Is Jesus Really God?

 

The question of the divinity of Jesus Christ has been hotly debated for centuries. It was an Alexandrian scholar named Arius who popularized the see that the pre-incarnate Christ was a made being who was particular from God in both substance and individual. His see came to be called "Arianism" and was condemned by early church committees. It is one of the Christological positions that falls beneath the name of Unitarianism. The conventional position with respect to the holiness of Christ won all through the history of Christendom, but Unitarianism never vanished. Nowadays, the foremost successful Unitarian (Aryan) bunch within the Christian world is the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses). Several smaller groups, such as the Assemblies of Yahweh and the Concordant Publishing Concern, also espouse this form of Unitarianism.

In this ponder, the terms Unitarian and Unitarianism allude basically to Arianism, in spite of the fact that we are mindful that other shapes of Unitarian conviction exist. Let's begin our study with a biblical text that is often overlooked by both sides of this issue.

Prayer to Jesus

In Acts 7:59, Stephen prays, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. If the name Jesus had not been there, no doubt some ingenious Unitarian would have said that the term Lord refers to the Father. But the name is there and proves that the "Lord" to whom Stephen prayed was Jesus.

How could Stephen pray to Jesus if Jesus was the Godhead? No place does the Book of scriptures mitigate supplications tended to to made creatures, no matter how magnificent or effective, Stephen's supplication was astoundingly comparative to Jesus' possess supplication as he kicked the bucket: "Father, into your hands I praise my soul" (Luke 23:46). . The Spirit returns to God who gave it, according to Ecclesiastes 12:7, and Stephen clearly acknowledges Jesus as God through his prayer.

While we pray to the Father through Jesus, Acts 7:50 shows that it is not a sin to pray directly to Jesus. Jesus always points us to the Father because Scripture is clear that there is a hierarchy in the Godhead, and that while Jesus and the Father are equal in nature, Jesus is functionally subordinate; therefore. We generally pray to the Father through Jesus. However, if Jesus was not of the same nature as the Father, Stephen's prayer would be blasphemy. Romans 10:5-17 encourages believers to call upon the Lord (Jesus), citing the Old Testament promise that "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (cf. Joel 2:32). Jesus is thus placed on an equal footing with Yahweh (LORD) and is shown to be worthy of prayer. The honor that belongs to Jesus is no less than the honor that belongs to the Father. Listen to John 5:23: "That all should honor the Son as they honor the Father." Such a statement would be blasphemy if the Son were a created being.

John, who indeed magnanimous researchers concur made it his mission to set up the position of Christ among the early Christians, appears that the Child merits the same level of honor as the Father. Can any mere "agent" of God have this status? Doesn't God reserve all honor, praise, and glory for Himself? Indeed, He does. Since Jesus clearly deserves the same honor, we must conclude that the only Deity (Godhead) of Scripture includes "the Word" (John 1:1).

Divine titles

 Another problem for Unitarians is the application of divine titles to Jesus in the New Testament. However the Modern Confirmation more than once applies titles signifying heavenly nature to Jesus Christ. The use of such titles by men raised in a purely monotheistic culture shows that the earliest disciples perceived Jesus as sharing Yahweh's divinity.

The Alpha and the Omega

Disclosure 1:8 states, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Starting and the Conclusion, says the Ruler, who is and who was and who is to come, the All-powerful" Notice that “the Alpha and the Omega” is clearly identified as "the Lord...the Almighty.” Some ancient manuscripts read “Lord God” (rather than

Jesus and the Father in Scripture
FATHER		JESUS
Title	Scripture	Title	Scripture
Almighty	Genesis 17:1	Almighty	Revelation 1:8
I AM	Exodus 3:14–16	IAM	John 8:58
Rock	Psalm 18:2; 28:1	Rock	1 Corinthians 10:4
Horn of Salvation   King of Glory	Psalm 18:2   Psalm 24:7–10	Horn of Salvation   Lord of Glory	Luke 1:69   1 Corinthians 2:8
Light	Psalm 27:1; Isaiah 60:19	Light	John 1:4–9; 8:12 Revelation 21:23; Acts 4:10-12
Lord of lords	Psalm 136:3	Lord of lords	Revelation 19:6
Only Savior	Isaiah 43:11; 45:21; 60:16	Savior	Titus 2:13; 3:6
King of Israel	Isaiah 44:6	King of Israel	John 1:49
		King of Kings	Revelation 19:16
Only Creator	Isaiah 44:24; 45:8; 48:13	Creator of Everything	John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:10
Redeemer	Isaiah 54:5; 60:16	Redeemer	Galatians 3:13; Revelation 5:9

 

"Lord") and omit "Beginning and End". Nevertheless, adding the word God and omitting the words Beginning and End does not change the meaning of the text. Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the alphabet - i.e. "the beginning and the end". The use of the title Almighty makes it clear that the speaker is Deity.

The question is: Is this verse talking about the Father or the Son? No one denies that the titles here used denote divinity, and may therefore properly refer to the Father; but do such titles also belong to the Son?

Verse 7 says, "Behold, he is coming with clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him." There is no doubt that this verse is talking about Jesus Christ. So it is quite possible that verse 8, which immediately follows, also refers to Christ. This view is reinforced by verses 11 to 18, which describe Christ decisively.

He who presents himself as "Alpha and Omega" and "The First and the Last" (verses 11,17) is "like the Son of Man" and has "the keys of strife and death" (verse 18). who is he? His identity is crystal clear in verse 18: “I am he that liveth, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forever and ever.” There can be no mistake about that, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, is Jesus Christ!

In the last chapter of Revelation, these titles are again used for Jesus. He says, “And behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give to every man according to his work. I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last... I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things to you in the churches" (Revelation 22:12,13,16).

In both texts - Revelation 1 and 22 - Jesus is identified with words used exclusively in the Old Testament to refer to God. (See Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12.)

Jehovah's Witnesses sometimes point out that Jesus is called "Mighty God" while Jehovah is called Almighty God. They believe that Jesus is "God" or "god" (note the lower case g) in the sense that he is a powerful being created by God and therefore cannot rightly be called "Almighty". However, in Revelation 1:8, Jesus is called "Mighty God." and asserts that this is a title belonging to Christ, not to Jehovah. So we see another Unitarian argument collapsing.

One of the most impartial and honest experts on the subject of Christology is the late, distinguished Roman Catholic theologian Raymond Brown, who, before his death in June 1998, completed another major scholarly work, Introduction to the New Testament, which received rave reviews from the scholarly world.

Brown argues in this book that many of the New Testament passages that are commonly used to support the divinity of Christ are weak as proof texts. As a liberal Catholic, he did not hesitate to disagree with his church and orthodox Christianity in Christology. In his final analysis, however, Brown cannot deny that titles of divinity are applied to Jesus in some New Testament texts.

Within the chapter titled “Did Modern Confirmation Christians Call Jesus God? Brown deals with various passages which seem to indicate that the title God for Jesus is doubtful; passages where obscurity arises; and passages where Jesus is clearly called "God."

Listen how he bargains with Titus 2:13, which talks of "the great showing up of our extraordinary God and Savior Jesus Christ."

Our great God and Savior

Brown notes three main interpretations of the Greek of this passage. An interpretation that clearly separates "the great God" and "our Savior, Jesus Christ," "is not really favored by the Greek, who joins together the three words 'God and Savior.' Again, it could be argued that 'our Savior Jesus Christ' was such a common creed that it would automatically be considered an entity separate from 'God.' 2 Thessalonians 1:12 the placement of 'our' separated the two nouns. Moreover, the separation suggested in this interpretation of Titus 2:13 means that the author is speaking of two future appearances, one of God and the other of the Savior Jesus Christ. There is no real evidence in the New Testament for double revelation.”

Brown proceeds: "The wonderfulness of our extraordinary God and Savior Jesus Christ, where the compound title 'God and Savior' is joined to 'Christ,' is the foremost self-evident meaning within the Greek. This means that this passage speaks of one revelation, namely Jesus Christ, in line with the other references to revelation in the Pastoral Epistles. The possibility that 'Saviour' refers to Jesus Christ rather than God the Father is suggested by another verse in Titus 2:14 which speaks of the redemption wrought by Jesus.

Second Peter 1:1 refers to "the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ," the title God unmistakably applying to Christ. Granville's Sharp Rule requires that only one person be called "our God and Savior." In his book The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey notes, “If Peter wanted to indicate that there are two persons in view in 2 Peter 1:1, all he had to do was add the article before the second noun. He didn't do that. Instep, he composed a sentence within the Greek dialect of his day that would clearly demonstrate to his perusers that Jesus Christ was both God and Savior.”

The true God and eternal life

1 John 5:20 is another interesting passage. “And we know that the Child of God came and gave us understanding, that we might know him who is genuine; and we are in him that's genuine, in his Son Jesus Christ. This can be the genuine God and unceasing life.”

Isn't Jesus called "the true God and eternal life"? It is interesting that Unitarians always quote John 17:3 which refers to the Father as "the only true God" and yet fail to see that Jesus is also referred to as "the true God". Usually due to their failure to see that God is one in terms of composite solidarity: (One curiously address, aside: In the event that Jesus is "god" as the Witnesses claim, and the Father is the only true God, then Jesus is not a false god by this logic ?)

Raymond Brown asks a logical question: To whom does "this" refer when he says, "this is the true god and eternal life"? Listen this most educated researcher: "Language structure favors the closest predecessor, which is here Jesus Christ, who will hence be called 'the genuine God.'...We may learn something from the moment predicate in this second sentence of 1 John 5:20, viz. ,eternal life'? Twice in the Fourth Gospel Jesus refers to himself as *life' (11:25; 14:6), while the Father never calls himself that. Yet John 6:57 speaks of the Living Father.' So it seems likely that in Johannine terminology the Father or the Son could be designated as life, even though both are designated as light (1 John 1:5; John 8:12). However, it may be that the predicate "eternal life" prefers Jesus Christ to be the subject of the sentence under discussion, since only eight verses earlier (5:12) the epistle writer stated that the person who has the Son has life.' Moreover, since the first sentence of 1 John 5:20 ends with Christians dwelling in God the Father, the tautology is avoided if the second sentence ends with relating Christians to Jesus. When all the factors are added up, the probability seems to favor the proposition that John calls Jesus God - which is not unusual in Johannine literature."

When an impartial and unbiased scholar like Raymond Brown speaks definitively of "passages where Jesus is clearly called God," those serious about the study of Christology should take heed.

'Thy throne, O God, is forever'

The first passage, Brown says, where "Jesus is clearly called God" is Hebrews 1:8,9: "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever..." The translation of "God" (ho theos) as a vocative rather than a nominative is preferred by most scholars, and this should be noted. At this point Brown states: “V. Taylor admits that in verse 8 the expression "O God" is a vocative spoken of Jesus, but says that the writer of Hebrews was merely quoting the psalm and using its terminology without intentionally implying that Jesus is God. In fact, the main purpose of this psalm is to contrast the Son and show that the Son has everlasting rulership, while the angels are mere servants. However, we cannot suppose that the author did not notice that his quotation had this effect (to make Jesus God) and certainly at least saw nothing wrong with this address.

"Indeed, calling Jesus God reinforces His greatness above the angels. The picture is completed by a similar situation in Hebrews 1:10, where the application to the Son of Psalm 102:26-28 results in addressing Jesus as Lord."

'My Lord and My God'

John 20:28 is another text that Unitarians simply cannot resist. Thomas's exclamation "My Lord and my God" is too emphatic to be read as a mere honorific. Brown says of this text: “Here Jesus is addressed as God (a nominative form with a definite article functioning as a vocative). The scene is meant to serve as the climax of the Gospel: As the resurrected Jesus stands before his disciples, one of them finally expresses adequate faith in Jesus. He does this by applying to Jesus the Greek (Septuagint) equivalent of two terms applied to the God of the Old Testament (Kyrios, 'Lord', translated Yahweh, and Theos, 'God', translated Elohim). The best example of the Old Testament reference is Psalm 35:23, where the psalmist called "my God and my Lord".

In his assessment of the evidence, Brown says that while the Synoptics do not clearly call Jesus God, the Johannine literature as well as the Hebrew and other New Testament texts do. The truth is that if there is even one text that proclaims Jesus as God, the Unitarian position "collapses." Despite the multitude of unitary "proof texts" used, one text conclusively proving that Jesus is God is enough to destroy their case because all texts are inspired by God.

Eternally blessed God

Romans 9:5 is said to be the most controversial text in Christology. It is a song called "Christ... God of Heaven, blessed forever."

Unitarians say this verse refers to Christ and the Father, and that the Father, not Christ, is "God blessed forever." Note, however, that Baba is not mentioned in this song. Morley, in his book Trinity: Evidence and Problems, states that "in the New Testament, neither Paul nor anyone else added a song to the text who was the subject of the doxology. into the doxology to the Father, he first introduces the Father into the text before giving the doxology. The father is nowhere mentioned in the text."

This is the decisive text for the divinity of Jesus Christ. In his Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Lenski says of the text: “Christ is above all, that is, the Supreme Lord. This apposition is complete in itself. If no more were added, this commandment makes Christ God, for we have not yet heard of one who is above all who not God is." V. Robertson mentioned Romans 9:5 in his worksheet: "After describing Christ's humanity, the faith of Christ is clearly expressed. This is a natural and obvious way of punctuating a sentence. To put a period after a sarka (or colon) and start a new sentence is very abrupt and awkward."

The Concept of "Agency" The parallels between Yahweh in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ are too striking to be dismissed (see accompanying box on page 5). But some of the most powerful texts that equate Yahweh with Jesus are explained by Unitarians as suggesting that Jesus was simply "God's representative." They refer to the Jewish concept of "agency", where a person acting as God's representative was represented as God himself.

Now, none of us come to Scripture with a tabula rasa (blank slate). There is no assumption of minor exegesis or hermeneutics. We all approach the Bible with our own prejudices and customs, thoughts and customs. As a learned sociologist once said, "It is theory that determines what is observed." Our paradigm often determines what we see.

If we have the bias that Jesus could not be God, then we must find a way to explain the texts that seem to indicate that He is God. Unitarians apply the concept of organization indiscriminately to passages of scriptures that equate Yahweh with Christ, without following this hermeneutic approach. Let's ask ourselves a simple question: If Jesus really was God incarnate - just suppose - and God the Father wanted to tell us, what would have to convince you? If God connected clear references to himself in the Old Testament with the words and actions of Jesus, could we not dismiss them as mere expressions of will? True worship of Jesus could be explained as simply bowing down. If Jesus proclaims his ability to forgive sins, it can be argued that he is only acting in the name of the Father, so we cannot add anything else to it. If students use the word "God" to describe Christ, then it is easy to say that people are also called "God" (which means "mighty" or "mighty"). How could the Father prove this truth to you?

In John 8:58 Jesus says, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM. Can the concept of agency really explain this verse? The implications of the Greek are clear. Unfortunately, Unitarians are quick to cite scholars to prove their points when they reach "difficult Scriptures," but the most cited names are liberals who deny the authenticity of Scripture or cultists with no scientific background. "I AM" is a clear reference to the name Yahweh in the Old Testament (see Exodus 3:14) Jesus claimed to exist by himself.

The Jewish response to Jesus' "I" words is the main argument against the institutional interpretation of Jesus using the name Jehovah. Yes, the Pharisees, like the scholars of their time, would understand the Jewish concept of governance, so why didn't they believe in Jesus as much as the Unitarians today statement "I AM" was merely an expression of His belief that He was the Messiah, without accusing Him of blasphemy? They could have simply disagreed with His belief that He was the Messiah rather than resorting to the extreme of picking up stones and throwing them at Him (verse 59). They clearly understood His "I AM." statement as a claim of divinity, not merely a claim of agency This is a strong argument against the all-encompassing "agency" response that seeks to discount the claim of divinity to our Lord and Savior!

In John 5:23, Jesus says that the Son should be honored just like the Father. The Jews understood exactly what he meant: He claimed equality with the Father.

How Was God Originally Revealed How Was God First Revealed In Scripture? In Genesis 1:26 we read that God said, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness..." God could not have meant angels because they did not share in His creation. The New Testament later tells us that God created the world through Christ, which is perfectly consistent with Genesis 1:26.

But there is a well-known answer to this "very difficult passage" that must be rejected as a fraud. It is the view that the use of "us" and "our" is nothing more than a "plural of majesty", like the royal "we" used by some rulers in ancient times. This has been revealed to be false because "majesty plural" was not known when Genesis was written.

Rabbi Tzar Nassi, lecturer in Hebrew at Oxford University, emphasizes the fact that the plural of majesty was unknown to Moses and the prophets. He wrote: "In the Bible, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all kings, prophets, and saints are referred to by words, no more than kings always do. They did not say "We," but "I command"; as in Genesis xli.41; Daniel III.29; Ezra i.2.” (The Great Secret). One of the main goals of this book is to reveal to the readers who God really is?

In Genesis 3:22 God says, "Behold, the man has become like one of us..." In Genesis 11:7 He says, "Come, let us go down, and there we will confound their language..." In Isaiah 6: 8 says, “Whom shall I send, and who shall go for us?

Much is made up of the Hebrew Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4,5: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one!" This is often considered unique, but there are two different Hebrew words for "one." Yahid means singularity or singularity. That would be the word of choice if God wanted to say that the Godhead is limited to one and only one person. The word used in the Shema is echad, which means one in the sense of a composite unity.

The belief that God is a composite unity rests on solid linguistic foundations. In Genesis 2:24, Adam and Eve are "one" (echad) as husband and wife. They were "one" just as the Father and the Son are "one."

Unitarians famously cite passages from Isaiah 44-66, which scholars commonly refer to as polemics against pagan nations, to emphasize God's uniqueness, but they miss the point of the polemic. The prophet is not so much concerned with ontology as with the exclusive worship of Yahweh. He emphasizes that only Yahweh is worthy of worship and leads a polemic against syncretism.

Read Isaiah 44 and 45, especially 43:12, where God says: "I have declared, saved, declared that there is no other god among you." God through the prophet Isaiah attacks idolatry. The true God, Yahweh, is contrasted with the false gods of the surrounding nations. To use this passage as if Isaiah were dealing with the nature of God is completely absurd.

Unitarians have no problem confronting Modalists when they explain that the Father is distinct from the Son, although Jesus said, "The Father and I are one." They are quick to point out, and rightly so, that Jesus prayed for all his disciples to be "one" (John 17). Yet they argue against the view that God (consisting of Father and Son) is "one" in the same way.

Now we come to a very critical point made by some Unitarians: How could the Jews themselves, who speak Hebrew as their first language, not understand the nature of God, and how could the early Christians so radically reinterpret God without equal, if not greater, controversy than that , which arose with the abandonment of circumcision?

The answer is that the early confession of Jesus as Lord and a clear belief in His divinity united the early Christians, as opposed to questions of the Law. Don't forget that it was largely the preaching of Jesus as God by the early Christians that contributed to most Jews rejecting Christianity! It is also important to note that some Jewish scholars from an early age fought against the early revelation of God in their own Scriptures. The book of Jubilees (written in the second half of the second century BCE) gives an account of the Genesis story where the problematic words in Genesis 1:26 are simply omitted or changed (see Jubilees 2:14). Philo explained that God used his subordinates to help him in creation, and argued that this is where evil in man came from, because God could not create evil. The Jerusalem Talmud states a priori that since Genesis 1:27 is singular, Genesis 1:26 must be as well. So, contrary to what we may have thought, many Jewish interpreters simply fought against God's revelation, as they had done for millennia.

Genesis 3:22 also presented problems for Jewish interpreters. In his 1995 book God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, Professor Millard Erickson states the following:

" Another important passage is Genesis 3:22: "The Lord God said, 'Now the man has become like us.'" This created a problem for the Jews. The account of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden does not include Book of Jubilees no verse corresponding to Genesis 3:22. In the first century C.E., the Palestinian rabbi Paboas believed this verse indicated that Adam was an angel. The Targums are also instructive to us in this passage. Onkelos , the first, closely follows the original Hebrew in 1:26 and 11:17, but in 3:22 he says, 'And the Lord God said, 'Behold, the man has become unique in the word by himself. Here is an actual and substantial change of the original wording of the passage. The Palestinian Targum explains the plural basis that God addressed the angels: the Jerusalem Targum gives a similar interpretation of 3:22. Another Genesis passage concerning our purposes is 11:7, which reads: "[The Lord God said:] 'Let us go, let us go down and confound their language.” Again here we have a shift in the number of the verb from the singular plural numbers. Philo's explanation was that God is surrounded by energies. Philo notes: “First of all, then, we must say this, that there is no being equal to God, but there is only one ruler and king, who alone can rule and dispose of all things. .... God is one; he has around him untold powers, all of whom are defenders and protectors of all that is created.” These powers were the ones who came down and confused the tongues of the people who were building the tower of Babel. They had to do it; God himself could not carry out this punishment, which is evil.”

Jesus' numerous statements about how many attempts the Father made to teach the stubborn Israelites should make us wary of any confusion as to why the Jews did not understand God. Not everything was revealed in the Old Testament. The evangelical saying that "The Old Testament is the New Testament hidden and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed" is truly biblical. Jewish interpretation and blindness - should not be a guide for a Christian.

Submission of the Son

The Bible often speaks of God the Father and Jesus Christ, his Son, and tells us that Yahweh is the God of Jesus. The Son is always described as being in subjection to the Father. This is to immediately show Jesus' connection and respect to the Father, as well as to show His submission to Him. These statements do not imply that the Son is inferior in nature to the Father, but that the Father is functionally superior to the Son.

The many texts in which the subordination of Jesus is either implied or explicitly stated, and the many references to a "God of our fathers" who is separate from Jesus Christ, can be explained by the simple fact that Yahweh the Father takes precedence in the Bible. He is very much the subject and center of attention, the reference or focal point for everyone else. Jesus' messiahship is associated with proving God's approval. These texts can also be explained in terms of linguistic limitation; the need to verify the ministry of the man Christ Jesus and the functional authority of the Father over the Son.

Much confusion could be avoided if we always kept these facts in mind when reading the many scriptures that speak of God and His Son.

Unitarian "Proof Texts"

There are several texts that Unitarians often point to as "proof" that Jesus is not God. However, as we shall see, these passages are often taken in isolation and interpreted narrowly, without the significant light provided by texts that speak of the divinity of Christ. Below are the texts (and arguments) most commonly used by Unitarians:

Firstborn over all creation

Colossians 1:15 says that Christ is "the firstborn over all creation." This does not mean, as it sounds in English, that Christ was the first to be created. The word "original" is associated with perfection. In Colossians, Paul battles the Gnostics who felt that Christians were incomplete in Christ. Paul shows that Jesus is not only superior to the cosmos, but is "the firstborn over all creation" in the sense that he is above it and is actually its Author. Even in the Old Testament, "firstborn" is not always the first born, but refers to preeminence.

The beginning of God's creation

Revelation 3:14 is another text that "jumps off the page" in the English translation. He says that Christ is "the beginning of the creation of God." The wording of this verse may seem to suggest that Christ was the first thing God created, but that is not what it says at all. The word ark, translated "Beginning" in this verse, means source, origin, or ruler, which agrees with Colossians 1 and John 1, which say that Christ is the Origin and Source of the creation of the world.

In the Old Testament, God emphasizes that he alone created the world. If we were to understand that God is singular, how could we understand Colossians 1 and John 1 which say that God created the world through Christ? The only solution lies in the understanding that Christ is also a member of the Deity (or "family of God"). Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus "separated to the glory of God, had his own character, and strengthened the world by the word of his power." This proves His divinity.

One God, one Lord

First Corinthians 8:6 is a classic text used to deny the deity of Jesus. He says that "there is one God, the Father...and one Lord Jesus Christ." Unitarians therefore conclude that Christ is not God. But if we follow this logic, we could also conclude that since Jesus is the only Lord, the Father is not Lord. Yet it is one of the Father's titles in both laws. In this text, the terms God and Lord indicate functional distinctions, but both terms are titles of divinity.

One God, one mediator

When Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:5 that "there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus", he does not mean anything like monotheism (Christ is not God), according to some critics. The humanity of Christ is important here, so it is important that Paul speaks of the Father as "one God." The fact that Christ is comparable to God proves that the two are different, but it does not prove anything ontologically. Note that the same verse also contrasts Christ with men, although He was a man.

Not a good one, but one

Mark 10:18 is an interesting text. It is the one where Jesus says, “Why do you call me good? There is no one good but one, that is God." Here Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God. By the word "God" Jesus clearly refers to the Father. It is characteristic that Jesus turns attention away from himself to the Father, whom he came to reveal and whose mission he was sent.However, this in no way disproves the divinity of Christ.

Jesus could lead a man to see the consequences of his own statement. If there is no good except God, and you believe that I am good, then I am God! (Of course His divine prerogatives were veiled during His earthly ministry). If this is not accurate, then are we to assume that Jesus was not really good, that there was some stain or wrinkle in him? Was he denying his goodness? Or did he associate his goodness with his divine union with the Father? It is undeniable that the predominant revelation of God is from the Father - in both laws. But just as men and women are absolutely equal in nature, yet man is functionally superior to woman, so the Head of Christ is God, although Christ and the Father are of one nature.

The Only-Begotten Son

Some are confused by the references to Jesus as the "only begotten Son" of the Father. Does it not clearly show that he was conceived or created by the Father, that he came into existence at some point? No it is not! The Greek mono geny ("only begotten") means unique or one of a kind. The biblical mention of humans and angels as "sons of God" indicates that the sonship of Christ, both qualitatively and quantitatively, was a special kind, the word "one Son." It just shows that the sonship of Christ is unique. Since he is not the Son of God, he is the Son of God.

Another interesting text is 1 Timothy 6:14,15, where God is described as "King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality." This text is sometimes used by Unitarians to exclude Jesus from the Godhead because it says that only God has immortality. If Christ is removed from eternal life, then he is not entitled to the title "King of kings and Lord of lords." But notice the description of Jesus Christ in Revelation 19:16: "And on his robe and on his thigh is written the name KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS." If Christ did not share the Father's divinity - if He was not the true God - it would be blasphemy to apply it to Him such a title!

How could Jesus reveal the Father?

Consider this question: If Jesus came to reveal the Father, which clearly means that not everything about Him was known in Old Testament times - then how could this be possible?

The word God to the normal Jew implied a single individual. If Jesus was to be accepted at all, he had to be seen as acting according to Yahweh's will. This is why Jesus took pains to point out that he cannot do or say anything of his own, that he works in harmony with Yahweh. His point in these references was to emphasize His association with Yahweh. However, Unitarians take these statements to mean that Yahweh is qualitatively superior to Him.

Of course, during Christ's earthly life as a man, the Father was superior to Him both qualitatively and quantitatively. Philippians 2:5-8 clearly states that Jesus divested himself (keno sis) of his divine prerogatives when he became a man. Many of the strongest proof texts of the Unitarians can be easily understood in this light. God cannot be tempted, but Jesus was. God cannot die, yet Jesus died. God knows all things, but Christ in the flesh did not know the hour of His return. No man can see God, but Jesus was seen. These facts do not prove that Jesus is not God; rather, they support texts that show that God became man.

God became man! This is the great message of salvation that Unitarians are undermining. Therefore, denying the divinity of Jesus is a gross and fundamental error. He denies that God came in the flesh.

Humanity of Christ

As a human being, Jesus was limited. He had to depend on the Father to exalt Him, to restore Him to the glory He had with the Father before the creation of the world (John 17:5). He renounced his glorified state and did not see equality with God as something to cling to, but God exalted Him after His mission was accomplished. As a man, Jesus walked the way and made a way for all people; Through suffering he learned obedience and was glorified by the divine nature, just as man will be deified when he is saved.

As a human being, Jesus was completely, utterly dependent on the Father—even for his resurrection. There is a clear contrast in Scripture between God and Christ. This confused many sincere people. How can Christ be God when the Bible talks over and over about God and Jesus Christ and says there is only one God? These passages seem to indicate that since one God is the Father, and since the Son of the only God is Jesus Christ, then Jesus cannot be God.

But remember, we must take all the revelations we have on a certain subject. Passages that speak of God being distinct from Christ cannot contradict equally clear, though outnumbered, scriptures that refer to Jesus Christ as God and that point to the plurality of the Godhead. Always remember: "God" usually refers to the Father. There is a clear submission of Jesus to God. But we cannot automatically assume that this subordination necessarily implies inferiority in nature or a certain time when Christ came into existence.

Because humans are dominated by egoistic and self-centered thinking, we cannot imagine that Jesus would be equal in nature to the Father and at the same time subject to the Father's authority. We are used to Satan's thinking, which is to get more power than man has. This is precisely the instruction that Paul gives in Philippians 2:5: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. Jesus was in the very form of God and did not have to seek the divinity - in fact he had it fully - but he did not cling to it. The setting of this entry is that we ought to regard others as superior than ourselves. It's not that they are actually better, but in our minds we have to be willing to take second place. This is exactly what Jesus did: he was in the form of God, but he did not try to hold on to his divine prerogatives. Instead, he gave up his glory and trusted God to give it back to him at his glorification. Jesus willingly gave up his glory, took the name above all names, and was declared the Son of God at his resurrection.

Crucial to the story of salvation

Jesus willingly submitted and took second place to show the way to man and show the folly of Satan's way. What a lesson! Unitarians still fail to understand this! When we read texts that show Jesus' submission as true inferiority (or the inferiority of nature), we miss a critical point in the story of salvation and a remarkable display of the love of the Father and the Son. We miss the true character of Christ. The Modalists take away the Father's love for the Son and the Unitarians rob us of the true picture of Christ's love for the Father! Although he was rich, he became poor.

Tragically, the enemy who had long been Christ's adversary was able to deceive millions as to the full deity of our Savior. But let us not be ignorant of the devil's devices (2 Corinthians 2:11). Let us accept and believe those texts which clearly state that Jesus Christ is indeed God!

Only then will we be able to answer the fundamental question that Jesus himself asked his first disciples: "But who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15).

 

Written by The Church of God International, Tyler, Texas.