Does the Bible really say Jesus was God?

True, it cannot be Trinitarian, because in the Qur’an God uses “we” and “us” when speaking . Muslims revere Jesus as a great prophet and the son of a virgin, and even see him as the messiah, but that’s about it. (And they don’t believe he was crucified.) And it can’t be the “royal we” of Queen Victoria. Can’t be the heavenly court either. Maybe it’s like “Elohim,” which is plural. Or maybe a remaining whiff of polytheism?

And we both know what they meant by “better”; they meant translations biased towards their theology.

I became curious and at a social gathering I asked three Greek speaking persons to comment on their understanding of John 1, the Logos and theos - grammar and all that jazz. I did not pre-empt my remarks - everyone gave an identical response, which can be summarised as “Jesus is God” and was with God from the beginning.

??? Was not the question here “Does the Bible really say Jesus was God?” And the answer is YES…so how to explain the Smith-Burke exchange above???

I decided that I really do need to take a look at Hart’s new translation. Thanks for mentioning it. I think it was wise to not attempt to translate “logos,” since no English word can convey all that it means. When the OT was translated into Greek (the Septuagint), “Logos Kyrios” was used to for “the Word of the Lord” (e.g. the Word of the Lord came to Jeremiah.) It can mean declaration, discourse, reason. It has the same root as logic.

“Logos” entered the Greek philosophical lexicon in the 6th century bc. For the Stoics, “logos” was the mind of God. The Jewish Philosopher Philo of Alexandria used the word to reconcile Greek thought and Jewish theology. Perhaps John was doing the same thing.

1 Like

So why not keep going? see if you can tackle the last half dozen assertions.

As Wallace says, it’s not even half a dozen, it’s two. By that stage we’re dealing with interpretive issues, and personally I think if it’s a matter of Jesus apparently being called God in two verses of the New Testament, and not being called God in the rest of the New Testament, then the interpretive weight lies on the “not God” side. But what would I know.

So we should go with Wallace.

Hello Jonathan. You said you were going to respond yesterday, but it appears you might be taking more time than previously considered. In that case, I will respond to your first response to my last argument here as my last response is getting lost in the comments at this point as this thread piles up. Since your previous argument does not address the bulk of my comments, I will address your remaining firebreaks and clarify my position a little more, as well as reintroduce one more piece of information.

Question: Do you understand that Jesus himself uses “theos” in John’s gospel to refer to non-divine humans, quoting the Old Testament usage, and that his usage is cited in standard professional lexicons as an example of “theos” being applied to non-divine humans? Do you think Jesus understood the meaning of this word?

Yes, Jesus used ‘theos’ here in a way that does not mean ‘God’. I have already addressed this at length previously, so while waiting for your next response to my other comments, I will make another point regarding John 10:34 that clearly distinguishes it from the other uses of ‘theos’ in the Gospel of John, especially John 1:1. First of all, ‘theos’ in John 1:1 is clearly singular (theos), whereas in John 10:34, it is actually plural (theoi), so in fact ‘theos’ in its nominative masculine singular form never appears in John 10:34. All uses of ‘theos’ (not theoi) in John clearly mean ‘God’. Secondly, in John 10:34, Jesus is directly drawing from Psalm 82:6, an OT text that does not refer to God, rather it refers to us humans. So, taking into account the context of John 10:34, it clearly couldn’t mean ‘God’, the context rules it out, something very distinguishing from John’s other uses of ‘theos’, especially in John 1:1. So, this will not be enough to salvage your thesis.

Question: Can you actually read this?

John 1:
1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Yes, but barely. I certainly can’t answer your question about it.

Question: Do you understand why translating “theos” as “God” the first time, and “divine” the second time, is based on the actual Greek grammar? If you do, please provide the grammatical explanation.

I have already acknowledged ‘divine’ is a valid grammatical reading of John 1:1, just as ‘God’ and ‘a god’ are valid grammatical readings of John 1:1.

As for Benjamin Sommer’s book, you have corrected my understanding of it. It speaks of the idea of multiple bodies of God, not multiple persons, and the idea of multiple bodies is clearly, as demonstrated by Sommer’s lack of citations to Second Temple period sources, a later development. However, regarding multiple persons, you have in fact only slightly modified my original argument. I will simply re-quote my original argument and omit two words from it (“and Sommer”), and the argument remains valid.

None of this is at all desperate. The works of Segal and Boyarin collectively demonstrate that Judaic monotheism wasn’t as simple “one God one person one everything” – and that the multiplicity of the persons of God, not just the bodies, was known and not at all heretical in pre-Christian Judaism. In that sense, there is no contradiction at all in John 1:1 since it can be understood as referring to the multiplicity of God’s person. And even if there was absolutely zero multiplicity of God’s person before Christianity, which there surely was, then this could be explained as a new Christian interpretation and we can still understand John 1:1 as referring to God’s multiplicity and thus not have to deal with a contradiction. In other words, the only way John 1:1 can be self-contradictory is if we posit that the author could not have accepted a multiplicity of God’s person. If this is accepted, there is no contradiction.

It will also be important to quote Richard Hays again when he says “Daniel Boyarin is another scholar who has provacatively destabilized conventional beliefs about what first-century Jews could and could not have believed about the multiplicity within the divine identity.”[1] Finally, I will reintroduce an important piece of information I just recognized in one of your earlier responses to someone else. You provided this quote:

‘The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so. As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion.’, Wallace, ‘Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance’, p. 27 (2009).

Incredible. So the text I cited is literally not even debated amongst scholars to clearly identify Jesus with God. This isn’t even an overwhelming majority in scholarship, this is an absolute consensus. So, why do you stand against such a powerful, widely accepted reading? Isn’t it clear that you do in fact stand in a fringe position if you do not accept John 1:1 as identifying Jesus with God? You sometimes have appealed to the bias of scholars, but this will not work here since all scholars (Atheist, Jewish, Christian) accept this passage, and furthermore as beagle has pointed out, the sect of Christianity you identify with might indicate that your bias is just as much at play in this discussion. So, the very quote you provided appears to be your undoing, besides all my other arguments that I await your response for.


1: B. Hays, Richard, Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (BUP 2014): xviii.

1 Like

I found what appears to be the Blog of Daniel Wallace. If you think it is not, we can contact the Dallas Theological Seminary. In the post of 12-28-2012 (Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text) he says,

In passage after passage, the deity of Christ shines through the pages of the New Testament—and in manuscripts that significantly predate Constantine. For example, P66, a papyrus from the late second century, says what every other manuscript in John 1.1 says—“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” It predates the Council of Nicea (AD 325), which these skeptics claim is the time when Constantine invented Christ’s divinity, by about 150 years! P46, a papyrus dated to c. AD 200, plainly speaks of Christ’s divinity in Hebrews 1.8. The list could go on and on. Altogether, we have more than fifty Greek New Testament manuscripts that are prior to Constantine’s reign. Not one of them denies the deity of Christ.

And at the end of the same blog post, Wallace recommends a number of books, including this one:
Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ

Thanks for the listing at the end. One good thing I got from this is that I found liddell and scott free online. I had seen it before and forgot about it. I usually just use my abridged liddel and scott from college along with Thayer and go to uci’s tlg when I need a lot of detail, but its nice to have the unabridged version of liddell and scott on my favorites again. Of course as you can guess, I still disagree with your translation of John 1:1, but I did not want to interrupt you and Korvexius since you two seemed to be doing fine. I just thought I saw a mistake to point out and found out that it was actually my mistake.

1 Like

May I ask where you found that quote?

It might be interesting to look at Hebrews 1 in the New English Translation (NET Bible) or other translations: Note especially verses 1-2 and 7-9

Introduction: God Has Spoken Fully and Finally in His Son

1 After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, 2 in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world. 3 The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4 Thus he became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs.

The Son Is Superior to Angels

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my son! Today I have fathered you”? And in another place he says, “I will be his father and he will be my son.” 6 But when he again brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him!” 7 And he says of the angels, “He makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire,” 8 but of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.
So God, your God, has anointed you over your companions with the oil of rejoicing.”
10 And,

“You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord,
and the heavens are the works of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you continue.
And they will all grow old like a garment,
12 and like a robe you will fold them up
and like a garment they will be changed,
but you are the same and your years will never run out.”
13 But to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to serve those who will inherit salvation?

Yeah sorry, I had a lot of company work to get done before the end of year deadline, and this week is really busy already, but I’m still working on a reply for you.

That doesn’t contradict what he says earlier. In that paragraph you’ve quoted he does not say that there is “passage after passage” in which Christ is apparently explicitly identified as God. Wallace acknowledges that there are only around half a dozen of those and all but two of them are contested on grammatical or textual grounds.

I cited the source explicitly, and gave you the page number. Here it is again, with the source highlighted.

‘The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so. As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion.’, Wallace, ‘Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance’, p. 27 (2009).

Here is a screenshot of the page.

Something very interesting I’ve discovered, according to Pliny the Younger’s letters to the Emperor Trajan:

“They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god,”

Notice how they worshipped Christ ‘like’ a god, not ‘as’ a god? Whilst it does not tell us what the Bible says it does show us what at least some of the earliest Christians thought.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

This is an oft quoted text in historical Jesus research. It fits in well with Larry Hurtado’s proposal that early Christians gave Jesus the worship traditionally attributed to God, while differentiating him from God. As Hurtado points out, in the theology of Paul and John, “God” (theos), means one person, the Father.

1 Like

Does it? Interesting, where is this implied?

Every time you find a passage which speaks of God and Jesus at the same time, it’s clear that “God” means someone other than Jesus. Even if you believe Jesus is God, as a Trinitarian you cannot say that when a passage says "Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God " it means “Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by Jesus”. The New Testament repeatedly differentiates between Jesus and God. I will provide just a few examples.

Matthew 16:
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Does it make sense to say “You are the Christ, the son of the living Jesus?” Why didn’t Peter say “You are God”, and why didn’t Jesus correct him by saying “No, I’m the Christ, the son of the living God, and I am also God”?

John 17:
3 Now this is eternal life - that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

Acts 2:
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him, [Jesus] just as you yourselves know -

Acts 3:
22 Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him [Jesus] in everything he tells you.

Acts 7:
37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet ** [Jesus] like me from among your brothers**.’

Acts 17:
30 Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent,
31 because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man [Jesus] whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him [Jesus] from the dead.”

1 Timothy 2:
5 For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, revealing God’s purpose at his appointed time.

It is obvious that “God” in every passage here is the Father. Replace “God” with “Jesus” and see how they read. This is why Trinitarian scholars say things like this.

“First, “God” is used to designate Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, who was known to Jesus as Father and whom he taught his followers to address as Father. This is the standard usage of “God” throughout the New Testament, as can be verified by a cursory reading of the texts.” [1]

Murray Harris spends seven pages examining all the uses of theos in the Synoptics, John, Acts, Paul’s letters, Peter’s letters, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, and concludes thus.

“When (ὁ) θεός [God] is used, we are to assume that the NT writers have ὁ πατήρ [the Father] in mind unless the context makes this sense of (ὁ) θεός [God] impossible.” [2]


[1] William Hasker, Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God (OUP Oxford, 2013), 246-347.

[2] Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008). 47.

1 Like

John 14:28

"“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”

Here Jesus is clearly saying he is not God the father.