Is Jesus Deity?

(Luke 5:21-24) "And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" {22} But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He answered and said to them, "Why are you reasoning in your hearts? {23} "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise up and walk'? {24} "But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins"; He said to the man who was paralyzed, "I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.""

Note that his demonstration that he had the power to forgive sins was a statement that he had the power which belongs to deity alone, with the conclusion being that Jesus is himself deity.

(John 5:25-26) ""Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. {26} "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,"

(Mat 28:8-9) "So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. {9} And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him."

(John 9:32) ""Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind." ... (John 9:35-37) "Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" {36} He answered and said, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" {37} And Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you."" {38} "Then he said, "Lord, I believe!" And he worshiped Him."

(Heb 1:6) "But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him.""

Angels Refuse Worship, only God is to be Worshiped!

Jesus Himself Said Only God is to be worshiped

This is conclusive. Jesus states that only God is to be worshiped by quoting the Old Testament scriptures, and yet Jesus himself accepts worship (Matthew 28:8,9; John 9:38)! The only logical conclusion is that Jesus is deity, just as is affirmed in John 1 ((John 1:1 NKJV) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.").

(John 16:13-15) ""However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. {14} "He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. {15} "All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you."

(Mat 26:63-65 NKJV) "But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!" {64} Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." {65} Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!"

(John 10:30-33 NKJV) ""I and My Father are one." {31} Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. {32} Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" {33} The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.""

(John 8:57-59 NKJV) "Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" {58} Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." {59} Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

These translations use such words as "a god," "divine" or "godlike" because the Greek word qeòV (the·os') is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os'. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ó qeòV, that is, the·os' preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os'. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone.

'The use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of qeòV is highly instructive. A study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Geden's Concordance convinces one that without the article qeòV signifies divine essence, while with the article divine personality is chiefly in view.'

'The use of qeòV in Jn. 1:1 is a good example. PròV tòn qeón points to Christ's fellowship with the person of the Father; qeòV hn ò lónoV emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature. The former clearly applies to personality, while the latter applies to character. This distinction is in line with the general force of the article.'

F. F. Bruce's comments on this passage are valuable:

The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation "The Word was God." Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also "with God".

From (http://www.usaor.net/dtl/trinity/john-1-1.htm)

The WT is basically correct here. Greek scholars H.E. Dana and Julias Mantey write, "... without the article theos signifies divine essence, while with the article divine personality is in view" (p.140).

However, the conclusion the WT reaches in light of this information is where the problem comes in, "So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God WITH WHOM he was, but, rather that the Word was godlike, divine, a god" (Reasoning, p.212; emphasis in original). But it must be asked, the same in what?

The WT is ignoring the distinction between "Person" and "essence." The Word is not the same PERSON as God the Father, but it does not then follow He is not of the same ESSENCE as Him.

Dana and Mantey state, "pros ton theos (with God) points to Christ's fellowship with the PERSON of the Father; theos en ton logos (the Word was God) emphasizes Christ's participation in the ESSENCE of the divine nature" (p.140).

Merrill C. Tenney comments further, "To say the absence of the article bespeaks of the non-absolute deity of the Word is sheer folly. There are many places in this Gospel where the anarthrous theos appears (e.g. 1:6,12,13,18), and not once is the implication that this is referring to just "a god" (p.30).

The NWT renders the first three anarthrous appearances of theos Tenney mentions as "God," and the last as "god" (no "a"). But if the WT were consistent in the application of its own Greek "rules" each of these should read, "a god."

Here are some quotes from other respected Greek Scholars: ( http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john1-1.htm )

What the Scholars say about: "the Word was a god" John 1:1 (New World Translation)

• Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

• Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."

• Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"

• Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."

• Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]

• Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' ans so included in the unity of the Godhead."

• Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

For information on the translations quoted by the NWT Appendix see the section labeled "Fancy Footwork" at: http://www.aomin.org/GERM_JWS.html

Barnes: 'There is no evidence that John intended to use the word God in an inferior sense. It is not "the Word was a God," or the Word was like God, but "the Word was God." He had just used the word God as evidently applying to Jehovah, the true God; and it is absurd to suppose that he would, in the same verse, and without any indication that he was using the word in an inferior sense, employ it to denote a being altogether inferior to the true God.'

Barnes: 'Yet, lest it should be supposed he was a different and inferior being -- a creature -- he affirms that he was God -- i.e., equal with the Father. This is the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity: (1.) That the second person is in some sense distinct from the first. (2.) That he is intimately united with him in essence, so that there are not two or more Gods. (3.) That the second may be called by the same name, has the same attributes, performs the same works, and is entitled to the same honours with the first; and that therefore he is "the same in substance, and equal in power and glory," with God.'

However, it should be noted that with John 1:1 translated as "the Word was a god.", the translation would have the inspired scriptures acknowledging polytheism! For it plainly teaches that God alone is to be worshiped (Matt 4:10) and also (Exo 34:14 KJV) "For thou shalt worship no other god: ...", and also has Jesus accepting worship (Mat 28:9, John 9:38, Heb 1:6). However, if John 1:1 is taken just as given (and as all major translations throughout history have translated it), it agrees with what is confirmed elsewhere, that Jesus is deity (John 10:30) -- not a separate deity, but "one" with the Father. Three Divine Beings Constitute The Only God, i.e., "Godhead," Isa. 43:10; 45:5; 1 Cor. 8:5-6.

Verses Used to Argue Against the Deity of Christ

---

John 5:25-26

(John 5:26) ""For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,"

Barnes: This evidently does not refer to the manner in which the Second Person of the Trinity exists; for the power and authority of which Christ here speaks is that which he exercises as Mediator. It is the power of raising the dead, and judging the world. In regard to his Divine nature, it is not affirmed here that it is in any manner derived. Nor does the fact that God is said to have given him this power prove that he was inferior in his nature, or that his existence was derived. For, (1) it has reference merely to office. As mediator, he may be said to have been appointed by the Father. (2) Appointment to office does not prove that the one who is appointed is inferior in nature to him who appoints him. ... ¶ To have life. That is, the right or authority of imparting life to others, whether dead in their graves or in their sins. ¶ In himself. There is much that is remarkable in this expression. It is in him as it is in God. He has the control of it, and can exercise it as he will. The prophets and apostles are never represented as having such power in themselves. They were dependent; they performed miracles in the name of God, and of Jesus Christ, Acts iii.6; iv. 30; xvi. 18. But Jesus did it by his own name, authority, and power. … None could do this but He who had the power of creation, equal in power to the Father; and the power of searching all hearts, equal in omniscience to God.

John 14:28

(John 14:28) ""You have heard Me say to you, 'I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I."

Barnes: ¶ For My Father is greater than I. The object of Jesus here is not to compare his own nature with that of the Father, but his condition. Ye would rejoice that I am to leave this state of suffering and humiliation , and resume that glory which I had with the Father before the world was. You ought to rejoice at my exaltation to bliss and glory with the Father. (Prof. Stuart.) The object of this expression is to console the disciples in view of his absence. … The discourse has no reference manifestly to the nature of Christ, and cannot therefore be adduced to prove that he is not Divine. Its whole connexion demands that we interpret it as relating solely to the imparting of the blessings connected with redemption, in which the Son is represented all along as having been sent, or given, and in this respect as sustaining a relation subordinate to the Father.

Summary

---

In Summary, the deity of Christ is attested to by the:

• actions of Christ in that he affirmed that God alone was to be worshiped, and yet he accepted worship,
• statements such as "before Abraham, I AM" which the Jews undeniably understood to be a claim to deity (and were not corrected),
• confession of Jesus at trial (Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!" {64} Jesus said to him, "It is as you said."), which the Jews understood to be a claim to deity in that they called this blasphemy, and
• witness of John ((John 1:1 NKJV) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.")
• testimony of Thomas:
  (John 20:27-28 NKJV) "Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing." {28} And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"" Notice that this statement of belief is addressed to Jesus (even in the NWT!).

The Implications

---

Accepting the witness of Jesus and his apostles, the implications lead to only two alternatives -- either his claim was True or False -- one of the two. If True, then any who deny the deity of Christ have denied Christ!

(1 John 2:22 NKJV) "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son."

Any who teaches that Jesus was the Christ, but deny the teachings of Jesus by consequence affirm that Jesus is a teacher of false doctrine, and place blame at the feet of God who sent him.

If the teaching of Jesus was false, then again there are two alternatives -- either he was a deliberate liar, or a lunatic (i.e. one who was self-deceived and deluded).

-- David A. Duncan