Response to Shabir Ally's article "The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus." Shabir Ally's words are in blue, and mine are in black.

I. None of the Bible�s Writers Believed That Jesus is God

We will show that the disciples never came to the conclusion that Jesus is God. And those are people who lived and walked with Jesus and thus knew first hand what he said and did.

Worshipping Jesus (Matthew 14:33, 28:17) and calling Him �My Lord and my God!� (John 20:28) are strange ways of showing belief in His non-divinity.

The idea that Jesus is God did not become part of Christian belief until after the Bible was written, and took many centuries to become part of the faith of Christians.

Joseph Gallegos gives us a list of Church Fathers, many from the second and third centuries (as early as 110 A.D.), who attest to Jesus� divinity.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/son.htm

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, authors of the first three Gospels, believed that Jesus was not God (see Mark 10:18 and Matthew 19:17).

�And he said to him, �Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.�� � Matthew 19:17

�Jesus said to him, �Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.�� � Mark 10:18

Is Jesus denying His divinity? No. Jesus gradually revealed to His followers that He and the Holy Spirit are God. In Matthew 16:13-14, Jesus asks His apostles who the masses said He was, and they responded, �Some say John the Baptist, but other Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.� Then, in verses 15-16, Jesus asks them who they say He is, and Peter responds, �You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.� Jesus responds, �Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven� (v. 17). From this exchange, we can see that Jesus did not reveal His divinity right away; rather, just as God slowly prepared the Israelites and the rest of the world for the fullness of His revelation in Jesus Christ, so too did Jesus slowly prepare His followers for the revelation that He is the Son of God, equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Thus, we can conclude that He was not ready to fully reveal His divinity yet. Because the rich young man, believing that Jesus was just a man, called Him good, Jesus challenged His assumption that mere men can really be good.

They believed that he was the son of God in the sense of a righteous person. Many others too, are similarly called sons of God (see Matthew 23:1-9).

�And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father�the one in heaven.� � Matthew 23:9

Yes, we are all adopted sons of God (Ephesians 1:5), but Jesus is the Father�s only begotten Son (Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5, 5:5), and since by definition like begets like, Jesus� sonship makes Him equal to God (John 5:18). In fact, He is called God�s �only Son� (John 3:16, cf. John 1:14, 1:18, 3:18; 1 John 4:9), indicating that we are all sons in a different sense.

For Paul, God first created Jesus, then used Jesus as the agent by which to create the rest of creation (see Colossians 1:15 and 1 Corinthians 8:6).

�He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation� � Colossians 1:15

Jason Evert explains this passage in his book Answering Jehovah�s Witnesses:

The of is present in English because in Greek the words all creation are in the genitive case. When translators encounter something in the genitive case in Greek, a standard way to translate it into English is to stick the word of in front of it. Of [sic] is an English preposition that has a very broad range of meaning. It can show possession (the genitive�s best-known function), as in �That is the house of John,� but it can also show other things, such as relationship, as in �That is the brother of John.� And it can show many other things as well.

In Colossians 1:15, the Jehovah�s Witnesses [and also the Muslims] are taking the genitive phrase �of all creation� to indicate a larger whole (the created world) of which the Son is a part. However, there are other kinds of genitives. One shows primacy over something. This seems to be the kind of genitive used here. The passage is stressing Jesus� primacy over all things, which verses 16 and 17 say were created through and for the Son and that he is what holds them together, putting him in a category different from and superior to the created world. This makes it more plausible to translate the phrase �the firstborn over all creation.�

�Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.� � 1 Corinthians 8:6

2 Kings 19:20, Isaiah 37:21, and Romans 14:11 all say that God is Lord, but are we to now throw these verses out and say that He is not and that a mere creature is? Of course not. This passage actually supports Jesus� divinity. By saying that Jesus is Lord, Paul implies that He is equal to God. It is clear that Paul is not saying that the Father is God but not Lord and that Jesus is Lord but not God; rather, He�s just attributing one divine title to the Father and one to Jesus.

In all of these writings, however, Jesus is still a creature of God and is therefore forever subservient to God (see 1 Corinthians 15:28).

�When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.� � 1 Corinthians 15:28)

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, the Father, as the head of the Trinity, is the �source and origin of the whole divinity� (245, quoting the Council of Toledo VI). While the three Persons of the Trinity are all equally God (because they each fully wield the divine nature), the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their divinity from the Father, who receives His divinity from no one (this is a mystery that we cannot explain; it must be accepted by faith). In his book Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis gives us a good analogy to help us understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can each be co-eternal:

Imagine two books lying on a table one on top of the other. Obviously the bottom book is keeping the other one up�supporting it. It is because of the underneath book that the top one is resting, say, two inches from the surface of the table instead of touching the table. Let us call the underneath book A and the top one B. The position of A is causing the position of B. Is that clear? Now let us imagine�it could not really happen, of course, but it will do for an illustration�let us imagine that both books have been in that position for ever and ever. In that case B�s position would always have been resulting from A�s position. But all the same, A�s position would not have existed before B�s position. In other words the result does not come after the cause.

Dave Armstrong explains for us how this does not make Him less God than the Father:

When the Father is called the "head" of the Son (1 Cor 11:3), this also does not entail any lessening of the equality between the Son and the Father. The Bible also talks about wives being subject to their husbands (1 Pet 3:1,5), even while the two are equals (Gal 3:28, Eph 5:21-22), and indeed, "one flesh" (Mt 19:5-6). Likewise, one Person of the Godhead can be in subjection to another Person and remain God in essence and substance (Phil 2:6-8)� Besides, submissiveness and servanthood is not presented as a sign of weakness in Scripture. Quite the contrary:

1 PETER 2:18 Servants, {be} subject to {your} masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward.

MATTHEW 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

The word for "greatest" here is meizon, the same word used in John 14:28. Thus, any notion that submissiveness is a lessening of equality is absolutely unscriptural. (Jesus is God: Biblical Proofs)

Now, because Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews believed that Jesus was God�s first creature, some of what they wrote clearly show that Jesus was a pre-existent powerful being. This is often misunderstood to mean that he must have been God.

Yes, it is very easy to make the mistake of believing that Jesus is God when Scripture says, �In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God� (John 1:1, emphasis mine). Additionally, this verse proves that when Scripture calls the Father God, it is often referring to the Father but not implying that the Son is not divine.

In fact, John quotes Jesus as saying: �...the Father is greater than I.� (John 14:28).

As Paul says, Jesus �emptied himself, taking the form of a slave� (Philippians 2:7) when He took on a human nature, so God the Father is greater than Jesus in His human nature, but they are equal in their divine nature.

And Paul declares that the head of every woman is her husband, the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God (see 1 Corinthians 11:3).

As I said before, the Father is the �source and origin of the whole divinity,� making Him the head of the Trinity.

The Bible clearly teaches that there is only one true God, the one whom Jesus worshipped (see John 17: 3).

�And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.� � John 17:3

Here, Jesus is not denying His divinity; in fact, He is affirming it. Eternal life is knowing both the Father and the Son, not just the Father. The Father is the only true God, but so is the Son, and so is the Holy Spirit. In fact, we are not only to know the Father and the Son, but we are also to �honor the Son just as�[we]�honor the Father� (John 5:23). I will comment more on this passage later.

The biggest problem with this issue is that when non-Christians see Scripture distinguish between the Persons of the Trinity, they automatically assume that they must be three different beings, only one of which is divine. However, because Scripture also affirms the divinity of both the Son and the Holy Spirit and because Tradition attests to the Trinity, the most plausible explanation is that God is three Persons with one Nature. Sure, this may be above our ability to fully comprehend (but should we really expect to totally understand God?), but one must keep an open mind. Yes, Scripture does affirm that the three Persons of the Trinity are distinct, but it also affirms that they are divine. Scripture passages such as John 17:3 may (some may, although this one, I believe, is not) be compatible with a belief in Jesus� non-divinity, but they are also compatible with a belief in the Trinity, so they cannot be used to disprove Jesus� divinity.

II. Evidence From the Acts of the Apostles

Peter stood up with the eleven disciples and addressed the crowd saying: �Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.� (Acts 2:22).

It was God, therefore, who did the miracles through Jesus to convince people that Jesus was backed by God. Peter did not see the miracles as proof that Jesus is God.

Many of the Scripture passages quoted in this section are similar to this one, so I�ll respond to them collectively rather than one by one. The author reads that the apostles, saying that the Father worked through Jesus, differentiated between Him and the Father, and concludes that Jesus therefore cannot be God. While this may seem like the only possible interpretation, it�s not. Rather than express a pre-Christian Christology, they express a primitive Christological language. They knew that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God and that the three are inseparable; they knew that each Person of the Trinity is distinct and that the Son became man; they knew that the Son proceeds from the Father and is His image and His word (John 1:1, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3); and they knew that the Father sent the Son. However, the apostles did not have the technical language that we have today, so they could not express the doctrine of the Trinity with the philosophical precision with which we today can express it. Thus, their explanations of the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while correct, are primitive, and a proper understanding of the Trinity can help us to correctly understand what the apostles mean in the Acts of the Apostles.

The Father, as the head of the Trinity, sent the Son into the world to become man and die for us (CCC 263, 422). The Son, because He receives His divinity from the Father and has the same nature, �can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise� (John 5:19). Jesus tells us, �The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works� (John 14:10). Thus, we can truly say that both the Father and the Son (and also the Holy Spirit) are �inseparable in what they do� (CCC 267). Therefore, it is not incorrect to say that the Father worked through Jesus, just as it is not incorrect to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds �from the Father through the Son� (CCC 248).

With this correct understanding of the Trinity, we can properly interpret the apostles� words in the Acts of the Apostles. Since all three Persons of the Trinity work together, we can attribute Jesus� miracles and resurrection to all three of them (cf. John 10:17-18).

�God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.� (Acts 2:36)

Jesus was made Christ by being saving us through His death and resurrection.

Ludwig Ott, explaining Philippians 2:9-11, tells us in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma how Jesus was made Lord:

As a reward for His further self-abasement during His earthly life, through His obedience even unto the death of the Cross, God exalted Him in His human nature over all created things by bestowing on Him the Jahweh-name Kyrios (Lord) and Divine adoration from all creatures. Christ�s human nature was assumed into the (manifest) Divine Glory (which the Logos enjoyed from Eternity) (cf. John 17, 5).

�So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.� � John 17:5

Here, as in Matthew 12:18, Jesus is the servant of God. Matthew tells us that Jesus was the same servant of God spoken of in Isaiah 42:1. So, according to Matthew and Peter, Jesus is not God, but God�s servant. The Old Testament repeatedly says that God is alone (e.g. Isaiah 45:5).

Jesus is the Father�s servant because, as I explained, the Father is the head of the Trinity, and He sent the Son into the world.

All of the disciples of Jesus held this view. In Acts 4:24 we are told that the believers prayed to God saying: �...they raised their voices together in prayer to God. �Sovereign Lord,� they said, �you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.�� It is clear that the one they were praying to was not Jesus, because, two verses later, they referred to Jesus as �...your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.� (Acts 4:27).

If Jesus is the �one Lord� (1 Corinthians 8:6, a passage the author previously cites as proof of Jesus� non-divinity), then they must have been praying to Jesus; however, as the author rightly points out, they distinguish between Jesus and the Father. Again, a proper understanding of this text requires a proper understanding of the Trinity. Since the Father and the Son are both the same being, they are both the �one God� and �one Lord.� Thus, read in the context of the whole of Scripture, this passage actually supports Jesus� divinity.

If Jesus was God, his disciples should have said this clearly. Instead, they kept preaching that Jesus was God�s Christ.

As I have shown thus far and will continue to show, they expressed Jesus� divinity and relationship to the Father as clearly as they could; it is not easy to express the Trinity accurately, clearly, and simply, especially without the technical language we have today.

The Greek word �Christ� is a human title. It means �Anointed.� If Jesus was God, why would the disciples continually refer to him with human titles like servant and Christ of God, and consistently use the title God for the one who raised Jesus?

First of all, they referred to Jesus as the �Author of life� (Acts 3:15), which to me seems like a rather divine title. Additionally, in his speech to the Ephesians elders, Paul said, �Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood� (Acts 20:28 Douay-Rheims). We know that it was Jesus who died, so if God purchased the Church �with his own blood,� Jesus must be God. Furthermore, when Stephen was being stoned, he prayed, �Lord Jesus, receive my spirit�Lord, do not hold this sin against them� (Acts 7:59-60). He wanted Jesus to receive His spirit in death and to forgive his murders, indicating that Jesus is God.

Secondly, they referred to Jesus by seemingly non-divine titles because He is also a man and because, while He is God, He was sent by the Father (being sent is not usually associated with being God).

III. Jesus is Not All-Powerful, and Not All-Knowing

Mark tells us in his gospel that Jesus was unable to do any powerful work in his hometown except few things: �He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.� (Mark 6:5).

This is an instance of God limiting His use of His power, not of His objective lack of power. Jesus did not go around performing random miracles for random people. No, they were usually performed when people sought help. Sure, there are a few examples of miracles that people didn�t ask for, but these are the minority. The Nazarenes had an amazing lack of faith (Mark 6:6), which Matthew tells us is why Jesus did not do many miracles there (Matthew 13:58). Because they did not ask for miracles and probably resisted Jesus (cf. Matthew 13:54-57), He limited His miracles to only a few.

Mark also tells us that when Jesus tried to heal a certain blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (see Mark 8:22-26).

The note for this verse in the NAB says, �Some commentators regard the cure as an intended symbol of the gradual enlightenment of the disciples concerning Jesus� messiahship,� which fits the context perfectly. In verses 17-21, Jesus chides them for not understanding His words and actions; in verses 27-30, Jesus asks them who they think He is, and Peter responds, �You are the Messiah� (v. 29); in verses 31-33 Jesus tells them that He must die and rebukes Peter for saying otherwise. Thus, we can conclude that this cure was intended to signify the disciples� gradual understanding of Jesus� Messianic mission.

Mark�s Gospel also reveals that Jesus had limitations in his knowledge. In Mark 13:32, Jesus declared that he himself does not know when the last day will occur, but the Father alone knows that (see also Matthew 24:36).

When Jesus took on a human nature, He also took on a human soul with a human intellect and will (thus, He has a divine will and intellect and a human will and intellect). The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this for us:

By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal [Acts 1:7]. CCC 474

The Gospel of Luke also reveals that Jesus had limited knowledge. Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom (Luke 2:52). In Hebrews too (Hebrews 5:8) we read that Jesus learned obedience. But God�s knowledge and wisdom is always perfect, and God does not learn new things. He knows everything always. So, if Jesus learned something new, that proves that he did not know everything before that, and thus he was not God.

Jesus� human intellect, just as every other human intellect, had to learn things gradually by experience.

Another example for the limited knowledge of Jesus is the fig tree episode in the Gospels. Mark tells us as follows: �The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.� (Mark 11:12-13).

It is clear from these verses that the knowledge of Jesus was limited on two counts. First, he did not know that the tree had no fruit until he came to it. Second, he did not know that it was not the right season to expect figs on trees.

Are we really supposed to think that Jesus did not know that it was not fig season? I don�t think so. The NAB�s note for this passage explains it well:

Jesus� search for fruit on the fig tree recalls the prophets� earlier use of this image to designate Israel; cf Jer 8, 13; 29, 17; Jl 1, 7; Hos 9, 10.16. Cursing the fig tree is a parable in action representing Jesus� judgment (20) on barren Israel and the fate of Jerusalem for failing to receive his teaching; cf Is 34, 4; Hos 2, 14; Lk 13, 6-9.

In those passages, Israel�s faithlessness to God is represented as a barren, rotting fig tree or rotting figs, and Jesus� cursing of the fig tree is meant to be a living parable reminiscent of those words of the Old Testament.

Also, if we read in Mark 11:22-24 Jesus� own explanation of this event, we can see that He also intended it to teach the disciples that if they have faith, God will give them whatever they ask for.

Someone may say that Jesus was God but he took the form of a servant and therefore became limited. Well, that would mean that God changed. But God does not change. God said so according to Malachi 3:6.

It is not merely �someone� who says that Jesus took the form of a slave; Scripture itself says it.

�Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.� � Philippians 2:5-7

Thus, we see that Scripture affirms that Jesus is God and that He emptied Himself, �taking the form of a slave.� But how do we reconcile this with God�s immutability? A few things are relevant here.

1) If God tells us that He took on a human nature, then we�d better believe it. An objection based on the limitations of our finite intellects is a poor reason to reject God�s word. Should we really expect to totally understand everything about God and His works?

2) God�s divine nature did not change; rather, the Son just took on a human nature. We cannot totally understand how He did this, but as I said before, if God tells us that He did, He did.

Jesus never was God, and never will be. In the Bible, God declares: �Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.� (Isaiah 43:10).

I know of no Christian who says that the Son was formed before or after the Father. The Son is generated by the Father, but this generation (and also the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son) is an eternal process, not a temporal one.

IV. The Greatest Commandment in the Bible and the Quran

Some will say that this whole discussion over the divinity of Jesus is unnecessary. They say, the important thing is to accept Jesus as your personal savior. On the contrary, the Bible�s writers stressed that, in order to be saved, it is necessary to understand who exactly is God. Failure to understand this would be to violate the first and greatest of all the commandments in the Bible. This commandment was emphasized by Jesus, on whom be peace, when a teacher of the Law of Moses asked him: ��Of all the commandments, which is the most important?� �The most important one,� answered Jesus, �is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.�� (Mark 12:28-30).

I agree.

Now if Jesus was God, he would have told the man so. Instead, he let the man refer to God as someone other than Jesus, and he even saw that the man had spoken wisely: �When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, �You are not far from the kingdom of God.�� (Mark 12:34). If Jesus knew that God is a trinity, why did not he say so? Why did not he say that God is one in three, or three in one? Instead, he declared that God is one.

As with the rich young man, we can conclude that Jesus had not yet fully revealed His or the Holy Spirit�s divinity.

In John 17:1, Jesus lifted his eyes to heaven and prayed, addressing God as Father. Then in verse three, he said to God as follows: �Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.� (John 17:3).

This proves beyond doubt that if people want to get eternal life they must know that the One, whom Jesus was praying to, is the only true God, and they must know that Jesus was sent by the true God. Some say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. But Jesus said that the Father alone is the only true God.

I already dealt with this passage, but I will explain it further. As I said before, this passage actually supports Jesus� divinity because eternal life is knowing both the Father and the Son. Thus, they must both be equal. But why does Jesus refer to the Father as �the only true God� if all three Persons of the Trinity are God? As the Catechism says, �the divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire� (CCC 253). Because each Person fully wields the divine nature, they are inseparable; they are each �the one true God.� However, Jesus had �emptied himself, taking the form of a slave� (Philippians 2:7) to serve the Father (Acts 3:13, 26). Thus, as the Father�s humble servant who �did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited� (Philippians 2:6), He willfully made Himself lower than the Father in both word and deed.

But aren�t I trying to have it both ways? I�m saying that this passage supports Jesus� divinity, but I�m also saying that Jesus made Himself lower than God in both word and deed. They seem to contradict each other, so which is it?

Because Jesus is God, He cannot deny His divinity and our need for Him. However, He can subordinate Himself to the Father as His servant without denying His equality of essence with the Father.

We love Jesus, but we must not love him as God. Today many love Jesus more than they love God. This is because they see God as a vengeful person who wanted to exact a penalty from them, and they see Jesus as the savior who rescued them from the wrath of God. Yet God is our only savior. According to Isaiah 43:11, God said: �I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.� Also God said according to Isaiah 45:21-22: �Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.�

This is a misrepresentation of Christian belief. We do not believe that the Father is vengeful and that Jesus, as more loving than the Father, became man to save us on His own. Rather, �God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life� (John 3:16). Thus, both the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit, also) have roles in our salvation because they love us.

Additionally, if God is our only savior, then Jesus is God because Scripture constantly refers to Jesus as our savior (Acts 13:23; Philippians 3:20; 2 Timothy 1:10; Titus 1:4, 3:6; 2 Peter 1:10, 2:20, 3:18).

V. Paul Believed That Jesus is not God

Many people use Paul�s writings as proof that Jesus is God. But this is not fair to Paul, because Paul clearly believed that Jesus is not God. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul wrote: �I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions...� (1 Timothy 5:21).

It is clear from this that the title God applies not to Christ Jesus, but to someone else.

Here, as in other passages the author quotes, Paul is merely differentiating between the Father and the Son. As I will show later in this section (and as I have shown in previous sections), Paul did believe that Jesus is God.

Incidentally, many people think that when Jesus is called �Lord� in the Bible that this means �God.� But in the Bible this title means master or teacher, and it can be used for addressing humans (see 1 Peter 3:6).

This is true, but the way that the Bible uses �Lord� makes it clear that He is God. He is called the �one Lord� (1 Corinthians 8:6) and �Lord of lords� (Revelation 17:14, 19:16), indicating that He is superior to any other lord, just as the Father is also �Lord of lords� (Deuteronomy 10:17). They cannot both be �Lord of lords� unless, as Christians believe, they are one.

What is more important, however, is to notice what Paul said about God in the following passage, which clearly shows that Jesus is not God: �God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever.� (1 Timothy 6:15-16).

Paul said that God alone is immortal. Immortal means he does not die. Check any dictionary. Now, anyone who believes that Jesus died cannot believe that Jesus is God. Such a belief would contradict what Paul said here.

God is immortal in His divine nature, but Jesus died in His human nature. Thus, there is no contradiction. We must remember that Paul was not writing a philosophical treatise on the Incarnation and the nature of God. Rather, he was writing to Christians who knew what they believed, so Paul did not have to explain everything with scientific precision because he knew that his readers would understand it.

Furthermore, to say that God died is a blasphemy against God. Who would run the world if God died? Paul believed that God does not die.

This is just a blatant misunderstanding of both the Incarnation and the Trinity. Death is the separation of the body and soul, which happened to Jesus� human nature. However, His divine nature remained untouched, so, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, He could continue running the world while He was dead.

Paul also said in that passage that God dwells in unapproachable light � that no one has seen God or can see him. Paul knew that many thousands of people had seen Jesus. Yet Paul said that no one has seen God, because Paul was sure that Jesus is not God.

Paul knew the Scriptures well, so he knew that Moses had seen God�s back but not His face (Exodus 33:20-23). Thus, Paul did not believe that God is totally un-seeable. Rather, nobody can see God in the fullness of His glory, symbolized by His face. Because Jesus took on a human nature and �emptied himself,� He did not show His full glory on earth.

Paul even testified in court saying: �I admit that I worship the God of our fathers...� (Acts 24:14).

If we are to worship God alone, then Jesus is God, because He was worshipped by His followers and by those in heaven (John 9:38, Revelation 5:14).

Paul�s letter to the Philippians (Philippians 2:6-11) is often quoted as a proof that Jesus is God. But the very passage shows that Jesus is not God. This passage has to agree with Isaiah 45:22-24 where God said that every knee should bow to God, and every tongue should confess that righteousness and strength are in God alone. Paul was aware of this passage, for he quoted it in Romans 14:11. Knowing this, Paul declared: �I kneel before the Father.� (Ephesians 3:14).

The author says that this since Jesus is not God, this passage must be reconciled with Isaiah 45:22-24, but he doesn�t tell us how to reconcile them. Are we to think that while writing this letter, Paul forgot about the passage in Isaiah? Of course not; the logical explanation is that since, as Paul says in verse 6, Jesus is God, �every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord� (Philippians 2:10-11).

The letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 1:6) says that the angels of God should worship the Son. But this passage depends on Deuteronomy 32:43, in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. This phrase cannot be found in the Old Testament used by Christians today, and the Septuagint version is no longer considered valid by Christians. However, even the Septuagint version, does not say worship the Son. It says let the Angels of God worship God.

�And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, �Let all God�s angels worship him.�� � Hebrews 1:6

So what if that version of Deuteronomy 32:43 isn�t in our Bibles today? It still reflects the beliefs of the authors of the New Testament and clearly shows that the Bible does teach that Jesus is God. For the same reason, it is also irrelevant that the Septuagint version says that the angels will worship God. The text may have originally been referring to the Father (or it may not have because the Son is also God), but the author of the letter to the Hebrews sees it in a new light and applies it to the Son, just as the other New Testament authors do with many other Old Testament texts. Additionally, the author of this article forgets to mention verses 3 and 8:

�He is the reflection of God�s glory and the exact imprint of God�s very being� � Hebrews 1:3

But of the Son he says, �Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.�� � Hebrews 1:8

Jesus, as the �exact imprint of God�s very being,� can be nothing less than divine; otherwise, He would not be the exact imprint of God�s being. Instead, He would only be an imperfect imprint.

The Bible insists that God alone is to be worshipped: �When the LORD made a covenant with the Israelites, he commanded them: �Do not worship any other gods or bow down to them, serve them or sacrifice to them. But the LORD, who brought you up out of Egypt with mighty power and outstretched arm, is the one you must worship. To him you shall bow down and to him offer sacrifices. You must always be careful to keep the decrees and ordinances, the laws and commands he wrote for you. Do not worship other gods. Do not forget the covenant I have made with you, and do not worship other gods. Rather, worship the LORD your God; it is he who will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies.�� (2 Kings 17:35-39).

As I showed previously, Jesus was worshipped, so He must be God.

Jesus, on whom be peace, believed in this, for he also stressed it in Luke 4:8.

�Jesus answered him, �It is written, �Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.�� � Luke 4:8

Again, since Jesus accepted worship, he must be God.

And Jesus too fell on his face and worshipped God (see Matthew 26:39). Paul knew that Jesus worshipped God (see Hebrews 5:7).

�And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed, �My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.�� � Mathew 26:39

�In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.� � Hebrews 5:7

Of course Jesus prayed to God. As I�ve stressed previously, Jesus �emptied Himself, taking on the form of a slave� in humble obedience to the Father, so it makes sense that He would pray to the Father in His times of need.

VI. Evidence from the Gospel of John

The Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel, was completed to its present form some seventy years after Jesus was raised up to heaven. This Gospel in its final form says one more thing about Jesus that was unknown from the previous three Gospels � that Jesus was the Word of God. John means that Jesus was God�s agent through whom God created everything else. This is often misunderstood to mean that Jesus was God Himself.

�In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God� (John 1:1, emphasis mine).

It�s this verse, not just the fact that Jesus is called the Word of God, that compels us to confess that He is God.

But John was saying, as Paul had already said, that Jesus was God�s first creature. In the Book of Revelation in the Bible, we find that Jesus is: �the beginning of God�s creation� (Revelation 3:14, also see 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:15).

The Greek word for beginning, arche, means not only the first in a group, but it can also mean the origin or cause of something,¹ as can be seen by the NRSV�s rendering: �the origin of God�s creation.� Thus, we should properly interpret this passage to mean that Jesus is the creator.

Anyone who says that the Word of God is a person distinct from God must also admit that the Word was created, for the Word speaks in the Bible saying: �The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works...� (Proverbs 8:22).

Jason Evert, in his book Answering Jehovah�s Witnesses, explains this verse for us:

Proverbs 8 nowhere says that wisdom was created. The Hebrew word qanah�would be better rendered as �possessed� or �acquired.�

�In the literal sense of the text, the �production� of wisdom by God is a metaphor. If wisdom was created at a specific point in time, then there was a time when it was not. But was there ever a time that God was without wisdom? If there were, he would cease to be God, because one cannot lack wisdom and be omniscient at the same time. Thus, wisdom must have existed as long as God has existed�from all eternity. When, in connection with the spiritual sense of the text, Jesus is seen as divine wisdom�the Logos�the �production� of wisdom would refer to the eternal procession of the Son from the Father.

Yet John tells us that Jesus� existence is caused by the Father. Jesus said in this Gospel: �...I live because of the Father...� (John 6:57).

This verse, along with John 5:30, teaches that the Father is the �source and origin of the whole divinity,� not that Jesus is a mere creature.

In Mark, for example, we learn that Jesus performed miracles by a power which was not within his control. This is especially clear from an episode in which a woman is healed of her incurable bleeding. The woman came up behind him and touched his cloak, and she was immediately healed. But Jesus had no idea who touched him. Mark describes Jesus� actions thus: �At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, �Who touched my clothes?�� (Mark 5:30). His disciples could not provide a satisfactory answer, so Mark tells us: �Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it.� (Mark 5:32). This shows that the power that healed the woman was not within Jesus� control. He knew that the power had gone out of him, but he did not know where it went. Some other intelligent being had to guide that power to the woman who needed to be healed. God was that intelligent being.

Fr. William Most, in his book The Consciousness of Christ, explains this passage for us:

[F]or Jesus to turn and ask such a question need not imply ignorance at all. It was simply a ploy-familiar to all classroom teachers-of bringing out responses and reactions. Similarly, in Mt 15:21-28 Jesus acts as though He is refusing the Canaanite woman: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." He merely wished to elicit from her a more earnest expression of faith, before granting her request. Again in Mt 14:16 He told the disciples, when faced with a crowd of 5000, to give them something to eat-actually it was obvious that such was impossible. Even to His own Mother He seemed to refuse a request at Cana. Some think the language sounds like a rejection. Yet the outcome showed He really granted what she asked.

With this correct understanding of Jesus� words, we can properly interpret Jesus� apparent lack of control over His healing power. In Luke�s version of this story, Jesus says, �Someone touched me; for I noticed that power had gone out from me� (Luke 8:46). Thus, we can conclude that Mark was reporting the incident from the point of view of one watching. Jesus noticed power going out of Him because He directed it into the woman. Mark�s account is accurate but, because of its point of view, it is not meant to be totally complete in its description of Jesus� awareness.

Even when Jesus raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, he had to ask God to do it. Lazarus� sister, Martha, knew this, for she said to Jesus: �I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.� (John 11:22).

This reflects either an incomplete understanding of Jesus (because He had not yet revealed it fully) or, more likely, the same primitive Christological language that the apostles used in their early sermons.

Martha knew that Jesus was not God, and John who reported this with approval knew it also. Jesus had a God, for when he was about to ascend to heaven, he said: �I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.� (John 20:17).

Jesus called the Father His God because by taking on a human nature, He had �emptied himself, taking the form of a slave� in humble servitude to the Father.

John was sure that no one had seen God, although he knew that many people had seen Jesus (see John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12). In fact Jesus himself told the crowds, that they have never seen the Father, nor have they heard the Father�s voice (John 5:37). Notice that if Jesus was the Father, his statement here would be false. Who is the only God in John�s Gospel? The Father alone.

�No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father�s heart, who has made him known.� � John 1:18

This verse proved beyond a doubt that Jesus is God and that when Scripture says that nobody has seen God, it�s referring to the Father. Also, just as John 1:1, it proves that when Scripture distinguishes between God (the Father) and Jesus, it does not mean that Jesus is not divine. Plus, the author makes a mistake in thinking that Christians believe that Jesus is the Father. Sure, some fringe groups do believe that, but the true Christian belief is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons who each fully wield the divine nature, making them only one God.

Jesus testified this when he declared that the God of the Jews is the Father (John 8:54).

�Jesus answered, �If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, �He is our God�, though you do not know him.�� � John 8:54-55

Here, Jesus is not saying that the Father is the only God of the Jews; rather, He�s saying that the Jews up until that time only knew the Father. They did not yet know of the Son or the Holy Spirit. In fact, a few verses down, Jesus proclaims His equality with the Father.

�Jesus said to them, �Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.�� � John 8:58

Here, just as in John 8:24 and 28, Jesus applies the divine name (I am) to Himself, which the Old Testament applied to the Father (Exodus 3:14).

And Jesus said to his enemies: �...you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.� (John 8:40).

Later on in that same exchange, Jesus calls the Father �he of whom you say, �He is our God�� (v. 54) because they did not yet know of the Son or the Holy Spirit, so He was speaking to the Jews on their own terms. Additionally, as I have shown, when Scripture distinguishes between God (the Father) and the Son, it does not mean that the Son is a mere creature.

VII. God and Jesus Are Two Separate Beings

For example, in Matthew 9:2, Jesus said to a certain man, �Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.� Because of this, some say that Jesus must be God since only God can forgive sins. However, if you are willing to read just a few verses further, you will find that the people �...praised God, who had given such authority to men.� (Matthew 9:8). This shows that the people knew, and Matthew agrees, that Jesus is not the only man to receive such authority from God.

The author is taking verse 8 out of context. Here�s the whole passage:

�And just then some people were carrying a paralyzed man lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, �Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.� Then some of the scribes said to themselves, �This man is blaspheming.� But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said, �Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, �Your sins are forgiven�, or to say, �Stand up and walk�? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins��he then said to the paralytic��Stand up, take your bed and go to your home.� And he stood up and went to his home. When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings.� � Matthew 9:2-8

From reading the whole passage, we can see that the most likely interpretation is that they were �filled with awe� because the paralyzed man could walk again, and THAT is what they glorified God for, not because His sins had been forgiven (anybody can say that they can forgive sins, but mere words are not awe-inspiring).

Jesus himself emphasized that he does not speak on his own authority (John 14:10) and he does nothing on his own authority, but he speaks only what the Father has taught him (John 8:28).

These passages show that the Father and the Son are inseparable and that the Father is the �source and origin of the hole divinity.�

What Jesus did here was as follows. Jesus announced to the man the knowledge Jesus received from God that God had forgiven the man.

Notice that Jesus did not say, �I forgive your sins,� but rather, �your sins are forgiven,� implying, as this would to his Jewish listeners, that God had forgiven the man. Jesus, then, did not have the power to forgive sins, and in that very episode he called himself �the Son of Man� (Matthew 9:6).

If we read the whole passage, we find that Jesus healed the paralyzed man �so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins� (emphasis mine).

I�m not sure why the author brings up the title �Son of Man.� It is a Messianic title from Daniel 7:13, which Jesus applied to Himself to reveal that He was the Messiah.

John 10:30 is often used as proof that Jesus is God because Jesus said, �I and the father are one.� But, if you read the next six verses, you will find Jesus explaining that his enemies were wrong to think that he was claiming to be God. What Jesus obviously means here is that he is one with the Father in purpose. Jesus also prayed that his disciples should be one just as Jesus and the Father are one. Obviously, he was not praying that all his disciples should somehow merge into one individual (see John 17:11 and 22). And when Luke reports that the disciples were all one, Luke does not mean that they became one single human being, but that they shared a common purpose although they were separate beings (see Acts 4:32).

Granted, when Scripture says that people are one, it does not always mean one being, but to determine its meaning, we must look at the context.

�My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father�s hand. The Father and I are one.� � John 10:27-30

From the context, we can see that Jesus� statement that He is one with the Father is an explanation of the previous verses. Apparently, Jesus was given His sheep by the Father (the NAB says that the textual evidence for verse 29 is �very divided� and translates it as, �My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all,� cf. John 6:37-40), and they both have them. However, if they are different beings, they cannot both have them (especially if the Father gave them to Jesus). Thus, verse 30 explains how they can both have all Christians in their hands: they are one divine being. In the following verses, He tells the Jews that the works of the Father that He does are proof of His divinity; He is not explaining that they are one in purpose only.

In chapter 17, Jesus was metaphorically comparing His and the Father�s oneness to His followers� oneness, not implying that they are the same.

In terms of essence, Jesus and the Father are two, for Jesus said they are two witnesses (John 8:14-18). They have to be two, since one is greater than the other (see John 14:28).

They are two witnesses because they are two Persons (many other passages the author cites are explained by this same principle, so I won�t respond to them separately), and the Father is greater than the Son because, as a different Person, the Son was able to take on a human nature and empty himself, �taking the form of a slave.�

When Jesus prayed to be saved from the cross, he said: �Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.� (Luke 22:42).

This shows that they had two separate wills, although Jesus submitted his will to the will of the Father. Two wills mean two separate individuals.

No, two wills means two natures. By taking on a human nature, Jesus also took on a human will different from His divine will.

Throughout the New Testament, the Father alone is called God.

�And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.� � 1 John 5:20

Endnotes

1) Crosswalk.com Greek Lexicon

Back