The Deity of Christ in the Gospel of John

Introduction

When I became a Christian in the early 80’s, I had a mentor and older brother in Christ named Dave who told me the first step to determine if a Bible translation was good, was to turn to John 1:1[1]and see what it said about Jesus. If it claimed that The Word was God, you were safe. This came in handy sometime later as some local Jehovah Witness adherents came knocking on my sister’s door. They spoke in nice religious language and with caring attitudes. They spoke of creation and God’s world, love and service to mankind. But they always got around to letting you know that Jesus never claimed to be God, because he was not. He was only the ‘son’ of God. The Watchtower society goes as far to say “Michael the archangel is no other than the “only begotten” Son, in that he is the only one directly created by Jehovah God.”[2]Their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures translates John 1:1 dishonestly and calls Jesus “a god”. It seems to me that much spiritual warfare surrounds the issue of the Divinity of Christ. I had to defend this topic as a young Christian then, and even today I put up a defense because Jesus as God is still under attack. We must let the Bible speak for itself, and when it plainly states a fact, we believe. In this paper we will let John, the writer of the fourth gospel gives us these facts. And when we see the plain truth, let us believe!

Ye Call Me Master and Lord: And Ye Say Well

The Gospel of John is turned to for the defense of the deity of Christ for good reason. Max turner writes “Despite the overwhelming affirmation of Christ’s divinity in the history of the church, there are surprisingly only three places in the NT where Jesus is quite unequivocally called “God”. All are in John’s Gospel.”[3] These grand statements in the Gospel of John: John 1:1, 1:18, and 20:28, along with the “I AM” sayings, and the Jews accusation that Jesus made Himself equal with God, have had a startling effect on many believers and spiritual seekers. Many could not equate “God in the flesh” - Immanuel (see Isaiah 7:14), with a natural body. We see this develop in the first century with what has been termed “Docetism”. This term is from the Greek word ‘dokeo’ which means, “seem or appear”. It is the belief that Jesus Christ only seemed to be human, suffer and die. Docetism rests on a dualism between matter and spirit, a belief fully developed within Gnosticism.[4]It is possible that John combated these ideas in his writings. John 1:14 states “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. The epistles of John continue this apologetic feature. First John 4:2-3 states “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God”.

It is understandable that some would like to separate God with man. How can God be subject to a body? Is He on our level? “… Will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built!” This is taken from 1 Kings 8:27 in the Old Testament. Solomon exclaimed this after he dedicated God’s dwelling place - Israel’s first glorious earthly temple. Docetism continued on developing as it grew, just like other ‘gnostic’ error. Early Christian writers already used the term (Gnosticism) as a general name for various social groups, which were not content with orthodox practices and beliefs otherwise widely accepted.[5]And they had some bizarre “spiritual and mystical” beliefs. The Gospel of John is orthodoxy, since it is scripture. Early church father held to John’s writings for truth, and defended against heresy by it. The Divinity of Christ was one of the main truths they defended- and the Gospel of John was their main text.

Early Church Fathers

The following quotes are from some early church leaders concerning the divinity of Christ.[6]

· “God Himself was manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life” Ignatius(c. 105 AD).

· “For Christ is King, Priest, God, Lord, Angel, and Man” Justin Martyr (c. 160 AD)

· “He is God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father's will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's right hand, and with the form of God is God." Clement of Alexandria (c.195 AD).

· “The same rule of truth teaches us to believe, after the Father, also on the Son of God- Christ Jesus. He is the Lord our God, but He is the Son of God, out of that God is both one and alone.” Novatian (c.235 AD).

· “ We believe …. In one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God; Light of Light; very God of God; begotten not made; being of one substance with the Father.” Nicene Creed (A.D. 325).

The last quote is from the Nicene Creed, which itself was a battleground of different opinions of concerning who Jesus was. The Church had to officially declare its stance on the divinity of Christ, which was under attack. Arch. B. D. Alexandra describes it: “The opinions of Arius at the beginning of the 4th century created such unrest as to call forth not only the admonition of bishops but also the intervention of the emperor Constantine, who, as a professed Christian, had become the patron of the church. The efforts of the emperor, however, had no effect in allaying the dissensions of the church at Alexandria, which, upon the banishment of Arius, spread throughout eastern Christendom. It was decided, therefore, to convoke a general council of bishops in which the Catholic doctrine should be once and for all formally declared. This, the first ecumenical council met at Nicea in Bithynia in 325 AD. There is no detailed record of the proceedings. “We do not know whether it lasted weeks or days” (Stanley, Lects on East Ch.). Arius, being only a presbyter, had no seat in the conclave, but was allowed to express his opinions. His chief opponent was Athanasius.

The controversy turned upon the nature of the Son and His relation to the Father. The word homoousios (“of one substance with”), used in the course of the argument with a view of disputing the extreme orthodox position, became the battleground between the parties. The Arians violently condemned. The Sabellians or Semi-Arians to evade its full force contended for the term homoiousios (“of like substance”). But the majority finally adopted the former expression as the term best suited to discriminate their view of the relation of the Father and Son from the Arian view. The assent of the emperor was gained and the words “being of one substance with the Father” were incorporated into the creed.”[7]

Since Christology is concentrated so strongly in our Gospel, it is noteworthy that this creed, in declaring who Jesus was and is, resembles the Gospel of John primarily. (compare my last ‘Nicene Creed’ bullet quote above).

The 20th Century

Rudolf Bultmann speaks of the “scandal” of the gospel that was articulated in John 1:14 : “the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen its glory.” “The Offense of the Incarnation of the Word” he calls it.[8] He goes on to elaborate in his often lofty language, that it is clear to begin with that for John, the incarnation of the Son is not, as it is in Gnosticism, a cosmic event, which sets in motion the unfolding of redemption to bring about the dissolving of light and darkness natures within mankind, where a ghost like Jesus figure releases us to our higher selves through secret knowledge etc. He says “ The Revealer appears not as man-in-general, i.e. not simply a bearer of human nature, but a definite human being in history: Jesus of Nazareth.[9] Bultmann, in 1955 (a time of a more liberal theological slant), felt that the most gripping theological claim of John’s Gospel was just this, that God’s glory was revealed in human flesh. He suggests that historically such a claim was made to push against docetic readings of the text. And yet, for his student Ernst Kasemann, the phrase “the Word became flesh” was only a way to write an earthly story of Jesus. He moved toward a more docetic ideology. Jesus “seems or appears” human but it was really was God walking on the earth, coming from on world into another, not a realistic human being.[10]

The Gospel of John

My reasoning for bringing out the debates from past and present is to show just how lofty John’s view of Jesus was. It is precisely because of John’s Gospel that people had these ideas. The Prologue of John (1:1-14) sets the stage for the whole gospel with its transcendence and yet still does retain an every day life feature. By transcendence, I mean we have a Genesis 1:1 echo: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (John 1:1-5). By every day life I mean “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe” (John1: 6-7). We also have the Gospel’s feature of “light and darkness” in verse five. These grand lofty ideas: Light and Darkness - a cosmic battle ideology – a spiritual gospel all present themselves in John. The Synoptic gospels start with earthly genealogies and earthly events. John talks of the Eternal Word Incarnate.

Let us look at select verses for my Divinity of Christ thesis.

John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

· Jesus is called the Logos of God, and God. He is the sum total of all God’s thoughts and will, and is equal with God.

· As I stated earlier in this paper, the Divinity of Christ may be debated, but John call Jesus God!

· G. Campbell Morgan said “ This is a simple and sublime statement, leaving no room for misapprehension”. And I concur, all scholars agree that John 1:1 can only be translated that the Word was God.

H.A. Ironside states “ John’s Gospel then, is emphatically that of the Deity of our blessed Lord. It presents Him as the Eternal Word, who in grace became flesh for our redemption. There is no human genealogy as in Matthew and in Luke, but we are carried back immediately into past eternity”.[11] Daniel L. Akin summarizes beautifully “By using Logos, John takes a familiar first-century term and fills it with new meaning. The Logosexisted in the beginning and is in some sense distinct from the Father. Yet the Logos is God. He is the member of the trinitarian Godhead who is the agent of creation and the source of both life and light. He is the “only begotten” (monogenes) of God (1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9)8 who took on flesh (sarx), human nature apart from sin, and entered history to reveal, literally to exegete (exegesato, v. 18) the invisible God. John’s use of Logos “seems to imply that the word he is speaking of is that prophetic word which goes forth from God’s mouth to accomplish creation, judgment, redemption and renewal. John uses Logosbecause it is the natural word for expressing the meaning of the Hebrew word dabarwhen the word was used in the context of God’s revelation.” Yet this Word is more than verbal expression. He is a person, and that person is the very Son of God. C. K. Barrett clarifies the issue when he remarks, “The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God; if this be not true the book [John’s Gospel] is blasphemous.”[12]

John 1:18

“God no one has ever seen. The only Son, by nature God, who is ever close to the Father’s heart, has brought knowledge of him”. [13]

This translation of John 1:18 has good foundations. Beasley says in his commentary footnote “The decision as to whether μονογενὴς θεός or μονογενὴς υἰός in v 18 is the original reading is difficult. Both readings are consistent with Johannine theology, and both have good external attestation, though the support of P66 and P75 gives advantage to the former. The difference in the uncials would be minimal, ΘΣ or ΥΣ (both abbreviations were usual). While υἱός seems more natural in view of the following εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, it should, perhaps for that very reason, be viewed as the easier reading and so yield to the more difficult θεός. In that case θεός must be viewed as in apposition to μονογενὴς and be understood as “God by nature” as in v 1c (so Schnackenburg, 1:280). Lindars, in agreement, comments, “The harder reading has the merit of bringing the thought back to v 1, and so constitutes another case of the Johannine inclusio, ‘God’ here has the same meaning as ‘and the Word was God’ (1c)” (99).

Yes, Johannine theology has Jesus as God, and it is found in original sources. Verse 18 hearkens back to John 1:1 as pointed out from the above technical quote. F.F. Bruce helps the English reader out with this technical talk by stating that the weight of the textual evidence favors ‘ God only –begotten’ or ‘the only begotten, (himself) God’. [14] John 1:18 is one of the strongest assertions of the Deity of Christ in the bible.

They Took up Stones to Throw at Him

· John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

· John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Then they (the Jews) took up stones to throw at Him.

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

These verses from John draw my paper to its close. I quote many scholars in the body of this paper, because I like to have backing in my beliefs. But these last few verses show quotes from His enemies; those who were there, hearing His words. Modern cults can deny Jesus divinity, but evidence from the Gospel of John proves them wrong on every point. I finish with whole hearted agreement with ‘old doubting Thomas’ after he saw the risen Jesus with his own eyes (as recorded in John 20:28) And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

We are blessed because we believe and yet do not see with our physical eyes: although we have strong evidence from John’s great gospel!

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

New King James Version (NKJV). Oxford University Press, Inc., 2002.

Bruce, F.F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1983

Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob, General ed. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of The Bible, Vol. 2 and Vol. 3. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.

Freedman, David Noel, Editor in Chief . Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol.2. New York: Doubleday, 1990.

Bercot, David W., Editor. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998.

Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament, Complete in One Volume. NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955.

Ironside, H.A. John. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1942, 15th Printing 1978.

Periodicals

“SOUTHERN BAPTIST JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY.” SBJT 1 1997

Electronic Sources

John. WBC 36; Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. Waco: Word Books, 1987

Orr, James, General Editor. THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA, 1915 Edition. Oak Tree Software, Vs.2.2

[1]Unless otherwise indicated all Bible references in this paper are to the New King James Version (Oxford University Press, Inc., 2002). [2]Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, New Heavens and a New Earth. (Brooklyn, NY: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1953),30. [3]Max Turner, “Divinity Of Christ.” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of The Bible, Vol. 2, General ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville: Abingdon Press), 150. [4]Robert E. Van Voorst, “Docetism.” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of The Bible, Vol. 2, General ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville: Abingdon Press), 154. [5]Kurt Rudolph, “Gnosticism”. Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol.2, Editor in Chief David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 1034. (Bracket mine). [6]David W. Bercot, Editor, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998), 92-128. [7]Arch. B. D. Alexandra, “Creed, Creeds”. THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA, 1915 Ed. General Editor, James Orr. (Oak Tree Software, Vs.2.2). Paragraph 14550. [8]Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, Complete in One Volume. (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955), 40. [9]Ibid. , 40-41. [10]Colleen M. Conway, “John, Gospel of”. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of The Bible, Vol. 3, General ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville: Abingdon Press), 369. [11]H.A. Ironside, John. (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1942, 15th Printing 1978), 13. [12] “THE NEVER-CHANGING CHRIST FOR AN EVER-CHANGING CULTURE.” SBJT 1 (1997): 34. [13] George R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC 36; Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. Waco: Word Books, 1987), 1. This is his translation. [14]F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1983), 44.