And The Word Was... divine!

John 1:1 is probably the most debated Scripture in the Bible. Some Christians don’t believe Jesus is God (i.e. THE God) and describe him before his human birth as something from divine (including a divine “plan”) to simply “a” god. The controversy seems to arise out of the fact that the final clause in John 1:1 does not have the article before the word “God.” What these groups and other modern critics done seem to understand is, if the article were there, it would be a contradiction or an apparent error in the text. Notice:

John 1:1 Moffatt NT THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.

John 1:1 NWT In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

John 1:1 JMNT Within a beginning there was The Word (The Thought; The Collection of Thoughts; The Idea; The Reason; The Discourse; The Communication; The Verbal Expression). And the Word (the thought; the expression) was (and continued being) facing, directed and moving toward (or: with) God. And the Word (the thought; the idea; the reason; the expression) continued being God. [or: Originally the Word was existing and continued to be, and the Word was being projected toward God. And the Word, It was existing being God (idiomatically: And the Word was just what God was; And the Expression was an extension of Deity).]

John 1:1 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If the article were placed before the final clause above, saying “the Word was the God…” it would mean he was beside himself in the second clause, namely, “the Word (the God) was with or beside the God. This is an impossibility. John chose his words well, and they reveal the only way to say the Word is God and mean he is/was the same essence as God; or put another way: “what God was, the Word was.

Often those who disagree will point to Proverbs 8 and the story of the Wisdom personification to support their understanding that the Word was simply a “divine” angel (or plan etc.) or a “god.” Many go on to point to the Greek grammar and how the verse should be translated. The problem is other grammarians could be quoted to contradict the authorities quoted by those who seek to show Jesus is something less than God. Is there an answer for all this? Can a layman, for example, prove that Jesus is God or not, or are we left on our own to stumble through the truth, making choices as to the veracity and expertise of the so-called greats or experts in the fields of theology and Greek grammar?

Let me repeat, the crux of this controversy arises out of the fact that the article does not appear before the final clause of John 1:1. Are we able to draw any conclusions from the word of God itself? Is the Scripture alone able to show us what is true? I believe so, and the answer lies in consistency.

In the next seventeen verses following John 1:1, there are no less than four references to the God with whom the Word existed in the beginning. They are 1:6, 12, 13 and 18. Each one of these references to the God is not only without the article in the Greek manuscript from which the critics derive their argument, but in every case where the word God appears it is unanimously agreed the word refers to the God! The argument of the critics and certain groups of Christians is not consistent. What rule of grammar would be used in these verses to warrant their obvious reference to the God when the article is absent in the original Greek manuscript? Therefore, the presence or absence of the article in the original Greek manuscripts is not a conclusive argument that one may use to prove that Jesus is not THE God. Even the critics of the Deity of Jesus do not follow this rule in every case.

Contrariwise, the article is present in other references to Jesus. Among these are:

1. Matthew 1:23 Jesus’ name is Immanuel. The interpretation given is, “God with us.”

The article is present here and reveals that Jesus is the God with us.

2. John 20:28 After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to Thomas. At Jesus’ invitation to touch him, Thomas exclaimed: “My Lord and My God.”

The article is present and Thomas refers to Jesus as the God.

3. 1John 1:15 “…God is Light and in him is no darkness.” The article is present. That this represents Jesus is made plain from reading John 1:4-10. It is clearly stated here that the Light gave life to all men. John the Baptist bore witness to the Light; and the Light was about to come into the world (v.9) and is the true Light. Therefore, if the God is Light and Christ is the true Light, there should be no controversy in saying, “Jesus is the God!”

There is no question that the Scriptures teach us that there is only one God. I agree with those Christians among us who claim Jesus is not God. However, does the fact that there is only one God exclude any plurality within that one Deity? I have shown in other studies that there is evidence of plurality within the Deity in the Old Testament. In fact the very physical image which God created of himself is both the male and female—two people dwelling in unity (Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 2:23-24).

To conclude, it is evident that there is no foundation for the argument that the presence of the article in the Greek text is an indication that the God mentioned is worthy of worship, while the absence of the article means that the deity under consideration is not worthy of worship. If this were a valid argument, why is the article omitted in so many New Testament references to our Father God, while many other Scripture references do have the article showing us Jesus is God? The argument, that Jesus is a god or divine (i.e. an angel or a divine plan etc.), but not the God is not consistent and just doesn’t make sense.

What Kind of God Is Jesus?

Some Christians believe Jesus is a created god, while others conclude he is divine, but only a man. None of those who hold a low view of Jesus believe he is God Almighty or Jehovah / YHWH or of the same essence as his Father.

Obviously it is impossible for us to know and understand anything about God that is not revealed in his word. Notice:

Deuteronomy 29:29 KJV The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

2 John 1:9 NET. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God. The one who remains in this teaching has both the Father and the Son.

We are cautioned in the Scriptures to remain within the teaching of Jesus and no go beyond or run ahead of him and assume we can know what he has not revealed. This is a problem I think the fourth century fathers got into by defining God by means of the Trinity doctrine. It would be equally true to say any Christian or group of Christians who teach what occurred before creation are presuming upon forbidden territory. What we have are the Scriptures. If it is not spelled out in them, it is not ours to know at this present time.

There is enough revealed within the Scriptures to show that Jesus is God in the flesh. I have shown in other studies he is the very one who Israel called Almighty God. However, if Jesus had a beginning i.e. before the beginning of creation, we cannot know this. It certainly seems logical, if God created time, that time does not exist in eternity and that God lives in an eternal present, having no past or future. If this is so, then Jesus would have no beginning. However, this is not really revealed in the text. It is an assumption on my part, based upon what I read in the text and what I assume God created (viz. time). I have no right to make claims about God that are not specifically revealed in the Scriptures, but neither does anyone else!

I once discussed the value of Jesus’ life with a couple of neighbors in my home. One of the gentlemen admitted that, if Jesus was the same essence as the Father and paid the price of sin, the total sin debt of mankind would be paid and there would be no need for further payment such as purgatory or future ages where we live to make up for what we did or did not do here. We discussed 1Timothy 2:6 where we see Jesus gave himself as a ransom (Greek an equivalent ransom) for all. The point my neighbors tried to make was Jesus’ ransom price was equivalent for only those who would be saved—he paid their price. However, I turned to Romans 5 where Jesus is compared with Adam. Adam’s rebellion affected all of mankind, and the Scripture shows there in Romans 5 that Jesus’ sacrifice affected all mankind, not just those who would believe. Nevertheless, I could not convince them that Jesus was indeed that precious and the ransom equivalent for the task. We never spoke again.

I believe it is sad to see the condition of people who have a low opinion of Jesus. I do not question their love for him. It is their doctrine that is wrong. I don’t judge such people. I consider them brethren, but this is not the traditional Christian viewpoint. I entrust them to Jesus. He saved them and me. I believe he is more honorable and more merciful than theologians like Athanasius, one of our early church fathers who condemned such people. Nevertheless, wrong doctrine will keep even those who love God from completely enjoying the wonderful inheritance we have in his Son.

I once heard a story about a prince who fell among thieves. They beat him and left him for dead. He awoke and recovered from his wounds, but he had lost his memory. The prince lived for years among the people but didn’t know the inheritance that was his. When the king found his son all was restored, but the prince could have enjoyed all that was his father’s for years before – but he just didn’t know.

This is how I perceive those who do not and perhaps cannot believe Jesus is God. False doctrine is a strong spiritual phenomenon that, if left unchecked, takes away or otherwise makes the word of God of no effect in the heart of the believer. The Pharisees had partial truth but thought they knew truth that the masses did not possess. The apostles were often tripped up with their doctrine (Matthew 17:10-13; cp. Matthew 16:6-12; Mark 4:24-25; Luke 8:18), but Jesus did not remove the bad seed from their hearts and minds immediately. He waited for an opportune moment and healed them of their spiritual darkness acquired through believe in false doctrine.

Spiritual truth is not understood in the same manner that we come to know truth like math or literature in school. Jesus must heal people of their false beliefs, because false doctrine is a spiritual stronghold (cp. Luke 24:30-35). It is a spiritual matter, not a mental one. One cannot merely compare what one believes with what another believes and expect to discern truth, so one cannot expect someone who is spiritually deluded to recognize the truth when it is shown to him. The spiritual stronghold is broken through much prayer and study. One must be healed of spiritual delusion, not simply reeducated. I am comfortable leaving this matter in the Lord’s hands, while entreating those who believe differently to consider Jesus more closely.

May the God of all wisdom open our eyes to see himself more clearly in Jesus and understand that man is not able to do as Jesus did. Jesus is God with us.

Jesus’ Fourth Unreserved Claim to Deity!

The reason Jesus was condemned to die was that he claimed to be the Son of God. To show this, I’ll quote Luke but consider also the pertinent Scriptures in Matthew 26:63-66 and Mark 14:61-64 that record the trial of Jesus:

Luke 22:66-71 KJ2000 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, (67) Are you the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, you will not believe: (68) And if I also ask you, you will not answer me, nor let me go. (69) Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. (70) Then said they all, Are you then the Son of God? And he said unto them, You say that I am. (71) And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. (emphasis mine)

Some have said Jesus was not really admitting he was the literal Son of God, because Matthew and Luke have him saying that the high priest says this about him. This is a very weak argument. The phrase, “Thou hast said…” (Matthew 26:64) or “Ye say that I am…” (Luke 22:70) is a Greek idiom for an affirmative answer according to “Robertson’s Word Pictures” (i.e. I am as you say). It is translated plainly in Mark 14:62 as “I am.” In John 18:37 when Pilate asked Jesus if he were a king, Jesus replied, “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born...” Jesus uses the idiom and then goes on showing that his answer to Pilate was in the affirmative. Therefore, the argument that Jesus was merely saying that the high priest was accusing him of saying something he (Jesus) had not said, is moot. Jesus spoke plainly, and the high priest rightly understood Jesus’ claim to Deity.

If the Jewish authorities did not believe Jesus’ claim that he was the Son of God was a claim to Deity, why did they condemn him for blasphemy? It certainly was not blasphemy for him to claim he was the Messiah. There have been many who came after Jesus, claiming to be the Messiah, and though they were wrong, they were not considered blasphemous. Some of these historical figures are held in high esteem within the Jewish community today even though they failed.

Jesus’ claim for being the Son of God could not be considered blasphemous, if he wished to say he was created by God. He would not have done that, but if he had, it would not have been considered blasphemous (Acts 17:29). Neither could it be considered a crime if Jesus claimed he was spiritually the Son of God, for every righteous Jew believed that (Matthew 5:9). Unless Jesus’ claim for being the Son of God was in the literal sense and a claim to Deity, why would the Jews be shocked? After all, they saw themselves as sons of God (John 8:41) by virtue of their being his chosen people.

Therefore, Jesus’ claim to being God’s Son was not a claim of spiritual rebirth (John 1:12-13), nor of being created (Acts 17:29), nor was he claiming to be the Son of God as one of the chosen people (John 8:41). Jesus’ claim was to be the ONLY begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18), a unique relationship, not held by any man or angel. How should this be understood? It can be understood in the sense of the virgin birth, because God was indeed responsible for Mary’s pregnancy (Luke 1:35; John 1:14, 18). However the Scriptures also seem to point to another understanding. That is, Psalm 2 claims the Messiah is the Son of God and will rule all nations (Psalm 2:8; 89:27). Paul used this Psalm to show Jesus was declared to be God’s Son (the Messiah) at the resurrection (Acts 13:33; Romans 1:4), and this would be the meaning of the words “This day (or today) I have begotten you…” (Psalm 2:7). I don’t believe the Scripture can be understood to say Jesus declared himself to be “God the Son”, because he never refers to himself this way, nor do the Scriptures ever call him such when referring to his existence before becoming man, so we must remain within the boundary of Jesus’ teaching (2John 1:9; 1Corinthians 4:6).

Jesus was condemned to die, because he claimed to be the Son of God, who Scripture claims is the Messiah and God (Psalm 2:7-8; 89:27; 82:8). Matthew and Mark record the illegal trial of Jesus that occurred during the night. Luke records the only legal trial of Jesus. This one occurred during the morning of the day of his crucifixion, before the entire Sanhedrin with Joseph and Nicodemus present. What was done illegally in the evening was done before a select few, in order to find fault and to rehearse what would work before the entire body in the morning. May the Lord open our eyes that we may see the great price that was paid for our salvation.

Jesus’ Third Unreserved Claim to Deity

It was winter about four months before Jesus’ death. He was in Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication, what the Jews call Hanukkah today. Jesus was in the Temple and the Jewish authorities came up to him, demanding that he would tell them plainly who he was (John 10:22-24).

John 10:25-31 KJV Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. (26) But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. (27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: (28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (29) My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. (30) I and my Father are one. (31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (emphasis mine)

Some people believe that Jesus was merely saying that he and the Father are of one mind or purpose and quote John 17:11 as a proof text, saying Jesus is one with the Father in the same way that we are. However, Jesus never said that we are one with the Father or even one with Jesus. Jesus described our unity with one another as unity in the Spirit, just as the Father and the Son are one Spirit. We being many are one body (Romans 12:5). Our unity is enabled only as we abide in Christ (John 15:1-7). We have access to the Father only through Christ (Ephesians 2:18). Jesus is the God-Man who makes this possible. He, as God, has unbroken fellowship with his Father (God - John 1:1), and, as the Man, he enables our fellowship with God (1Timothy 2:5). Elsewhere it is called coming to the Father in Jesus name (John 16: 23, 24, 26).

Therefore, if Jesus had only unity of will or purpose in mind, as some suggest, why would the Jewish leaders take up stones to cast at him in the very next verse (John 10:31) and claim he was making himself God two verses after that? Jesus never claimed that these men misunderstood him, though he could have done so, if the situation warranted it. Elsewhere, the text clearly shows when people misunderstood Jesus’ words (Mark 9:32; Luke 2:50, 9:45; John 8:27, 10:6). Nevertheless, Jesus asked them to consider his works. Why would they stone him for the miracles he did that no other man could do (verse-32)? The Jewish leaders responded that they were not stoning him for his good works, but for his claiming he was God (verse-33). Their reply only exposed their obvious hatred and prejudice, because how could anyone do the works that Jesus did, unless he were at the very least sent and empowered by God, as the prophets of the Old Testament were.

Knowing how they received his statement and their intent on killing him, Jesus had the opportunity to declare they were only misunderstanding what he was saying, but he did not contradict how they understood what he claimed in John 10:30. Instead, he pointed out in Psalm 82:6 how God refers to civil leaders as gods, as it pertains to their office. When men exercise the authority of God over men, they are called gods by the Almighty. Nevertheless, as the Psalm suggests, though men exercise the authority of God, this does not mean God approves of how they use his power, as he did with Jesus. In fact, in Psalm 82:8 the Scripture says, “Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.” Here is a call for the God of gods to arise and exercise righteous judgment, because the leaders (gods) of men have not acted properly in his place. One might ask: who it is who will inherit all nations and will judge the whole earth (Psalm 2:8). It is Jesus (Revelation 12:5; 19:15-16)! He is the God of gods, the Ruler of the kings of the earth. Therefore, Jesus could not have been committing blasphemy, because not only are the leaders of men called gods when acting in God’s place, but Messiah is called God in Psalm 82:8 in that he is the God of gods. These men (gods) were abusing the authority of God, which they exercised under Jesus!

In John 10:33 Jesus responded to his accusers by calling himself the “Son of God,” but this in no way softens his claim to Deity. How could his claim that he and the Father are one (John 10:30) and his claim to be the God of gods (Psalm 82:8) be understood that he is “Son of God” (John 10:36)? Simply because Messiah is called the Son of God in Psalm 2:7 and inherits authority over nations in Psalm 2:8.

Psalms 2:6-9 KJ2000 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. (7) I will declare the decree: the LORD has said unto me, You are my Son; this day have I begotten you. (8) Ask of me, and I shall give you the nations for your inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession. (9) You shall break them with a rod of iron; you shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. (emphasis mine)

Psalm 2 had always been used during the coronation ceremonies of the kings of Judah, and each king was understood to be the son of God. This Psalm became Messianic when the rabbis realized in captivity that no king of Israel or Judah had ever fulfilled its promises. That is, the Son of God—the King—was to inherit the nations. No king of Judah or Israel, not even David or Solomon had ever been king over all the nations of the world. Therefore, it was seen as a Messianic Psalm to be fulfilled by the Messiah, the Son of God, to whom the Psalm clearly refers.

The problem is Psalm 82 claims the one who inherits the nations is the God of gods or Elohim, the God of Judah and Israel. Therefore, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God in John 10:33 cannot be viewed as a disclaimer showing Jesus is denying he is God. On the contrary, the Son of God who is the Messiah in Psalm 2 is the God over all Israel in Psalm 82 as the texts clearly show.

Even the Jews understood Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God (John 10:33) was in a literal sense, and he was claiming to be God in the flesh. They believed they were the children of God in a spiritual sense (John 8:41), so why would they try to seize Jesus in John 10:39 and kill him as a blasphemer? Therefore, they understood Jesus as speaking literally and not in the sense that they thought themselves to be sons of God. In other words, Jesus was claiming to be God in the flesh!

Jesus’ Second Unreserved Claim to Deity!

One of Jesus’ most persuasive claims to Deity was made in Jerusalem about six months before his death. He had come to the Temple secretly for the Feast of Tabernacles. The Jewish authorities were still seeking to kill him and tried to seize him on the previous day. Now, on the Last Great Day of the Feast, a Sabbath holy day, the Pharisees came seeking to find a cause to discredit and perhaps to kill him without causing a tumult among the people.

John 8:58 NASB Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

The words “was born” are from a single Greek word ginomai (G1096) and is the same word used for the word became (man) in John 1:14. Jesus used the phrase ego eimi (G1473 and G1510 respectively), meaning, “I am.” Clearly, the very least Jesus was saying is that he existed before Abraham was born. In John 8:59 the Jewish authorities picked up stones to cast at Jesus, but he hid himself from them. Why would they do such a thing? Why would someone saying he was at least 2000 years old be a threat to them? If they thought Jesus was mentally unbalanced, they could have just grinned and walked away. They would have discredited him by showing he was mad. If they thought some action was required, they could have done, as some tried to do in Galilee when friends said Jesus was “beside himself.” That is, they could have taken him and delivered him over to his family for care, until he regained his wits (Mark 3:21, 30-32). Instead, these men tried to kill Jesus. Why?

Some will try to play down the force of Jesus’ phrase, ego eimi, in John 8:58 by showing other places in Scripture where the exact phrase Jesus used is utilized by other people mentioned therein. For example, in some Greek manuscripts Paul used this phrase while speaking to King Agrippa in Acts 26:29. He said that he wished all men “might become such as I am, except for these chains.”

On the same day Jesus’ critics tried to stone him, Jesus healed a blind man. This man also used the phrase ego eimi (G1473 & G1510). After Jesus healed him, some people who knew the man who had been blind wondered if it was really him (John 9:8-9). While they disagreed over his identity, the blind man said, “I am (he).” The word he is not in the Greek text, but it is understood and so translated into English. Therefore, the Gospel writer has the blind man saying the same words Jesus spoke in John 8:58, “ego eimi.” The point being that these men are not God and don’t try to make themselves out to be God merely by saying “I am!”

Arguments such as this one are used often in efforts to deny Jesus was claiming to be God. Nevertheless, this is a very weak argument against Jesus’ claim. Paul and the blind man used the phrase in a manner that fit the context of the rest of the sentence. The blind man answered the query of his neighbors saying, “I am” with the word he understood. We do this all the time in English. If someone asks, “Who is coming with me,” I might answer, “I am” with the words, “going with you,” understood. We don’t have to speak the words for people to understand what we are trying to say. In Paul’s case, he answered a statement made by King Agrippa in Acts 26:28. Paul said he wished everyone were as “I am” with the word Christian understood, the very word used by the king in the previous verse.

These things being so, what word or phrase would be understood in Christ’s words “ego eimi” in John 8:58? “Before Abraham was, I am” (KJV)! “I am” what? “Before Abraham came to be, I am…” What word or phrase would we add for the sentence to make sense? Jesus spoke of Abraham in the past. In fact, he spoke of a time preceding Abraham’s existence. Yet, he spoke of himself in the present, but in a relationship to the time before Abraham. How would we make sense of this statement?

It is evident that Jesus was claiming more than preexistence in John 8:58. He was claiming to be God in the flesh. Had he been claiming that he merely preexisted Abraham (such as an angel), the verb to be (eimi G1510) would have been expressed in the imperfect tense or: “…before Abraham was born, I have been.” Yet, Jesus didn’t phrase his reply this way. He said, “…before Abraham was born, I AM,” putting his answer in the present indicative active and 1st person singular of the verb to be, (G 1510). Compare this with the following verses where the verb to be is used in various ways:

Mark 12:32 KJV And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

“There is” (G 2076) is repeated in this verse, both instances in the present indicative active of the verb to be and is in the third person singular. Using the verb to be the scribe said that God exists and no other god exists with him.

Acts 19:2 KJV he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

“There be” is the present indicative active of the verb to be and is in the third person singular. Using the verb to be the disciples of John the Baptist announced their ignorance of the existence of the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 11:6 KJV But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

“he is” (G2076) is the present indicative active of the verb to be and is in the third person singular. In this Scripture the writer of Hebrews uses the verb to be to express that people must believe that God exists before they can come to him.

John 17:5 KJV And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

The verb was (G1511 – “before the world was”) is the present infinitive of the verb to be. In this Scripture Jesus declared by using the verb to be that he existed before the creation of the world.

Clearly, therefore, Jesus is not claiming in John 8:58 that he is like an angel who existed before Abraham was born. When Jesus used this verb to be in the present indicative active and in the singular form, he was referring to his eternal existence, which claim he repeated with his apostles in John 17:5 when he said he existed before the world came to be.

Yet, some will say that none of the above could be true, because ego eimi would be a mistranslation of the Hebrew in reference to Exodus 3:14, assuming the argument that Jesus referred to his being I AM THAT I AM. These people like to say that the Hebrew text should read in English, “I will be what I will be.” This is the manner in which some Hebrew scholars traditionally thought the verse should be rendered. However, this is not necessarily true with all scholars, today. Nevertheless, without getting into a quarrel over which scholar is the best, I would just as soon refer to the Septuagint. This Bible had been used often by the New Testament writers and is a translation by ancient Hebrew scholars. The Septuagint uses ego eimi to translate the first part of the Hebrew phrase “I AM THAT I AM” in Exodus 3:14. For the second part of the phrase a different tense of the verb to be is used. Therefore, this argument against my present argument is invalid, because it appears the translators of the Septuagint certainly felt free to use ego eimi to render the first half of the Hebrew phrase in Exodus 3:14, and there is no controversy over what ego eimi means in English!

If, however, we insist the phrase should be “I am he” as it is often translated elsewhere, how should we understand this phrase in John 8:58? “I am he” refers to whom? In Deuteronomy 32:39 the Septuagint uses the same phrase to indicate the LORD saying “I am he and there is no god with Me.” Isaiah 41:4 also uses the phrase to indicate the LORD, as does Isaiah 43:10, 25; 46:4; 51:12 (used twice for the LORD), and 52:6. The same phrase is used without the pronoun he and still refers to God (Almighty, LORD etc.) in numerous places including, Genesis 17:1; 26:24; 31:13; Exodus 3:6; 7:5; 8:22; 14:4, 18; 15:26 and in Exodus 20:2 as the LORD began thundering the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai. This phrase is used frequently in other Scriptures in the Septuagint to refer to the LORD God. To say that Jesus was using the phrase ego eimi to indicate something else is pure speculation without any Scriptural ground for support. Where is the Scripture to support any other reason for Jesus’ statement?

Therefore, even if the use of ego eimi cannot be applied to Exodus 3:14 (a highly unlikely thought), the phrase, as used by Jesus, is used so often in the Septuagint to refer to the LORD God or God Almighty that Jesus may very well have been referring to this very common phrase showing that he claimed to be God. In fact, this phrase is used so commonly in reference to the God of Israel that the authorities immediately recognized what Jesus was saying, and they took up stones to kill him as a blasphemer. May God help us to see the truth of his word.

Jesus’ First Unreserved Claim to Deity

During Jesus’ first Pentecost season after the beginning of his public ministry, he healed a man who was unable to walk. He did this on the Sabbath day. The Jewish authorities in Jerusalem confronted him saying that he had broken the Sabbath.

John 5:17-18 NASB But he answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” (18) For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (emphasis mine)

The Greek word translated equal is isos (G2470). It is the same word used in Philippians 2:6 to indicate that when Jesus was in the form of God, he was equal with God (the Father) in power and authority (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence etc.). One thing is clear in John 5:17-18. The Jewish authorities understood Jesus to be saying that he was equal with God. Whatever we may think of Jesus’ words, the Jewish authorities sought to kill him, because he made himself equal with God.

Moreover, making himself equal with God is not merely the opinion of the Jewish authorities. It is the interpretation of John, the Gospel writer. Notice that he does not say that the authorities thought Jesus made himself equal with God. John says it was because Jesus made himself equal with God that the Jewish authorities sought to kill him.

Some will argue that this could not possibly be the Gospel writer’s interpretation, because that would mean that Jesus was also a Sabbath breaker. The same verse that says Jesus made himself equal with God also says, with equal authority, that Jesus broke the Sabbath. This is true! Jesus did break the Sabbath but without sin. Let me explain why this is so.

First and foremost, the context shows that, whatever Jesus’ reason for doing what he did, the Father backed him up by working the miracle through Jesus in the first place. Jesus told the Jews to look at what was going on – “I can’t do this of myself” (John 5:19). Remember, we are not speaking of equality of power etc. in this Scripture. Jesus left that behind in Philippians 2:6-7 to take the form of a bondservant. What Jesus is saying is he had a right to do as he did, because God is his own Father. They are equal in essence. He is the Son of God, and no one had any right to call his activity into question. After all, the signature of God was upon his works (John 5:19). Jesus and the Father worked together to perform the miracles. He wasn’t doing things alone. The Father was backing him up. This is the first point Jesus made in his defense.

Secondly, he was technically breaking the Sabbath, but as I said above, without sin. How can this be so? At this time in John 5, Jesus was in Jerusalem. He healed a man who couldn’t walk and told him to pick up his bed and go home. This was done on the Sabbath day (John 5:1-9). A similar argument developed in Galilee at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. About a year and a half earlier on one of the Sabbaths the Pharisees questioned Jesus, concerning his disciples taking corn off the stalks in a field and eating them on the Sabbath day (Luke 6:1-2). Jesus’ argument at that time was that David, the anointed of God, had eaten what was set aside for the priests only. He ate the showbread that was in the Tabernacle, which was consecrated for the priests alone. Luke presents only half the argument, so to get the full impact, one must read what Jesus said in Matthew 12:3-8. The other half of the argument is that the priests who serve the Temple “profane the Sabbath and are blameless” (Matthew 12:5). The priests make their living off the sacrifices brought to the Temple. Killing the beasts, skinning the animal, cutting up the meat etc., is not only a lot of work; it is the living of the priest. Technically, they were breaking the Sabbath, while they served the Temple. Therefore, the duties of the Temple are more important than the strict obedience to the Sabbath law. The argument concerning David is that David, as the anointed of God, made himself lord over the consecrated things in the Temple. Therefore, if serving the Temple is more important than strict observance of the Sabbath, what did David do but make himself lord over the gifts of the Temple. In other words, the priest’s duties and living are more important than the strict observance of the Sabbath law, yet David was in authority over that which concerned the Temple, namely the food of the priests. Jesus’ argument therefore is that, as Messiah, he is the Lord of the Sabbath and greater than the Temple (Matthew 12:6-8).

When Jesus healed a man or woman on the Sabbath day, he was merely making that vessel of God whole and fit for use, as a part of the Temple of God (2Timothy 2:20). Therefore, when Jesus “broke” the Sabbath, it was in the same sense that the Levites and priests did. They served the Temple on the Sabbath days, while technically profaning the Sabbath. Yet they were blameless. So was Jesus blameless.

Therefore, John’s statement that Jesus is equal with God stands. The opposing argument, saying that if this is so Jesus is also a Sabbath-breaker, is moot and understood in the fact that Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath and greater than the Temple.

Did Jesus Ever Claim to be God?

There are many people who would take issue with traditional Christianity’s using the Scriptures to show that Jesus claimed to be God. Modern theological criticism has done much to undermine traditional strongholds in the faith. Some Christians and modern critics assume that Jesus actually denied that he was God. For example,

Mark 10:18 ESV And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.”

Those who hold a low view of Jesus will use this Scripture to argue that Jesus denied he is God. However, this Scripture makes no such claim. All Jesus did was call the ruler of the synagogue’s statement into question. He made him attentive to what he was saying.

Another Scripture used to show Jesus is not God is John 14:28 where Jesus says the Father is greater than him (Jesus). How can God be greater than God? So, this Scripture is used to claim Jesus is denying he is God. But this viewpoint seems ridiculous because of the very fact that Jesus says: “The Father is greater than I!” If Jesus were a mere man, this statement would be ridiculous in the extreme. It is a no-brainer that God is greater than man, so why would Jesus even make such a statement unless he was revealing something else?

Philippians 2:5-6 says before he became man, the one who became Jesus was equal with God (the Father). It is because he became man that it became necessary for him to submit to God. Before becoming man, authority was not an issue. The Godhead acted as one, but as man Jesus has taken on another office, but because that office is shared with those who trust him (Revelation 3:21), that office must be placed under the authority of the Throne of God—upon which, by the way, both the Father and Son sit (Revelation 3:21; Revelation 21:1-3), showing they ultimately have equal authority and execute that authority as One God.

The fact is Jesus made no denials about his Deity, and the truth is that on several occasions he made very significant claims to Deity. I will be speaking of these occasions in my next few posts.

Almighty God – Jesus!

I have been told by those who hold a low view of Jesus that he is never once called Almighty God or God Almighty in the Bible. One may search the Bible from cover to cover and never once find the words, “Jesus is Almighty God.” While this is true, neither will one find the words, “The Father is Almighty God.” One can search the Scriptures from cover to cover and the words just aren’t there. Why is this so? I believe that the Lord wishes us to search for him. Proverbs 25:2 says, “It is God’s glory to conceal things.” he hides things about himself within his word. The same verse continues, “It is the glory of kings to search things out.” That is, God created us to enjoy uncovering the unknown or to solve a mystery. It is our honor to search the Scriptures and find what God has hidden about himself. I like the way the Message paraphrases this,

Proverbs 25:2 MSG God delights in concealing things; scientists delight in discovering things.

It is true that the words, “Almighty God is… (Jesus or Father)” are never found in the Bible. However, why are the specific words so important? Shouldn’t it be our joy to discover the places where God identifies himself? I believe such things are a matter of faith. We are known by what we believe. If God hides a matter, it is expected that this matter would be proved with abundant evidence rather than abundant disclosures.

Hebrews 1:1-3 ASV God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, (2) hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; (3) who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Here we see the Son of God unveiled as the one through whom the worlds or the ages (aion – G165) were made. What does this mean? The term age has to do with time. It has to do with how long the word of God will endure (1Peter 1:25). It has to do with the very beginning of time itself (John 9:32; 1Corinthians 2:7). It has to do with all ages up to the present (Colossians 1:26) and to the future age that will not end (Ephesians 3:21). All the ages were created through the Son of God (Hebrews 1:2). He, that is, the Son of God existed before these things were created, because all things were created through him and for him (Colossians 1:15-18 – the Son of God, Jesus.

Some try to tell me that this isn’t specifically speaking of the creation of the universe etc. They try to make this verse less meaningful by saying that the Greek word translated worlds in Hebrews 1:2 really means ages and refers to time only, and not the entire universe. However, these people fail to consider what this verse is actually saying. All time – no matter how you wish to phrase it – has been created through the Son of God. What difference would it make, if it did not mean the creation of the universe? Jesus, as the Son of God, existed before all time, whether the age before the flood, the age of the patriarchs, or this present age – all ages were created through him. Nevertheless, so that it can be seen without doubt that even the universe – all that exists in material form – has also been created through Jesus, the Son of God, consider this Scripture,

Hebrews 11:3 NASB By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

The same word translated worlds in Hebrews 1:2 above is used in this Scripture to say that these ages were prepared by the utterance of God. That is, what we are able to see was formed by things we cannot see. The word that means age includes all the material things we are able to see. What we can see is incorporated within that vast space of time (all the ages).

Considering Hebrews 1:3 above, the Son of God (Jesus) is the “effulgence of his (God’s) glory.” How brightly does the glory of God shine? – as bright as Jesus! Who is the very image or representation of the substance or person of God? – Jesus is! In other words, God does not shine brighter than Jesus, and neither are we able to see who God is without looking at Jesus. We cannot know God without knowing Jesus. It is through the manifestation of the Son of God that God reveals himself. In John 17:3 we are told that our eternal life is measured in our knowledge of God and Jesus. Where is the limit of either, if throughout eternity we shall still be learning about God through knowing Jesus?

The Scripture continues to say that it is the Son of God who “upholds all things by the word of his power.” Some would have us believe that, because this power has been given to Jesus (Matthew 28:18), it is not a reference to Jesus being almighty. The right hand of Majesty (Hebrews 1:3) is the executive position of that majesty or power (Exodus 15:6, 12). The Son of God is omnipotent in that all power is expressed through him. This causes him to be ALMIGHTY. He executes all the power of the Father. They are one Spirit.

Just because Jesus says this power is given to him, doesn't mean that he is subservient. What it means is that his glory, which he shared with the Father from before creation, was returned to him (John 17:5; cp. Philippians 2:6-7).

Jesus is revealed here as “upholding all things by the word of his power.” he really is almighty, and he must be so to carry out his function within the Godhead. Notice, “he is the express image of his Father.” As the Father thinks, Jesus acts bringing those thoughts to fruition (John 5:19-20). He was doing this all his human life, because Jesus revealed the Father. He brought the Father out of his invisibility (John 1:18; John 14:9). If the Father is ALMIGHTY, Jesus is the EXPRESS IMAGE of that power and reveals it. Is the Father full of love (1John 4:8, 16)? Jesus revealed that love at Calvary. He is the express Image of our heavenly Father. He must be essentially all that the Father is in order to fully represent him in his essence and his power (Hebrews 1:3; cp. Revelation 22:1, 3).

My point is that we are not able to know God apart from Jesus. We understand who God is, through our finding out knowledge of Jesus. How powerful is God? We can know this only by looking at his Son, because the Almighty power of God is expressed only through the Son of God. We don’t know any more about the Father than is revealed to us through his Son (Matthew 11:27). We can theorize, make graphs to show logical conclusions etc., but in all practicality we know nothing about God, apart from the Son of God – Jesus. As far as man is concerned, Jesus is Almighty God, for we cannot know a greater power.

Colossians 1:15-17 NASB he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (16) For by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through him and for him. (17) he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (emphasis mine)

Here in Colossians we have a Scripture that stands in apposition with Hebrews 1:2-3. Here we are able to see that it is in the Son of God that all things were created, whether those things are found in the heavens or on earth – everything, whether visible or invisible – all were created through Jesus (the Son of God). They were created for him, and in him they are held together. This means the Son of God is before all created things, and all the power that brought these things into existence is expressed through him – the Son of God! Nothing was created without him (Colossians 1:16; cp. John 1:3). All the power we could ever imagine, though we live a billion years, was expressed in and through Jesus. How much power must he have before we call him ALMIGHTY?