Jesus as God:

Explicit References

 

Paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 in the KNOWLEDGE book states:

 

…Others have distorted Jesus’ role, worshipping him as Almighty God…[1]

 

The WTBTS asserts that believing Jesus is Almighty God is a distortion and elaborates in “Those Who Are Called ‘Gods,’” stating:

 

Although Jesus never claimed to be God, as Jehovah’s appointed ruler he is identified in Isaiah’s prophecy by the terms “Mighty God” and “Prince of Peace”…

 

Yet, a person may ask, ‘In what sense is Jesus a “Mighty God,” and didn’t the apostle John say that Jesus is himself God?’ In the King James version of the Bible, John 1:1 reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Some argue that this means that “the Word”…is Almighty God himself…

 

If this verse were interpreted to mean Jesus was himself God Almighty, it would contradict the preceding statement, “the Word was with God.” Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person.[2]

 

First and foremost, I refer the reader to the Athanasian Creed, which states, “there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.”[3] Trinitarians do not believe Jesus is the “same” person as the Father, as suggested by the WTBTS above. Being distinct persons, God the Father can be with God the Son and both still be God. As such, there is no contradiction whatsoever with the Word was God (KJV) translation.

 

Looking at John 1:1, Adam Clarke wrote that Jesus, the Word, is “…no subordinate being, no second to the Most High, but the supreme eternal Jehovah.”[4]

 

Albert Barnes stated:

 

… Lest it should be supposed that he was a different and inferior being, here John states that “he was God.” There is no more unequivocal declaration in the Bible than this, and there could be no stronger proof that the sacred writer meant to affirm that the Son of God was equal with the Father…

 

… 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 applicable to Yahweh, 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…[5] (Emphasis mine.)

 

In the New World Translation with References, Appendix 6A, NWT translators explain the translation of John 1:1c, “the Word was a god,” saying:

 

…the Greek word Θεὸς (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 ὸ Θεόν , 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. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.

 

In the Greek text there are many cases of singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” is inserted before the anarthrous Θεὸς in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.” The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.[6]

 

The NWT translators assert that translating the anarthrous theos as “a god” is demanded because anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb point to a quality rather than an identity.

 

I must preface all subsequent remarks with a word of warning: I loathe Greek grammar. For the most part, I make a concerted effort to be thorough in my Bible studies, as exhaustive as I can possibly be given my resources and lack of formal seminary education, but I positively cannot stand Greek grammar. I cannot state it more plainly: given my druthers, I’d rather take a roto-rooter to my small intestines via my left nostril than address the grammar of John 1:1c here. Nor do I feel either the roto-rooter J or addressing the grammar in detail necessary. Many, many sites on the net as well as print resources pick apart the grammar of John 1:1 with happy abandon.[7] Have I read these resources? Yes. Do I understand them? Yes. Do I want to explain them to any degree of detail here? No. (See preceding roto-rooter comment.) I prefer instead of rely on the expertise of Greek scholars. For a detailed analysis of the grammar of John 1:1c, I therefore refer the reader to the resources indicated in endnote #7. Otherwise…

 

Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words disagrees with the WTBTS:

 

…it is usual to employ the article with a proper name, when mentioned a second time. There are, of course, exceptions to this, as when the absence of the article serves to lay stress upon, or give precision to, the character or nature of what is expressed in the  noun. A notable instance of this is in John 1:1, “and the Word was God”; here a double stress is on theos, by the absence of the article and by the emphatic position. To translate it literally, “a god was the Word,” is entirely misleading. Moreover, that “the Word” is the subject of the sentence, exemplifies the rule that the subject is to be determined by its having the article when the predicate is anarthrous (without the article).[8] (Emphasis mine.)

 

John Gill also states:

 

…nor is it any objection to the proper deity of Christ that the article is here wanting; since when the word is applied to the Father, it is not always used and even in this chapter, (John 1:6, 13, 18) and which shows, that the word “God” is not the subject but the predicate of this proposition…[9]

 

David Guzik wrote of the NWT’s “the Word was a god” translation of John 1:1c rather extensively – and emphatically – stating:

What about the Watchtower's New World Translation here? This Jehovah's Witness translation reads like this: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Their translation is used to deny the teaching that Jesus is God. Is it a correct translation?

i. The claim of the Watchtower defending their translation of John 1:1-2 is that because before the second time "God" is used in the passage, no article appears (it is written "God" and not "the God"). In answer to this approach to Greek grammar and translation, we can only refer to the multitude of other times in the New Testament where "God" appears without the article. If the Watchtower were honest and consistent, they would translate "God" as "god" every place it appears without the article. But it seems that this grammatical rule only applies when it suits the purpose of backing up the doctrinal beliefs of the Watchtower. The Greek text of Matthew 5:9, 6:24, Luke 1:35 and 1:75, John 1:6, 1:12, 1:13, and 1:18, Romans 1:7 and 1:17, shows how the Watchtower translates the exact same grammar for "God" as "God" instead of "god" when it suits their purpose.

ii. In the main resource the Watchtower uses to establish their claim (The Kingdom Interlinear), the Watchtower quotes two well-known Greek authorities to make them appear to agree with their translation. But they both have been misquoted, and one of them, Dr. Mantey has even written the Watchtower, and demanded that his name be removed from the book! Another "scholar" whom the Watchtower refers to in their book The Word - Who Is He? According to John, is Johannes Greber. Greber was actually an occult-practicing spiritist, and not a scholar of Biblical Greek.

iii. What do real Greek scholars say about the Jehovah's Witness translation of John 1:1-2?

"A GROSSLY MISLEADING TRANSLATION. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'the Word was a god.' But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done." (Dr. Julius R. Mantey)

 

"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 predicate construction. 'A god' would be totally indefensible." (Dr. F.F. Bruce)

 

"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. Charles L. Feinberg)

 

"The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ingorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1." (Dr. Paul L. Kaufman)

 

"The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: ' . . . the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." (Dr. William Barclay)[10]

 

In fact, I was singularly unable to find a credible scholar who supported the NWT translation. The list of scholars who disagree with the NWT translation of John 1:1c that David Guzik provides in his commentary is only a small snapshot of the many, many scholars who disagree.[11]

 

The Greek grammar does not support the NWT translation of John 1:1c and scholars certainly don’t agree with the NWT translation.

 

We can also turn to the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANFs), who lived and wrote prior to the Nicene Council in 325 A.D., to ascertain how the early Christian church treated John 1:1. The ANFs quoted and alluded to John 1:1 quite extensively, more than 50 times according to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/ . (Accessed January 2007.)

 

Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.) in his Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter VIII quotes John 1:1 then wrote, “Of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”[12] (Emphasis mine.) Clement lived 153 – 217 A.D., though it’s believed “…likely that the whole [of his written work] was composed ere Clement quitted Alexandria in a.d. 202.”[13] In Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter 1, Clement quoted John 1:1 and stated:

 

…This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man-the Author of all blessings to us…[14] (Emphasis mine.)

 

And again, in The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter VIII, Clement wrote: “Nothing, then is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one – that is, God. For He has said,…”[15] (Quote of John 1:1 immediately follows; emphasis mine.)

 

Theophilus lived 115 – 181 A.D. and also quoted John 1:1. In Theophilus to Autolycus, Book II, Chapter XXII, he quoted John 1:1-3 and stated, “The Word, then, being God…”[16]

 

Tertullian (145 – 220 A.D.) wrote Against Praexes, which quotes and extensively addresses the NWT assertion of the “the Word was a god” translation of John 1:1c. In Chapter XIII:

 

… Very well! you say, I shall challenge you to preach from this day forth (and that, too, on the authority of these same Scriptures) two Gods and two Lords, consistently with your views. God forbid, (is my reply.)… do indeed definitively declare that Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three, according to the principle of the divine economy…That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God…." Besides, if, from that perfect knowledge¹⁵⁰ which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, we were to invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should become less courageous to endure the martyr's sufferings, from which an easy escape would everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a plurality of gods and lords, as sundry heretics do, who hold more gods than One.[17] (Emphasis mine.)

 

And in Chapter XIX:

 

…Since they are unwilling to allow that the Son is a distinct Person, second from the Father, lest, being thus second, He should cause two Gods to be spoken of, we have shown above²³⁸ that Two are actually described in Scripture as God and Lord. And to prevent their being offended at this fact, we give a reason why they are not said to be two Gods and two Lords, but that they are two as Father and Son; and this not by severance of their substance, but from the dispensation wherein we declare the Son to be undivided and inseparable from the Father,-distinct in degree, not in state. And although, when named apart, He is called God, He does not thereby constitute two Gods, but one…[18] (Emphasis mine.)

 

The aforementioned ANFs wrote 100 – 220 A.D., approximately a century after the close of the New Testament canon and the death of the final apostle, John. They give us the best indication of what Jesus taught the apostles and what the apostles passed down to the early church. And the ANFs very obviously did not consider Jesus “a god” in John 1:1c, but rather wrote of John 1:1 addressing Jesus as THE God, Almighty God.

 

In summary, Greek grammar doesn’t support the NWT. Commentators and Greek/New Testament scholars uniformly agree that John 1:1 speaks of Jesus as Almighty God and the ANFs wrote of John 1:1 within the context of Jesus as Almighty God. As such, the NWT translation of John 1:1c lacks all credibility and merit.

 

John 1:1 very much refers to the Word (Jesus) as Almighty God.

 

John 1:1a and the eternal en

 

While the WTBTS focuses a great deal of attention on John 1:1c, an equally strong declaration of the Word’s deity is made in John 1:1a. In the beginning was the Word. In the beginning (KJV) or en arche in transliterated Greek, starts the book of John and refers to Genesis 1:1, In the beginning, God created…(KJV) Genesis 1:1 in the LXX uses the same en arche that John uses to begin his Gospel. The first chapters of Genesis speak of God’s act of creation and John’s prologue (1:1-18) addresses creation as well.

 

Adam Clarke wrote of John 1:1a:

 

That is, before anything was formed – ere God began the great work of creation. This is the meaning of the word in Genesis 1:1, to which the evangelist evidently alludes. This phrase fully proves, in the mouth of an inspired writer, that Jesus Christ was no part of the creation, as he existed when no part of that existed; and that consequently he is no creature…[19]

 

Albert Barnes agreed:

 

This expression is used also in Genesis 1:1. To that place John evidently has allusion here, and means to apply to ‘the Word’ an expression which is there applied to God. In both places it clearly means “before creation,” “before the world was made,” “when as yet there was nothing.” The meaning is, that the Word had an existence before the world was created…[and] is not, then, a creature or created being, and must be, therefore, uncreated and eternal. There is but one Being that is uncreated, and Jesus must be therefore divine.[20] (Emphasis mine.)

 

So in the beginning, before all of creation, the Word already was, which brings us to our next point of consideration for John 1:1a: the imperfect tense of the verb used here (and throughout John 1:1), was, or en in transliterated Greek. The imperfect tense refers to continual action.

 

A.T. Robertson stated:

 

Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi, to be, which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence.[21] (Emphasis mine.)

 

James White, in “John 1:1 Meaning and Translation” further states:

 

Throughout this section, John carefully contrasts the Word, and all other things. He does so by consistently using en of the Logos, the Word, and by consistently employing a totally different verb in reference to all other things. This other verb is “to become” (engeneto). It is used of John the Baptist in verse 6, of the world in verse 10, and the children of God in verse 12. Only when we come to verse 14 does John us “to become” of the Word, and that is when the Word “became flesh.” This refers to a specific point in time, the incarnation, and fully demonstrates John’s intentional usage of contrasting verbs.[22]

 

In the beginning – before all of creation – the Word existed, continually existed. John 1:1a testifies to the eternal nature of Christ and since only God (not “a god”) is eternal, John 1:1 speaks of Jesus as God.

 

 

Mighty vs. Almighty God

 

As indicated by the WTBTS, Jesus is prophetically called “mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6:

 

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (KJV)

 

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (NASB)

 

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. (NIV)

 

For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (NWT)

 

The August 1, 1984 edition of The Watchtower, the article “How Christendom Came to Worship an Unknown God,” however, stated:

 

Isaiah prophetically referred to Jesus the Messiah as “Mighty God.” (Isaiah 9:6) At Isaiah 10:21, the same prophet spoke of Jehovah as “the Mighty God.” Some try to use this similarity of wording to prove that Jesus is God. But we need to be careful about reading too much into these verses. The Hebrew expression rendered “Mighty God” is not limited to Jehovah as is the expression “God Almighty.” (Genesis 17:1) Admittedly, there is a difference between being mighty and being almighty, with no superior.

 

What does Genesis 17:1 say?

 

Genesis 17:1

 

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. (KJV)

 

Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless. (NASB)

 

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. (NIV)

 

When A´bram got to be ninety-nine years old, then Jehovah appeared to A´bram and said to him: “I am God Almighty. Walk before me and prove yourself faultless. (NWT)

 

Jehovah is certainly called God Almighty, but nothing in this verse states that the title el shaddai (Almighty God) is any way greater than el gibbor (Mighty God). Mighty God is not even mentioned. This verse doesn’t limit either title in any way whatsoever.

 

A careful study of the Hebrew terms that translates into Almighty God and Mighty God reveals that the two adjectives (shaddai and gibbor) applied to God (el) are in no way etymologically related. In English, of course, the words “mighty” and “almighty” are related in regards to word origin, but the Old Testament was not written in English. It was written in Hebrew. The words in Hebrew are shaddai for almighty and gibbor for mighty, which are not related in regards to word origin at all. In more contemporary terms, demanding an etymological link between shaddai and gibbor would be akin to linking other etymologically unrelated adjectives, like “big” and “large.” Is the word “big” etymologically related to “large”? No. Neither is shaddai and gibbor. In English, “mighty” and “almighty” are related as to their word origins and various comparisons as to intensity may be implied. Such is not the case for shaddai and gibbor.

 

In summary, shaddai is not a greater intensity of gibbor on the basis of word origin(s).

 

El shaddai is not stated to be greater than el gibbor in Scripture, either. At no point do we find el shaddai described as bigger, better or mightier than el gibbor. Shaddai and gibbor are simply both adjectives used to describe el (God), one adjective independent of the other and neither differentiated at any time as to degree or intensity.

 

The WTBTS booklet Should You Believe in the Trinity? (hereafter referred to as SYBT) also states:

 

To call Jehovah God "Almighty" would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position.[23]

 

The same argument can be found in:

 

CHAPTER XX. Objection based on the Monarchy of God.

 

You do not know how to expound the doctrine even of the single rule. For a monarch is not one who is alone in his existence, but who is alone in his rule. Clearly he rules over those who are his fellow-tribesmen, men like himself, just as the Emperor Hadrian was a monarch, not because he existed alone, nor because he ruled over oxen and sheep (over which herdsmen or shepherds rule), but because he ruled over men who shared his race and possessed the same nature. Likewise God would not properly be called a monarch, unless He ruled over other gods; for this would befit His divine greatness and His heavenly and abundant honor.  [Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 20][24]

 

Such is the Macarius’ quotation of Porphyry’s Against Christians – a polemic written against Christianity around 300 A.D., yet this pagan’s argument agrees with the WTS assertion in SYBT. To answer, I continue in Macarius:

CHAPTER XXVI. Answer to objection based on the Monarchy of God.

…God rules not as having the same name as other gods and therefore as one of them, but as supreme, and without being one of them…

We may liken Him to the sun, which gives things light and beauty till they themselves are bright, and yet receives nothing back from them. Just so God makes the angels shine with a reflected Godhead, though they have no part in His actual deity... (Emphasis mine)

What makes the similarity of the argument so odd is that Porphyry, quoted above, was a pagan arguing against Christians. If Christians believed the same as he, that Almighty God held a position of authority over lesser gods…Why is Porphyry attacking Christians on this issue?

 

In any event, God need not rule over other gods or be called Almighty in order to differentiate himself from other “gods.” Almighty is an adjective giving honor, praise and glory to Jehovah God. There is no reason to presume or insist that Yahweh is called Almighty for identification purposes and implying or asserting as such is ridiculous.

 

Please see also the quotations from Tertullian and other ANFs in the section above. The Early Church very obviously didn’t believe in other gods or a lesser, secondary class of gods and in fact, explicitly denied it.

 

In a nutshell, the Bible does not differentiate between el shaddai and el gibbor. El gibbor is not in any way stated or implied to be less than or inferior to el shaddai. The Bible does not use these two titles to differentiate between categories of “God” or “gods” in any manner whatsoever and the ANFs certainly denied the existence of other gods.

 

John Gill wrote of Isaiah 9:6 in his commentary:

 

Christ is God, truly and properly so; as appears from his name Jehovah, which is peculiar to the most High…[25]

 

Albert Barnes elaborated:

 

Syriac, ‘The mighty God of ages.’ This is one, and but one out of many, of the instances in which the name God is applied to the Messiah; compare Joh 1:1; Rom 9:5; 1Jo 5:20; Joh 20:28; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:8. The name ‘mighty God’ is unquestionably attributed to the true God in Isa 10:21.[26] (Emphasis mine.)

 

A NET Bible footnote, further discuses the divinity of the Messiah in this verse and the later application of “mighty God” to Jehovah God in Isaiah 10:21:

 

גִּבּוֹר (gibbor) is probably an attributive adjective (“mighty God”)… regard this title as a reference to God, confronting Isaiah’s readers with the divinity of this promised “child.” The use of this same title that clearly refers to God in a later passage (Isa 10:21) supports this interpretation…[27] (Emphasis mine.)

 

Keil and Delitzsch also directly addressed the matter of gibbor and shaddai as adjectives of el:

 

El gibbor was a traditional name of God, which occurs as early as Deu 10:17, cf., Jer 32:18; Neh 9:32; Psa 24:8, etc. The name gibbor is used here as an adjective, like shaddai. The Messiah, then, is here designated “mighty God.”[28] (Emphasis mine.)

 

Isaiah 9:6 calls the coming Messiah “mighty God,” a traditional name of God, not in a lesser or inferior sense as the WTBTS insists (please see Part 4 for more information), but in the sense that the Messiah (Jesus) was called THE God.

 

 

“My Lord and my God”

 

John 20:28

 

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (KJV)

 

Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" (NASB)

 

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (NIV)

 

In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” (NWT)

 

Thomas calls Jesus ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou, literally “the Lord of me and the God of me.”

 

The WTBTS booklet SYBT addresses John 20:28:

 

But what about the apostle Thomas’ saying, “My Lord and my God!” to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like “a god,” especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that Jehovah alone is “the only true God.” – John 17:3.

 

Again, the context helps us to understand this. A few days earlier the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17) Even though Jesus was already resurrected as a mighty spirit, Jehovah was still his God. And Jesus continued to refer to Him as such even in the last book of the Bible, after he was glorified. – Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12.

 

Just three verses after Thomas’ exclamation, at John 20:31, the Bible further clarifies the matter by stating: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,” not that he was Almighty God. And it meant “Son” in a literal way, as with a natural father and son, not as some mysterious part of a Trinity Godhead.[29]

 

The WTBS objections to Thomas calling Jesus God Almighty in John 20:28, as noted above, are:

 

1.      Thomas was referring to Jesus as “a god.”

 

2.      Thomas was speaking to Jesus, but the statement was directed to Jehovah God.

 

3.      Thomas “exclamation” was an emotional outburst.

 

4.      John 17:3 says there is only one true God.

 

5.      In John 20:17, Jesus says he is ascending to Mary Magdalene’s God and Jesus’ God.

 

6.      John 20:31 “clarifies” by saying Jesus is the Son of God.

 

7.      In John 20:31, “Son of God” is to be taken as denoting a literal, natural father/son relationship.

 

1. Thomas was referring to Jesus as “a god”

 

According to the SYBT quote above, Thomas called Jesus “a god,” not Almighty God. Thomas, in John 20:28, did not simply call Jesus ho theos, THE God, however. More importantly, Thomas called Jesus the God of me, the God of Thomas, a pious Jew.

 

There are over 100 occurrences of “my God” in the Bible and when spoken by a Jew, “my God” always refers to Jehovah God. Always. There is never one instance in the Scriptures of a Believer calling anyone except Jehovah “my God.” To reflect an equivalent comparison for this demanded lesser sense of “my God” in John 20:28, the WTBTS must provide a reference that indicates a Believer legitimately called an angel or another creature “my god” in this lesser sense. To my knowledge, the WTBTS has thus far failed to do so.

 

Thomas called Jesus the Lord of me and the God of me. For a devout Jew, only one being was his or her personal Lord and God: Jehovah. The Almighty.

 

 

2. Thomas was speaking to Jesus, but the statement was directed to Jehovah God

 

The WTBTS does not indicate which “scholars” purportedly believe Thomas’ address was made to Jesus though directed to God, but I have been singularly unable to find a single support for this position, nor does the Greek reflect any such thing. Look at the grammar: Thomas answered and said unto him…(KJV) Thomas was very clearly speaking to Jesus.

 

Adam Clarke stated:

 

…a man must do violence to every rule of construction who can apply the address here to any but Christ. The text is plain: Jesus comes in - sees Thomas, and addresses him; desiring him to come to him, and put his finger into the print of the nails, etc. Thomas, perfectly satisfied of the reality of our Lord’s resurrection, says unto him, - My Lord! and My God![30]

 

Thomas was clearing speaking to – and addressing – Jesus. Period.

 

3. Thomas’ “exclamation” was an emotional outburst.

 

A.T. Roberston stated:

 

Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koiné.[31]

 

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown elaborated:

 

The Socinian invasion of the supreme divinity of Christ here manifestly taught--as if it were a mere call upon God in a fit of astonishment--is beneath notice, save for the profanity it charges upon this disciple, and the straits to which it shows themselves reduced.[32]

 

Adam Clarke, too, noted:

 

Bishop Pearce says here: “Observe that Thomas calls Jesus his God, and that Jesus does not reprove him for it, though probably it was the first time he was called so.” And, I would ask, could Jesus be jealous of the honor of the true God - could he be a prophet - could he be even an honest man, to permit his disciple to indulge in a mistake so monstrous and destructive, if it had been one?[33]

 

Albert Barnes agreed:

 

The Saviour did not reprove him or check him as using any improper language. If he had not been divine, it is impossible to reconcile it with his honesty that he did not rebuke the disciple. No pious man would have allowed such language to be addressed to him.

 

Which says nothing of the fact that, if Thomas’ statement had been an exclamation of astonishment, an emotional outburst, as the WTBS suggested in SYBT above, Thomas would have been taking the Lord’s name in vain. While in our modern culture, exclaiming “Oh my god” or some such has become regrettably (and heart-wrenchingly) common in the everyday vernacular for many, this was not so in Thomas’ day. In New Testament times, such blasphemy was punished by death. Jesus, as the sinless Son of God, would have certainly rebuked Thomas for such blasphemy. At the very least. Yet, Jesus did not do so. As such, either Jesus was imperfect in that he failed to rebuke a sinner for blasphemy or Thomas’ address was not a simple emotional exclamation – as indicated by the many commentaries quoted above.

 

Thomas’ words were no mere exclamation. They were a proclamation, attesting that Jesus was his God. THE God.

 

4. John 17:3 says there is only one true God.

 

Please see Chapter 1 of this site for a detailed analysis of John 17:3, but suffice it to say that nothing in the language of John 17:3 limits Jesus from being the true God noted therein. Albert Barnes stated that the only true God is “The only God, in opposition to all false gods. What is said here is in opposition to idols, not to Jesus himself, who, in 1 John 5:20, is called ‘the true God and eternal life.’”[34]

 

5. In John 20:17, Jesus says he is ascending to Mary Magdalene’s God and Jesus’ God.

 

The WTBTS asserts that since Jesus had a God, he could not in fact be God.

 

Of John 20:17, however, John Gill wrote:

 

… God was his Father, not by creation, as he is to angels, and the souls of men…nor by adoption, as he is to the saints;…but he was his Father by nature, or with regard to his divine person…God was the Father of his disciples by adopting grace, in virtue of the covenant of grace made with Christ, and through their spiritual relation to him, as the natural and eternal Son of God: God the Father is the God of Christ as man…and in which nature, he prayed to him as his God, believed in him, loved and obeyed him as such…[35]

 

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown similarly stated:

 

Yet, note well, He says not, Our Father and our God. All the deepest of the Church fathers were wont to call attention to this, as expressly designed to distinguish between what God is to Him and to us--His Father essentially, ours not so: our God essentially, His not so: His God only in connection with us: our God only in connection with Him.[36]

 

As an obedient human being, of course, Yahweh was Jesus’ God, but – just as Jesus painstakingly indicated – Jehovah was not Jesus’ God in the same sense Jehovah is Mary’s God (or our God, for that matter). Jesus is the Son of God by nature. Believers become children of God by adoption. Thus, Jesus differentiates between how Yahweh is his Father from how Yahweh is Mary’s Father. Recognizing Jesus’ human nature in no way or manner detracts from his divine nature. In fact, the manner in which Jesus painstakingly elucidates the distinction only serves to emphasize that God is his Father in a different manner than God is our Father due to his divine nature.

 

The WTBTS points to Jesus’ human nature to deny his divine nature in John 20:17, but no such contradiction is demanded.

 

6. John 20:31 “clarifies” by saying Jesus is the Son of God.

 

Calling Jesus the “Son of God” in no way or manner lessens his deity.

 

Easton’s Bible Dictionary states that Son of God:

 

…occurs thirty-seven times in the New Testament as the distinctive title of our Saviour. He does not bear this title in consequence of his miraculous birth, nor of his incarnation, his resurrection, and exaltation to the Father's right hand. 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.[37]

 

I have not found a single reference that indicates or even implies that calling Jesus the “Son of God” reflects some sort of lesser or inferior of his divinity.

 

7. In John 20:31, “Son of God” is to be taken as denoting a literal, natural father/son relationship.

 

This is, quite frankly, amongst the most ludicrous (and blasphemous) of WTBTS arguments. If a literal, natural father/son relationship is required of “Son of God”, with Jehovah as Jesus’ literal and natural Father – who, by chance, is Jesus’ literal and natural mother? Are we to believe that, in producing this literal and natural son, Yahweh literally and naturally mated with Mary?

 

Frankly, the logic of this argument is is so irrationally blasphemous, it naturally and literally nauseates me.

 

The WTBTS, however, offers another argument against Thomas proclaiming Christ’s divinity in John 20:28. “What Do the Scriptures Say About ‘the Divinity of Christ’?” in the January 15, 1992 Watchtower asserted:

 

…Addressing the resurrected Jesus, the apostle Thomas exclaimed: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)… Or by saying “my God,” Thomas may have been acknowledging Jesus as God’s Spokesman and Representative, even as others addressed an angelic messengers as though he were Jehovah – Compare Genesis 18:1-5, 22-33; 31:11-13; 32:24-30; Judges 2:1-5; 6:11-15; 13:20-22.

 

Again, I must note that there is not a single instance of a Believer calling an angel or any other “Spokesman” or “Representative” creature “my God” in the Bible.

 

More Scriptures are cited to support the WTBTS position that Thomas was speaking of Jesus as a lesser god. These verses, however, uniformly address Theophanies/ Christophanies in the Old Testament, such as appearances made by the Angel of the LORD/Yahweh. Interestingly, the WTBTS asserts that the Angel of the LORD/Yahweh in the Old Testament was the pre-incarnate Jesus. So the WTBTS refers to Theophanies/Christophanies to support the position that lesser creatures (the pre-incarnate Jesus) are called God in the Old Testament so this same Jesus could also be called God in the same lesser sense in the New Testament. This logical is circular. The WTBTS must first prove these Old Testament Theophanies/Christophanies used God in the lesser sense the WTBTS demands.

 

In John 20:28, Thomas calls Jesus God. The language is very clear and concise. The natural reading of the text unambiguously calls Jesus God – not in a sense of lesser deity, but as God, THE God, God Almighty.

 

Our God and Savior

 

Titus 2:13

 

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (KJV)

 

looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, (NASB)

 

while we wait for the blessed hope - the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, (NIV)

 

while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus, (NWT)

 

and, 2 Peter 1:1

 

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: (KJV)

 

Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: (NASB)

 

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (NIV)

 

Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith, held in equal privilege with ours, by the righteousness of our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ: (NWT)

 

In the above verses, our God and Savior refers to one person, Jesus Christ, except the same verses in the NWT differentiates God from Savior so as to indicate that these verses refer to two people instead.

 

The NWT with References addresses Titus 2:13:

 

In this place we find two nouns connected by Και (kai, “and”), the first noun being preceded by the definite article του (tou, “of the”) and the second noun without the definite article. A similar construction is found in 2Pe 1:1, 2, where, in vs 2, a clear distinction is made between God and Jesus. This indicates when two distinct persons are connected by Και, if the first person is preceded by the definite articles it is not necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person. Examples of this construction in the Greek text are found in Ac 13:50; 15:22; Eph 5:5; 2Th 1:12; 1Ti 5:21; 6:13, 2Ti 4:1. This construction is also found in the LXX. (See Pr 24:21 ftn.) According to An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by C.F.D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, the sense “of the great God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ…is possible in [koi·ne’] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article].”…[38]

 

I refer the reader to Robert M. Bowman, Jr.’s paper, “Sharp’s Rule and Antitrinitarian Theologies: A Bicentennial Defense of Granville Sharp’s Argument for the Deity of Christ.” Mr. Bowman’s consideration of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 is quite comprehensive and I highly recommend study of the entire paper for a thorough understanding of this issue.

 

The grammar of Titus 2:13’s the great God and Savior Jesus Christ (NASB) and 2 Peter 1:1’s our God and Savior, Jesus Christ (NASB) adhere to the parameters of Sharp’s rule and as such, both God and Savior refer to one person, Jesus Christ, thereby calling Jesus ho theos, THE God, Almighty God.

 

Sharp’s rule is defined by Mr. Bowman as follows:

 

In Greek, when two nouns of the same case are connected by kai (“and”), and the definite article appears before the first noun but not before the second, both nouns refer to the same person if the nouns are (1) personal, (2) singular, and (3) non-proper nouns, and if the nouns are (d) not normally paired semantically as denoting two persons.[39]

 

According to Mr. Bowman, “It describes how the NT and other Greek writers of the period wrote, and appears to do so with high consistency, but it does not prohibit Greek writers from having used the article-noun-kai-noun construction with the specified kind of nouns to refer to two referents, if they wished. What Sharp’s rule shows is that Greek readers would be expected to understand two nouns in such a construction to refer to the same person unless the author clearly indicated the contrary…”[40] And further, “In all, some 80 NT texts may be cited as fitting the rule, and none that do not…”[41]

 

Sharp’s rule, therefore, proves that God and Savior in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 both refer to Jesus, calling him God.

 

Context also indicates that God and Savior refers to one person, Jesus.

 

In Titus 2:13, the noun epiphaneia (appearing, KJV) “…is used by Paul six times (five times in the Pastorals), always with reference to Christ (2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10, 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13), unless one counts Titus 2:13 as the sole exception.”[42] Significantly, sôtêr (savior) refers to Yahweh in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, 18 out of 22 times and “in all but one of these texts the noun sôtêr is directly linked with the noun theos…14 out of the 18 texts referring to God as Savior are in Psalms and Isaiah, the two books that are most heavily cited in the New Testament as prophetic of the redemptive ministry of Jesus Christ.”[43] Furthermore,”

 

Because the two terms theos and sôtêr were so commonly linked in biblical usage, as well as in the general culture, readers encountering the terms linked grammatically in a way easily taken as referring to a single subject would naturally be expected to construe the terms in that way…Sharp’s rule, combined with the natural linkage of the two titles, establishes a strong presumption in favor of the two titles applying to the same person.[44] (Emphasis mine.)

 

The contextual evidence supporting God and Savior both referring to Jesus are equally strong in 2 Peter 1:1:

 

That Jesus is being called “God” in 2 Peter 1:1 is confirmed by four parallel expressions applied to Jesus in 2 Peter: “Our Lord and Savior” in three texts (1:11; 2:20; 3:18), and “the Lord and Savior” once (3:2)…”God” and “Lord” were both divine titles in Greek (and indeed Hebrew and Aramaic as well), so that their use in the expression “our Lord/God and Savior” is precisely parallel.”[45]

 

What of WTS objections? I refer the reader to pp. 9-17 of Mr. Bowman’s paper for his responses and refutations.

 

Moreover, commentaries are uniform in supporting both God and Savior referring to Jesus.

 

Of Titus 2:13:

 

… here is a very illustrious proof of the true and proper deity of Christ. (John Gill)[46]

 

… There can be little doubt, if any, that by “the great God” here, the apostle referred to the Lord Jesus… this furnishes an important proof of the divinity of Christ. (Albert Barnes)[47]

 

… the expression "great God," as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as "the true God" is predicated of Christ, 1 John 5:20… Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making "the great God" to be the Father, "our Saviour," the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to "the glory" of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God. (Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown)[48]

 

And of 2 Peter 1:1:

 

… that is, of Christ Jesus, who is our God and Saviour: so that here is a testimony of the deity of Christ. (John Gill)[49]

 

…it is an absolute proof that St. Peter calls Jesus Christ God, even in the properest sense of the word, with the article prefixed. (Adam Clarke)[50]

 

So the one article (tou) with theou and sōtēros requires precisely as with tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in 2Pe 1:11 as in 2Pe 2:20; 2Pe 3:3; 2Pe 3:18. So in 1Pe 1:3 we have ho theos kai patēr (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, Grammar, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik, p. 158) admits: “Grammar demands that one person be meant.” Moulton (Prol., p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of theos for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in Tit 2:13. (A.T. Robertson) [51]

 

In Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, Jesus is called ho theos, THE God.