Yahweh to be so sacred that when reading the Hebrew scriptures the term adonai (Lord) was substituted. This practice is reflected in the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures) in that the Greek kurios (Lord) is consistently used for the divine name. In fact, of the 8,000+ occurrences of kurios in the LXX, 6,700 are in the place of Yahweh. Those in the first century AD who were familiar with the LXX and heard Jesus addressed as kurios could surely make this connection.

     ⁹ In 1 Tim. 3:15-16 Paul further speaks of the one who “was manifested in flesh” as “God.” According to the Byzantine Majority Text, v. 16 reads: theos ephanerōthē en sarki (“God was manifested in flesh”). Although weighty textual evidence favors the reading hos (“who”) instead of theos (God), the nearest antecedent is still “the living God” of v. 15. Obviously an exalted view of Christ is presented in Paul’s writings. See also Heb. 2:8-9; cf. Psa. 110:1; Matt. 22:44; Acts 2:34.

Additional Scriptures: Pre-existence of Jesus (John 1:1-3, 15, 30; 3:13, 31; 6:62; 8:23, 58; 13:3; 17:5, 24; 1 Cor. 10:3-4; Phil. 2:6-7; Col. 1:16-17, 23-27; Heb. 1:10; 13:8; 1 John 1:1-2). Equality with God (John 5:17-18; 8:23-24, 58; 10:30-33; 17:5; Heb. 1:1-3, 10); his inherent nature cannot change (cf. Heb. 13:8).

Related Posts: Son of God

Related articles:

Image credit: http://www.ccreadbible.org/Members/Bona/For-Bible/4e3b655967034e2d5e38898b76846a198a18/alphaomiga.jpg

The Triune Godhead

     While it is not possible for human beings to understand everything about God (Rom. 11:33), we can know some things about him, namely what he has revealed about himself (Deut. 29:29).¹ My purpose here is not to wade into the quagmire of the historical debates between unitarians and trinitarians or dissect and evaluate sabbelianism, modalism, arianism, socinianism, et al. My primary concern in this study is simply, what does the Bible say? 

     In Acts 17:29 “God” is described as to theion, an expression referring to everything that belongs to the nature of God and is variously rendered “the Divine Nature,” “the Godhead,” “the Deity,” “the Divine,” “the Divinity” (cf. Rom. 1:20; Col. 2:9; 2 Pet. 1:2-4). The human equivalent would be “Man” in the sense of “Human Nature,” “Humanity,” or “Mankind.” Just like the word “Man” can be used to describe either an individual (Rom. 5:12) or all persons who comprise humanity (Psa. 8:4), the question is whether or not the word “God” is used in a similar way.

     The Bible clearly affirms that there is only one true God (1 Cor. 8:4; cf. Deut. 4:35, 39; 6:4; Jas. 2:19; Acts 17:23-29), and since God is the Divine Nature, there is only one Divine Nature. Seeing that the word “Man” does not imply that humanity is comprised of a single person, and even though many assume that “God” is a solitary entity, the fundamental question is whether or not the Bible indicates a plurality within the one God.

     In Genesis 1:26 God speaks using plural pronouns: “us,” “our” (cf. 3:22; 11:7). What does this indicate about God? The Hebrew word translated “God” in Gen. 1:1-31; 2:2-22; 3:1-23, etc. is elohim (the plural form of el), found 2,570 times in the Hebrew scriptures. This plural form, in reference to Almighty God, is used with singular verbs and adjectives throughout the Old Testament. Despite the potential confusion generated by this anomaly, God’s complete revelation did not end with Malachi. That which is somewhat ambiguous in the Old Testament is more clearly revealed in the New Testament (cf. Matt. 13:17; Mark 4:22; Acts 17:30; Eph. 3:3-11; 1 Pet. 1:10-12).

     In Matthew 28:19 the plurality within the one God (Divine Nature) is identified as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Since “name” in this verse is singular, a unity among these three is presumed (see also Mark 1:9-11; Rom. 8:9-11; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6). While mentioned here collectively, note that elsewhere the Father is acknowledged as “God” (Phil. 2:11),² Jesus is acknowledged as “God” (John 1:1; 20:28),³ and the Holy Spirit is acknowledged as “God” (Acts 5:3-4).⁴ Nevertheless, the biblical doctrine of monotheism forbids the conclusion that there are three separate gods and therefore requires a unity of these three divine Persons as one God or a single Divine Nature. In John 17:20-23 a plurality of human persons is depicted as “one,” providing a parallel to the similar concept of a plurality of divine Persons depicted as “one” (see also Gen. 2:24; 11:6; Judg. 6:16; John 10:16, 30; 11:52; 17:11; Acts 17:26; 1 Cor. 12:12).

     In Deuteronomy 6:4 [the monotheistic 'Shema' of Judaism] the word “God” is translated from the plural elohim, so how can the plural elohim be “one”? There are two Hebrew words translated “one” in the Old Testament: (1) yachid = “only, solitary, only one” (Gen. 22:2, 12, 16; Judg. 11:34; Jer. 6:26), never used in reference to deity; and (2) echad = “unite, join together” (Gen. 2:24; 41:1, 5, 25; Deut. 6:4), used in reference to deity and signifying a compound unity.

     WHAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY DOES NOT TEACH: (a) there are three separate gods; (b) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same Person; (c) only one of the three, but not the other two, is God. WHAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AFFIRMS: (a) there is only one God; (b) the one God is the Divine Nature consisting of three divine Persons; (c) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons; (d) the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each God with the same essence collectively comprising the Divine Nature; (e) while equal in essence, each member of the Godhead has a different role, giving the appearance of a superior to inferior relationship within the Godhead, though the distinction is essentially in function not in nature or substance.⁵

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See also Isaiah 55:8-9; Job 9:10; Psalm 147:5; Proverbs 20:24; Philippians 4:7; and Romans 1:19-20; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Ephesians 3:1-5; John 4:24; 2 Peter 3:16.

     ² See also Malachi 2:10; John 8:41; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6.

     ³ See also John 5:18; 10:33; Colossians 2:9; Revelation 1:8, 17-18; 22:12-13.

     ⁴ The Holy Spirit is a Person in that he speaks (1 Tm. 4:1; Acts 8:29), teaches (Jn. 14:26), guides (Jn. 16:13), has a mind (Ro. 8:27), has a will (1 Co. 12:11), and can be grieved (Eph. 4:30). He possesses the attributes of God: eternal (Heb. 9:14), omniscient (1 Co. 2:10; Is. 40:13-14), omnipresent (Ps. 139:7-10), creator (Gen. 1:2; Job 26: 13; 33:4), sanctifies (2 Thess. 2:13), gives life (Ro. 8:11), can be blasphemed (Mt. 12:31).

     ⁵ Helpful resources for further study include Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology (Washington DC: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1985): 79-139; Carl Brumback, God in Three Persons (Cleveland, TN: Pathway, 1959); Billy Lewis and David Lipe, The Lipe-Lewish Debate (Winona, MS: Choate, 1984): 1-52; J. J. Turner and Edward P. Myers, Doctrine of the Godhead (Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1985).

Related Posts: Responding to Anti-Trinitarian Arguments, Deity of Christ, Responding to Sabellianism, Responding to Arianism, Responding to Socinianism

Related articles: Wayne Jackson's Biblical Doctrine of the Godhead; Ben Giselbach's Why the Trinity Matters

Image credit: http://www.suncatchersdelight.com/trinity_suncatcher.html

The Son of Mary

      The New Testament Gospels provide four independent accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Since they all deal with the same subject matter, there is understandably a great deal of overlap. Nevertheless, as each inspired author writes from a unique perspective, there are also a number of observable differences.

      According to the Gospel of Mark, when Jesus returned to his home community and taught in the local synagogue, the following sentiment was expressed about him: "‘Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?’ So they were offended at Him" (6:3 NKJV). In the other Gospels Jesus is referred to as "the carpenter’s son" (Matthew 13:55), "Joseph’s son" (Luke 4:22), and "the son of Joseph" (John 6:42) respectively. Only in Mark’s account is he identified as "the Son of Mary." While all of these statements were no doubt made, why has Mark chosen to record this particular expression? Its significance depends on the perspective with which it is viewed.
Words of Contempt
      From the standpoint of those who originally made the observation, it may have been intended as an insult. Within Jewish culture, one’s lineage was almost always linked to his father and/or other male ancestors (cf. Matthew 10:2-3; 16:17; Luke 3:23-38; etc.). An exception would be when there was a question about the moral integrity of one’s parentage (cf. Gen. 21:9-10; Judges 11:1-2). The residents of this particular community knew Jesus and his family, and the older generation would surely have remembered the alleged scandal of about three decades earlier.
      Mary, betrothed to a local carpenter named Joseph, seemed to be a virtuous young lady. But one day, after a visit to the hill country of Judah, she returned pregnant, and Joseph wasn’t the baby’s father! Now we have the advantage of knowing what was going on behind the scenes (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-45), but the contemporary locals presumably did not. You can imagine the shameful reports generated by the small-town rumor mill! Fast forward 30+ years as the hometown folks pondered: "Is this not . . . the Son of Mary?" Could there have been an undertone of contempt in these words? When Mark goes on to say that they were "offended" at him, the term he uses is skandalizō, the source of our English word "scandal." From this vantage point, Jesus is treated with disrespect and summarily dismissed. Is the prevailing world view of modern times any different?
Family Linkage
      From a purely historical perspective, another connotation emerges. The fact that Mary is specifically named and her husband conspicuously unnamed may indicate that Joseph was no longer around, having died and leaving behind a widow with at least seven children. The last time in scripture Joseph is depicted alive is Luke 2:41-51, when young Jesus was merely twelve years old. Afterwards there are numerous references to Mary, almost always in the company of her children (Luke 8:19; John 2:1, 12; etc.), but Joseph is nowhere to be found. By the time the Lord’s public ministry had begun, if his mother was in fact a widow left to care for her family alone, what responsibilities did Jesus have toward her and his younger siblings? And did he fulfill these domestic obligations or did he forsake them?
      If certain texts are read in isolation (e.g. Mark 3:31-35; 10:29-30), one might get the impression that Jesus neglected or even abandoned his temporal family, thereby giving others permission to do the same. But nothing could be further from the truth! As the Lord’s earthly ministry was carried out, his mother and his brothers (and sisters) remained in his company (John 2:12), and before his death he ensured that they would continue to be taken care of (John 19:25-27; cf. Acts 1:13-14). From this perspective we learn the divine expectation of fulfilling family duties (cf. 1 Timothy 5:8), exemplified in the life of Christ.
Fulfilled Prophecy
      When Jesus is called "the Son of Mary," there is a third consideration. From a theological standpoint, the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is indicated. God had spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel [i.e. ‘God with us’]" (Isaiah 7:14). Seven centuries later, when baby Jesus is supernaturally conceived in Mary’s womb without a human father, Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled (Matthew 1:21-23). Having been "born of a woman" by divine decree, Jesus is thus recognized as the Son of God (Galatians 4:4). Seeing that he is linked to humanity through his biological mother while maintaining his union with divinity ("God with us"), he serves as the perfect mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5).
Conclusion
      Who is the Son of Mary? From a worldly point of view, he is someone to be ridiculed and disregarded. From a historical standpoint, he is seen as a real person with a real family who took seriously his responsibilities as a devoted son and older brother. From a theological viewpoint, he is God in the flesh, providing redemption for mankind and reconciliation to the heavenly throne. How is the Son of Mary viewed from your perspective?
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Tempted as we are, Isaiah 7:14