Jesus declares that he and his Father are one (Jn 10:30). But this verse need not suggest that he is claiming equality with the Father (Jn 14:28; 17:3; 20:17; 1 Cor 8:5-6; 11:3; 15:24-28). Moreover, the apostle John describes Jesus as theos in his Gospel (Jn 1:1, 18; 20:28). Nevertheless, it appears that Second Temple Judaism and Christian NT writers respectively utilize theos or elohim in a broad monotheistic framework. Therefore, elohim is applied to Melchizedek five times in the Qumran document concerning the ancient king-priest of Salem (11QMelch 2:9-13). Philo also speaks of Moses as a god in De Vita Mosis 1.155-62. We may thus conclude that the New Testament possibly teaches us there are subordinate divine beings or godlike ones who are not to be equated with YHWH in either a positional or ontological sense (Psalm 8:5; Jn 10:34-36).
In a similar vein, Phil 2:6-7 basically communicates the notion that a subordinate divine being humbly became the man Jesus Christ who subsequently lived on earth and underwent an excruciating and ignominious death. Afterwards, God resurrected him, giving Christ a position of authority more eminent than any other station in the universe, save that of the Father Himself (Phil 2:5-11). According to Phil 2:6-11 and 1 Cor 15:24-28, however, the Son will eventually return the Kingdom to his God and Father when all God's enemies have been placed under the feet of Christ. Jn 17:3 assures us that the Son of God is not to be identified with the only true God. For the apostle John, there was only one true Deity: the Father. The writer of Philippians likewise subscribes to the thought found in the Johannine Gospel. He intimates this belief by his use of morphe and the cotext of Phil 2:6-7. Interestingly, Paul does not say that Christ was God but that he existed in God's form; he contrasts the divine form (appearance) with the form Christ took on earth (a slave's form appearance) and he writes that Christ came to be in the likeness of men. Notice the stress on outward form rather than a substantial essence.
Darrell Bock (2000:182) also cites Philo’s Quod Deterius Potiori insidiari solet 160-162 and De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 9-10 as examples of references to Moses’ “deification.”
Sunday, December 29, 2024
Jesus, God, and the Presence of Created Elohim
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
62 comments:
I see that you're going out with a bang, Edgar! ;-)
Seriously, though, in case I can't make it back to your blog before it closes, let me say how much I've enjoyed your theological reflections over the years! My life has been made richer by your presence in it, even if it has been a virtual one.
Sean, you caught me! I appreciate your friendship, support, and contributions. I will see you on other fora. Thanks for your kind remarks.
Are you going to stop posting or close the blog Edgar?
The Greek phrase “ego kai ho pater hen semen” (“I and the Father are one”) in John 10:30 uses the neuter “hen” (“one”), not the masculine “heis” (“one person”). This linguistic choice indicates unity in essence, not just purpose. While John 17:21-23 describes believers being “one” with the Father and Son, this unity is clearly relational and derivative, unlike the ontological unity of Jesus with the Father in John 10:30. Moreover, the Jewish audience’s reaction in John 10:31—picking up stones to stone Jesus—confirms they understood his words as a claim to deity, not merely harmony. Jesus further clarifies in John 10:37-38 that his works demonstrate that “the Father is in me, and I am in the Father,” which directly implies an essential unity, not just cooperative purpose.
John 14:28 (“The Father is greater than I”) must be understood in the context of the incarnation. The Greek term “meizon” (“greater”) indicates positional superiority, not ontological difference. As the incarnate Son, Jesus temporarily subordinated himself to the Father’s will (Philippians 2:6-8). This does not negate his divine nature but reflects his role as the obedient Son during his earthly ministry. Additionally, the New Testament affirms Jesus’ equality with the Father in essence, John 5:18 explicitly states that Jesus made himself “equal with God” (ison theo). Philippians 2:6 describes Jesus as existing in the “morphe theou” (“form of God”), affirming his divine nature.
John 17:3 refers to the Father as “the only true God” in contrast to false gods, not as an exclusion of Jesus’ deity. The Greek syntax does not imply the exclusivity of the Father being God but emphasizes the monotheistic rejection of idols. In John 17:3, Jesus prays to the Father as the "only true God," but this does not exclude Himself from deity. Rather, it distinguishes the one true God (the triune God) from false gods. In the same prayer (John 17:5), Jesus speaks of the glory He shared with the Father "before the world existed," affirming His eternal preexistence and equality with God. The Gospel of John consistently portrays Christ as divine (e.g., John 1:1–3, 1:18, 8:58, 20:28).
The assertion that John 17:3 negates Christ’s deity ignores the broader Johannine witness, which repeatedly affirms the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father. The very same Gospel presents Jesus as sharing in the identity of the true God, John 1:1 explicitly identifies Jesus as theos (“God”), John 20:28 records Thomas addressing Jesus as “My Lord and my God” (ho theos mou). Further, 1 John 5:20, written by the same apostle, calls Jesus “the true God and eternal life.” The continuity between these passages reveals a high Christology that incorporates Jesus into the identity of the one God of Israel.
Psalm 82:6 (“You are gods”) does not imply that Jesus is a subordinate divine being. In John 10:34-36, Jesus uses this verse rhetorically to argue that if the term “gods” could be applied metaphorically to human judges (who were commissioned by God), how much more fitting is it for the one “whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world” to be called God in an unqualified sense. Far from denying his deity, Jesus asserts his unique status as the Son of God.
While Second Temple texts and Philo attribute divine titles to figures like Moses and Melchizedek, these applications are metaphorical or honorific. They do not describe an ontological deity equivalent to YHWH. In contrast, the New Testament consistently attributes titles, prerogatives, and worship to Jesus that are reserved for YHWH alone:
• Jesus is called “Lord” (kyrios), the Greek equivalent of YHWH, in Philippians 2:11.
• He is the creator and sustainer of all things (Colossians 1:16-17).
• He receives worship (Revelation 5:13-14).
The word “morphe” in Philippians 2:6 does not refer to "appearance" alone but to the essential nature or character of a being. The “morphe theou” (form of God) means that Christ existed in the very nature or essence of God. This interpretation is consistent with the broader Pauline theology (e.g., Colossians 1:15–20, where Christ is described as the "image of the invisible God" and the one through whom all things were created). Philippians 2:6 states that Christ "did not count equality with God something to be grasped" (Greek: harpagmos), not because He lacked equality with God, but because He already possessed it and chose not to cling to it selfishly.
The text assumes Christ’s divine equality with the Father before His incarnation. The contrast between the "form of God" and the "form of a servant" does not diminish Christ's deity. Instead, it emphasizes His humility and willingness to assume a human nature. The "likeness of men" (Greek: homoioma anthropon) stresses that He became fully human while remaining fully divine. Christ's exaltation after His death does not imply that He was not divine beforehand. Instead, it reflects His glorification as both God and man, acknowledging His victory over sin and death. The "name above every name" given to Christ (Kyrios) explicitly aligns Him with the divine name Yahweh, as Isaiah 45:23 is quoted in verse 11, referring to the worship due to God alone.
While “morphe” refers to the essential nature, “homoioma” in this context emphasizes that Christ became truly human, not just appearing as human. The "likeness of men" underscores His real humanity while maintaining His divine essence. Paul's writings do not present Christ as a subordinate being but as fully God and fully man. For example, Colossians 2:9 states, "In Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily," affirming that Christ’s humanity does not diminish His deity.
The passage in 1 Corinthians refers to the Son delivering the kingdom to the Father, but this does not negate Christ’s divinity. Instead, it reflects His role as mediator in salvation history. The submission of the Son in this context refers to His human nature and economic role within the Trinity, not His ontological essence.
Come to JWtalk, that's a nice safe space
JLM, people will still be able to read the blog, but comments will be cut off and I will not be submitting new posts.
Thanks Dages
any recent scholarly developments on this subject?
Edgar,
You linked to an article by Perriman, which includes this insightful nugget:
"Paul would have been well aware of the semantic difference between the two terms. YHWH was the name of God; kyrios denoted one aspect of his relation to the world."
That's exactly right, and that's one of the reasons why YHWH texts applied to Jesus using "Lord" don't necessarily identify Jesus as YHWH himself. It is only the aspect of God's relation to his people that is captured by "Lord" that is attributed to Jesus, and that has to do with ruling authority -- in Jesus' case, conferred ruling authority -- not ontology.
It looks like Ninc may have found a new home, as it seems to be s/he who is now arguing with Andrew Perriman on his site under the name "fghjk5678."
Ninc, why are you reluctant to reveal your identity online?
Also, can you confirm whether I should call you "he" or "she"?
I deleted this comment from the other post because I wanted to correct a couple of annoying typos, and thought it fits here well enough.
@Edgar,
Your comment reminded me of an assertion that was made by someone on another forum, which savors of things I've seen Ninc assert.
Here's the reply I gave on that other forum:
Assertion: If Jesus isn't God, then the kind of worship He receives in Revelation 5 is idolatry.
Let's assume that Jesus is worshipped at Rev. 5 to see if the assertion is valid:
1. Jesus is worshipped at Rev. 5 (which may be debatable), but
2. since God endorsed this treatment of his Son, we must conclude that
3. it isn't idolatry.
Number 3 would necessarily hold true whether Jesus was God or not in light of #2, which means that there is no need to reach the conclusion that Jesus is God based on Rev. 5. We only need to recognize (a) that God endorsed this treatment of his Son, and (b) the reason given in context is about what the Son did, which was only related to his ontology in the sense that he had to be mortal to serve as the sacrificial lamb.
It is logically incoherent to suggest that Jesus must be God in light of his treatment at Rev. 5 when that treatment itself was founded on the fact that he was the perfectly obedient mortal being who willingly gave his life as the sacrificial lamb, which is something God could not do as he is inherently immortal.
It is as though they are saying: We worship him because he is the obedient mortal man who died and therefore he must be the immortal God who cannot die.
I hope I don't need to spell out for anyone why that just doesn't work;-)
As I've mentioned before, scholars such as James McGrath and Ken Schenck have suggested that the behavior that was recognized by all to cross the boundary line between what was considered acceptable treatment of an agent of God and what was not was that of ritual sacrifice. If that is the case, and I tend to agree with them in light of the available data, then it is impossible for the biblical treatment of Jesus to cross that line, because the place he holds in New Testament salvation is that of the sacrifice, not the God to whom it is offered.
When a believer in the Bible uses the expression "my God" it is always in reference to the Almighty. (cf. John 20:28)
@Sean Kasabuske
The term "Kyrios" is not merely a generic term for authority (like δεσπότης, ἄναξ. ἄρχων, κράτος, ἰσχυροί, ἐξουσία, κυριότης, or ἡγεμών) in the context of the NT, particularly when applied to Jesus in Phil. 2:9–11. Instead, it directly corresponds to the Greek term used in the LXX to translate the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), the covenantal name of God. The phrase "every knee will bow" and "every tongue will confess" is a quotation from Isa. 45:23, where YHWH declares His universal sovereignty and exclusive right to worship. If Paul intended to use "Kyrios" in a non-divine sense, it would have undermined the exclusive divine prerogative of YHWH declared in Isaiah. Instead, Paul’s application of this passage to Jesus integrates Jesus into the divine identity of YHWH, as acknowledged by Jewish monotheism.
The argument that Jesus’ worship is permissible because of "conferred authority" ignores the broader theological and scriptural context. In Rev. 5:13–14, the Lamb (Jesus) is worshiped alongside the One seated on the throne (the Father). The worship is not conditional or secondary but equal in substance, as the Lamb receives "blessing, honor, glory, and power forever and ever." Such worship would be idolatrous unless Jesus shared in the divine essence. Isa. 42:8 says "I am YHWH; that is my name; my glory I give to no other." If Jesus is not ontologically divine, such worship would violate the exclusivity of worship reserved for YHWH.
The semantic distinction between “proskuneo” (worship or reverence) and “latreuo” (religious devotion) is significant but does not diminish the worship of Jesus as divine. In Rev. 5:14, both “proskuneo” and doxological worship are directed toward the Lamb, demonstrating that His worship is not merely honor but an acknowledgment of His divine nature. In Matt. 28:17 the disciples worship (proskuneo) the risen Jesus, paralleling the worship of YHWH in the OT. If this act were merely reverence, it would not occur in a post-resurrection context where Jesus is glorified and declared to be "Lord of all."
The objection that Jesus’ deity is inconsistent with His mortality misunderstands the doctrine of the Incarnation. His death as a mortal does not negate His divinity but demonstrates the kenosis (self-emptying) of His divine prerogatives for the sake of human redemption. Jesus’ exaltation in Phil. 2:9 reveals the glory He had with the Father before the world began (John 17:5). This is not a promotion or new status but the public recognition of His eternal divine identity.
The argument that the Lamb’s worship in Rev. 5 is based on His obedience and sacrifice, rather than His divine ontology, overlooks critical textual details. Rev. 5:12–13 describes the Lamb receiving "blessing, honor, glory, and power forever and ever." These attributes are reserved for YHWH alone in the OT (cf. Ps. 29:1–2, Dan. 7:14). The Lamb is worshiped "by every creature in heaven, on earth, under the earth, and in the sea." Such universal worship mirrors the divine sovereignty of YHWH in Isa. 45:23 and would be idolatrous if Jesus were merely a created being. The shared throne of God the Father and “the Lamb” in Rev. 22:3 further underscores their unity in essence and authority.
The claim that Jesus' role as the sacrificial Lamb explains His worship ignores the distinction between typological figures (e.g., Melchizedek) and ontological deity. Typological figures like Melchizedek or Moses were honored for their roles but never worshiped as divine. The universal worship of Jesus, including the acknowledgment of His Lordship in Phil. 2:9–11, transcends typology and reflects His divine status.
11QMelch shows that Jewish thought allowed an agent to be called "your God" in a context in which the antecedent of "your" is the faithful Jewish community. Since members of that community had no problem with such an expression, I see no reason why they would have had a problem conceiving of individual members of that community referring to Melchizedek as "my God," as all would have understood that this was meant in lessor or shaliah sense.
Alternatively, notice that John 20:28 is an incomplete sentence.
Most claim that a nominative for vocative is at work here, but what if both Κύριός and Θεός are functioning as nominatives? Bill Mounce has pointed out two interesting things (see the link below):
If Jesus is directly addressed as Κύριός, then this would be the only verse in the New Testament in which that’s the case, as he is otherwise directly addressed as κυριε.
If Κύριός and Θεός are functioning as nominatives, then this would mean that part of the sentence is missing, requiring us to infer what is not stated.
Mounce suggests that the complete sentence could be, “My Lord and my God has risen,” but I thank that's his theology talking.
I say, why not, “My Lord and my God has truly raised you!”?
That would complete the sentence in a way that speaks directly to what Thomas doubted, and wouldn’t leave us with an anti-climax at John 20:31.
https://www.billmounce.com/blog/%CE%BA%CF%85%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82-nominative-or-vocative-john-20-28?fbclid=IwAR18nFBs6iotWaWGt1bqadzvfCPwVFVuGiGSZz1JWEcRFuL8uq615YrUZA
@Sean Kasabuske
While the concept of “agency” (shaliach) does exist in Jewish thought, no Jewish agent of God is ever directly addressed as "my God" (ho theos mou) in the Hebrew Bible or Second Temple literature. The use of "my God" always refers exclusively to YHWH, as evidenced by its over 130 occurrences in the Bible. For a devout Jew like Thomas to address Jesus as "my God" without blasphemy demonstrates that he recognized Jesus as sharing in the divine identity of YHWH. This interpretation aligns with John 1:1, which identifies the Word as both "with God" and as God, and with John 1:18, which calls Jesus "the only begotten God."
The Greek text explicitly states that Thomas "answered and said to him (eipen autō)," with autō referring directly to Jesus. The natural reading of the Greek grammar indicates direct address to Jesus, not an exclamation or a reference to the Father. Adding inferred words, such as "has truly raised you," would contradict the plain grammatical construction. A devout first-century Jew would not casually or figuratively address anyone as "my God." Thomas's declaration reflects the culmination of the Gospel's Christology: Jesus is recognized as God incarnate.
The nominative for vocative is a well-documented phenomenon in both Koine and Classical Greek. For example, in Matthew 27:46, "My God, my God" (ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου) uses the nominative “ho theos” for direct address. Similarly, in Rev. 4:11, "Our Lord and our God" (ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεός) employs nominatives for direct address. Greek grammarians like Wallace and BDAG affirm that the nominative case often substitutes for the vocative in Semitic contexts, reflecting the Hebraic influence on John's writing.
Far from being an anti-climax, Thomas's declaration represents the theological high point of John's Gospel. From the prologue ("the Word was God") to the confession of Thomas, John’s narrative progressively builds to reveal Jesus’s identity as God. This climactic declaration sets the stage for the Gospel’s conclusion in John 20:31, which calls readers to believe in Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God, terms imbued with divine connotations in light of Thomas’s confession. Thomas's confession encapsulates the purpose of the Gospel—to affirm Jesus as the incarnate God. The resurrection provides the evidence that Jesus is indeed "Lord and God."
The Gospel of John consistently presents Jesus as uniquely participating in the divine identity of YHWH. In John 8:58, Jesus declares, "Before Abraham was, I am," directly invoking the divine name (Exodus 3:14). The Jewish leaders understood this as a claim to deity and sought to stone him for blasphemy. Thomas's confession in John 20:28 is a direct response to the evidence of Jesus's resurrection and the fulfillment of Jesus's claims about his divine nature. It aligns with other New Testament affirmations of Christ's deity, such as Phil. 2:6-11, Col. 2:9, and Heb. 1:3.
The earliest Christian writings, including Paul's epistles, consistently affirm the divinity of Christ. For instance, Phil. 2:6-11 describes Jesus as "in the 'morphē' of God" and "equal with God," language that reflects pre-divinity. Col. 1:15-20 identifies Christ as the Creator and sustainer of all things, roles exclusive to God. Pliny the Younger (early 2nd century) describes Christians as worshiping Jesus as God, demonstrating that belief in Christ’s deity was well established within a generation of the apostles.
Quote:
"The article in Jn 20:28 is explained by the mou (mou, moo, “of me”) which normally requires the article before it; by its use with the vocative [case]...and by its presence in the established formula ‘the lord and the god’...It should be further noted that ‘the god of me’, whether it is taken as vocative [direct address] or nominative, [identification] is predicative in sense and so cannot be used as evidence either way to show whether the god in New Testament usage ever appears as subject of a statement referring to Christ.”—Karl Rahner, S.J., Theological Investigations, Vol. i, p. 136.
Also,
Theodore of Mopsuestia (theologian, and Bishop of Mopsuestia, c 350 – 42) on John 20:28:
"Similarly, that the confession of Thomas, on touching the hands and the side of the Lord after the resurrection, “My Lord & my God,” was not spoken concerning Christ by Thomas (and neither he says that Christ is god), but that, astonished at the miracle of the resurrection, Thomas praised God who raised Christ."
--Concilia Oecumenica (ACO), Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum, act 4, p. 230.
Ninc,
Should I refer to you as "he" or "she"?
he
Thomas's words, "My Lord and my God," are a direct response to Jesus's invitation to touch His wounds and believe. The text states clearly that Thomas "said to him" (εἶπεν αὐτῷ), directing the statement to Jesus, not as an abstract exclamation or to the Father. The setting underscores the transformative realization of Thomas: Jesus has triumphed over death, confirming His earlier claims to divinity (John 8:58, 10:30).
Emotional outbursts in the form of exclamations like "Oh my God!" are modern idioms. In 1st-century Jewish culture, invoking God’s name flippantly would be considered blasphemy (Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 24:16). If Thomas’s words were an emotional exclamation, Jesus would have rebuked him, as He was a devout Jew and upheld the sanctity of God's name. Instead, Jesus commends Thomas for his faith (John 20:29). Noted scholars like A.T. Robertson confirm that the structure of the Greek text indicates a declaration of faith, not an exclamation of astonishment.
Thomas’s language in John 20:28 echoes the exclusive worship of YHWH. For example, Psalm 35:23 uses similar phrasing, "My God and my Lord," to address Jehovah. For Thomas, a monotheistic Jew, to use this language for Jesus without rebuke confirms that he understood Jesus as YHWH incarnate.
In Koine Greek, the nominative case is frequently used as a substitute for the vocative in direct address, especially in heightened or formal contexts. This phenomenon is well-documented in Greek grammar and is not unusual (cf. Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 56). Examples in the New Testament include direct address with nominatives, particularly in theological statements. For instance, "ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων" ("The King of the Jews") in mockery (Mark 15:18). The nominative serves as a vocative in context.
The text explicitly says, "He said to Him (autō)," which leaves no room for ambiguity that Thomas is speaking directly to Jesus. If the nominative is interpreted as a predicate ("My Lord and my God has raised you"), there would need to be explicit syntactical evidence in the text to support such an ellipsis. No such evidence exists. The simplest reading is that Thomas’s statement is an address to Jesus. Throughout the New Testament, expressions of reverence or divine acknowledgment, especially post-resurrection, use direct address. For example, Matthew 28:9 and 28:17 describe disciples worshiping Jesus. Thomas’s exclamation fits this pattern.
Theodore of Mopsuestia (circa 350–428) is often associated with Antiochene theology, which emphasized Christ’s humanity to counterbalance Alexandrian views that stressed His divinity. His interpretations reflect a theological bias rather than an exegetical necessity. Theodore’s rejection of Thomas’s statement as a declaration of Jesus’s divinity likely stems from his reluctance to affirm such a high Christology, consistent with his broader theological framework.
Thomas explicitly declares "My Lord and my God" upon seeing Jesus. There is no indication in the text that Thomas is addressing anyone other than Jesus. The invocation of "God" aligns with the Johannine theme of Jesus’s divine identity (cf. John 1:1, 10:30). If Thomas were addressing the Father, the text would have clarified it, as John is careful in distinguishing the persons of the Trinity.
The suggestion of an ellipsis ("has raised you" or "is truly God") is speculative and unnecessary. Greek often uses short, emphatic statements without additional predicates, especially in emotional or revelatory moments. For instance, other exclamatory statements in the New Testament, such as Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16 ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God"), stand alone without predicates. The Gospel of John climaxes in Thomas’s confession, which parallels the prologue's declaration, "The Word was God" (John 1:1). Reading it as an incomplete sentence diminishes its climactic role in the narrative.
(1/2)
(2/2)
The presence of the article with "θεός" (the God of me) reinforces specificity and definiteness, pointing directly to Jesus as the referent. The argument that this reflects a generic formula ("the Lord and the God") ignores the personal possessive "μου" (of me) attached to both terms. Thomas is making a personal declaration, not a generic theological statement. Throughout John’s Gospel, Jesus is repeatedly identified with divine attributes (e.g., John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I AM"). Thomas’s confession aligns with this portrayal.
In John 17:3, Jesus acknowledges the Father as "the only true God" within the framework of Trinitarian theology, which distinguishes the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without denying their unity in essence. Jesus’s acknowledgment of the Father as God does not exclude His own divinity but reflects the economic roles within the Trinity. Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for his declaration, as would be expected if it were erroneous or blasphemous. Instead, He affirms Thomas’s belief, saying, "Because you have seen me, you have believed" (John 20:29).
In Johannine theology, the title "Son of God" is inherently divine. John 5:18 clarifies that Jesus calling God His Father was understood as "making Himself equal with God." The purpose of John’s Gospel is not to provide an exhaustive systematic theology but to present Jesus as the Messiah who is both fully human and fully divine. Thomas’s confession fits this purpose.
Read the scholarlyy literature besides Trinitarian stuff, and you'll find that not every scholar accepts your view of John 8:58 and there are other possible ways to read the text.
You claim that John 17:3 is set within the framework of Trinitarian theology, something that John himself never claims, but how hard would it have been for John to include the Son (Jesus Christ) in with "the only true God"? However, he did not and never calls Jesus or the holy spirit, "the only true God."
While Trinitarians try to spin this verse such that Jesus (the one whom the only true God sent) and the holy spirit constitute the only true God as well, ohn actually made an importasnt distinction between Jesus Christ and the only true God.
Prove that John is talking about "economic roles": I have little doubt that he would have no idea what you're talking about. All such philosophizing/theologizing came later. Jesus didn't have to rebuke Thomas because he either made an exclamation to the Father per Zerwick or Thomas viewed Jesus as a god in the pattern of Moses and other OT figures (including angels).
Again, where's the proof from John's Gospel that "Son of God" is an inherently divine title? Many scholars (including Trinitarians) have read GJohn and come to different conclusions. At any rate, I've never read a statement in Jjohn where he made it clear that "Son of God" means "God" (the second person of the Trinity). John actually tells us his reason for writing in John 20:31.
“ John 5:18 clarifies that Jesus calling God His Father was understood as "making Himself equal with God." ” - the same people who believed this believed that doing good on the sabbath was wrong..
Jesus never made such a claim. His opponents did to try and kill him.
“ and you'll find that not every scholar accepts your view of John 8:58 and there are other possible ways to read the text. ”
I’ll start him off with James white who ADMITS John 8:58 doesn’t sustain such a belief
If “I am” is a divine title rather then “the being” (LXX) why when Jesus said “I am” earlier did his opponents ask who was? Straight after?
Nincsnevem can chew on this one too: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2011/11/margaret-davies-and-egw-eimi-sayings-in.html
John 8:24 Jesus uses “ego eimi” in 25 they ask “who are you? “
The Jews also claimed Jesus’ father to be the One true God of the Jews…
Jesus even said the father was “true”
Omitting to include himself
Father is also used in 2 different sense in John 8 - creator and “messianic”
https://www.academia.edu/43206911
• “This is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.” (John 17:3)
The argument asserts that John 17:3 distinguishes Jesus from the “only true God” (the Father), thereby excluding Him from divinity. However, this interpretation relies on isolating this verse from the broader context of John's Gospel. In John’s narrative, Jesus consistently reveals His unique relationship with the Father, demonstrating unity of essence, mission, and authority.
The conjunction “and” (kai) connects "the only true God" and "Jesus Christ whom You have sent." Far from excluding Jesus from deity, this juxtaposition suggests that eternal life involves knowing both the Father and the Son. The structure parallels other passages that emphasize the equality of the Father and Son (e.g., John 5:23: “that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father”). Not only for understanding this verse but also for interpreting several other texts, it is important to recognize that the word "and" (kai) can also carry the meaning of "that is," "more precisely," or "namely." For examples of the use of the conjunction kai in this sense, see John 15:8 and 18:35.
The phrase “only true God” emphasizes the monotheistic foundation of Scripture, consistent with passages like Deuteronomy 6:4. It does not imply that Jesus or the Holy Spirit are excluded from divinity. Instead, it highlights the relational dynamic within the Trinity: the Father is the source, the Son is sent, and the Spirit proceeds. This relational order (often referred to as the economic Trinity) is a consistent theme in John’s Gospel. John 17:3 does not negate the deity of Jesus. Rather, it reflects the incarnational role of Jesus, who, as the sent one, acts as the mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5). His prayer acknowledges the Father’s role within the Godhead as the source of divine authority, without diminishing His own divine nature.
The syncategorematical use of "only" (monos) in John 17:3 emphasizes exclusivity without necessitating exclusion of the Son or Spirit. The term "only true God" does not imply that the Father is the only person who can possess divine attributes. In fact, similar restrictive language is used elsewhere in Scripture without excluding other members of the Godhead Jude 4 describes Jesus as “our only Master and Lord.” This does not exclude the Father from being Lord or Master, as seen in Matthew 11:25. In John 10:30, Jesus declares, “I and the Father are one,” emphasizing their shared divine essence and work, particularly in granting eternal life (John 10:28-30). Restrictive terms like “only” are often used in contexts that affirm uniqueness in one sense while allowing shared attributes in another. In John 17:3, the Father is identified as the source of divine authority within the Trinity, while the Son is the mediator through whom eternal life is granted.
The objection asserts that terms like "economic roles" are later theological constructs and not present in John’s Gospel. While the terminology developed later, the concepts are firmly rooted in Scripture. John consistently portrays a relational dynamic within the Godhead. Jesus (the Word) is with God and is God, indicating both distinction and unity (John 1:1-3). Jesus explains His dependence on the Father in His works, while also claiming the authority to give life and execute judgment—roles reserved for God (John 5:19-23). Jesus declares, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father,” underscoring His unity with the Father (John 14:9-10). These passages reveal the relational distinction and unity between the Father and the Son, forming the basis for the later articulation of economic and ontological distinctions within the Trinity.
The objection claims that “Son of God” is not inherently divine and that John’s Gospel does not equate this title with deity. This overlooks the broader theological implications of the title in John’s narrative:
1. John 5:18: The Jews seek to kill Jesus because He called God His Father, “making Himself equal with God.” The title “Son of God” here is understood by His audience as a claim to divinity.
2. John 10:30-33: Jesus’ declaration, “I and the Father are one,” leads the Jews to accuse Him of blasphemy, interpreting His words as a claim to deity.
3. John 20:28: Thomas addresses Jesus as “My Lord and my God.” Jesus does not rebuke Thomas, affirming the validity of this declaration.
4. John 1:18: Jesus is described as “the only-begotten God” (in some textual traditions), reinforcing His divine nature.
John’s Gospel consistently portrays Jesus as the unique Son of God who shares the Father’s essence and authority. The title “Son of God” in John’s context is not merely functional or honorary but carries profound theological weight.
John 20:31 states the purpose of the Gospel:
• “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.”
The objection claims that this purpose does not imply Jesus’ deity. However, John’s portrayal of Jesus as the Son of God is intrinsically linked to His divine nature and role as the giver of eternal life (John 3:16, John 17:2). The “life in His name” referenced here underscores His divine authority and role in salvation, attributes unique to God.
John 17:1-5 provides further context for understanding verse 3. Jesus prays for the Father to glorify Him with the glory they shared before the world existed. This preexistent glory confirms His divine nature and unity with the Father. The mutual glorification of the Father and the Son reflects their shared divine essence and mission (John 17:5, John 14:13). Far from diminishing Jesus’ divinity, John 17:3 underscores the relational dynamic of the Trinity. The Father, as the source, is identified as the “only true God,” while the Son, as the revealer, is the means through whom eternal life is granted. This relational framework is central to John’s presentation of Jesus as fully God and fully man.
Margaret Davies on John 20:28:
"But it is perfectly appropriate for Thomas to respond to Jesus’ resurrection with a confession of faith both in Jesus as his Lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the confession in this way actually makes much better sense in the context of the Fourth Gospel. In 14:1 belief both in God and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which Thomas is particularly singled out. Moreover, nowhere else in the Gospel is Jesus called God. Rather, he is called God’s son, and this is the confession that the Gospel urges its readers to make at the end of ch. 20: ‘These things are written that you may believe or continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that continuing to believe you may have life in his name’ (20:31). If we understand Thomas’s confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20.31 becomes an anti-climax." (Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel), pp. 125, 126
Since the words of God were spoken from the burning bush ("I am who I am"; Exodus 3:14), to a Jewish ear, every "I am" resonates as a divine declaration. Martin Buber recounts the following story about a Jewish rabbi who knocks on his friend's door late at night. To the question, "Who is it?" he simply replies, "I am!" Upon hearing this, the friend responds, "Who dares to call themselves 'I am,' when only God has the right to do so?" The phrase "I am Yahweh" (Isaiah 45:18) is rendered simply as "I am" (egō eimi) in the Greek Old Testament and the Septuagint. Thus, Christ adopted this Old Testament formula of divine revelation into the New Testament, asserting the extraordinary claim, incomprehensible to many Israelites, that He is the one who, in His person, reveals the Father, the one true and singular God of Israel. Here, Jesus responds to the Jews' questions with a solemn testimony. His statement signifies that He is superior to Abraham both in time and significance. He is not merely someone who existed before the revered patriarch but the eternal being who is the Lord of both the past and the present—one with the eternal God. Jesus’ declaration seeks to reveal God in humanity, the One who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. However, the Jewish response to this "I am" declaration is not reverence or worship but the seizing of stones. Stoning was the method of execution for blasphemers.
While it’s true that the opponents misunderstood some of Jesus’ teachings, their understanding here aligns with John’s theology. The statement is not presented as a misunderstanding but as John’s inspired commentary, explaining why Jesus’ opponents considered his claims blasphemous. Immediately after, Jesus affirms his unity with the Father, saying:
• "Whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." (John 5:19)
• "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wishes." (John 5:21)
• "So that all will honor the Son just as they honor the Father." (John 5:23)
These are not the statements of someone distancing himself from equality with God but of someone affirming his divine prerogatives. It is true that some Jewish leaders were overly rigid about Sabbath laws. However, this doesn’t undermine their recognition of the gravity of Jesus’ claims. Accusations about Sabbath-breaking and blasphemy are distinct issues in this context.
James White does not deny that John 8:58 is a claim to deity. White affirms that ἐγώ εἰμί is an assertion of Jesus’ eternal existence and divine nature. Any misrepresentation of his views would need citation to be credible. The question in John 8:25, following Jesus’ statement in John 8:24 ("unless you believe that I am [He], you will die in your sins"), reflects their failure to understand Jesus’ identity. This confusion arises from their spiritual blindness, a recurring theme in John's Gospel (John 1:5, 3:19-21). The inquiry does not negate the theological weight of ἐγώ εἰμί in John 8:58. The Jews’ reaction to Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was born, I am")—attempting to stone him—is significantly different from their response to earlier uses of ἐγώ εἰμί. This violent reaction indicates they recognized this as a claim to eternal existence, echoing God’s self-identification in Exodus 3:14. If it were a simple statement of pre-existence, such a reaction would be unwarranted.
In John 8, Jesus distinguishes between physical descent and spiritual fatherhood. The Jews claimed Abraham as their father based on lineage (John 8:33, 39). Jesus challenged this, saying their deeds proved their spiritual father was the devil (John 8:44). Jesus repeatedly refers to "my Father" (John 8:19, 38, 49), emphasizing his unique relationship with God. The use of "Father" as creator or messianic title does not negate the theological claim that Jesus shares a unique, divine sonship with the Father.
About John 8:58, see the links below.
The PPA is the best understanding of the Greek in context:
https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/before-abraham-was-i-what-exactly/
HeKS's excellent exegesis of the text (this is better than anything I've seen from any scholar):
https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2020/01/12/john-858-an-alternative-approach-to-its-role-in-the-debate-over-christs-identity/
Why John 8:58 isn't identifying Jesus as the God who spoke in Exodus 3:14:
https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2024/06/16/assertion-jesus-said-before-abraham-was-i-am-and-thereby-claimed-to-be-god/
While Greek grammar can support various interpretations of "eimi," its use with "prin" (πρὶν, "before") in John 8:58 constructs an emphatic declaration. Jesus' choice of the present tense, rather than the aorist ("I was"), conveys an ongoing and eternal existence, aligning with divine self-identification. Scholarly consensus, including that of grammarians such as A.T. Robertson, acknowledges this present tense as deliberate, emphasizing eternal, timeless existence. A.T. Robertson and Daniel Wallace note that this is an instance of the "present of past action still in progress" (PPA), indicating ongoing, timeless existence rather than a simple past. Rendering "ego eimi" as "I have been" might be grammatically plausible in some cases, but it strips the phrase of its theological depth. The use of "ego eimi" in this context conveys more than pre-existence—it affirms Jesus' divine identity.
While it is true that "ego eimi" can serve as a simple identification in various contexts, the significance of its use in John 8:58 lies in the context and the reaction of the audience. Context determines meaning. While "ego eimi" can serve as a simple identifier in certain contexts, its usage in John 8:58 is unique. The phrase is placed in a context of pre-existence and contrasted with Abraham's temporal origin. Additionally, Jesus uses it without a predicate, in a way that evokes the self-identification of God. The uniqueness of this construction in a theological discourse, combined with the reaction of the audience, makes it clear that Jesus intended a deeper meaning than mere self-identification. Further, Jesus uses "ego eimi" in other contexts within John's Gospel to signify theological truths, such as "I am the bread of life" (John 6:35) and "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12). These are not mere statements of identity but assertions of divine role and authority.
John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 use the self-identifying "I am" in theological contexts, emphasizing unique divine identity. In John 8, Jesus contrasts His existence with Abraham's temporal origin, highlighting His pre-existence and eternal nature. The connection to Exodus 3:14 is not arbitrary but rooted in the Jewish understanding of God's self-revelation, further reinforced by Jesus' audience reacting with violence due to perceived blasphemy. The theological link between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 is not arbitrary but intentional within the context of John's Gospel. John frequently emphasizes Jesus' divine identity (John 1:1, 1:18, 10:30). The use of "ego eimi" in John 8:58 fits this theological framework, reinforcing the claim that Jesus shares the divine nature of the Father. Moreover, the self-referential "I am" statements throughout John's Gospel echo the themes of self-existence and eternal presence found in Exodus 3:14. While the precise Greek wording differs, the theological resonance remains clear.
Jesus' statement, "Before Abraham was, I am," directly evokes Exodus 3:14 ("I AM WHO I AM") in the Septuagint, where God identifies Himself as "ho ōn" (ὁ ὤν, "The Being") and "ego eimi" in the present tense. The emphasis in both Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 is not solely on the precise linguistic form but on the self-referential, timeless existence implied by "ego eimi." In Exodus 3:14, God reveals His eternal and self-existent nature to Moses. Jesus' use of "ego eimi" in John 8:58, in the context of pre-existence ("Before Abraham was"), parallels this timeless, divine self-identification.
The Jews' attempt to stone Jesus (John 8:59) strongly suggests that they understood His words as a claim to divinity, considering it blasphemy. If Jesus had merely claimed pre-existence without divine implications, the extreme, violent reaction would be inexplicable. Critics suggest that the Jews misunderstood Jesus' claim, inferring blasphemy where none existed. However, the Gospel of John consistently portrays Jesus making statements that assert divine prerogatives (e.g., forgiving sins, claiming unity with the Father). Under Jewish law, claiming equality with God or usurping divine prerogatives was a capital offense (Leviticus 24:16). The Gospel of John consistently portrays the Jewish leaders accusing Jesus of blasphemy for making claims of divine authority (e.g., John 5:18, 10:33). The Jews' reaction to John 8:58 aligns with their understanding of Jesus equating Himself with God, which they explicitly accuse Him of in John 10:33. Critics also highlight instances where "ego eimi" is used in ordinary contexts (e.g., John 9:9), such uses occur without the profound theological implications and reactions seen in John 8:58. Context determines meaning, and the context of John 8:58—preceded by discussions of Abraham, eternal existence, and divine identity—renders Jesus' use of "ego eimi" unique and profound.
You said a lot, Nincsnevem. I will be brief.
It's clear, whatever one's belief, that John 17:3 neither calls nor identifies the only true God with Jesus. Notice the pronoun, "you" in the verse. As for Kai, it's not connecting the only true God with Jesus so that one would think he's being identified as such anymore than if we replaced Cyrus the Great with Jesus Christ here. Besides, Jesus manifestly was praying to the only true God in heaven per John 17:1-3. He was not praying to himself.
@Sean Kasabuske
The Greek text explicitly states, "Thomas answered and said to Him (εἶπεν αὐτῷ), 'My Lord and my God.'" The dative pronoun "αὐτῷ" (to Him) unambiguously identifies Jesus as the recipient of Thomas's declaration. The grammatical construction does not support a dual address to Jesus and the Father. In fact, no mention of the Father appears in the immediate context, and the passage is entirely focused on Thomas's interaction with Jesus. If Thomas's statement were intended as a confession of belief in both Jesus and the Father, we would expect explicit syntactical markers or additional language to clarify such a dual address. Instead, the text directly attributes the words to Jesus, leaving no ambiguity about the recipient.
John’s Gospel has a consistent Christological theme, presenting Jesus as divine from the very beginning (John 1:1: "The Word was God") to the climactic declaration in John 20:28. If Thomas were merely affirming belief in God as the one who raised Jesus, it would undercut the theological trajectory of the Gospel. The prologue (John 1:1-18) introduces Jesus as the divine Logos, and the conclusion in Thomas's confession reaffirms that truth. This symmetry underscores the Gospel's purpose: to present Jesus as both Lord and God. The suggestion that Thomas's statement is directed partially or entirely to the Father disrupts this narrative coherence.
The nominative case ("ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου") is commonly used in Koine Greek as a vocative for direct address, especially in elevated or formal contexts. Scholars such as Daniel Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics) and A.T. Robertson confirm that this nominative-for-vocative usage is frequent in the New Testament. For example, In Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, Jesus addresses the Father as "ὁ θεός μου" ("My God"); or Revelation 4:11 uses "ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεός ἡμῶν" ("our Lord and our God") as a direct address to God. In John 20:28, the nominative "ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου" follows the same pattern, functioning as a direct address to Jesus.
Davies argues that interpreting Thomas’s confession as a declaration of Jesus’s divinity would render John 20:31 anti-climactic. However, the opposite is true. Thomas’s statement serves as the climactic moment of recognition and belief in Jesus’s identity. John 20:31 follows naturally, summarizing the Gospel's purpose: to lead readers to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and to have life in His name. The phrase "Son of God" in Johannine theology inherently includes Jesus’s deity. John 5:18 explicitly states that by calling God His Father, Jesus "was making Himself equal with God." Therefore, Thomas’s declaration as "Lord and God" aligns perfectly with the Gospel’s message.
If Thomas’s statement were incorrect or blasphemous (as it would be if he were addressing Jesus as God without justification), Jesus, as a devout Jew, would have rebuked him. Instead, Jesus commends Thomas, saying, "Because you have seen Me, you have believed" (John 20:29). This affirmation indicates that Thomas’s declaration aligns with the truth Jesus revealed about Himself throughout the Gospel.
Davies’s claim that Thomas is confessing faith in both Jesus as Lord and God who raised Him is inconsistent with the immediate and broader context. The entire focus of John 20:24-29 is on Thomas's interaction with Jesus, not on God the Father. The absence of any reference to the Father in this pericope undermines the notion of a dual confession. The use of "my Lord and my God" as a single, unified address fits seamlessly within the narrative, whereas dividing the statement between two addressees introduces unnecessary complexity.
@Sean Kasabuske
The verb “ehyeh” is derived from the root “hayah,” which can mean "to be" in both present and future contexts depending on the grammatical and contextual nuances. In Exodus 3:14, God’s statement to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh," is best understood as an expression of timeless, self-existent being. It can be translated as "I AM WHO I AM" or "I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE," both emphasizing God’s eternal, unchanging nature. The LXX translates Exodus 3:14 as ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν ("I am the Being" or "I am the one who is"). While it includes "the Being" (ὁ ὤν) to emphasize God’s self-existence, the use of ἐγώ εἰμι aligns closely with Jesus’ usage in John 8:58. This connection is not imposed by Trinitarian translators but reflects a theological and linguistic parallel between the two texts. Exodus 3:14 is not just about God's future presence with Israel (as in Exodus 3:12) but about His nature as the eternally self-existent One. Jesus’ use of ἐγώ εἰμι in John 8:58 echoes this emphasis on timeless existence, particularly in light of the broader themes of divine identity and preexistence in John’s Gospel.
Jesus’ use of ἐγώ εἰμι in John 8:58 is sufficient to evoke the connection to Exodus 3:14 without the need for the full phrase ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. The audience’s reaction confirms that they understood the significance of His words. Jesus does not need to quote Exodus 3:14 verbatim to evoke its theological implications. The use of ἐγώ εἰμι in an absolute sense is enough to recall God’s self-revelation, especially given the context of discussing Abraham and divine authority.
John 8:58 is not an isolated verse but part of a larger Christological narrative in John’s Gospel. Jesus repeatedly speaks of His unique relationship with the Father, His preexistence, and His divine authority (e.g., John 1:1-3, 14; 5:18; 10:30). The "I AM" statements throughout John emphasize Jesus’ divinity and unity with the Father, culminating in Thomas’ confession in John 20:28: "My Lord and my God!" Jesus’ assertion in John 8:58 follows a discussion about Abraham rejoicing to see His day (John 8:56). When the Jews question how Jesus could have seen Abraham (John 8:57), Jesus responds with ἐγώ εἰμι. This response shifts the conversation from a temporal claim to a timeless declaration, emphasizing Jesus’ divine nature rather than merely His preexistence.
The PPA argument hinges on interpreting ἐγὼ εἰμί as an idiomatic extension from the past (e.g., "I have been"). While PPA constructions do exist in Greek, their proper application depends on clear contextual markers of duration or temporal extension. However, John 8:58 lacks the necessary grammatical and contextual elements to qualify as a true PPA. PPA constructions typically include an adverbial phrase indicating the extent of the past action (e.g., "for a long time" or "since"). For example, John 14:9 uses a clear PPA: "I have been with you all this time." In contrast, John 8:58 does not have such a marker, and πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ("before Abraham was") is not a temporal marker of duration but an absolute reference to a point in the past. Jesus does not merely assert preexistence but uses the present tense ἐγὼ εἰμί to emphasize His timeless, ongoing existence. This usage aligns more closely with the divine self-identification in Exodus 3:14 than with a typical PPA idiom.
The phrase ἐγώ εἰμι is used by Jesus repeatedly in John’s Gospel as a standalone statement, often without a predicate, and serves as a self-identification that transcends ordinary grammatical usage. Examples include John 8:24 ("Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins") and John 8:28 ("When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am"). These occurrences indicate that ἐγώ εἰμι is not merely an idiomatic expression but a deliberate and theologically loaded declaration. The traditional rendering ties Jesus’ use of ἐγώ εἰμι to Exodus 3:14, where God identifies Himself as "I AM WHO I AM" (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν) in the Septuagint.
(1/3)
(2/3)
While HeKS argues that the phrase in Exodus focuses on "the Being" (ὁ ὤν), the context of ἐγώ εἰμι in John unmistakably recalls the divine name, especially given the audience's reaction (see below). The absence of the predicate in John 8:58 underscores its absolute, divine usage. HeKS's preference for a "Prior Existence Rendering" relies on the idiom of "Extension from Past" (PPA). However, as noted by scholars like Daniel Wallace, the Greek present tense here is best understood as expressing a timeless, ongoing existence. This is not a conventional PPA because the verse lacks the typical adverbial markers required to signal duration (e.g., "for a long time" or "since"). The phrase "before Abraham was" sets a specific past reference point, but ἐγώ εἰμι stands as a declaration of continuous existence that is not constrained to the past.
So the PPA would at least require an adverbial modifier (e.g., "for a long time" or "since") to indicate duration from the past into the present. However, John 8:58 lacks such a modifier. Instead, the construction juxtaposes the aorist infinitive γενέσθαι ("to come into being") with the present tense ἐγώ εἰμι ("I am"). This contrast highlights the timelessness of Jesus’ existence, not merely a past-to-present duration. In the Johannine context, ἐγώ εἰμι is used repeatedly as a theological marker of Jesus’ identity, often in absolute terms without any accompanying predicate (e.g., John 8:24, 28; 13:19). These statements reflect self-identification, aligning with the divine self-revelation in Exodus 3:14. The phrase is not merely about preexistence but about Jesus’ eternal, divine nature.
McKay's argument that John 8:58 reflects an "Extension from Past" idiom has been challenged by numerous Greek scholars. While McKay's expertise is respected, his application of the PPA concept to John 8:58 is not widely accepted because it imposes an artificial constraint on the text. Other grammarians, such as Daniel Wallace, argue that ἐγὼ εἰμί is not a PPA but a statement of absolute existence, consistent with Jesus' claims to divinity throughout John's Gospel. Furthermore, the PPA interpretation fails to account for the theological and literary parallels between John 8:58 and the "I AM" statements elsewhere in John (e.g., John 6:35, 8:12, 10:11, 14:6). These statements consistently emphasize Jesus’ divine identity and authority, not merely His preexistence.
John 1:1-3 declares that the Word (Jesus) was both "with God" and "was God." This sets the tone for the entire Gospel, emphasizing Jesus’ divine nature and creative authority. John’s Gospel contains multiple ἐγώ εἰμι statements (e.g., "I am the bread of life," "I am the light of the world"), many of which echo God’s self-revelation in the Old Testament. These statements consistently underscore Jesus’ divine authority and identity. Thomas’ confession, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28), affirms the divine identity of Jesus, which is a central theme of the Gospel. The "I AM" statements in John consistently highlight Jesus’ divine authority and role as the source of life (e.g., John 6:35, 8:12, 11:25). These declarations affirm His unity with the Father and His identity as the self-existent One.
McKay’s interpretation suggests that Jesus’ claim to preexistence would have been offensive enough to warrant stoning because it could be seen as a lie or as blasphemy by association. However, this reasoning does not align with Jewish legal practices or the narrative context. Claiming to be "really, really old" would not have constituted blasphemy under Jewish law unless it was explicitly tied to a divine claim. The charge of blasphemy arises from Jesus’ use of ἐγὼ εἰμί in a manner that His audience understood as invoking the divine name. The reaction of the Jews in John 8:59 underscores this: they did not misunderstand Jesus—they recognized His claim and responded with an attempt to stone Him for what they saw as blasphemy.
(2/3)
(3/3)
Why would Jesus’ statement provoke such a hostile response if He was merely claiming to have existed before Abraham? The Jews were not reacting to an exaggerated claim of age; they were responding to what they perceived as blasphemy—a claim to divine identity. In Jewish thought, invoking God's self-referential name from Exodus 3:14 ("I AM WHO I AM") was a direct claim to deity. Jesus’ use of ἐγὼ εἰμί (ego eimi), especially without a predicate, strongly echoes the divine self-identification found in the Septuagint translation of Exodus 3:14 (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, "I am the being"). This would have been unmistakable to His Jewish audience. If Jesus had simply claimed preexistence, His audience might have dismissed Him as delusional, but the charge of blasphemy and their immediate attempt to stone Him indicate they understood Him to be making a divine claim.
In Jewish thought, stoning was reserved for blasphemy, which includes claiming divine status (Leviticus 24:16). The immediate context shows that the Jews understood Jesus’ words as a claim to equality with God. Their reaction to stone Him in John 8:59 parallels their response in John 10:30-33, where they accused Him of blasphemy for declaring, "I and the Father are one."
While Jews were strict monotheists, they were familiar with the concept of God revealing Himself in unique ways, such as through the Angel of the Lord or the divine Word (Memra). Jesus’ use of ἐγώ εἰμι would have been recognized as an appropriation of divine identity, especially in light of Exodus 3:14. The Jews’ attempt to stone Jesus indicates they understood His claim as blasphemous, not merely a statement of preexistence or superiority over Abraham. HeKS’s argument that the Jews were reacting to Jesus’ claim to priority over Abraham (based on temporal precedence) is unconvincing because such a claim would not constitute blasphemy under Jewish law.
In Jewish thought, stoning was the prescribed penalty for blasphemy, including claims to divine status (Leviticus 24:16). The immediate context of John 8 shows that Jesus’ opponents understood His statement as a claim to divinity. Their reaction mirrors similar responses in John 5:18 and 10:30-33, where they sought to kill Jesus for "making Himself equal with God." A mere claim to preexist Abraham would not have provoked such a reaction. Jewish theology allowed for the preexistence of figures like Wisdom (Proverbs 8:22-31) or angels without attributing divinity to them. The violent response in John 8:59 indicates that Jesus’ claim went beyond preexistence to identify Himself with the eternal, self-existent God.
The alternative renderings proposed by Goodspeed, Moffatt, and others ("I existed before Abraham was born") fail to capture the theological and literary depth of ἐγὼ εἰμί in John 8:58. While these translations attempt to make the text more accessible, they dilute the connection to Exodus 3:14 and the broader context of John’s Gospel. The PPA argument also falls short when considering the theological implications of Jesus' statement. If Jesus is merely claiming preexistence, this would not align with the high Christology evident throughout John's Gospel. The traditional rendering, "Before Abraham was, I am," better captures the timeless and divine nature of Jesus’ claim. HeKS references alternative translations of John 8:58 that favor the "Prior Existence Rendering." However, these translations often prioritize theological presuppositions over the text’s natural meaning. While some translations render the verse as "I existed before Abraham was born," this does not adequately capture the absolute nature of ἐγώ εἰμι as a statement of divine self-identification.
@Edgar Foster
John 17:3 proves monotheism at best, not Unitarianism, this does not deny that Jesus is God, although in his state of self-emptying the Son understandably did not emphasize his deity in prayer. This verse says that “the Father is the only true God” (which is in accordance with Trinitarian teaching), but it does not say that “the only the Father is true God alone,” there is a clear difference between the two propositions.
This statement does not exclude Jesus from deity but rather highlights the relational distinction within the Godhead. The pronoun "you" in the phrase "you, the only true God" is used to identify the Father as the source of divine authority. However, the context of John's Gospel consistently presents Jesus as sharing the same divine essence as the Father. The use of "you" in here does not exclude Jesus from being divine but reflects the relational dynamics within the Trinity, where Jesus (as the Son) relates to the Father as the one who sends Him.
The grammatical structure of John 17:3—"that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent"—uses kai to link two elements:
1. The Father (the "only true God").
2. Jesus Christ, through whom eternal life is granted.
In biblical Greek, “kai” can be explanatory or emphatic, meaning "that is" or "namely," as seen in other passages like John 15:8 or John 18:35. Thus, “kai” in John 17:3 could also be understood as "namely Jesus Christ," emphasizing that knowing both the Father and the Son is central to eternal life. Further support comes from John 14:6, where Jesus states: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." This demonstrates that the Father and the Son are intimately connected in the granting of eternal life. Hence, the use of “kai” in John 17:3 should not be interpreted as separating Jesus from the Father but as connecting them in the salvific work of God.
Within the Trinity, the Father and the Son are distinct persons who share the same divine essence. Jesus’ prayer reflects His incarnational role as the mediator between God and humanity (1 Tim. 2:5). This role requires Jesus, in His humanity, to pray to the Father, which does not negate His divine nature. For example in John 17:5 Jesus prays, "Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." This statement affirms Jesus’ preexistence and His shared divine glory with the Father, clearly indicating His divinity. According to Phil. 2:6-7 Jesus voluntarily "emptied Himself" and took on human form. His prayer life reflects His submission to the Father during His earthly ministry, not a denial of His deity. Jesus praying to the Father highlights their relational distinction, not a division in essence. To claim that Jesus’ act of prayer excludes Him from divinity ignores the broader theological context of the Trinity.
You overlook the fact that John 17:3 emphasizes the necessity of knowing BOTH the Father AND the Son for eternal life. The verse does not say that eternal life is knowing ONLY the Father. Instead, it states: "This is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." The Gospel of John consistently emphasizes that eternal life is found in Jesus:
• John 6:40: "Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life."
• John 10:28: "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish."
• John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
These passages affirm that eternal life is inseparably tied to both the Father and the Son. The Father is the source of eternal life, and the Son is the means through which it is granted. John 17:3 does not diminish Jesus’ role but underscores the relational unity of the Father and Son in the work of salvation.
Nincsnevem, I don't want to impute bad intentions to your replies, but the reply above clearly misrepresented my point and intentions for interacting with you. Of course I believe that we must know the Father and Jesus Christ. That is standard Witness belief and I heartily affirm it. However, the point of our discussion centered around the only true God. In any event . . .
1) To claim that kai could be translated as namely or that is in John 17:3 is a desperate stretch. To do it that way would mean Jesus is being identified with the Father. Besides, "you" makes that highly unlikely.
2) I understand what you're saying about only, but it sometimes excludes others as in "Sam is the only person qualified to translate this passage"
Sorry, but the broader theological context of the Trinity has no impact on my reading of the Bible. I think the Trinity is false.
At the end of the day, John 17:3 identifies one divine person as God.
@Edgar Foster
The Greek word καὶ has a range of meanings, including "and," "also," "even," and occasionally "that is" or "namely." While I am not suggesting that καὶ always means "namely," the point is to consider the theological and grammatical context. The use of "you" distinguishes the Father as the person being addressed, yet this does not exclude the Son from the divine identity. Instead, it reflects the relational distinction between the Father and the Son within the Trinity. In John’s Gospel, knowing both the Father and the Son is consistently presented as essential for eternal life (John 6:40, 14:6). The καὶ in John 17:3 underscores this duality. If καὶ simply meant "and" in an additive sense, it would imply two separate and unrelated conditions for eternal life: knowing the Father as the only true God and knowing Jesus Christ as someone entirely distinct. This contradicts the relational unity consistently depicted in the Gospel of John.
You stated that "John 17:3 identifies one divine person as God." Well, I can agree on that, but since other parts of the Bible also identify other divine persons as God, it is a syncategorematical use of "only" (monos), just like for example in Jude 4. So "monos" does not exclude other divine persons from being the true God, but it excludes foreign gods, hence this simply asserts monotheism, not unitarianism.
The phrase "the only true God" identifies the Father, not as a denial of the Son's divinity, but as a recognition of the Father’s role as the source within the Trinity. The Trinitarian framework sees the Father as the origin within the Godhead, yet the Son and the Spirit share the same divine essence. The word "only" (monos in Greek) can emphasize uniqueness without necessarily excluding others who share the same nature. For example, Jesus is called the "only begotten Son" (monogenēs huios), yet believers are also called children of God (John 1:12). The uniqueness of Jesus' sonship does not exclude others from being sons of God in a different sense. John 17:3 highlights the Father as the only true God in a manner consistent with Trinitarian belief, affirming monotheism while maintaining the relational distinction between the Father and the Son.
According to BDAG, μόνος pertains to being the only entity in a specific class, but its usage varies depending on context. It can denote exclusivity or uniqueness within a specific reference frame, such as "the only God" (e.g., Jude 25). It can also function in a limiting or qualifying sense, as in "not only...but also," highlighting a focus without excluding additional elements (e.g., Romans 16:27: "the only wise God"). This nuanced usage is crucial in understanding passages like John 17:3, where μόνος ("only") is applied to the Father as "the only true God," but this does not exclude the Son or the Holy Spirit from the divine identity. Instead, it emphasizes the exclusivity of the true God as opposed to false gods or idols, which aligns with monotheistic theology rather than unitarianism.
Just like in Jude 4, which uses μόνος to refer to Jesus Christ as “the ONLY (μόνος) Master and Lord.” Just as the μόνος here obviously does not exclude the Father from also being Master and Lord, so in John 17:3 the μόνος does not exclude the Son from being God. The New Testament frequently identifies Jesus Christ with titles and functions reserved for God (e.g., Lord, creator, savior), showing that μόνος does not exclude Jesus from divine identity. Instead, it underscores the unique nature of the one true God in contrast to other so-called gods.
In John 17:3, μόνος does not mean that only the Father is God to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit. Instead it emphasizes the Father as the source and origin within the Trinitarian relationship, consistent with biblical monotheism; and distinguishes the true God from the pagan or false gods common in the cultural and religious milieu of the time. To clarify, μόνος in this passage functions in a relational context that does not contradict the Son's deity, as seen in other passages like John 1:1 ("the Word was God") and John 20:28 ("My Lord and my God"). Rather, it asserts the Father's role as the one true God, while maintaining the unity of the Godhead.
All in all, we can see that μόνος is not an absolute exclusionary term but one that serves to highlight the uniqueness of the true God in contrast to false gods. John 17:3 must be read in harmony with the rest of Scripture, which consistently presents Jesus as fully divine, alongside the Father and the Spirit. The text upholds monotheism without denying the Trinitarian understanding of God.
1) "namely" would make no sense in John 17:3. That usage would identify Jesus as the Father. See Raymond Brown's commentary.
2) I agree that "only" doesn't always exclude other members, but Jesus could have easily identified himself as the only true God, but he did not. As you know, neither John 1:1 or 20:28 proves that Christ is God for me or for millions of other people. Take care.
So we are going to use other possible meanings for Kai to try and assert Jesus meant to include himself… how is that not cherry picking??
You know the reason witnesses use this “excuse” right? Actual linguistical reasons - your assertation has no linguistical foundation among any source..
One pronoun in 1 verse makes it so only Jesus is included and can’t be directed at anyone else… yet in the other the pronoun means nothing.. and can include a range of others…. How is this not a stretch … this is NOT how Greek works.
A similar construction is found in 1 Sam 28:12 ( I believe) where a human is addressed with the divine name and uses a pronoun - let me guess it wasn’t the human king being addressed?
You can go context, Jesus is said to be god in other places and the rest of your excuses - but the fact is, there is linguistical foundation to support an agent being addressed as the sender here and even in Christ’s case.
Tell me Ninc what bible renders “Kai” in any other way than “and”? Because it clearly is meant to seperate Christ from the only true God because Christ is the “the one whom you sent”
Origen is also very clear on this…
The God ( the father). Is autotheos the son is not..
others can be a god by participation
You can handle James white on “I am”…
“Scholars such as Daniel Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics) and A.T. Robertson confirm that this nominative-for-vocative usage is frequent in the New Testament.” - what does Daniel Wallace actually say on this subject in that book?
Hmm? Your being very selective
A.T Robertson also?
“The objection asserts that terms like "economic roles" are later theological constructs and not present in John’s Gospel. While the terminology developed later, the concepts are firmly rooted in Scripture.” - where? Where is this presented in just 1 verse?
Like you want from the witnesses, I expect the same from you
A commentary on Biblehub
“He calls the Father the only true God in order to set him against all false gods”
Where, no false gods are in this context.. surely Isaiah 44:24 is better for such an assertion when we have false gods in the context VERSES before hand
Catholic theologian John McKenzie on the Trinity (quoted in context):
https://christiandiscipleschurch.org/content/statement-mckenzie
@Edgar Foster
I did not argue that the Father is identical in person with the Son, but that the Son is also included. The question is whether the comma can be justified ("the only, true God"), whether μόνος refers to ἀληθινός or to θεός. In German, the adjectival inflection would show this better ("der einzig wahre Gott" vs. "der einzigE wahre Gott"). So we should analyze whether μόνος modifies ἀληθινός (resulting in "the only true God") or stands separately as an exclusive descriptor for θεός (resulting in "the true God, the only one") highlights the interpretive nuance. While German grammar would differentiate with declensions, Greek lacks this disambiguation. However, context and Johannine theology can guide us.
Jesus addresses the Father as "the only true God," distinguishing the Father from false gods but not excluding the Son from the divine essence. This reflects the monotheism of Second Temple Judaism while introducing the relational dynamics within the Godhead. The conjunction καί distinguish "the only true God" (the Father) from "Jesus Christ, whom you sent," yet does not necessarily place Jesus outside the divine identity. John consistently identifies Jesus as sharing in the divine nature. For example, John 1:1 declares, "the Word was God," and John 10:30 asserts, "I and the Father are one." In the broader context, John 17:5 presents Jesus asking to be glorified "with the glory I had with you before the world existed," indicating pre-existence and equality with the Father.
Even μόνος qualifying θεός does not exclude Jesus from being God; rather, it emphasizes the Father as the source and sender within the divine economy. This verse must be read in harmony with passages that affirm Jesus' divinity (e.g., John 1:1, 20:28) and the Spirit's divinity (e.g., John 14:16-17).
You wrote:
“but Jesus could have easily identified himself as the only true God, but he did not.”
I quote on of my theology books at hand:
„If Jesus Christ is God, why did He not clearly and directly declare it? Why did He so often avoid giving a straightforward answer and content Himself with ambiguous hints and cryptic allusions?
Answer:
a) The incarnation of the one true God and, with it, the revelation of the Trinity, was an extraordinary and overwhelming concept for the strictly monotheistic Jews, who, since the Babylonian exile, had conceived of God as utterly transcendent and unapproachable. The wisdom that "orders all things gently" did not permit the great mystery to blaze forth fully at once. The "sun" of this truth, at the moment of its rising, was not allowed to reach its zenith immediately, dazzling and intimidating all with its brightness. Instead, its early rays, filtering through the clouds of restraint, needed to accustom souls gradually, preparing them step by step to receive the full understanding of the mystery.
b) The incarnate Word had to accomplish the work of redemption through a meritorious life: by living in direct contact and interaction with humanity, experiencing persecution, suffering, and obedience (Luke 24:26; Heb. 2:10; Phil. 2:7–11; Matt. 20:28). If, however, He had presented Himself to His contemporaries in the overwhelming radiance of His deity, the possibility of such a truly human, meritorious life would have ceased to exist. This would have disrupted the entire order of salvation history (œconomia salutis). Furthermore, there would have been no room left for faith in the hearts of people. If Jesus Christ had revealed Himself with complete clarity and tangible evidence as God through words and deeds, it would have inaugurated an eschatological state—the kind of reality He associated with His second coming. The first time, however, He did not come to receive homage and rule but to serve. Thus, His reserved self-revelation was a sign of His superhuman wisdom and, at the same time, evidence that this confession of His deity was not a later human invention. If humans had fabricated it, they would have impatiently and indiscreetly thrust Christ’s deity to the forefront.
What apologetics establishes about the character of Jesus Christ places beyond doubt what He Himself affirmed: "Even if I bear witness concerning Myself, My testimony is true" (John 8:14). Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable: Jesus Christ is God. The argument that Jesus never explicitly says the words "I am God" and therefore cannot be fully divine misunderstands the way Jesus communicated His identity and the way Scripture reveals theological truths.”
@Anonymous
According to BDAG and other lexicons, καὶ has a variety of meanings, including "and," "also," "even," and "namely." Context determines its use, and καὶ can be explanatory rather than additive. For example:
• John 1:16: "grace upon grace" (charin anti charitos kai), where kai links explanatory elements.
• Romans 1:5: "grace and apostleship" (charin kai apostolen), where kai highlights a specific role of grace.
Thus, using καὶ to connect and clarify the Father and Jesus as essential to eternal life in John 17:3 is consistent with established Greek usage. John 17:3 emphasizes eternal life as knowing both the Father and Jesus. The Father as "the only true God" is distinguished from false gods, not Jesus. The structure naturally integrates Jesus into the identity of the one true God.
καὶ is indeed most often rendered as "and," but it can carry additional meanings such as "also," "even," or "indeed," depending on context. While this flexibility must not be misused, it is not "cherry-picking" to consider these meanings when analyzing the theological implications of a passage. In John 17:3, the broader Johannine context (e.g., John 1:1, 10:30, 20:28) supports an inclusive interpretation of Jesus’ relationship to the "only true God," not as a separate being but as one sharing the divine nature. Your claim that this lacks linguistic foundation overlooks the nuance inherent in Greek conjunctions and their dependence on immediate and broader textual context.
It can also function as a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merism
The pronoun “you” (se) in John 17:3 refers to the Father but does not exclude Jesus from the Godhead. Trinitarian theology recognizes relational distinctions within the Godhead without dividing essence. Regarding the claim that "one pronoun in one verse" has been overemphasized while being dismissed elsewhere, this is not accurate. The use of pronouns in Greek, especially in John’s Gospel, is always contextually sensitive. When Jesus says, "the one whom you sent," the phrase is subordinate, emphasizing the mission of the Son without diminishing his divine nature. The structure does not inherently separate the Son from the divine identity but highlights the incarnational mission of Christ. The broader context of John consistently affirms Christ’s deity (e.g., John 1:1, 5:18, 10:30).
The reference to 1 Samuel 28:12, where Saul is addressed as "God," fails as an analogy. The Hebrew term “Elohim” is contextually applied to human judges and spiritual beings, often metaphorically. In John 17:3, the designation "the only true God" (ton monon alēthinon theon) is a direct assertion of divine exclusivity, incompatible with metaphorical or secondary usage. The context of John’s Gospel consistently ascribes divine attributes to Jesus, unlike the metaphorical “Elohim” in 1 Samuel 28:12. That passage involves the witch of Endor addressing a human king, Saul, and the divine name appears in a narrative of judgment rather than direct theological exposition. It does not parallel John 17:3, where Jesus is explicitly discussing the nature of God and his own role. The contexts and purposes of these passages are markedly different, and linguistic parallels, while worth noting, must be evaluated within their respective contexts.
(1/2)
(2/2)
You reference Origen's claim that the Father is αὐτόθεος, while the Son participates in divinity. While Origen indeed used this term, it was part of his broader theology, which acknowledged the Son’s full divinity. The question is what Origen actually meant by the concept of αὐτόθεος. If he simply meant by this that the Father is ἀγέννητος, while the Son is γεννητός, then this view is completely orthodox. Origen's view of the Trinity was complex and still affirmed the unity of divine nature. However, subsequent Trinitarian theology refined these nuances, particularly through the Cappadocian Fathers, culminating in the Nicene Creed. Importantly, Origen’s terminology does not negate the foundational equality of the persons of the Trinity as later articulated. Origen affirmed the Son's divine nature and preexistence, the distinction Origen makes is functional, reflecting the relational roles within the Trinity. Origen’s acknowledgment of the Son’s deity aligns with John’s high Christology (e.g., John 1:1, 20:28).
As for Daniel Wallace and A.T. Robertson, both scholars affirm that the nominative-for-vocative construction (using "God" in the nominative case as a form of address) is common in the New Testament. Wallace specifically discusses its usage in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (p. 58–59), noting its relevance in passages like John 20:28. Robertson, in A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, highlights the flexibility and richness of Greek syntax, which accommodates such constructions without diminishing their theological significance. These sources provide grammatical backing for the interpretation that Thomas directly addresses Jesus as "My Lord and my God" in John 20:28.
You also challenge the idea of "economic roles" as a theological construct later applied to John’s Gospel. While the specific term "economic" is post-biblical, the concept is present in Scripture. For example, John 5:19–23 portrays the Son as operating in perfect unity with the Father’s will, reflecting a functional distinction within the unity of the Godhead. This distinction aligns with later theological language without being anachronistic. The same concept is evident in Philippians 2:6–7, where Christ, though "in the μορφή of God," humbles himself to take on human form—demonstrating a self-imposed economic subordination.
You argue that the context of John 17:3 lacks reference to false gods. However, John 17:3 contrasts the Father with idols implicitly, as the phrase "the only true God" reflects the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). The emphasis on true monotheism inherently rejects idolatry. Jesus consistently contrasts His divine mission with the falsehood of the world (e.g., John 8:44, 12:31). The Johannine focus on truth (John 1:14, 14:6, 17:17) inherently excludes false gods. The context of John 17:3 does not require an immediate reference to false gods for this statement to be meaningful. It remains a declaration of monotheism in a broader Greco-Roman and Jewish context rife with polytheistic and henotheistic beliefs. The absence of explicit false gods in the immediate context does not invalidate the theological point.
McKenzie's assertion that the formal doctrine of the Trinity was developed in the 4th and 5th centuries is historically accurate but misinterpreted by critics. It does not imply that the Trinity was “invented” during that period. Rather, the Church, through councils like Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD), articulated the Trinity in response to heretical interpretations. The doctrine itself is rooted in the Apostolic tradition and the NT. The Trinity is implicitly present in passages like Matt. 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14. Even before the formal councils, early Christian writers like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian affirmed the triune nature of God, demonstrating that the Church’s later definitions were a clarification, not an innovation. The development of precise terminology was necessary to safeguard the faith from heresies like Arianism, which denied Christ’s full divinity, and Sabellianism, which conflated the persons of the Trinity.
McKenzie notes that terms like "essence" and "substance" come from Greek philosophy, which critics claim undermines their validity. However, the Church's use of philosophical language reflects its effort to explain divine mysteries in a way comprehensible to human reason. While the Bible does not use terms like "ousia," it provides the conceptual basis for Trinitarian theology. For example, John 1:1 speaks of the Word's divinity, and Philippians 2:6 describes Christ as "being in the ‘morphe’ of God." Thomistic theology emphasizes that philosophy is a handmaid (ancilla) to theology. Thomas Aquinas defended the Church's use of philosophical terms, noting that they help articulate truths already revealed by God. The terms "essence" and "person" were adopted to preserve the biblical truths of unity and distinction within the Godhead.
McKenzie observes that the personal nature of the Holy Spirit is not as explicitly defined in Scripture as that of the Father and the Son. However, the NT provides clear indications of the Spirit’s personhood. For example, the Spirit "teaches" (John 14:26), "speaks" (Acts 13:2), and "intercedes" (Rom. 8:26)—actions attributable to a person, not an impersonal force. God reveals Himself progressively. The OT emphasizes monotheism to counter pagan polytheism, while the NT unveils the Trinity through the Incarnation and Pentecost.
McKenzie's claim that the OT does not foreshadow the Trinity must be nuanced. While the OT does not explicitly teach the Trinity, it contains hints of plurality within God. For instance, Gen. 1:26 ("Let us make man in our image") and Isa. 48:16 ("And now the Lord God has sent me, and His Spirit") suggest a multiplicity of persons. The OT points to the Trinity through types and shadows, fully revealed only in the NT. This aligns with Augustine’s principle that the NT is hidden in the OT, and the OT is unveiled in the NT.
McKenzie correctly affirms that the Trinity is a mystery, which critics often misinterpret as irrational or incoherent. However, a mystery is not a contradiction but a reality that transcends human comprehension. As Aquinas explains, finite minds cannot fully grasp the infinite nature of God. This does not mean the Trinity is illogical but that it exceeds the capacity of natural reason. Thomistic theology emphasizes the harmony between faith and reason. The Trinity can be apprehended through revelation and partially understood using analogies, such as Augustine's analogy of the human mind (memory, understanding, and will) as a reflection of the triune God.
McKenzie’s observation that the NT does not explicitly address metaphysical issues like subordination reflects the scriptural focus on salvation history rather than speculative theology. However, the NT affirms the equality of the divine persons. John 10:30 and Phil. 2:6 emphasize Christ’s deity and unity with the Father. The Church later addressed metaphysical questions to counter heresies. For instance, the Nicene Creed explicitly rejects Arian subordinationism by affirming the Son as "consubstantial with the Father."
I did not say you referred to Jesus as the same person the Father is, but if kai means nameltor that is, in John 17:3, that would be the result. Please tell me one commentator or grammarian who supports your view of 17:3
One other thing, Nincsnevem. The God that I worship has no head over him: he is the head of everyone, including the Son. He is greater than the Son, and the Father is called the one God and only true God. Two things that the Son and spirit are never called.
I checked Muarray J. Harris' book, Jesus As God, page 259. Harris is a Trinitarian but he still explains John 17:3 thus:
"As the text reads, there is clear parallelism, with each object of γινώ-σκωσιν defined by a proper name in epexegetic apposition:
ινα γινώσκωσιν σε τον μόνον άληθινόν θεόν
και δν άπέστειλας Ίησοΰν Χριστόν11
The two appositive phrases are not set in opposition,12 for δν άπέστειλας identifies Jesus Christ as the person whom the one true God sent as his revealer (cf. John 1:18). Yet the two phrases do distinguish Ιησούς Χριστός from ό μόνος αληθινός θεός, the Son from the Father, as is consistently the
case throughout the Fourth Gospel. In this regard John 17:3 expresses in Johannine idiom Paul's distinction between εις θεός ό πατήρ and εις κύριος Ιησούς Χριστός (1 Cor. 8:6)."
So, among other things, Christ cannot be the "only true God" in John 17:3, if he's distinguished in this way and he's the one whom the only true God sent. The only true God did not send himself.
My point is that John is not calling the Son, "only true God, in this text. Kai does not mean "namely" or "that is" here.
"The absence of explicit false gods in the immediate context does not invalidate the theological point." - works in reverse aswell with Isa 44:24... and other scriptures
tho false gods are explicitly stated in the context and by Tertullian
"the theological point" -? so your only here to prove a theological point? because your claims all along have proven very little
"My point is that John is not calling the Son, "only true God, in this text. Kai does not mean "namely" or "that is" here." - Id like a citation from any trinitarian-leaning bible that renders it this way..
If none do im doubtful Ninc is correct is his assumption, because trinitarian scholars will do whatever they think they can get away with.
tho "kai" has a variety of meanings - Which dictionary lists John 17:3 under either meaning Ninc has propsed Iv checked 3 online quickly and none list John 17:3 under any such meaning.. So I think this is BS
"The name of the Father which Jesus has revealed to his disciples is thus the divine Name revealed to Moses in Exod 3:14 (R. E. Brown, John [AB], 2:755-56). See also Isa 62:2; 65:15-16." - Constables notes (NET Bible)
even the NET, Where Daniel Wallace was part of teh translation committee, doesnt mention an alternitive rendering for "Kai"
taher suggests the latter portion could be rendered "AND Jesus The messiah" - as a simplified version of the Greek statement (or whats implied in the statement)
|I would suggest emailing Wallace Ninc, and see he thinks of such an assertation Im sure he would love to hear your "sound" reasoning on the subject (This is sarcasm and in no way meant to be offensive, rather a joke)
Post a Comment