I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,the Only Begotten Son of God,born of the Father before all ages.God from God, Light from Light,true God from true God,begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;through him all things were made.For us men and for our salvationhe came down from heaven,and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,and became man.

Nicene Creed

The purpose of this long article (40 minute read time) is to exegete what the Bible says about the divinity of Christ. The goal is to present that which is clearly, fully, and gloriously laid out in the Bible, namely, that Jesus of Nazareth was and is God.

On each page, the New Testament carries the weight of the glory of Christ. Jesus is central at every turn. Jesus is pre-existent (John 1:1), yet condescended to earth (Philippians 2:5-11), being born of a virgin (Lk. 1:33-35), lived a sinless life (Heb. 4:15) while frequently dining with sinners and tax collectors (Lk. 15:1) to seek and save the lost (Lk. 19:10). Jesus saves through the servant-hearted giving of “his life as a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45). Jesus died on a Roman cross, receiving the mocking and lashing of Roman soldiers (Mk. 15:15-20), and forsook by God the Father (Mark. 15:34). Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). More specifically, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed” (1 Pt. 2:24).

The overwhelming testimony of the New Testament is that Jesus is fully God and fully man. He is the God-man. He was a man who wept (John 11:35, Lk. 19:41), who ate (Lk. 14:1), who loved (John 21:7), who taught (Mt. 5:2), and who slept (Mark 4:38). And this man was and is fully God. We will use six headings to demonstrate that the Bible teaches the divinity of Christ.

Passages that affirm Jesus is God

Acts 20:28 & 1 Timothy 3:15-16

Acts 20:28, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”

1 Tim 3:15-16, “If I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. 16Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit,seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.”

In both of these verses, Christ is referenced with the pronoun, “he.” In Acts 20:28 the clause, “which he obtained with his own blood” refers to Christ Jesus. In 1 Tim. 3:16 the clause, “He was manifested in the flesh…” refers to Christ Jesus. In both of these verses the antecedent of “he” is “God.”[1] In other words, the pronoun “he” is being substituted for a noun that occurred previously. In the case of Acts 20:28, the author of Acts quotes Paul as using “God” and “he” who “obtained” the church “with his own blood,” interchangeably, functionally making Jesus and God equivalent. The same thing occurs in 1 Tim. 3:15-16, where “he” is used in verse 16 to refer back to the nearest antecedent noun, “God,” that occurs in verse 15, functionally making Jesus and God equivalent.[2]

John 10:30, 38; 17:21-22

John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”

John 10:37-38, “If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

John 17:21-22, “That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one.”

The gospel according to John contains multiple statements on the lips of Jesus where he claims oneness between himself and the Father. Jesus says “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). This raises the question: in what sense are they one?

On a grammatical level, in John 10:30 the word “one” (ἕν) is in the neuter gender as opposed to the masculine gender (εἷς). If “one” was in the masculine gender that would imply that Jesus claimed to be one person with God the Father. However, being in the neuter gender it means they are one in will (which is also supported by the context). More than that, though, “it implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power.”[3] That Jesus and the Father “are one” speaks to their unity in nature, not an identity in persons.[4]

Can you appeal to John 10:29 to argue for disunity between the will and nature of God the Father and Jesus? John 10:29 says, “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” What is the context? John 10:29 shows that God is greater in the sense that nothing, whether it be man or spiritual forces of evil, can snatch the people of Jesus out of his hands. This is a distinction in roles, not a distinction of nature.

To assert that God the Father and Jesus the Son are “one” in nature can be explained with the Greek term, perichoresis, meaning there is a mutual indwelling between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. In the work De Trinitate, Saint Hilary of Poitiers explains, “They [i.e., the Persons of the Trinity] reciprocally contain One another, so that One should permanently envelope, and also be permanently enveloped by the Other, whom yet He envelopes.” Jesus and the Father are one such that their divine substance cannot be separated. There is unity between the essence of God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Consider the historical audience listening to Jesus in John 10. In verse 33 the Jews respond to Jesus’ words, saying, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Jesus, who spent much time correcting the conventional wisdom of the Jews of his day, makes no effort to correct their accusation that he claimed himself to be God. This is consistent with an earlier occurrence mentioned in John 5:18 where the Jews understand Jesus to be claiming himself as equal to God, and again, Jesus does not rebut them, “This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” When trying to convince Pilate to crucify Jesus, the Sanhedrin says, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God” (John 19:7).

John 1:18

Jn. 1:18, “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”

This verse teaches a couple of things about Jesus. First, it teaches that “No one has ever seen God” except “the only God, who is at the Father’s side…has made him known.” In context “the only God, who is at the Father’s side” is the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ. Therefore, this is teaching us that Jesus Christ has seen God and made him known. This concept asserts, at the very least, that Jesus is greater than Moses, who was not allowed to see God (Ex. 33:20). Jesus is superior to Moses such that Jesus has made God known. Second, this verse asserts that Jesus is God. In context, “the only God, who is at the Father’s side” who has made God known is the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ.

1 John 5:20

1 John 5:20, “And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.”

In the last statement of this verse it is written, “He is the true God and eternal life.” Whoever “he” refers to is the “true God.” Who does the “he” refer to? Does it refer to Jesus or does it refer to God the Father? It refers to Jesus for the following reasons.

First, the nearest antecedent to “he” is the preceding phrase, “his Son Jesus Christ.” It is customary that a pronoun refers back to the nearest antecedent unless context dictates otherwise, which it doesn’t (as will be demonstrated in a moment).

Second, “he” is not just a pronoun. It is a demonstrative pronoun. A demonstrative pronoun is used to single “out an object or person.”[5] The person that is being singled out is the one who is in the center of the context. The section in which 1 John 5:20 is found begins in 1 John 5:13 with the words, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” The entire focus of this paragraph is to close out the letter which was written with the singular purpose of setting before the readers the Son of God, Jesus Christ that they may believe in him and receive eternal life. Furthermore, the focus of 1 John 5:20 is Jesus, who is referred to three times throughout the verse. Therefore, the use of the demonstrative pronoun “he” refers to Jesus Christ.

Third, the context demands that “he” refers to Jesus Christ. You will notice the phrase says, “He is the true God and eternal life.” “Eternal life” is connected to whoever the “he” is. Throughout the book of 1 John the phrase “eternal life” is used six times and each time it is linked to Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[6] It would be awfully strange for John to break this conceptual pattern and mention “eternal life” in 1 John 5:20 if the “he” refers to someone other than Jesus Christ. Therefore, “he” who “is the true God” is Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 1:12, Titus 2:13 & 2 Peter 1:1

2 Th. 1:12, “So that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Titus 2:13, “Waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

2 Peter 1:1, “To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

In each of these passages, Jesus Christ is said to be God. Some will argue that when these passages use the clause “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” or “our God and Lord Jesus Christ” it is indicating Jesus is Savior or Lord, but not God.

In the case of these verses a rule of Greek grammar known as the Granville Sharp Rule is in effect. This rule states that “when two or more personal, singular substantives (not proper names) are joined by και and governed by a single article, they refer to the same person.”[7] Put again, “If two substantives are connected by και and both have the article, they refer to different persons or things; if the first has an article and the second does not, the second refers to the same person or thing as the first.”[8]

Consider Titus 2:13. In the original Greek the clause in question reads tou megalou qeou kai swthroV hmwn cristou ihxou. The underlined word is the definite article and it precedes the phrase “great God” (megalou qeou). Notice that this definite article is not repeated before the word “Savior” (swthroV). Therefore, the Granville Sharp rule is in effect, and “great God” and “Savior Jesus Christ” refer to the same person. The same situation is found in 2 Thessalonians 1:12 and 2 Peter 1:1, such that God and Jesus Christ refer to the same person.

Hebrews 1:8

Heb. 1:8, “But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is the Archangel Michael.[9] Hebrews chapter 1 makes plain that Jesus is greater than angels. In Hebrews 1:4 it says of Jesus, “having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” Then the author of Hebrews proceeds to lay out specific arguments proving that Jesus is “much superior to angels.” In arguing that Jesus is “much superior to angels” the author of Hebrews abrogates the possibility that Jesus is the Archangel Michael, for how could Jesus be “much superior to angels” if he is also an angel?

In making his argument that Jesus is “much superior to angels”[10] the author of Hebrews, in Hebrews 1:8, quotes Psalm 45:6 in application to Jesus, saying, “But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.” Psalm 45:6 is applied to “the Son” who in context refers to Jesus Christ. Psalm 45:6 then begins with the phrase, “Your throne, O God.” The exact translation of this phrase has been disputed. Some understand it to be “God is thy throne” or “Thy throne is God.”[11] Either way, theos refers to Jesus and thus this passage states that the Son is greater than angels because the Son is God.

Colossians 2:9

Col. 2:9, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”

On the surface, this passage sets forth the deity of Christ. But when you consider the historical context in which Paul wrote, the proclamation of Christ’s deity takes on an even stronger tone. In Jesus Christ “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” The people to whom Paul was writing lived amongst those who believed that many gods or deities together formed the full (plhrwma) Deity. In response, Paul writes that in Christ dwells the plhrwma (fullness) of deity. “Fullness of deity” can refer to nothing less than the “totality of the divine powers and attributes,”[12] and the “totality of the divine nature.”[13] Considering the historical context, this is a strong statement affirming that Jesus is God.

Passages that some use to deny that Jesus is God

John 1:1

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

John 1:1, εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος [14]

A Jehovah’s Witness will appeal to the original Greek in John 1:1 and claim that there is no definite article in front of theos in the third clause, which says, “and the Word was God.”[15] Thus, they argue it should be translated “and the Word was a God.” The Kingdom Interlinear Translation contains the Jehovah’s Witness position as follows:

"In the original Greek there is no definite article before theos, and it is presumptuous to say that such a definite article is to be understood so that the sentence should therefore be translated "and the Word was God." That would mean that the Word was the God with whom the Word was said to be. This is unreasonable; for how can the Word be with the God and at the same time be that same God?" (Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Appendix 1158-59).

It is true that in the clause “and the Word was God” there is no definite article in front of theos. However, to assume that this should render the translation “a god” is an erroneous conclusion for at least seven reasons.

First, it should be noted that many verses in the New Testament use theos as a predicate noun (as it is used in John 1:1) that also lack the definite article (as in John 1:1) where the Jehovah’s Witness would not deny a reference to the one true God. Some examples of this include Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38; John 8:54; Rom. 8:33; Phil. 2:13; Heb. 11:16. Furthermore, there are many other verses in John chapter 1 in which theos is anarthrous yet the Jehovah’s Witness would not deny a reference to the one true God.[16] So, if we insist on the translation “a god” for the third clause of John 1:1 the Jehovah’s Witness must be consistent and go throughout John 1 and the rest of Scripture and translate all instances of anarthrous theos as referring to “a god.”

Second, it should be noted that in Greek the order of the words in the third clause is “God was the Word.” The subjective of the sentence is “the Word”[17] and the predicate of the sentence is “God.” So, in Greek “God” is a predicate noun. The occurrence where the predicate precedes the subject is not uncommon in Greek and is referred to as the Colwell Rule, which states, “that definite predicate nominatives that precede the verb usually lack the article” and “an anarthrous predicate nominative that precedes the verb is usually definite.”[18] In other words, because of the grammatical relationship of the predicate preceding the subject, it is accurate and necessary to render the translation, “The Word was God.”[19]

Third, it should be noted that clauses two and three in John 1:1 form a chiasm. A chiasm is “a literary device in which words, clauses or themes are laid out and then repeated but in inverted order”[20] creating, in the case of John 1:1, an a-b-b-a pattern.  Specifically in the case of John 1:1, the second and third clauses “form an a-b-b-a chiasm, featuring the nouns (in order) Word, God, God, Word. The chiastic structure emphasizes the middle term.”[21] In other words, the main point of this verse is to emphasize God (the middle term) and his relationship to the Word. It would be awfully strange for the Apostle John to utilize this intentional chiastic structure which emphasizes God only to then say he is talking about merely “a god.”

Fourth, it should be noted that in Greek there is a definite article preceding logos. This means if the Apostle John had also included a definite article for theos the translation would be “and the Word was the God.”  If the Apostle John had used a definite article before theos he would have been saying “all that God is, the Logos is: an exclusive identity.”[22] In other words, if John had said “the Word was the God” he would have set forth the attribute of logos as being the only attribute of God. “As it is, he says that all the Word is, God is; but he implies that God is more than the Word.”[23]

Fifth, if the author wanted to teach that Jesus was “a god” who was divine in a lesser sense than the Father, then he could have done so very easily. The author had at his disposal the adjective theios which would be translated as “divine” and would clearly show “the Word” as being “a god.” However, even though this adjective does exist, it is not used.

Sixth, even if the grammatical evidence was ambiguous about the deity of Christ (which it isn’t, as demonstrated above), the immediate context demands full deity. In John 1, the Word, Jesus Christ, is creator (Jn. 1:3), light (Jn. 1:5), life (Jn. 1:4), and the only begotten (Jn. 1:18). Furthermore, the whole context of the book of John demands the full deity of Jesus, for example, the “I AM” statements scattered throughout the book.[24]   

Seventh, the question then arises, why does it lack the article? “Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has. The lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism[25].”[26] This lack of an article, no doubt intentional and no doubt asserting Jesus’ identity with God, pushes upon the reader the reality of the Godhead.   

Moving now from the defensive to the offensive it should be observed that John 1:1 sets forth clearly and thoroughly that Jesus is God. “The Word” that is referenced throughout John 1 refers to Jesus Christ who “became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). In other words, Jesus Christ has been given the name “the Word.” In John 1:1 three assertions are made of “the Word,” each relating something of the eternality of Jesus.

First, we learn that “In the beginning was the Word.” “The Word” has eternal existence. The phrase “in the beginning” takes the reader back to Genesis 1:1 which begins with the phrase, “In the beginning” and refers to the creation of the heavens and the earth. This phrase indicates “when first things began to be.”[27] In the beginning when the world was about to be created, the Word “was.” In other words, “At the very beginning of eternity past existed the Word.”[28] “The Word antedates the beginning of things.”[29] Before God created the heavens and the earth, the Word “was.” “The Word” was not created or made, he “was.”

Second, we learn that “the Word was with God.” “The Word” has “eternal intercommunion with God.”[30] That the “Word was with God” in the beginning carries with it a certain implication, namely, “it intimates not merely co-existence, or some sort of local relation, but an active relation of intercourse.”[31] So the Word existed from all eternity, not in isolation, but “with God.” There is a relationship between “the Word” and God. “From all eternity the Word subsisted alongside of God in personal intercommunion with Him.”[32]

Third, we learn that “the Word was God.” The eternal identity of “the Word” is that of God.[33] After making two loaded statements about the Word that assert his eternal existence and eternal intercommunion with God, why does John make this third statement? It wasn’t enough to stress the eternal co-existence between the Word and God. He must make clear that the Word was God. The Word has an exactness of substance and being with God.

John 14:28

John 14:28, “You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”

Some will argue that because Jesus says “the Father is greater than I” Jesus is somehow inferior by nature to God the Father.

The question is this: In what sense is the Father greater than Jesus? Before answering that question, remember that within the book of John, Jesus repeatedly affirms that he and the Father are one. For example, in John 10:30 Jesus says plainly, “I and the Father are one.” Jesus also prays in John 17:21, “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you.” So the first theological truth that must be maintained is that Jesus and the Father are one, which is to say, Jesus and the Father are of the same divine substance, nature, and essence. In other words, there is no distinction between the divine nature of God the Father and the divine nature of Jesus Christ. Put again, there is “no subordination as far as the possession of the divine essence is concerned”[34] between the Father and the Son.

So then, in what sense is the Father greater than Jesus? Knowing that the primacy of the Father is not one of nature, it then becomes apparent that there is “a subordination of roles”[35] between God the Father and Jesus the Son. There is an “economic distinction”[36] between the roles of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. For there to be an “economic distinction” between the roles means, simply, that there is an “ordering of activities.”[37] Furthermore, if there is an economic distinction amongst the Godhead, it must mean also that “the persons of the Trinity voluntarily subordinate themselves to one another in the roles they perform,”[38] thus Jesus confesses, “the Father is greater than I.”[39]

Regarding salvation, Scripture affirms the distinct roles between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, Galatians 4:4-6 says, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!” Notice the distinct roles. In verse 4 the role of the Father is that of sending. In verse 5 the role of the Son is that of redeeming. In verse 6 the role of the Spirit is that of indwelling the believer.

Such distinctions are maintained throughout all of the New Testament. “The good pleasure, foreknowledge, election, power, love, and kingdom pertain to the Father (Mt. 6:13; 11:26; John 3:16; Rom 8:29; Eph. 1:9; 1 Pt. 1:2). Reconciliation, mediatorship, redemption, grace, wisdom, and righteousness pertain to the Son (Mt. 1:21; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:10; 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 Pt. 1:2; 1 John 2:2). Regeneration, rejuvenation, sanctification, and communion pertain to the Holy Spirit (Jn. 3:5; 14:16; Rom. 5:5, 8:15, 14:17; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 1 Pt. 1:2; 1 John 5:6).”[40] In summary it can be said that God the Father planned salvation, God the Son accomplished salvation, and God the Spirit applies salvation.

Further, the immediate context of John 14 is related to the economic ordering of roles between the Godhead. Consider again John 14:28, “You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” Jesus’ statement that “the Father is greater than I” is tied to the statement at the beginning of the verse, “You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.” Jesus is merely restating the truth that he had already said to the disciples. This harkens back to John 14:3 where Jesus says, “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.” Jesus then continues with the theme of going to be with the Father in John 14:12 which says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.”

Jesus, in verse 12, tells his disciples that they ought to imitate the “works” he has done. Why should they imitate his works? “Because I am going to the Father” (vs. 12b) Notice specifically the words, “I am going.” Then in John 14:28, Jesus says, “You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.” Jesus is talking about the same thing. Jesus’ statement, “I am going” refers to what will happen after his death and resurrection, namely, he will ascend to be with the Father. And what will happen when Jesus goes to be with the Father? God will send another, “Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth” (John 14:16b – 17a) and “the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (Jn. 14:26). So the immediate context of John 14:28 is dealing with Jesus “going” to be with the Father, at which point the Father will send the Spirit. In other words, the specific context is an explanation of the economic order of the Trinity. It is from this context we find Jesus’ words, “the Father is greater than I.”[41]

Mark 10:18

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

In this passage, we have an account of a rich young man who approaches Jesus with the question of what he must do to inherit eternal life (Mk. 10:17). In this question the rich young man addresses Jesus as “Good Teacher.” In response, Jesus says, “"Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” Some insist that Jesus here denies his goodness and thus denies his deity.

Before a conclusion can be made about this passage it must first be asked: What does Jesus mean with his use of the word, “good”? The Greek word is agathos and the idea of “good” or “goodness” is that of moral goodness. The idea of moral goodness is that of acting with positive moral qualities. More specifically it is an action that usually displays itself in three ways:[42]

The deliberate preference of right to wrong

The firm and persistent resistance to all moral evil

The choosing and following of all moral good

The ultimate standard of goodness is God himself such that goodness is part of his character (Ps 25:8; Na 1:7; Mt 19:17). When the word, “good,” is used by Jesus in Mark 10:18 it is referring to goodness as specific actions and character. Jesus says, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” On the surface, it may appear that Jesus is affirming that he is not “good,” which is to affirm that he is sinful. However, Scripture is remarkably consistent and clear on this point, namely, that Jesus was without sin (Heb. 4:15, 1 Pt. 2:22, 1 Jn. 3:5). So if one is to argue that Mark 10:18 teaches that Jesus is sinful they must also admit that Scripture is inconsistent and thus not trustworthy. But the one who believes that Scripture is true and consistent must deny that Mark 10:18 teaches that Jesus was not “good.”

So then what is the explanation for Jesus’ statement, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” Jesus’ statement has more to do with God the Father rather than affirming anything specific about himself. “In Jewish thought, God was preeminently good (1 Chr. 16:34; 2 Chr. 5:13; Ezra 3:11; Ps. 118:1; 145:9) so much so that it was unusual to apply the term to anyone else…The statement does not reflect a consciousness of sinfulness on the part of Jesus.”[43] Jesus is not issuing an active statement about his goodness or deity. Such self-pronouncements, in the context of this passage, are beside the point. “It simply points to God as the supreme example of goodness and the source of all good things.”[44] Within the context of the entire section, the point being made is that the ultimate standard of goodness is God himself and the law is the earthly manifestation of God’s moral goodness. To say that God is the ultimate standard of goodness is to say that He and the law are an example to mankind of holiness, righteousness, and love.

Lastly, it should be observed that if this passage is actively teaching anything at all about the nature of Jesus, it is teaching that Jesus is more than just a “Good Teacher” as the rich young man refers to him. The rich young man addresses Jesus reverently as “Good Teacher,” but considering the man’s warped sense of goodness (he thought he could do something good enough to inherit eternal life), Jesus needs to correct this man’s sense of goodness and does so by pointing back to God himself. So if this man thinks Jesus is a “Good Teacher,” he needs to think again and realize that Jesus is good in the “highest sense,”[45] more so than even a good teacher.

John 17:3 & 1 Corinthians 8:6

John 17:3, “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

1 Cor. 8:6, “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”  

Each of these passages mentions God the Father and Jesus Christ. Some will claim these verses contrast God the Father with Jesus Christ and as a result contrast the deity of God the Father with Jesus Christ, effectively limiting the deity of Christ.

An examination of the relationship between the only true God the Father and Jesus Christ must begin with an understanding of the conjunction, “and.” The Greek word is kai, and it is an extremely common word in the New Testament. It is a logical, connective, conjunction. The logical connection it sets forth is a series in which “each proposition makes its own independent contribution to a whole.”[46] The conjunction of kai is not designed to communicate subordinate relationships. There are specific Greek conjunctions that are used to make comparisons between two persons or things. If the biblical author wanted to show a contrast or distinction between the divinity of God the Father and Jesus Christ he could have used conjunctions like “not” or “but” to “show the relationship between two alternatives.”[47] Instead, the biblical authors have connected two nouns with a conjunction designed to be merely “a marker of coordinate relations”[48]

As a result, the reader can conclude that God the Father and Jesus Christ are to be thought of as distinct. However, to claim that this is making a distinction of contrast such that God the Father is a higher or greater deity than Jesus Christ simply extends beyond the scope of this conjunction, as well as the context (as will be demonstrated in a moment). The clear conclusion is that there is a distinction in these passages between God the Father and Jesus Christ, but it is not a contrasting distinction between deity (God the Father) and non-deity or lesser deity (Jesus Christ). Instead, it is a distinction between persons.

In John 17 the context demands a distinction not just between persons, but between divine persons. To make any sense of John 17 the mutual indwelling of the Father and Son must be assumed.[49] Furthermore, it doesn’t even have to be assumed. John 17:21 says straightforwardly, “That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” In 1 Corinthians 8:6, the context also includes a distinction between divine persons, for in this passage “both the Father and the Son are…objects of Christian worship” and “agents of creation and authors of the redeemed life…both are fully divine.”[50]

Colossians 1:15-18

Colossians 1:15-18, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.”

Some will point to the phrase “firstborn of all creation” in verse 15 and argue this as evidence that Jesus was born and had a beginning, a beginning that was before the creation itself. Why does this interpretation fail?

The author of Colossians is the Apostle Paul. Paul regularly uses language and concepts that echo the Old Testament. This is one of those occasions. The term and concept of “firstborn” (prototokos) is frequent in the Old Testament. “Israel was called God’s firstborn because of that nation’s miraculous beginning and special deliverance out of Egypt (Gn. 17:5, 15–16; Ex 4:22). As God’s firstborn, Israel had unique privileges over all other nations…The prophet Isaiah foresaw a day when Israel would have a double portion of inheritance (Is 61:7). Thus, being firstborn implies priority or preeminence, as well as an inheritance.”[51] “In Jewish society, the rights and responsibilities of being a firstborn son resulted in considerable prestige and status. The firstborn son, for example, received twice as much in inheritance as any other offspring.”[52]

The Apostle Paul echoes the language of the Old Testament in using the word “firstborn” and in so doing it cannot be assumed Jesus was born or had a beginning. In Psalm 89:27a it says of David, “And I will make him the firstborn.” This is quite a confusing statement if “firstborn” means that David was the literal firstborn of his family since he had many older brothers. What does the Psalmist mean that God will make David “the firstborn”? The second half of the verse clarifies, “the highest of the kings of the earth” (Ps. 89:27b). In other words, there is a biblical precedent that establishes the use of the term “firstborn” as referring not to being the literal firstborn but instead to refer to preeminence.

Following the lead of the Old Testament, the context of Col.1:15-18 means that “firstborn” is used as a reference to preeminence and inheritance. In the statement immediately following the “firstborn” remark Paul goes on to say, “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him” (Col. 1:16). “All things were created, in heaven and on earth,” by Christ. Therefore, it would be impossible for Christ to be a creature, unless we admit that Christ created himself, which is doesn’t make sense. As a result, the only feasible conclusion is that Paul is teaching that Christ stands with the rights of the firstborn, “that in everything he might be preeminent” (Col. 1:18).

The gospel claims of the New Testament and its implications on the divinity of Christ

The gospel, in summary, is that “God saves sinner” (Col. 1:13) through the life and work of Jesus Christ who fulfilled all righteousness (Mt. 5:17) by becoming the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), and by bearing “our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Pt. 2:24). Christ saves his people from sin and death to walk in the newness of life (Rom. 6:1 – 7:6) on the New Heavens and New Earth (Ps. 98; Is. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1; 65:17-25; Rom. 8:18-27; 2 Pt. 3:8-13).

The substitutionary sacrifice of Christ is applied to people “by grace…through faith…not a result of works” (Eph. 2:8-9). Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, as revealed in Scripture alone, unto the glory of God alone. At the heart of the gospel is the atoning work of Christ. The nature of this atonement is four-fold.[53]

First, it involves sacrifice. Sharing the language of the Old Testament sacrificial system the author of Hebrews explains, “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come…he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11-12). The sacrificial death of Christ is directly connected to the Old Testament sacrificial system, though Christ’s death is vastly superior as it is a once for all sacrifice (Heb. 9:26). In the Old Testament sacrificial system “the notion in essence was that the sin of the offerer was imputed to the offering and the offering bore as a result the death-penalty. It was substitutive endurance of the penalty of liability due to sin.”[54]

Second, the atoning work of Christ involves propitiation. Propitiation is a prominent theme in the Old Testament and is applied to Christ’s atoning death such that Christ was “put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (Rom. 3:25).[55] In the Old Testament the concept of propitiation is that it covers. Specifically this covering contains three aspects. “(1) It is in reference to sin that the covering takes place; (2) the effect of this covering is cleansing and forgiveness; (3) it is before the Lord that both the covering and its effect take place.”[56] In other words, “propitiation presupposes the wrath and displeasure of God, and the purpose of propitiation is the removal of this displeasure.”[57] So for Christ to be “put forward as a propitiation by his blood” means that Christ’s shed blood covers the sin against the just wrath of God for all those who have faith.

Third, the atoning work of Christ involves reconciliation. Mankind, being sinful, is alienated from the holy God and in need of reconciliation. “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation” (Rom. 5:8-11). Christ’s death removes the grounds for alienation, namely, sin and guilt. Jesus, through The Passion, took on himself the sin and guilt of those who believe in him, thus destroying any basis for alienation between God and man.

Fourth, the atoning work of Christ involves redemption. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:13-14). The penalty for not perfectly keeping the law is the curse of God. To be under the curse of God is to be under the wrath of God. To be saved is to have the curse removed. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” The word “redemption” comes from the marketplace. It refers to the payment of a price. In Paul’s day the word “redeemed” was most often used at the slave market, where it referred to the purchase price for the slave.[58] The transition from being cursed under the law to being justified by faith is accomplished by redemption. The curse of the law is an unmovable reflection of God’s just and holy character and corresponds with his will toward sin. In the righteous character of God, sin must be punished, that is, cursed. The result is that no man can find forgiveness in God unless his sinfulness is cursed in the experience of Jesus Christ as he was crucified.[59] On the cross Jesus Christ redeemed those who are his by paying the purchase price for sin, enduring God’s righteous fury toward sin, and thus effectively redeeming his people through faith.

For Jesus to be a substitutionary atoning sacrifice for sin is for Jesus to be fully God. How can the claims of the gospel be true if Christ is not fully God? Consider that “all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23) and that the “wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Sin earns death. Contrasted with death is “the free gift of God” which “is eternal life.” Therefore it is concluded that the “death” which sin earns is of an eternal nature. This is consistent with the comprehensive testimony of Scripture. John 3:16 speaks of people who “perish” apart from Christ. Jesus himself describes eternal death as “the fiery furnace” where “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt. 13:42). Paul describes eternal death as “the punishment of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord” (2 Th. 2:9).

Coupled with the fact that sin earns the sinner eternal punishment is that Jesus Christ “has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26) and that by believing in him one can have “eternal life” (Jn 3:16). “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve” (1 Cor. 15:3b-5). This creates quite a conundrum if Jesus died for the sins of his people while not being fully God. “If the penalty for sin is eternal separation from God, how could Christ have been resurrected after only three days?”[60] After all, three days falls a bit short of eternity. The only answer is that Jesus is God. Only a sacrifice of infinite worth, namely God, could satisfy an eternal punishment. If Christ was less than God then he could not have satisfied God’s just wrath towards sin as the New Testament claims he did (Rom. 3:21-26).

Jesus is worshiped as God

The gospel according to John repeatedly asserts that God the Father glorifies Jesus. For example:

John 8:50, “Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge.”

John 8:54, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, 'He is our God.”

John 12:23, “And Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.”

John 17:1, “When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you.”

The New Testament also repeatedly asserts that Jesus is the object of worship. For example:

John 5:23, “That all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.”

Philippians 2:10, “So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.”

Heb. 1:6, “And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God’s angels worship him.”

Furthermore, the New Testament repeatedly asserts that Jesus receives, yet never rejects worship, while Peter and angels do reject worship. For example:

Mt. 2:2, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

Mt. 2:11, “And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.”

Mt. 9:18, “While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.”

John 9:38, “He said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.”

Acts 10:25-26, “When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man.”

Rev. 22:8-9, “I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, 9 but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”

Angels and mere men are not worthy of worship, but Jesus Christ is, to the degree that even God the Father desires the glory of Jesus. How can Jesus Christ be worthy of worship if he is not fully God? The Apostle Peter is not worthy of worship. Angels are not worthy of worship, yet Jesus Christ is regularly presented in the New Testament as the object of worship.

Jesus’ divine acts and their implications on the divinity of Christ

The Scripture presents certain acts as divine acts that belong exclusively to God, while also putting forth that “whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise” (Jn. 5:19). More specifically, the New Testament teaches that Jesus does certain divine acts that only God can do. Consider four such acts.

Divine ActAttributed to JesusAttributed to God the FatherCreateJohn 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2-3Genesis 1; Isaiah 40:26; 44:24; 45:7, 12ProvidenceCol. 1:17; Heb. 1:3Psalm 22:28; 47:2; Neh. 9:6; Job 34:14-15; Jer. 10:23Forgive SinMark 2:1-12; Acts 5:31; 7:60; 13:38; Col. 3:13Isaiah 45:25; 44:22JudgeMt. 7:21; John 5:22; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor. 4:4; 11:32; 1 Th. 4:6; 2 Th. 1:8-9; 2 Tim. 4:8; Rev. 2:23; 19:11Isaiah: 13-23; John 8:50; Acts 17:30-31; Rom. 3:19; 1 Pt. 1:17; 2 Pt. 2:4

Why would the New Testament authors so freely present Jesus as performing divine acts that only God can do if Jesus were not fully God? How can a mere angel perform creation acts, or author providence, or forgive sin, or judge the world?[61] The only way to reconcile the New Testament’s claim that Jesus performs divine acts (which are reserved exclusively for God) is to admit that Jesus is fully God.[62]

Names used of Jesus in the New Testament

Son of God[63]

“This is a title of nature and not of office. The sonship of Christ denotes his equality with the Father. To call Christ the Son of God is to assert his true and proper divinity.”[64] No doubt the name “Son of God” is used to denote many things throughout the Bible. For example, it can refer to the people of Israel (Ex. 4:22; Jer. 31:9), or to angels (Job 1:6; Ps. 29:1). However, when used of Jesus Christ it refers to his eternal relationship with God the Father. This is the case for the following six reasons.[65]

First, Jesus claims frequently to have been sent by the Father. The powerful undertow of Jesus’ ministry is that he was sent by God the Father.[66] Second, “the Son is the special object of the divine love.”[67] John 5:20 says, “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing.” Third, Jesus’ works are identified as God’s works, “Whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise” (John 5:19). Fourth, Jesus’ words are identified as God’s words, “I…speak just as my Father taught me” (John 8:28). Fifth, the relationship between the Father and Son is exclusively intimate, “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mt. 11:27). Sixth, the Father has given “all things into” the Son’s “hands” (John 3:35). Therefore, it can be concluded that Jesus:

Is Son of God in a metaphysical sense: by nature and from eternity. He is exalted high above angels and prophets (Matt. 13:32; 21:27; 22:2) and sustains a very special relation to God (Matt. 11:27). He is the beloved Son in whom the Father is well pleased (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 9:35), the only begotten Son (John 1:18; 3:16; 1 John 4:9ff), God’s own Son (Rom. 8:32), the eternal Son (John 17:5, 24; Heb. 1:5; 5:5), to whom the Father gave “to have life in himself,” (John 5:26), equal to the Father in knowledge (Matt. 11:27), in honor (John 5:23), in creative and redemptive power (John 1:3; 5:21, 27), in work (John 10:30), and in dominion (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; 22:29; John 16:15; 17:10), and because of this Sonship he was condemned to death (John 10:33; Matt. 26:63ff).[68]    

Son of Man[69]

The “Son of Man” is Jesus’ favorite expression of himself. Throughout the gospels, it is found only on the lips of Jesus.[70] In the New Testament it is used only four times outside the gospels (Acts 7:56; Heb. 2:6; Rev. 1:13; 14:14). In the Old Testament it is used frequently about a generic human (Num. 23:19, Job 16:21, Ps. 8:4, Is. 51:12, Jer. 49:18). In the book of Ezekiel “Son of Man” is used ninety times to refer to prophets (Ex. 2:1). In Psalm 80:17 it refers to the Davidic king. But then in Dan. 7:13, it says, “With the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.” Here is a pre-existent God figure given the title “Son of Man.”

There are a few notable divisions of how “Son of Man” is used in the four gospels. First, some passages refer to the eschatological “Son of Man” who judges (Mt. 16:27; 19:28; Mark 8:38; Luke 21:27). Second, there are passages which refer to the “Son of Man” who must suffer (Mt. 17:22; 20:28; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:44). Third, particularly in the book of John, “Son of Man” is used to stress “the heavenly superhuman side and the pre-existence of Jesus” (John 1:51; 3:13-14; 6:27, 53, 62).[71]

Considering the pre-existent Son of Man, John 3:13 is helpful, “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” This harkens back to Daniel 7:13 where the son of man came “with the clouds of heaven…” There is divinity implied for the “son of man” figure in Daniel 7, along with a sense of pre-existence. Therefore, for Jesus to use the title “Son of Man” of himself is for Jesus to declare himself to be fully God.[72]

Christ

Christ is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Mashiach, which means “to anoint.” To speak of Jesus as the Christ is to speak of Jesus as the anointed one. “Christ” is the official title of Jesus (Mt. 22:42; Acts 17:3; 18:5) and “denotes that he was anointed or consecrated to his great redemptive work as Prophet, Priest, and King of his people.”[73] For Jesus to be the Christ is for Jesus to be divinely appointed (Heb. 5:4) as the Savior (Mt. 11:1-6; John 1:29; 1 John 5:1). Therefore, for Jesus to be the Christ is for Jesus to be fully God.

Logos

In the first chapter of John’s gospel, Jesus is presented as Logos (the Word). The name Logos communicates at least five theological truths about Jesus.[74] “The first and most important meaning is the pre-existence of Jesus.” John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word.” Therefore the Word, Jesus, existed before creation. Second, to call Jesus Logos is to assert his full deity. John 1:1 says, “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Third, the Logos was the agent of creation, thus asserting the creative power of the Logos, which is ascribed to God alone (Gen. 1:1). Fourth, “the Word became flesh” (Jn. 1:14), showing that God, namely Jesus, took on human flesh. Fifth, the Word reveals God, “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is as the Father’s side, he has made him known” (Jn. 1:18). Therefore, Jesus is fully God.

Lord

The title “Lord” is applied to God throughout the Old Testament. In the Septuagint, the name “Lord” (Kurios) is used for God. In the New Testament the title “Lord” (Kurios) is applied to Christ (John 20:28). Throughout the New Testament Jesus is referred to as “Lord” in a way that is equivalent to the name “God” (Mark 12:36-37; Luke 2:11; 3:4; Acts 2:36; 1 Cor. 12:3). “Lord” is an official title of Jesus Christ (Phi.2:11; 1 Cor. 12:3).

[1] The RSV translates the antecedent “the Lord” as opposed to “God.” However, the Greek reads “την εκκλησιαν του θεου” and should be translated as “the church of God.”

[2]Heiser, Michael S.: Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology. Logos Bible Software, 2005; 2005, pronoun.

[3]Vincent, Marvin Richardson: Word Studies in the New Testament. Bellingham, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002, S. 2:197

[4] The same point is being made in John 10:38 and John 17:21-22.

[5]Heiser, Michael S.: Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology. Logos Bible Software, 2005; 2005, demonstrative.

[6] 1 John 1:2; 2:24-25; 3:15-16; 5:11, 13, 20

[7] Matthew DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001), 64.

[8] James Brooks and Carlton Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham MD: University Press of America, 1979), 76.

[9] This claim in and of itself is problematic. The New Testament teaches that Jesus was fully man, born of women, born under the law (Gal. 4:4).

[10] Hebrews 2:9 says, “But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death.” Jesus, in his humanity, became lower than the angles in the sense that he came to suffer death. Jesus’ being made lower than angels is not absolute, but is part of a process where he then suffered, died, and was crowned with glory and honor. To die in the place of humans God must become fully human while subsequently being fully God.

[11]Robertson, A.T.: Word Pictures in the New Testament. Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, 1997, S. Heb 1:8

[12]Wuest, Kenneth S.: Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997, c1984, S. Col 2:9

[13]Louw, Johannes P. ; Nida, Eugene Albert: Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains. electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. New York : United Bible societies, 1996, c1989, S. 1:596-597

[14] Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (1881):With Morphology. Bellingham : Logos Research Systems, 2002, S. Jn 1:1

[15] When a noun is not proceeded by the article it is known as being anarthrous.

[16] John 1:6, 13, 18

[17] In the nominative case

[18] Matthew DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001), 32.

[19] Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 262; H.E. Dana & Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (London: Macmillian Publishing, 1957), 148

[20] Matthew DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001), 29.

[21] John Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2002), 665.

[22] George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 278.

[23] George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 278.

[24] There are seven statement where “I AM” (egō eimi) are in the predicate nominative (Jn. 6:356, 41, 48; 8:12; 10:7, 11, 14; 11:12; 14:6; 15:1, 51) and 7 statements where “I AM” are without the predicate nominative (Jn. 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5-6, 8)

[25] Sabellianism is a teaching that “retains the divinity of the Son and of the Spirit but in such a manner that all distinctions between the three persons disappear.” Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1977), 290.

[26] William Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003),

[27] B.B. Warfield, Faith and Life (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1974), 87.

[28] George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 277.

[29] B.B. Warfield, Faith and Life (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1974), 87.

[30] B.B. Warfield, Faith and Life (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1974), 87.

[31] B.B. Warfield, Faith and Life (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1974), 88.

[32] B.B. Warfield, Faith and Life (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1974), 89.

[33] B.B. Warfield, Faith and Life (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1974), 87.

[34] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1938), 89.

[35] John Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2002), 720.

[36] Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1977), 318.

[37] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 248.

[38] John Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2002), 719.

[39] The same explanation applies to verses like 1 Cor. 11:3 and 1 Cor. 15:28.

[40] Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1977), 265.

[41] Some may appeal to Mt. 26:39 to argue that God the Father is greater than Jesus when Jesus prays, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” This passage does not assert or imply that Jesus is not God. This prayer comes from the humanity of Jesus in anticipation of his separation from the Father and is consistent with the economical subordination between God the Father and God the Son, as discussed above. It should be noted, also, that there are occasions where “the Father defers to the Son by answering his prayers, granting him authority, and testifying on his behalf (Jn. 3:35; 5:22-23, 26-27; 6:37, 43-44; 11:41-42; 12:26; 14:10; 15:2,8)” John Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2002), 695. Therefore, if you argue that God’s divine substance is greater than the Son because the Son defers to God’s will then it must also be argued that Jesus’ divine substance is greater than God’s because God defers to the Son.

[42]Easton, M. G. Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Treasury of Biblical History, Biography, Geography, Doctrine, and Literature (Harper & Brother, 1893), 307.

[43] James Brooks, Mark (NAC), (Nashville: Broadman, 1991), 162.

[44] James Brooks, Mark (NAC), (Nashville: Broadman, 1991), 162.

[45] John Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2002), 682.

[46] John Piper, Biblical Exegesis: Discovering the Meaning of Scriptural Texts (Bethlehem Baptist Church, 1999).

[47] Ibid.

[48] Louw, Johannes P. ; Nida, Eugene Albert: Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains. electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. New York : United Bible societies, 1996, c1989, S. 89:92.

[49] For a fuller discussion of the mutual indwelling of the Father and Son see the discussion on perichoresis earlier in the article.

[50] John Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2002), 684.

[51]Elwell, Walter A. ; Comfort, Philip Wesley: Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Wheaton, Ill. : Tyndale House Publishers, 2001 (Tyndale Reference Library), S. 485

[52] Louw, Johannes P. ; Nida, Eugene Albert: Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains. electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. New York : United Bible societies, 1996, c1989, S. 1:116

[53] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), 24-50.

[54] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), 25.

[55] See also Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10.

[56] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), 30.

[57] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), 30.

[58] Philip Graham Ryken, Galatians (REC) (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2005), 114.

[59] Procksch, O., & Kuhn, K. G. (1964–). ἅγιος—ἁγιάζω—ἁγιασμός ἁγιότης—ἁγιωσύνη. In G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. 1, pp. 111–112). Eerdmans.

[60] David F. Wells, Above all Earthy Pow’rs: Christ in a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 224.

[61] In 1 Cor. 6:3 Paul says, “Do you not know that we are to judge angels?” This is particularly problematic for the Jehovah’s Witness claim that Jesus is the archangel Michael, for they would have to then assert that Jesus will be judged by Christians, which is directly opposite of what the New Testament claims (1 Cor. 4:5).

[62] In David Wells’ book, The Person of Christ, he points out how the Apostle Paul freely shows no distinction in identity between God and Jesus. Paul speaks of being a slave to God (Rom. 6:22) and to Christ (1 Cor. 6:22), he speaks of living for the glory of God (Rom. 4:20; 5:2) and of Christ (Rom 16:27; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:4; 8:19), and he speaks of placing faith in God (Rom. 4:20, 1 Cor. 2:5) and Christ (Rom. 3:22, 26).

[63] Mt. 16:16, Mark 14:61-62, John 3:16; 10:36, Rom. 1:3-4

[64] Easton, M.G.: Easton's Bible Dictionary. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897

[65] George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 284.

[66] See John 3:17; 4:34; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 44, 57; 7:29; 8:16, 26, 42; 10:36; 11:42; 12:49; 14:24:15:21.

[67] George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 284.

[68] Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1977), 270.

[69] Matthew: 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27, 28; 17:9, 12, 22; 18:11 TC; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44; 25:13 TC, 31; 26:2, 24, 45, 64.

Mark: 2:10, 28; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26; 14:21 bis, 41, 62.

Luke: 5:24; 6:5, 22; 7:34; 9:22, 26,44, 56 TC, 58; 11:30; 12:8, 10, 40; 17:22, 24, 26, 30; 18:8, 31; 19:10; 21:27, 36; 22:22, 48, 69; 24:7.

John: 1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27 (anarthrous); 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 12:23, 34 bis, 13:31.

[70] One exception, if you can call it an exception, is when where Jesus speaks the name “son of man” and they say it back to him.

[71] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1938), 313.

[72] The “son of man” self-references of Jesus carry many implications, one of which is the humanity of Jesus. However, upon investigating the full usage of “son of man” in the New Testament it is apparent that “son of man” refers not merely to Jesus’ humanity, but more so to his divinity.

[73]Easton, M.G.: Easton's Bible Dictionary. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897

[74] George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 277-278.