'The New Testament does not often call Jesus "God." Contrary, though, to - what some people argue, it does assign that name to Jesus several times. In this chapter, we will examine several key texts that are the subject of much debate. We shall see that in most of these texts the evidence is decisively in support of the conclusion that Jesus Christ is indeed God. The Messiah as God in Isaiah The belief that Jesus Christ is God has some precedent in the Old Testament, especially in the book of Isaiah, which affirms more than once that the future Messiah would be God. The most explicit of these affirmations are in the same section of the book, in chapters 7-12, that focuses on the judgment about to come on the northern kingdom of Israel and on what this judgment would mean to Jerusalem and the southern kingdom of Judah.
Although the immediate concern was the Assyrian Empire and its conquest of Israel - events that took place during Isaiah's lifetime - the issue of the future of the Davidic line in Jerusalem broadened Isaiah's prophetic vision far beyond his own day. This is the context of Isaiah's most controversial prophecy. Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. (7:14) In the immediate context, Immanuel apparently was a child born during the reign of Ahaz (the king to whom Isaiah was speaking). The short time it took for Immanuel to reach maturity was to be the measure of the time Ahaz's two enemy kings had left (7:1-9, 15-16; 8:8). Other considerations, though, point to a future child. Perhaps a child named Immanuel born in Isaiah's time was a precursor to the future child.
Most of the debate over Isaiah 7:14 centers on the Hebrew almah, translated "virgin" (Greek, parthenos) in the Septuagint and in Matthew 1:23. Critics of Matthew 1:23, which cites Isaiah 7:14 in reference to the virginal conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary, routinely assert that almah meant simply "young woman" and not necessarily a virgin, which, they say, would have been better denoted using the word bethulah. But this objection to the traditional interpretation is mistaken. The word almah never refers to a married woman, and usually it is clear or implied that the woman is unmarried and a virgin (Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8; Ps. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8).
In one of these texts the Septuagint translated almah as "virgin" (parthenos, Gen. 24:43), just as it did in Isaiah 7:14. In the other texts, the Septuagint used forms of the word neanis, "young girl," a translation that also includes the idea of virginity. An almah is neither a child nor a mature woman, but a young woman who is unmarried but old enough to become married. The old-fashioned word "maiden" might be the best one-word substitute. As the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament correctly concludes, almah "represents a young woman, one of whose characteristics is virginity."
Another reason for understanding Isaiah's prophecy as referring to something beyond the ordinary birth of a boy in the eighth century B.C. is that Isaiah soon gave another, similar prophecy that is clearly messianic: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. (9:6-7)
The context is still the same: assurance that God will fulfill his promise of an everlasting Davidic kingdom despite the impending judgment that is coming on Israel through Assyria and the subsequent judgment on Judah. Both texts speak of a "child" and "son" whom God will "give"; both say that "his name will be called" something that gives assurance of God's presence. In context, then, we should interpret this prophecy as a further revelation about the Immanuel child of Isaiah 7:14. Yet this child is indisputably a Davidic Messiah, since he will reign on David's throne forever (9:7). In retrospect, Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 holds up very well. Now, in both prophecies Isaiah appears to call this wonder-child God. In Isaiah 7:14 he calls the child Immanuel, which, as Matthew points out, means "God is with us" (1:23).
If there was an eighth-century boy named Immanuel, he was not, of course, God incarnate; then again, neither was he born of a virgin nor did he come to be the Messiah and Savior of the world. That eighth-century boy was a type or foreshadowing figure of Jesus, the real Immanuel, who really is God with us. In Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah calls the future Messiah "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." The question is whether these titles are descriptive of the Messiah himself or simply express affirmations about the God he represents. There are good reasons to think they describe the Messiah. Isaiah goes on to credit the Messiah with doing just what the titles express: he establishes peace and rules forever over an everlasting kingdom (v. 7). Another prophecy of Isaiah about the Messiah later in the same section describes him as imbued with the Spirit of counsel (11:1-2). In short, Isaiah indicates that the child will live up to his name.
Isaiah, then, refers to the future Messiah as Immanuel, meaning "God is with us," and as "Mighty God" (Isa. 10:21). These are not the only statements in Isaiah that suggest that the Messiah will be God. Later in the book, Isaiah' states repeatedly that God is coming to redeem, restore, and rule over his people (Isa. 40:9-11; 43:10-13; 59:15-20). Perhaps the most famous such statement in Isaiah is the following: (40:3) The voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the LORD; Make straight in the desert A Highway for our God."
The Gospel of John contains at least two, and probably three, statements explicitly identifying Jesus Christ as God. The first of these statements comes in the very first sentence of the book: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1:1). "Word" (Greek, logos) is a name for Jesus Christ, referring here to Christ in his existence prior to becoming a human being. Thus, verse 14 says, "And the Word became flesh and lived among us," and verse 17 identifies this incarnate Word as "Jesus Christ" (see also 1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). The second reference is in verse 18, which apparently also calls Jesus "God": "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known." There is a textual question here, since some manuscripts do not call Jesus "God" in verse 18; we will return to this question later. The third reference to Jesus as God in the Gospel is also the most emphatic, and it comes at the climax of the book. The apostle Thomas, confronted by the risen Jesus, responds to him by saying, "My Lord and my God!" (20:28). Jesus as God in John's Prologue (John 1:1-18) We begin with the first two references to Christ as God (John 1:1, 18). These statements function like bookmarks indicating the beginning and the ending of the introduction of what is commonly called the prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18).
Between these two statements that call Jesus "God" is a rich tapestry of affirmations about Jesus that confirm his identity as God.' John says that the Word was already existing' "in the beginning" (vv. 1-2). The opening words of the Gospel, "In the beginning" (en arche), are the same as the opening words of the Old Testament, "In the beginning" (Gen. 1:1). This is not mere coincidence, since both passages go on immediately to talk about creation and light (Gen. 1:1, 3-5; John 1:3-5, 9). John states that everything that came into existence-the world itself-did so through the Word (vv. 3, 10). These statements affirming the Word's existence before creation and his involvement in bringing about the existence of all creation reveal him to be eternal and uncreated - two essential attributes of God, as we saw in part 2. John concludes this part of the prologue with a call for people to "believe in His name" (v. 12) - one of the divine honors that the New Testament often indicates we are to extend toward Christ.
The identity of this Word starts to become clear when John writes, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (v. 14). The word that the NIV translates "made his dwelling" (eskenosen) literally meant to pitch one's tent in a place, and it alludes in this context to God's dwelling among the Israelites in the tabernacle. The tabernacle essentially was a tent where God made his presence known to the Israelites and met with them. Before the Israelites constructed the tabernacle, Moses would pitch an ordinary tent away from the camp and meet God there (Exod. 33:7-11). When the tabernacle was finished, "the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle" (Exod. 40:35). Later, the temple served the same purpose as the tabernacle (cf. Ps. 74:7). John says that the Word that made his dwelling among us has the "glory as of the only Son from the Father" (v. 14). This statement is a way of saying that the Son is just like his Father when it comes to glory (a "chip off the old block," some people still say). John then gets specific: the Son's glory is "full of grace and truth" (v. 14).
This description of the Son echoes God's description of himself to Moses, who had asked at the tent of meeting to see God's "glory" (Exod. 33:18). God's response was to descend in a cloud and to proclaim that he is "abounding in lovingkindness and truth" (Exod. 34:6). What John says here must have been startling to Jews in his day in a couple of ways. First, John is implying that the revelation of God's loving-kindness, or grace, and truth that came through Jesus superseded the revelation that came to and through Moses. John makes that plain two sentences later: "The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (v. 17).
John also makes explicit the second, even more startling implication: the revelation that Moses received of God's glory, of God himself, was only an anticipation of the revelation of God that came through his incarnate Son. John's statement, "No one has ever seen God" (v. 18a), clearly recalls the Lord's statement to Moses, "No man can see Me and live" (Exod. 33:20 ). John concludes, "It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known" (v. 18b). Jesus as God in John 1:1 Now that we have looked at these two affirmations of Jesus as "God" in the prologue, we want to address the most important questions or difficulties that commentators raise about them. The primary issue of controversy in John 1:1 is how best to translate the last part of the verse (usually translated "and the Word was God"). Some translators have rendered the last clause to say that the Word was "divine" (e.g., Moffatt, Goodspeed) rather than "God." The Revised English Bible (1989) translates, "and what God was, the Word was."
The New World Translation (NWT), published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is notorious for its rendering, "and the Word was a god." The NWT was not the first version to adopt this rendering, but it is by far the best known. Since an adequate treatment of this controversial question would be rather lengthy, we will be content to summarize our conclusion as simply as we can and refer the interested reader to works that explore the question in more detail. There are really two issues here. The Now that we have looked at these two affirmations of Jesus as "God" in the prologue, we want to address the most important questions or difficulties that commentators raise about them.
The primary issue of controversy in John 1:1 is how best to translate the last part of the verse (usually translated "and the Word was God"). Some translators have rendered the last clause to say that the Word was "divine" (e.g., Moffatt, Goodspeed) rather than "God."' The Revised English Bible (1989) translates, "and what God was, the Word was." The New World Translation (NWT), published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is notorious for its rendering, "and the Word was a god." The NWT was not the first version to adopt this rendering, but it is by far the best known. Since an adequate treatment of this controversial question would be rather lengthy, we will be content to summarize our conclusion as simply as we can and refer the interested reader to works that explore the question in more detail.
There are really two issues here. The first is how John can say that the Word was with God and yet also that the Word was God. The second question has to do with the well-known fact that the Greek article (the word we often translate as "the") is present before "God" in the second clause but not before "God" in the third clause. In order to understand the issue, it will be helpful to set out the whole verse in interlinear fashion: en arche in ho logos in beginning was the word (first clause) kai ho logos in pros ton theon and the word was with the god (second clause) kai theos in ho logos and god was the word (third clause) Advocates of the alternate translations argue that the absence of the article "the" (Greek, ho, which appears in front of logos) in front of theos avoids the problem of the second and third clauses contradicting each other. The second first is how John can say that the Word was with God and yet also that the Word was God. The second question has to do with the well-known fact that the Greek article (the word we often translate as "the") is present before "God" in the second clause but not before "God" in the third clause. After verse 2, which summarizes the first two clauses of verse 1, theos appears five times in the prologue, each time without the article, and in the first four occurrences everyone agrees it means "God" (vv. 6, 12, 13, 18a, 18b).
Although the immediate concern was the Assyrian Empire and its conquest of Israel - events that took place during Isaiah's lifetime - the issue of the future of the Davidic line in Jerusalem broadened Isaiah's prophetic vision far beyond his own day. This is the context of Isaiah's most controversial prophecy. Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. (7:14) In the immediate context, Immanuel apparently was a child born during the reign of Ahaz (the king to whom Isaiah was speaking). The short time it took for Immanuel to reach maturity was to be the measure of the time Ahaz's two enemy kings had left (7:1-9, 15-16; 8:8). Other considerations, though, point to a future child. Perhaps a child named Immanuel born in Isaiah's time was a precursor to the future child.
Most of the debate over Isaiah 7:14 centers on the Hebrew almah, translated "virgin" (Greek, parthenos) in the Septuagint and in Matthew 1:23. Critics of Matthew 1:23, which cites Isaiah 7:14 in reference to the virginal conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary, routinely assert that almah meant simply "young woman" and not necessarily a virgin, which, they say, would have been better denoted using the word bethulah. But this objection to the traditional interpretation is mistaken. The word almah never refers to a married woman, and usually it is clear or implied that the woman is unmarried and a virgin (Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8; Ps. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8).
In one of these texts the Septuagint translated almah as "virgin" (parthenos, Gen. 24:43), just as it did in Isaiah 7:14. In the other texts, the Septuagint used forms of the word neanis, "young girl," a translation that also includes the idea of virginity. An almah is neither a child nor a mature woman, but a young woman who is unmarried but old enough to become married. The old-fashioned word "maiden" might be the best one-word substitute. As the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament correctly concludes, almah "represents a young woman, one of whose characteristics is virginity."
Another reason for understanding Isaiah's prophecy as referring to something beyond the ordinary birth of a boy in the eighth century B.C. is that Isaiah soon gave another, similar prophecy that is clearly messianic: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. (9:6-7)
The context is still the same: assurance that God will fulfill his promise of an everlasting Davidic kingdom despite the impending judgment that is coming on Israel through Assyria and the subsequent judgment on Judah. Both texts speak of a "child" and "son" whom God will "give"; both say that "his name will be called" something that gives assurance of God's presence. In context, then, we should interpret this prophecy as a further revelation about the Immanuel child of Isaiah 7:14. Yet this child is indisputably a Davidic Messiah, since he will reign on David's throne forever (9:7). In retrospect, Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 holds up very well. Now, in both prophecies Isaiah appears to call this wonder-child God. In Isaiah 7:14 he calls the child Immanuel, which, as Matthew points out, means "God is with us" (1:23).
If there was an eighth-century boy named Immanuel, he was not, of course, God incarnate; then again, neither was he born of a virgin nor did he come to be the Messiah and Savior of the world. That eighth-century boy was a type or foreshadowing figure of Jesus, the real Immanuel, who really is God with us. In Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah calls the future Messiah "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." The question is whether these titles are descriptive of the Messiah himself or simply express affirmations about the God he represents. There are good reasons to think they describe the Messiah. Isaiah goes on to credit the Messiah with doing just what the titles express: he establishes peace and rules forever over an everlasting kingdom (v. 7). Another prophecy of Isaiah about the Messiah later in the same section describes him as imbued with the Spirit of counsel (11:1-2). In short, Isaiah indicates that the child will live up to his name.
Isaiah, then, refers to the future Messiah as Immanuel, meaning "God is with us," and as "Mighty God" (Isa. 10:21). These are not the only statements in Isaiah that suggest that the Messiah will be God. Later in the book, Isaiah' states repeatedly that God is coming to redeem, restore, and rule over his people (Isa. 40:9-11; 43:10-13; 59:15-20). Perhaps the most famous such statement in Isaiah is the following: (40:3) The voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the LORD; Make straight in the desert A Highway for our God."
The Gospel of John contains at least two, and probably three, statements explicitly identifying Jesus Christ as God. The first of these statements comes in the very first sentence of the book: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1:1). "Word" (Greek, logos) is a name for Jesus Christ, referring here to Christ in his existence prior to becoming a human being. Thus, verse 14 says, "And the Word became flesh and lived among us," and verse 17 identifies this incarnate Word as "Jesus Christ" (see also 1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). The second reference is in verse 18, which apparently also calls Jesus "God": "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known." There is a textual question here, since some manuscripts do not call Jesus "God" in verse 18; we will return to this question later. The third reference to Jesus as God in the Gospel is also the most emphatic, and it comes at the climax of the book. The apostle Thomas, confronted by the risen Jesus, responds to him by saying, "My Lord and my God!" (20:28). Jesus as God in John's Prologue (John 1:1-18) We begin with the first two references to Christ as God (John 1:1, 18). These statements function like bookmarks indicating the beginning and the ending of the introduction of what is commonly called the prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18).
Between these two statements that call Jesus "God" is a rich tapestry of affirmations about Jesus that confirm his identity as God.' John says that the Word was already existing' "in the beginning" (vv. 1-2). The opening words of the Gospel, "In the beginning" (en arche), are the same as the opening words of the Old Testament, "In the beginning" (Gen. 1:1). This is not mere coincidence, since both passages go on immediately to talk about creation and light (Gen. 1:1, 3-5; John 1:3-5, 9). John states that everything that came into existence-the world itself-did so through the Word (vv. 3, 10). These statements affirming the Word's existence before creation and his involvement in bringing about the existence of all creation reveal him to be eternal and uncreated - two essential attributes of God, as we saw in part 2. John concludes this part of the prologue with a call for people to "believe in His name" (v. 12) - one of the divine honors that the New Testament often indicates we are to extend toward Christ.
The identity of this Word starts to become clear when John writes, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (v. 14). The word that the NIV translates "made his dwelling" (eskenosen) literally meant to pitch one's tent in a place, and it alludes in this context to God's dwelling among the Israelites in the tabernacle. The tabernacle essentially was a tent where God made his presence known to the Israelites and met with them. Before the Israelites constructed the tabernacle, Moses would pitch an ordinary tent away from the camp and meet God there (Exod. 33:7-11). When the tabernacle was finished, "the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle" (Exod. 40:35). Later, the temple served the same purpose as the tabernacle (cf. Ps. 74:7). John says that the Word that made his dwelling among us has the "glory as of the only Son from the Father" (v. 14). This statement is a way of saying that the Son is just like his Father when it comes to glory (a "chip off the old block," some people still say). John then gets specific: the Son's glory is "full of grace and truth" (v. 14).
This description of the Son echoes God's description of himself to Moses, who had asked at the tent of meeting to see God's "glory" (Exod. 33:18). God's response was to descend in a cloud and to proclaim that he is "abounding in lovingkindness and truth" (Exod. 34:6). What John says here must have been startling to Jews in his day in a couple of ways. First, John is implying that the revelation of God's loving-kindness, or grace, and truth that came through Jesus superseded the revelation that came to and through Moses. John makes that plain two sentences later: "The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (v. 17).
John also makes explicit the second, even more startling implication: the revelation that Moses received of God's glory, of God himself, was only an anticipation of the revelation of God that came through his incarnate Son. John's statement, "No one has ever seen God" (v. 18a), clearly recalls the Lord's statement to Moses, "No man can see Me and live" (Exod. 33:20 ). John concludes, "It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known" (v. 18b). Jesus as God in John 1:1 Now that we have looked at these two affirmations of Jesus as "God" in the prologue, we want to address the most important questions or difficulties that commentators raise about them. The primary issue of controversy in John 1:1 is how best to translate the last part of the verse (usually translated "and the Word was God"). Some translators have rendered the last clause to say that the Word was "divine" (e.g., Moffatt, Goodspeed) rather than "God." The Revised English Bible (1989) translates, "and what God was, the Word was."
The New World Translation (NWT), published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is notorious for its rendering, "and the Word was a god." The NWT was not the first version to adopt this rendering, but it is by far the best known. Since an adequate treatment of this controversial question would be rather lengthy, we will be content to summarize our conclusion as simply as we can and refer the interested reader to works that explore the question in more detail. There are really two issues here. The Now that we have looked at these two affirmations of Jesus as "God" in the prologue, we want to address the most important questions or difficulties that commentators raise about them.
The primary issue of controversy in John 1:1 is how best to translate the last part of the verse (usually translated "and the Word was God"). Some translators have rendered the last clause to say that the Word was "divine" (e.g., Moffatt, Goodspeed) rather than "God."' The Revised English Bible (1989) translates, "and what God was, the Word was." The New World Translation (NWT), published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is notorious for its rendering, "and the Word was a god." The NWT was not the first version to adopt this rendering, but it is by far the best known. Since an adequate treatment of this controversial question would be rather lengthy, we will be content to summarize our conclusion as simply as we can and refer the interested reader to works that explore the question in more detail.
There are really two issues here. The first is how John can say that the Word was with God and yet also that the Word was God. The second question has to do with the well-known fact that the Greek article (the word we often translate as "the") is present before "God" in the second clause but not before "God" in the third clause. In order to understand the issue, it will be helpful to set out the whole verse in interlinear fashion: en arche in ho logos in beginning was the word (first clause) kai ho logos in pros ton theon and the word was with the god (second clause) kai theos in ho logos and god was the word (third clause) Advocates of the alternate translations argue that the absence of the article "the" (Greek, ho, which appears in front of logos) in front of theos avoids the problem of the second and third clauses contradicting each other. The second first is how John can say that the Word was with God and yet also that the Word was God. The second question has to do with the well-known fact that the Greek article (the word we often translate as "the") is present before "God" in the second clause but not before "God" in the third clause. After verse 2, which summarizes the first two clauses of verse 1, theos appears five times in the prologue, each time without the article, and in the first four occurrences everyone agrees it means "God" (vv. 6, 12, 13, 18a, 18b).
