More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
No created being could ever allow such words to be addressed to him personally. No angel, no prophet, no sane human being, could ever allow himself to be addressed as “Lord and God.” Yet Jesus not only accepts the words of Thomas but pronounces the blessing of faith upon them as well.
The most often repeated argument against viewing this passage as speaking of the Christ as “God” is that Paul nowhere else refers to the Lord in that way. But such is a circular argument, for not only can one refer to Titus 2:13 (see below) where Paul does this very thing, but would it be a valid argument against Titus 2:13 to likewise say that Paul doesn’t call Jesus “God” elsewhere? Seemingly the person offering this argument is not so much seeking to interpret the passage as to substantiate a particular theology.
He says that all the angels of God worship the Firstborn.[17] This is true religious worship, as the context demands.[18] Such worship is only given to God. He contrasts this worship by the angels of the Son[19] with the description God uses of angels as mere “winds” and “flames of fire.” But, in opposition to this, the description God uses of the Son is striking. Quoting from Psalm 45:6–7, God (the Father) makes reference to God (the Son), saying, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” It should be noted that the passage the writer quotes, Psalm 45, was a “wedding” psalm written in
...more
Not only is Jesus the object of divine worship in verse 6, but we will see that in verses 10 through 12 He is identified as Yahweh.[22] Since Christ is shown receiving worship immediately before this passage, and identified with Yahweh immediately thereafter, there can be nothing strange about the Father referring to the Son as “God” in verse 8.
Finally, in another place where Christ is identified as God, Isaiah 9:6 (which will be examined below), the same truth that Christ’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom is found. The only One whose throne will truly be forever and ever is God himself.
Paul says that the Lord Jesus “gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed.” This is in reference to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross of Calvary. Since it is plainly the coming of the Lord Jesus that we are expectantly awaiting, and since it is the Lord Jesus who gave himself for us on the Cross, what reason is there, contextually, for introducing another person into the passage? Simply put, there is none. The only reason some attempt to do so is to avoid the clear identification of Jesus Christ as “God and Savior.”
The focus of attention in Titus 2:13 has always been on whether we should understand Paul to be applying both terms “God” and “Savior” to Christ. We have seen that before addressing the grammatical concerns, the context gives us no reason whatsoever to think that two persons are in view here. Only Christ is under discussion. One must wonder, then, why anyone would wish to find a second person, since the context does not push us in that direction.
The word “God” has the definite article (“the”) before it. It is connected by the word καί with the word “Savior.” There is only one person in the context to which both terms, then, can be applied: Jesus Christ. He is our God and Savior. Various attempts have been made to short-circuit this rule of Greek grammar, all prompted by an unwillingness to believe what the text itself says. Dr. Daniel Wallace’s work on the subject in recent years has only further strengthened the validity of Sharp’s Rule, and its application at Titus 2:13.[26]
The phrases are identical outside of the fact that in 1:1 the term is “God,” and in 1:11 it is “Lord.” No one hesitates to translate 2 Peter 1:11 as “Lord and Savior,” so why do so at 2 Peter 1:1? The repetition of this construction in 2:20 and 3:18 only strengthens the argument.
And I add that there is simply no reason, outside of theological reasons (which should not drive our translation in the first place), to avoid the proper rendering of either Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1. Both testify to the deity of Jesus Christ.
Both terms are the normal words for the natural birth of children. But when Isaiah says a “son will be given to us,” he uses the literal word for “given.” One cannot help but think of the fact that the one born in Bethlehem was truly a child, born as children are born (that is to say, truly man, truly flesh), but was also the Son, given to us so as to redeem us.
The use, then, of El gibbor of Yahweh in Isaiah 10:21, a scant chapter later, makes the attempted excuse that the phrase indicates an inferiority and does not indicate true deity untenable. The Incarnate One will be the Mighty God, truly, Immanuel, God with us.
Then Paul described the church they were to shepherd as that which He “purchased with His own blood.” The phrase has prompted a large amount of discussion,[33] and, of course, controversy. Here are the two major issues in looking at this passage: (1) The passage contains an important “textual variation” in the Greek manuscripts.[34] Many manuscripts read “the church of the Lord” rather than “the church of God.”[35] (2) There is great debate over whether the last phrase should be translated “His own blood” or, as it is rendered in other translations, “blood of His own Son” (so NRSV, NJB).
So to have eternal life, one must have both the Father and the Son (cf. 1 John 2:23!). Thus, we might well be completely missing the point in trying to find out whether it is the Father or the Son who is being referred to in 1 John 5:20. There is a third possibility that has the added advantage of explaining why John would allow the phrase to be ambiguous. He may well have done so on purpose, for the phrase may need to be understood as describing both the Father and the Son, for to know them is to have eternal life. Given the established fact that John has already referred to Jesus as God
...more
Is Jesus identified as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end? Certainly He is. Revelation 22:12 speaks of the coming of Christ and continues directly into verse 13. There is no reason, grammatical or otherwise, to insert a break here and separate verse 13 from verse 12.[44] This chapter ends with the words “Come, Lord Jesus.” There is no reference to the “coming” of the Father, and the attempts to find such a reference are feeble at best.[45] Logically, if Jesus is the Alpha and Omega in 22:13, He is likewise everywhere else, for there can be only one first and
...more
Instead, the Son’s actions are in perfect accord with the Father, in everything. And again, no mere creature could possibly utter such words. Jesus did indeed claim equality with God by healing on the Sabbath—and in the rest of the chapter He makes sure that we recognize that equality with God does not mean He and the Father are at odds. Instead, He and the Father are “one” (John 10:30) in all things.
But the term does not refer to “better” but “greater” as in positionally greater. The Son was returning back to the place He had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5, see below). He would no longer be walking the dusty roads of Galilee, surrounded by sin and sickness and misery. He would no longer be the subject of attack and ridicule by legions of scribes and Pharisees. Instead, He would be at the right hand of the Father in heaven itself. So we see that the term “greater” speaks to the position of the Father in heaven over against the position of the Son on earth. The Son had
...more
So we can see that rather than denying the deity of Christ, John 14:28 implies it, for the position into which the Son was returning is a position fit only for deity, not for mere creatures. This is brought out plainly in the words of Jesus in John 17 and His prayer to the Father:
Yet what Jesus said was that to have eternal life one must know both the one true God and Jesus Christ, who was sent by the Father. This is exactly what we read in 1 John, where having eternal life involves knowing both the Father and the Son.
Therefore, we can easily understand that the Father was, during the entire time of the Incarnation, positionally greater than the Son, who voluntarily subjected himself to the Father, taking a subordinate position, doing the Father’s will, all to fulfill the eternal covenant of redemption.
When we see the distinctive use of the terms “God” and “Lord,” we should realize that the Scriptures are not here introducing a competition or contest between the two. God is just as much Lord as the Lord is God. The two terms are merely being used to describe different Persons in their relationship to one another. They are not being used to say that God is more “Lord” than the Lord is “God.”
He found subtle ways of teaching this truth as well. One method that John presented, that the other Gospel writers did not use, is found in Jesus’ use of the phrase I am.
“Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58). “From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He” (John 13:19). They answered Him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He said to them, “I am He.” And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. So when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground. (John 18:5-6)
In each of these verses a particular Greek phrase appears: ἐγὼ εἰμί (ego eimi).
But when we come to the clearest and most obvious of the passages, John 8:58, a few translations give a different rendering, emphasizing the idea that Jesus is merely claiming preexistence. How then should the phrase be translated at John 8:58?
They also recognize that the response of the Jews would be rather strong if this was simply a claim of preexistence. The oft-repeated charge of blasphemy as found in John makes this clear. Rather, the usage of a term used of God himself (as will be shown later) would be sufficient to bring the response of verse 59, where the Jews pick up stones so as to kill Him. The phrase was so understood by the early church as well. Irenaeus showed familiarity with it as “I am,”[6] as did Origen[7] and Novatian.[8] Chrysostom wrote, “As the Father used this expression, ‘I Am,’ so also doth Christ; for it
...more
As far as the argument goes, this is true. However, the claim that Jesus’ words in John 8:58 (and the other passages) should be connected to Exodus 3:14 does not exist in a vacuum. There is a line of argumentation, a very solid one, that leads us from John 8 back through Isaiah to Exodus 3. We need to trace that path before we can make the statement that Jesus is, in fact, using a name of deity of himself in John’s gospel.
The use of ani hu by Isaiah is a euphemism for the very name of God himself. Some see a connection between ani hu and Yahweh as both referring to being.[12] That it carried great weight with the Jews is seen in 8:59 and their reaction to the Lord’s usage of the phrase. If one wishes to say that Jesus was not speaking Greek, but Aramaic, the difficulty is not removed, for the identification would have been just that much clearer!
Another parallel between the usage of ego eimi in John 13:19 and its usage in Isaiah has to do with the fact that in 13:19 Jesus is telling them the future—one of the very challenges to the false gods thrown down by Yahweh in the passages from Isaiah under consideration (the so-called “trial of the false gods.”) This connection is direct in Isaiah 41:4, “Who has performed and accomplished it, calling forth the generations from the beginning? ‘I, the Lord, am the first, and with the last. I am He.’ “Here the “calling forth” of the generations—time itself—is part of the usage of ani hu. The same
...more
Lest one should find it hard to believe that John would identify the carpenter from Galilee as Yahweh himself, it might be pointed out that he did just that in John 12:39–41 by quoting from Isaiah’s temple vision of Yahweh in Isaiah 6 and then concluding by saying, “These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory and he spoke about Him.” The only “Him” in the context is Jesus; hence, for John, Isaiah, when he saw Yahweh on His throne, was in reality seeing the Lord Jesus. John 1:18 says as much as well.[18]
Understand, that “was made” refers to human formation; but “am” to the Divine essence. “He was made,” because Abraham was a creature. He did not say, Before Abraham was, I was; but, “Before Abraham was made,” who was not made save by me, “I am.” Nor did He say this, Before Abraham was made I was made; for “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;” and “in the beginning was the Word.” “Before Abraham was made, I am.” Recognize the Creator—distinguish the creature. He who spake was made the seed of Abraham; and that Abraham might be made, He Himself was before Abraham.[19]
The other two times this occurs are right on the heels of claims to deity as well—first in John 5 where Jesus has just claimed equality with the Father both by calling God His own Father in very special terms as well as claiming the same right to work on the Sabbath as the Jews understood to be God’s in upholding the universe; secondly in John 10 after Jesus claims that He and the Father are one in their role of bringing salvation to God’s elect—His “sheep.” In both instances John spells it out clearly that these claims were understood to be claims to equality with God—can 8:58 then be
...more
Twice John repeats the phrase ego eimi, emphasizing that it is the uttering of these words that causes the soldiers to draw back and fall down.
When 8:24, 8:58, and 13:19 are allowed to speak their peace, as well, the reason for the soldiers’ discomfort and humiliation is all too obvious. John’s meaning cannot be mistaken.
We might do well, then, with this understanding in mind, to look at Jesus’ words at John 8:24: “Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” Jesus here gives us the content and object of saving faith—real faith is that which focuses on the real Jesus.
Some might hail Him as a prophet or a miracle worker, blessed by God—but that was not sufficient for faith. Some today say He was a great moral teacher and philosopher—but that is not sufficient for faith. Some call Him “a god” or a great angel—but that is not sufficient for faith. No, Jesus himself laid down the line. Unless one believes Him for who He says He is—the ego eimi—one will die in one’s sins. There is no salvation in a false Christ. If we are to be united with Christ to have eternal life, then we must be united with the true Christ, not a false representation. It is out of love
...more
Of course, if Jesus is described as the Creator, another truth is therefore established. He who creates cannot himself be created. Hence, the eternality of Christ is directly related to His being the Maker of all things.
Devotees of Gnostic thinking believed that salvation was primarily a matter of obtaining certain knowledge (normally available only through their particular group, often disseminated by secret rituals).
Second, Gnostic belief was marked by dualism. Dualism is the idea that what is material (matter, flesh, the world) is inherently evil, while that which is spiritual (the soul, angels, God) is inherently good.
We begin with the good, pure, spiritual God at the top of the diagram. From this one true God flows a long series of “emanations” known to the Gnostics as “aeons.” These aeons are godlike creatures, often identified as angels when Gnosticism encountered Jewish or Christian beliefs (possibly alluded to in Colossians 2:18). All of the aeons, taken as a group, comprised the “pleroma,” the Greek word for “fullness.”[3] Each of these aeons along the line of emanation from God is a little less “pure,” a little further away from the one true God. Eventually, the line extends far enough that you
...more
The concept of dualism led to one of the most forcefully denounced heresies of the apostolic era: Docetism. The Docetics were individuals who denied that Jesus had a real physical body. They were called Docetics because the Greek term dokein[4] means “to seem.” Hence, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body, when in fact He didn’t.
The Son can perfectly reflect the nature of God, and be the perfect image of the Father, because He, like the Father, is eternal and unlimited in His deity.
For example, in Exodus 4:22 God says that Israel is “My son, My firstborn.” Obviously Israel was not the first nation God “created,” but is instead the nation He has chosen to have a special relationship with Him. The same thought comes out much later in Jeremiah 31:9, where God again uses this kind of terminology when He says, “For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn.” Such language speaks of Israel’s relationship to God and Ephraim’s special status in God’s sight.
When we come to the New Testament,[8] we find that the emphasis is placed not on the idea of birth but instead upon the first part of the word—protos, the “first.” The word stresses superiority and priority rather than origin or birth.[9] In Romans 8:29, the Lord Christ is described as “the firstborn among many brethren.” These brethren are the glorified Christians. Here the Lord’s superiority and sovereignty over “the brethren” is acknowledged, as well as His leadership in their salvation.
In both Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5, Christ Jesus is called the firstborn of the dead (or “from” the dead). These would refer especially to the leadership of Christ in bringing about the resurrection of the dead and inauguration of a new, eternal life.
So what can we conclude? Most importantly, we see that it is simply impossible to assume that the term “firstborn” means “first created.” Even if one were to ignore all the background information above, the term would still not speak to creation but to birth, and such a term could easily refer to the Son’s relationship with the Father, not to any idea of coming into existence as a creature. But when the Old Testament use of the term is examined, it primarily speaks to a position of power, primacy, and preeminence.
He quite literally exhausts the Greek language to make His point. Take a moment to read again, slowly, in your own Bible, verses 16 and 17. Notice especially the prepositions Paul uses. By Him,[15] through Him,[16] for Him, in Him. He is before all things. Then notice that Paul isn’t satisfied to simply say that “all things”[17] are created by Christ. He has to make sure we understand that he means all things. All things in heaven. All things in the earth (that’s pretty much everything!). But he keeps going. All things visible. All things invisible. Now, that is everything! But he’s not
...more
But when we allow the text to stand and speak for itself, Paul’s point is devastatingly clear: the Gnostic cannot just stick Jesus into his “system” somewhere. Jesus can’t be one of the “aeons” between the one true, good God and the evil demiurge who ends up creating the world. No, Paul makes it impossible for the Gnostic to hold on to his false beliefs about the world and try to make room for an edited “Jesus” by firmly asserting that everything that exists, including the physical universe, came into existence through the creative activity of Jesus Christ.
Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.” And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” And the four living
...more
Instead, creation is the work of Yahweh, and the New Testament reveals to us with glorious clarity the differing roles the Father, Son, and Spirit play in that great exhibition of divine power. The Father decrees, the Son enacts, the Spirit conforms. Just as all three share the one divine name, so they also share the one divine description as “Creator,” even while maintaining the distinction of roles that exists between them. Surely the believer marvels at the consistency, balance, and beauty of the Word’s testimony to the relationship of the persons and their role in creation itself.
