Jesus as God: a Closer Look

This is a video in the Jesus as God series, if you have not already, please view the first video in this series which clears the ground of objections before watching this video.

In the previous video, I went through a great deal of Biblical prooftexts at warp speed to establish that the New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus is God. This video will take slower pace, looking at only a handful of texts and investigating them in greater detail.

This video will go through the following texts: John 1:1, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1.

Before we get into the texts, let me give you a quick background of the Greek words for deity. The first is θεός and is usually translated "God" in English. The second is κύριος and is generally translated "Lord."

In Hebrew, the generic word for god is אֱלהים which can describe the God of Israel, or can be a generic term for gods or even for spirits. The proper noun for the God of Israel is יהוה

When the Jews returned from exile in Babylon, not all of them spoke Hebrew. The Jewish scholars realized that in order to make the Torah of God available to everyone, they needed to translate it into the common language. Since the trade language in the eastern part of the Roman Empire was Greek, that's what they used.

When the translators came across the word אֱלהים they usually translated it into the Greek as θεός, and when they came across יהוה they generally translated it as κύριος. Now you might be thinking "Didn't the New Testament authors constantly use the word Lord or κύριος as a title for Jesus?" That's correct. They used κύριος as a title for Jesus and ὁ θεός to describe the Father. If the New Testament authors were trying to avoid the implication that Jesus was God, why did they use κύριος as his title?

Nevertheless, the New Testament authors do use the term θεός and sometimes even ὁ θεός to describe Jesus, so let's begin looking at those passages.

John 1:1 states:Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος . In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The term Ἐν ἀρχῇ means "before the world was created" here, as it does in John 17:5, John 17:24, and Proverbs 8:23. Now Ἐν ἀρχῇ is used at the beginning of Genesis, but it refers to an act at the beginning of time. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν, refers to a state of existence that does not come into being at any point, not even at the beginning of time. If John wanted to write that Jesus came into being at the beginning of time, he would have used Ἐν ἀρχῇ εγενετο instead of Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν.

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, and the Word was with the God. That word ἦν still indicates eternal pre-existence, making the Word co-eternal with ὁ θεός, which John generally uses to refer to God the Father.

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, and the Word was God. This is the tricky part of the verse. The Greek word order is different, and one might on first glance think that it says “God was the Word” or “the Word was a God” as seen in the New World Translation. Both these versions have problems. In Greek, word order does not matter as much as it does in English. In Koine Greek, the word with the article is the subject, in this case ὁ λόγος , the Word; and θεὸς, God or Deity, is the object.

What about the New World Translation of this verse, which said that the Word was “a god”? After all, Koine Greek does not have indefinite articles. However, this would contradict the monotheism found elsewhere in John. Remember that monotheism is not unitarianism. While the New Testament authors use the term “gods” to refer to the beliefs of polytheists, a monotheist would not, when referencing his own beliefs, use the term θεοί (gods) at all, or use θεὸς to refer to anything other than the God of monotheism. Now one might ask “If John wanted to say that the Word was God, why didn't he just use the definite article and make the phrase ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος? The Word was The God. The problem with this is it would contradict the previous verse. If The Word was The God, then it would indicate that the Word and The God were interchangeable, that Jesus was The Father, and John wanted to avoid this.

You might insist that it's “a god” because without the definite article, the indefinite article goes on by default. Let's see what would happen if we did that. Luke 2:14 would read: “Glory to a god in the highest” or Matthew 14:33 would read: “Those who were in the boat worshiped him saying “truly you are the son of a god” or we would have to translate John 1:6 as: “there came a man, sent from a god, a name to him was a John.”

Finally, what about the objection that the λόγος is just an abstract concept, the will of God, as was used by Philo and in the Aramaic Targums? The problem with this is that John treats the λόγος as a personal entity, even before the incarnation in verse 14. In verses 10-12, the preincarnate Word is referred to as αὐτὸν (him, which is personal and possessive).

So let's recap. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. The Word in this verse is a personal entity distinct from the Father that existed with the Father before creation.

In John 20:28, after the resurrection of Jesus, Thomas, a doubter, encounters Jesus and Thomas says to him “My Lord and my God” that's ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου. This occurs at the end of John's narrative, reflecting what he said in John 1:1, and taking the story full circle.

There are three ways in which scholars have tried to wiggle out of the theistic implications of this passage. They will say that:

1. Thomas is referring to Jesus as his lord and the Father as his God or
2. The passage should be translated: The Lord is also my God or
3. This is an exclamation of surprise, like saying: “Holy fudgesicle cream pops!”

The idea that this phrase can be split between two parties is pretty much killed by the phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (to him, singular), to one party. The immediate context gives several references to Jesus, but none to the Father, so randomly intoducing the Father with a pronoun in this verse is highly unlikely. The repeated use of the word μου (of me) does not split the address between two parties, but personalizes Thomas' remark.

The second interpretation argues that if Thomas meant to say “my God” the text would have read ὁ κύριε μου. The first problem is that μου literally means “of me” and κύριε sometimes translates as “sir” robbing this passage of its full implication.

The last one is in my opinion the most ridiculous of these interpretations. Not only does it clash horribly with the context (this passage is the climax of John's narrative) but these words would be a real chillul hashem (a desecration of God's name), horribly inappropriate and blasphemous for a first century Jew. For Jesus to respond with “blessed are you...” instead of rebuking Thomas makes even less sense.

Instead, Thomas is addressing the risen Jesus as his Lord and his God.

In Paul's letter to Titus, he writes προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior of us, Jesus the Messiah.

Now groups that deny the deity of Jesus find this intolerable, and look desperately for some way to escape. First, they try to interpret it as the appearing of our great God and also the appearing of our Savior Jesus. However, in the entire Bible, the Father has never appeared to anyone. However, Jesus appeared to lots of people. This would also destroy the parallel with verse 11, where the first coming of the Messiah displayed God's grace and the second coming will display God's glory.

Ok, so maybe it is talking about the appearing of the glory of our great God and the appearing of our Savior Jesus the Messiah. This would be a strange shift in subject, to include the impersonal glory of God with the personal appearing of Jesus in a double epiphany. Also if that were the case, it should have read τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν The Great God of us and the Savior of us. Also, the terminology of theos soter, god/savior was in common usage by both Jews and pagans, where theos and soter always were applied to the same subject.

Fine. What about the glory of our great God and the glory of our Savior Jesus? In support of this view, exegetes will cite that the word θεὸς is generally reserved for the Father, so why isn't it in this verse? The reason is that if the New Testament writers had used θεὸς as often for Jesus as the Father, they would have been accused of polytheism, or it may have led to the view the the Son is the Father. And this too would destroy the parallel with verse 11, and would equate the glory of Jesus with the glory of the Father, making Jesus equal with the Father and therefore make him God.

Finally, the exegete will try to say that this verse is saying that Jesus is in a sense the glory of our great God and Savior. This is a pretty inventive interpretation. It is at least consistent with the Greek bracketing of God and Savior to apply to only one subject. However, the beginning of the next verse reads “who gave himself to redeem us...” which is clearly talking about Jesus, is describing him as Savior. And since this Greek construction joins God and Savior it means that Jesus is both the God and the Savior in this passage.

Finally, we come to 2 Peter 1:1. It reads, Σίμων Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus the Messiah. To those with us who have received the same precious faith through the righteousness of the God of us and Savior Jesus the Messiah. The first question of this passage is: Is this talking about one person or two? Is it about Jesus who is our God and Savior, or is it about our God and also of our Savior Jesus?

At first, you might think that ἡμῶν, of us, which binds God and Savior together in Titus 2:13, separates the terms as it does in 2 Thessalonians 1:12. However, this is bad grammatical reasoning, because the definite article binds the two words together here as it binds Lord and Savior to the same subject in 1:11, 2:20, and 3:18. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The Lord of us and Savior Jesus the Messiah. Again, if this passage was meant to apply to two separate persons, it would have read: τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. the God of us and the Savior Jesus the Messiah.

Then they will shoot back, “but it has to be about two subject, just look at the next verse.” And that verse ends with τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. The God and Jesus the Lord of us. This verse clearly distinguishes Jesus from the Father, so why wouldn't the previous verse? The reason is that the term God/Savior was often used by Jews to refer to God. And the term “God and Jesus” used in the second verse simply cannot be applied to one person.

Also, the Greek word for Savior, σωτῆρ, is used over and over again in 2 Peter. It refers always to Jesus, and it never stands alone, but it accompanied by another word, usually κυρίου or Lord.

Finally, doxologies are regularly addressed to God, and sometimes through Jesus, such as in Romans 16:7, Jude 25, and 1 Peter 4:11. But on some occasions, a doxology, which is a short hymn of praise is addressed to Jesus. In 2 Peter 3:18, the praise is clearly and unambiguously addressed to Jesus. A writer who would address a doxology to Jesus would not likely have difficulty addressing him as θεὸς, as it would be blasphemous to give a doxology to a mere creature.