Did Thomas Call Jesus “My God” in John 20.28? by Kermit Zarley

Did Thomas Call Jesus “My God” in John 20.28? by Kermit Zarley
(AKA Servetus the Evangelical)

When the risen Jesus appeared to his gathered disciples [after his resurrection],

the Apostle Thomas was not present (John 20.19-24). The disciples later told him they

had seen Jesus. Thomas said he would not believe unless he saw Jesus for himself (v. 25).

One week later the risen Jesus appeared again to his gathered disciples, with Thomas

present. Jesus spoke to him, and Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God” (John 20.28).

Most Christians have believed that Thomas then called Jesus “God.” And most New

Testament (NT) scholars claim it is the strongest biblical evidence that Jesus is God.

On the contrary, no other NT character calls Jesus “God,” which would depart from

Jewish monotheism. Plus, John records two occasions when Jesus’ antagonists accused

him of making himself out to be God, which he then denied (John 5.18-47; 10.30-37).

Thus, Christians have exceedingly misunderstood Thomas’ words “my God.” Their

interpretation of them ignores this gospel’s context, which unlocks their meaning.

First, John records that the risen Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene a week prior to

the Thomas incident. He told her, “go to my brethren, and say to them,
‘I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God’” (John 20.17).
So, the risen Jesus called the Father “My God.”
The question arises: How can Jesus be God if he has a God?

Indeed, John would not have meant that Thomas called Jesus “my God” when this author

had just recorded that Jesus called the Father “My God.”

Then, one verse after Thomas’ words John concludes his gospel by writing, “Many

other signs therefore Jesus also performed … but these have been written that you may

believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20.30-31). This statement would

be anti-climactic following Thomas’ words if he indeed called Jesus “God.” And calling

Jesus “the Son of God” is not synonymous with “God.”

Moreover, John records a conversation that Jesus had with the apostles Thomas and

Philip at the Last Supper, only ten days prior to Thomas’ Confession. Jesus told them he

would soon go to “my Father’s house” (John 14.2), referring to his heavenly ascension to

soon follow his death and resurrection. Then John adds,

4 “And you know the way where I am going.” 5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going, how do we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” 8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own initiative; but the Father abiding in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.”

Jesus’ words, “the Father is in Me,” must have left a strong impression on Thomas.

Indeed, they are the key to correctly understand what doubting Thomas later meant when

he said to Jesus, “my God.” That is, Thomas acknowledged what Jesus had taught ten

days prior, that God the Father is in Jesus.

Jesus had taught the same thing many days earlier. He had said, “I and the Father are

one” (John 10.30). His Jewish opponents misunderstood him and were about to stone

him. They accused him of “blasphemy,” saying, “You, being a man, make yourself out to

be God” (v. 33). Jesus implicitly denied this and explained the oneness as “the Father is

in Me, and I in the Father” (v. 38). Scholars call this the Mutual Indwelling.

...

Once when he attended a feast at Jerusalem, “Jesus cried out and said,
‘He who believes in me does not believe in me, but in Him who sent me.
And he who beholds me beholds the One who sent me’”

(John 12.44-45). Again, Jesus was talking about God the Father. In fact, the Father

sending the Son is the most prominent theme in the Gospel of John, occurring 40 times.

This indwelling of God in Christ, and God sending Christ, reflects the concept of

agency. In antiquity, especially in the business world and among Jews, a principal would

select someone to represent him as his agent. It was common knowledge that a man’s son

usually proved to be the best candidate as his agent. So, with the son as agent, dealing

with a man’s son was akin to dealing with the man himself, as if the father was in his son.

The Johannine Jesus taught this concept of agency in various ways. He often said the

Father had given him his words and deeds (John 12.49; 14.10, 24; 17.8). And he said of

the Father, “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me. If anyone is willing to do His

will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from myself”

(7.16-17). Notice he distinguishes himself from God. Another time he said, “I have come

in my Father’s name,” and he then called the Father “the one and only God” (5.43-44).

To rightly understand Jesus in the Gospel of John, Agent Christology can hardly be

over-emphasized. It is the corrective to misinterpreting several Johannine texts in which

Jesus is wrongly identified as God, claiming to be God, or God becoming a man.

Moreover, in this gospel Agent Christology, also called Sending Christology, is the

primary focus of saving faith for believers (John 16.27-30; 17.8). As God’s supreme
agent, the Johannine Jesus functioned as God without actually being God.

In my book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ (2008), I devote 17 pages to Thomas’

words “my God” in John 20.28 and cite 38 scholars in doing so. In using John 14.9, 11 as

key to understanding Thomas, I regard this as the pinnacle of my research in this book. It

is a God-in-Christ interpretation as opposed to the traditional Christ-is-God interpretation.

The above article was taken from:

Did Thomas Call Jesus “My God” in John 20.28?

Some editing has been done on each article.

Did Jesus Claim to Be God in John 10.30? by Kermit Zarley

Did Jesus Claim to Be God in John 10.30? by Kermit Zarley
(AKA Servetus the Evangelical)

Ask most Christians who know the Bible, “Where does the Bible say Jesus claimed

to be God?” and they’ll likely answer, “He said in John 10.30, ‘I and the Father are one.”

But that is a far cry from saying, “I am God,” or the like. One is struck with the thought,

“Is that the best evidence Christians can provide that Jesus claimed to be God? If so,

perhaps he never made such a claim.”

This is a very important issue for Christians. Most of them assert that a person must

believe that Jesus is God in order to be a genuine Christian and thus possess salvation and

the hope of eternal life. That’s what the institutional church has always insisted. But

interpreting Jesus’ saying in John 10.30 as a claim to be God ignores its context.

Jesus was attending the Feast of Dedication at the temple in Jerusalem. We read,

“The Jews therefore gathered around him, and were saying to him, ‘How long will You

keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.’” (John 10.24). Jesus

responded by mentioning his marvelous works that he had been doing and how they

testify to his intimate relationship with God (vv. 25-29).

So, when Jesus then said that he and God the Father were “one,” he meant that they

were unified, being in complete harmony regarding Jesus’ mission of doing good works

and drawing disciples to himself. This is confirmed by Jesus’ so-called “high priestly

prayer” he made the night he was betrayed and arrested. It, too, is recorded only in the

Gospel of John. In anticipation of his crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension,

Jesus prayed to the Father concerning his eleven apostles, “Holy Father, keep them in

Your name, the name which You have given me, that they may be one even as we are”

(John 17.11). And he soon added, “The glory which You have given me I have given to

them, that they may be one, just as we are one; I in them and You in me, that they may

be perfected in unity” (vv. 22-23). So, Jesus asked the Father for the same oneness for

himself and his apostles that he said, in John 10.30, he and the Father had. To say that

“one,” there, means Jesus is God requires that it means the same here, which is ludicrous.

Yet Jesus’ antagonistic listeners thought like many Christians later have, that he

claimed to be God when he said he and the Father were “one.” When Jesus asked them

why they were picking up stones to stone him to death (John 10.31), they replied, “For a

good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make

yourself out to be God” (v. 33). That is, they thought Jesus was claiming to be God by

declaring that he was “one” with God.

...

Jesus then asked his interrogators, “do you say of him, whom the Father sanctified

and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

(John 10.36). John A.T. Robinson insists that Jesus here made the following important

points:
(1) he implicitly denies the Jews’ allegation that he said he was God,
(2) he distinguishes himself from God, and
(3) he affirms his true identity as Son of God.

Now, Jesus never went about declaring publicly that he was the Son of God. But he

often implied it by calling God his “Father.” Until then, Jews had recognized their God

Yahweh corporately as the father of the Jewish nation; yet individual Jews rarely or

never had identified God personally as their father, as Jesus regularly did.

Then Jesus clarified what he meant by him and the Father being one. He declared,

“the Father is in Me, and I in the Father” (John 10.38). Later, Jesus affirmed it again by

telling his apostles, “Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” (14.11).

Scholars call this concept “the Mutual Indwelling.” It clearly represents a disavowal

that being one with God means that Jesus claims to be God. Rather, Jesus here affirms

God-in-Christ Christology as contrasted with the traditional, incarnational, Christ-is-God

Christology that Christians later developed. The Apostle Paul explained half of this

concept, “that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Corinthians 5.19).

Jesus’ opponents seem to have accepted this clarification about being one with the

Father, in which he denied claiming to be God, because they never brought this charge

against him during the interrogation of him by the Jewish Sanhedrin (Council).

In sum, when Jesus said, “I and the Father are one,” he did not mean that he and God

the Father were one in essence, making himself God, but one relationally, resulting in a

functional unity. If this brief saying of Jesus in John 10.30 is the best that traditionalists

can muster to support their assertion that Jesus claimed to God, we can be pretty sure that

Jesus never made such a claim.

In my extensive book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ (2008), I devote ten pages to

explaining what Jesus meant in John 10.30 when he said, “I and the Father are one.” And

in doing so, I cite forty-four scholars and four church fathers.

The above article was taken from:

Did Jesus Claim to Be God in John 10.30?

Some editing has been done on each article.

Is Jesus God If He Has a God? by Kermit Zarley

Is Jesus God If He Has a God? by Kermit Zarley
(AKA Servetus the Evangelical)




Most Christians believe Jesus is God because that is what the institutional church has
taught. And it has asserted that if anyone does not believe Jesus is God, that person is not
a genuine Christian. But the Bible never supports this assertion.

For example, the Bible states repeatedly that Jesus had a God, he prayed to his God,
and he worshiped his God. Since the Bible constantly proclaims that there is numerically
only one God, Jesus having a God is prime evidence that he was not God.

The New Testament (NT) evidence that Jesus had a God is in the Gospel of John, the
Apostle Paul’s letters, and the book of Revelation. And in most of this sacred writ, it is
Jesus himself who is quoted as saying he has a God—the Father.

The first NT evidence that Jesus had a God and that he worshipped his God appears
in the narrative about Jesus encountering the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (John 4.7-
26). Now, the Samaritans were half Jew and half Gentile, and they worshiped the God of
the Bible. But they disputed with Jews about the proper place on earth to worship God.
They claimed it was their Mount Gerizim, and Jews claimed it was their Temple Mount
at Jerusalem. When Jesus revealed to the woman that he was a prophet, she posed this
question about the proper place of worship. Jesus replied by saying of the Samaritans,
“You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from
the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the
Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is
spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (vv. 22-24). When
Jesus said, “we worship what we know,” he included himself among the true worshipers
of God. And notice that he called God “the Father.”

Jesus also revealed that he had a God ... only minutes after his
resurrection. Mary Magdalene—one of Jesus’ disciples from whom he exorcised seven
demons—came early that morning to Jesus’ tomb and discovered it empty (John 20.1-
18). She ran and told two of Jesus’ disciples, one being the Apostle Simon Peter. They
ran to the tomb, discovered it empty, and departed. Mary then returned to the tomb and
apparently became the first disciple who literally saw and conversed with the risen Jesus.
We read, “Jesus said to her, ‘Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the
Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, “I ascend to my Father and your Father,
and my God and your God”’” (v. 17). So, the risen Jesus clearly called the Father
“My God.” ...

Five times the Apostle Paul writes unequivocally about God the Father being the
God of the Lord Jesus Christ. These texts are as follow:

• “glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15.6).
• “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 1.3).
• “The God and Father of the Lord Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11.31).
• “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1.3).
• “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory” (Ephesians 1.17).

Six times the book of Revelation describes Jesus Christ as having a God, who is none
other than God the Father. These passages are as follows:

• Jesus “has made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father” (Revelation 1.6).
• Jesus said, “I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of my God” (3.2).
• Jesus said, “I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God (3.12).
• Jesus added, “and I will write on him the name of my God” (3.12).
• Jesus added, “and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem” (3.12).
• Jesus added, “which comes down out of heaven from my God” (3.12).

The Old Testament (OT) states that the Messiah has a God. First, while Jesus hung on
the cross he quoted Psalm 22.1 and applied it to himself by crying out,
“My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” (Matthew 27.46; Mark 15.34).
Second, Isaiah foretold much about a righteous Servant of Yahweh (Isaiah Chs. 42—53), whom the Apostle Peter implied was Jesus (Acts 3.13; 4.27, 30). Isaiah represented this Servant as saying, “the justice due to me is with the LORD [=Yahweh], and my reward with my God…. For I am honored in the sight of YAHWEH, and my God is my strength” (Isaiah 49.4-5). Third, Micah prophesied that the Messiah would be born in “Bethlehem” and become “ruler in Israel” in “the name of YAHWEH his God” (Micah 5.2, 4).

So, fifteen times the Bible declares unequivocally that Jesus had a God, whom he
designated as “the/My Father.” Yet the Bible never conversely states that the Father has a
God, much less that he is the man Jesus Christ. One would expect this if the institutional
church has been right about its doctrine of the Trinity, that God is one essence existing in
three separate and distinct, co-equal and co-eternal Persons: the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. On the contrary, the Johannine Jesus said, “the Father is greater than I” (John
14.28), so that they cannot be co-equal; he identified the Father as “the one and only
God” (5.44); and he prayed to the Father, calling him “the only true God” (17.3).
With such overwhelming evidence that God the Father is the God of Jesus Christ, it
is biblically incorrect to identify Jesus as God and morally irresponsible for the church 
to not accept people as genuine Christians only because they do not believe Jesus is God.
Paul clearly states, “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your
heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10.9). ...

The above article was taken from:
Is Jesus God If He Has a God?

Some editing has been done on each article.

Is Jesus God or Subordinate to God? by Kermit Zarley

Is Jesus God or Subordinate to God? by Kermit Zarley
(AKA Servetus the Evangelical)



Nearly all Christians are what scholars call “traditionalists” due to their belief that
Jesus is God. The church doctrine of the Trinity says God is one essence existing as three
co-equal and co-eternal Persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.
But the New Testament (NT) repeatedly describes Jesus as subordinate to God to Father,
which seems to conflict with them being equal, and scholars label it a paradox. ...

This apparent conflict is most evident in the Gospel of John. Traditionalists and
others believe this gospel identifies Jesus as God more than perhaps the rest of the Bible.
Therefore, some NT scholars refer to this apparent conflict as “the Johannine riddle.”

The Johannine Jesus admits to this subordination by claiming that the Father sends
him, empowers him, and gives him all authority in heaven and earth, including raising the
dead and judging them. The paramount question is whether the Fourth Gospel portrays
Jesus as essentially subordinate or functionally subordinate to God the Father. According
to the church doctrine of incarnation, Jesus could only have been the latter.

When the Johannine Jesus was accused of making himself equal with God (John
5.18, he vehemently denied it by revealing his essential subordination to the Father. He
immediately said of himself, “the Son can do nothing of himself, unless it is something
he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in
like manner” (v. 19). And he adds, “I can do nothing on my own initiative” (v. 30). He
was referring to his having just healed the paralytic (vv. 8-9).

Closely associated with the subordination of the Son is his obedience to the Father.
Yet Jesus being God and obeying God are incompatible concepts.
Traditionalist C.K. Barrett explains, “It is simply intolerable that Jesus should be made to say,
‘I am God, the supreme God of the Old Testament, and being God I do as I am told.’”

If Jesus was essentially subordinate to the Father, then the Father was superior to
Jesus. Indeed, the Johannine Jesus said, “the Father is greater than I” (John 14.28). The
word in the Greek text here translated “greater” is meizon, meaning greater in rank and
dignity. Obviously, such a difference between the Father and the Son does not accord
well with the traditional view of their supposed equality.

Jesus’ subordination to God is related to his dependence upon God, which further
indicates he could not have been God. For Jesus depended upon God’s Spirit in order to
perform his miracles. The Apostle Peter preached, “Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to
you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through him”
(Acts 2.22). And Peter later preached likewise, “You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how
God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how he went about doing
good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for God was with him” (10.38).
So, Peter attributes Jesus’ powers to God being with him, not Jesus being God.

The title applied to Jesus in the NT which signifies his subordination to the Father
more than any other title is “servant.” Peter preached to Jews, “the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus,… For you first, God raised up His Servant, and sent him to bless you” (Acts 3.13).
And Jesus’ disciples later prayed to the Father, “Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed,” so that “signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy servant Jesus” (4.27, 30).

Second century church fathers sometimes identified Jesus as God’s “servant” (Greek
pais). But later fathers discontinued it. Joachim Jeremias observes that “the designation
of Jesus as pais theou [servant of God] is found in Gentile Christian writings up to 170 CE
only at 11 places and in three works…. From the 5th century pais disappears completely
as a term for Christ…. To the Gentile Church it was offensive from the very first because
it did not seem to bring out the full significance of the majesty of the glorified Lord.”
Identifying Jesus as Servant clashed with the view that he is God. ...

The Apostle Paul often relates in his NT letters the essential subordination of Christ
to God. He says, “Christ belongs to God,” and “God is the head of Christ” (1 Corinthians
3.23; 11.3). Thus, Paul certainly would have said that God is greater than Christ.

Indeed, Paul further relates that it is God the Father “who is the blessed and only
Sovereign” (1 Timothy 6.15). He explains that this will be demonstrated when the Father
“will bring about at the proper time” Christ’s return to earth. If the Father is the “only
Sovereign” (Greek monos dunastes), and Paul says this in relation to Christ and his
second coming, then Christ cannot also be equal in sovereignty to the Father.
The signal signpost of Jesus’ essential subordination to God is Paul’s prophecy about
Jesus’ final, revelatory act regarding the kingdom. Paul says of Jesus, “when he delivers
up the kingdom to the God and Father,... then the Son himself also will be subjected to
the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all”
(1 Corinthians 15.24, 28; cf. 1 Chronicles 29.11).
Here is the ultimate act of subordination, and it is a voluntary one. Oscar Cullmann calls it “the key to all New Testament Christology.”

Jesus’ subordination to the Father is also seen in Paul’s prayers. After the salutations
in his letters, he often adds that he gives thanks to God in prayer for those to whom he
writes. And even though he occasionally appends Jesus’ name to his petitions and heartfelt
thanks made in prayer, Paul relates his view about the Father’s essential preeminence
over Jesus by always addressing these prayers solely to “God (the Father).”
In sum, Jesus’ essential subordination to the Father shows that Jesus was not God.

The above article was taken from:
Is Jesus God or Subordinate to God?

Some editing has been done on each article.

Is Jesus God Because ... by Servetus the Evangelical

Is Jesus God Because ...

by Servetus the Evangelical

Is Jesus God Because of His Virgin Birth?

One of the most important elements of church doctrine has been Jesus’ virgin birth.

(The miracle was conception, not birth, so it should be called "the virginal conception.")

Jesus’ virginal conception is only mentioned in two New Testament (NT) gospels (Matthew 1.18-25; Luke 1.26-38; 2.1-21). Together, they relate that Mary miraculously conceived in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, and she remained a virgin until Jesus was born.

Many Christians have believed that Jesus was God because of the miraculous nature

of his conception. This view has been defended by some Christian scholars. For example,

leading Evangelical theologian Alister McGrath asserts, "The way Jesus was conceived

confirms ... that Jesus is indeed both God and man." And Roman Catholic theologian

Gerald O’Collins explains, "Traditionally the major value of his virginal conception has

been to express Jesus’ divine origin. The fact that he was born of a woman pointed to his

humanity. The fact that he was born of a virgin pointed to his divinity."

If Jesus’ virginal conception signifies that he was God or divine, it is surprising that neither Matthew nor Luke expressly state this in their birth narratives.

And if Jesus was God, he must have preexisted. Yet no less of an authority on this subject than preeminent Roman Catholic NT exegete Raymond E. Brown concludes concerning these birth narratives, "Matthew and Luke show no knowledge of preexistence" of Jesus. Such silence strongly suggests that they did not believe that Jesus preexisted or that he was God.

An angel prophesied to Mary about Jesus’ birth, saying he "shall be called the Son of

God" (Luke 1.35, cf. v. 32), not due to an ontological preexistence but a supernatural

conception. Both this miracle and title merely signaled that Jesus would have a special

relationship with God. Luke implies that Jesus’ conception being accomplished by God’s

Spirit is a basis for identifying him as the Son of God. Reginald H. Fuller explains that

Jesus is called "the Son of the Most High (God)" in this birth-pronouncement "because of

the salvation he is to accomplish in history, not because of his inherent nature."

Logically, the virginal conception cannot indicate that Jesus is God only because it was a

miracle. Miracles can only indicate a supernatural source. God did a miracle by causing a

virginal conception and birth; but that does not indicate that the miracle itself is God.

Consider the first man, Adam. Accepting the two biblical accounts of his creation as

literal (Genesis 2-3), Adam became a human being due to God’s direct creation, as Jesus

did. Yet no one would claim that Adam’s supernatural origin indicates that he was God.

...

In the Old Testament, Isaiah 7.14 has been a pivotal text in the debate about Jesus’

virginal conception. This verse is about the prophet Isaiah prophesying to King Ahaz, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." The Hebrew word here translated "virgin" is alma. ... Matthew, in his birth narrative, quotes Isaiah 7.14 and explains Immanuel. It reads,

"‘BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,’ which translated means, ‘GOD WITH US’" (Matthew 1.23).

The word Immanuel represents the joining of two Hebrew words: immanu and el.
Since el is the shortened Hebrew form for "God" (elohim), some Christians have asserted

that ascribing the title Immanuel to Jesus effectively identifies him as God.

On the contrary, calling Jesus "Immanuel" means only that God is present with his

people through Jesus as his agent. It means what someone exclaimed when Jesus raised

the widow’s dead son to life, that "God has visited His people" (Luke 7.16). And the

Apostle Peter once preached that Jesus "went about doing good and healing" people because "God was with Him" (Acts 10.38). Jewish NT scholar Geza Vermes explains,

"Jews would have known that the name Emmanuel (‘God is with us’) signified not the incarnation of God in human form, but a promise of divine help to the Jewish people."

Most scholars who have written extensively that Jesus is God concede that Matthew 1.23 does not. Murray Harris explains, "Matthew is not saying, ‘Someone who is "God" is now physically with us,’ but ‘God is acting on our behalf in the person of Jesus.’"

Calling Jesus "Immanuel" is similar to the names of some OT saints. For example, Israel, Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, Michael, Ezekiel, and Joel contain el, meaning "God;" yet parents who so named their son did not deem it a declaration that their child was God. In conclusion, Jesus’ virginal conception does not necessitate that he was more than a man.

John A.T. Robinson is right, that Jesus "was totally and utterly a man - and had never

been anything other than a man or more than a man," so that he never was God.


 Is Jesus God Because He Did Miracles?

One thing that made Jesus famous was that he did miracles. The New Testament (NT) gospels frequently relate that he traveled about in his native land from town to town and village to village healing people. And they provide many detailed reports in which he did so. Multitudes of people, sometimes numbering in the thousands, gathered to hear Jesus utter his pearls of wisdom and perform his mighty feats of healing.

Many traditionalist Christians - those who believe that Jesus is God - have thought

that Jesus’ miracles testify that he was and is God. Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed

Komoszewski assert, "The complete and total command that Christ exhibits over the

natural realm in his miracles reveals his deity." They add, "The gospel writers themselves

interpret Jesus’ miracles as evidence that he is God." But some of these traditionalists

seem to have overlooked that the Old Testament (OT) prophets and Jesus’ apostles did miracles too. If Jesus was God merely because he performed miracles, those prophets and apostles must have been Gods as well, which is absurd.

Non-traditionalist and distinguished Jesus researcher E.P. Sanders explains, "A lot of Christians, and possibly even more non-Christians, think that central to Christianity is the view that Jesus could perform miracles because he was more than a mere human being.... Like other ancient people, Jews believed in miracles but did not think that the ability to perform them proved exalted status.... Historically, it is an error to think that Christians must believe that Jesus was superhuman, and also an error to think that in Jesus’ own day his miracles were taken as proving partial or full divinity."

 Indeed, Jewish religious authorities never doubted that Jesus did miracles; rather, they accused him of doing them in the power of Satan (Matthew 12.22-24/Mark 3.22). Some distinguished traditionalist scholars agree with Sanders. D.A. Carson admits, "the value of miracles as proof of Jesus’ deity is not so conclusive as some conservative expositors have thought." N.T. Wright states it more decisively, that Jesus’ miracles were "certainly not in themselves indications or hints that Jesus was ‘divine.’"

Jesus’ miracles merely attest to God empowering him. The Apostle Peter preached

his first sermon to thousands of Jews gathered at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost,

saying, "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by

God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through him in your

midst, just as you yourselves know ..." (Acts 2.22). And Peter later preached to the house

of Cornelius, saying, "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him, with the

Holy Spirit and with power, and how he went about doing good, and healing all who

were oppressed by the devil; for God was with him" (10.38).

Here are some of the strongest statements in the Bible indicating that Jesus was not

God but that he was empowered by God. And notice in these two statements how Peter

clearly distinguishes Jesus and God, which signifies that Jesus is not God.

Jesus could not heal indiscriminately, which also indicates he was not God. Instead,

his power to heal depended to some degree on the faith of the beneficiary, which in turn

was undoubtedly determined by whether God would heal or not heal through Jesus.

For instance, one Sabbath day Jesus taught in his hometown synagogue of Nazareth.

Mark says, "He could do no miracle there except that he laid his hands upon a few sick

people and healed them. And he wondered at their unbelief" (Mark 6.5-6).

Sometimes, Jesus healed people and told them, "your faith has made you well"

(Matthew 9.22/Mark 5.34/Luke 8.48; Mark 10.52/Luke 18.42).

If Jesus was God, he could have healed anytime he wanted. But he always depended

on God’s Spirit to heal through him (Acts 2.22; 10.38). So, Jesus’ power to heal was not

intrinsic to himself but derived from God, which indicates he was not God.

James Dunn explains about Jesus’ healings, "Faith was the necessary complement to the exercise of God’s power through him, hence his inability to perform any mighty work in Nazareth ... Faith in the recipient as it were completed the circuit so that the power could flow," that is, the power of God’s Spirit flowing through Jesus to others.

Once, Jesus taught in an overcrowded house. Four friends of a paralytic man carried

him on his bed and let him down through the roof of the house. Luke says, "the power of

the Lord was present for him [Jesus] to perform healing" on this man (Luke 5.17). It was

due to Jesus "seeing their faith" (v. 20), that is, the faith of the man and his friends.

Luke’s account suggests that the power to heal was not always present in Jesus.

Matthew’s account of this incident relates that Jesus’ authority to heal was not

intrinsic to himself, but derived from God (the Father). He says that "when the multitudes

saw this, they were filled with awe, and glorified God, who had given such authority to

men" (Matthew 9.8). So, Matthew says they did not think Jesus was God on account of

this healing, but that God had given Jesus the authority to heal. These people glorified

God because they rightly perceived that he, [i.e. God] ultimately had caused it to happen.

A similar situation arose when Jesus cast a legion of demons out of a man. Jesus then

commanded him, "Return to your house and describe what great things God has done for

you" (Luke 8.39). But Luke says he "went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city

what great things Jesus had done for him." Does this mean Jesus was God? Euthymius

Zigabenus is no doubt right in explaining, "Christ indeed modestly attributed the work to

the Father; but the healed man continued gratefully to attribute it to Christ."

In sum, Jesus’ miracles never attested that he was God but that he was sent by God,

acted for God, and was empowered by God, so that God was with him.

Is Jesus God Because He Was Worshipped?

Christian worship has been very important to the question of whether Jesus is God.

The New Testament (NT) records certain instances in which Jesus was "worshipped." Christians generally have regarded these as evidence that those practitioners believed that Jesus was God, since only God should be worshipped. But what does "worship" mean?

The word in the Greek NT that usually is translated "worship" is proskuneo. It and its cognates occur sixty-one times in the Greek NT. Most of these occurrences are in the Gospel of Matthew and the book of Revelation. The etymology of proskuneo is that pros means "motion," either "from" or "towards" some object, and kuneo means "to kiss."

Lexical authority Walter Bauer informs that proskuneo was "used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet, the hem of his garment, the ground, etc." He adds that proskuneo can be translated "(fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully."

Therefore, during antiquity the Greek word proskuneo merely signified a physical

act. It indicated the oriental custom of either genuflection, i.e., bowing down by bending

the knee(s), or prostration. Practitioners, however, adopted either of these two postures

toward a superior in order to convey their humble attitude of respect, honor, and perhaps submission in the sense of readiness to defer to the will of that superior. They frequently performed proskuneo towards those possessing imperial authority, especially kings. Such physical acts usually indicated no more than a humble attitude of submission.

In contrast, our English word "worship," whether used as a noun or a verb, does not

designate a physical act. Thus, it does not serve as a suitable translation of proskuneo.

Furthermore, the definition of our word "worship" has a very wide range of meanings.

So, to translate proskuneo in the NT with "worship" can be ambiguous if not misleading.

When the gospel Evangelists report that someone performed proskuneo toward Jesus, Bible translators invariably show their bias by rendering it "worship," suggesting that that person thought of Jesus as either "divine" or "God." But when the Evangelists relate that a person performed proskuneo toward someone other than Jesus, these same translators render it "bowed down," "bend the knee," or "prostrate." So, they translate it "worship" when done to Jesus, but a physical act when done to someone else.

Matthew makes it clear that Jesus’ authority to heal was not intrinsic to his nature but

derived from God (the Father). For example, when Jesus healed the paralytic let down

through the roof, Matthew adds, "when the multitudes saw this, they were filled with

awe, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men" (Matthew 9.8). Thus,

Matthew’s account indicates that these people did not think Jesus was God because of

this healing but that God had given Jesus the authority and ability to heal the man. They

glorified God because they rightly perceived that he ultimately caused it to happen.

The author of Hebrews lists seven Old Testament (OT) quotations in an effort to

prove that Jesus is superior to angels (Hebrews 1.5-13). Many Christians have cited one

of these as an indication that Jesus is God. It is a quotation from Deuteronomy 32.43 in

the Septuagint (Greek OT). It reads, "LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM" (v. 6).

The author of Hebrews likely meant that the angels of heaven honor Jesus in the same

way Paul describes in Philippians 2.10, in which he says of the exalted Jesus, "at the

name of Jesus EVERY KNEE SHOULD BOW, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and

under the earth." That is, in the consummated kingdom all will perform genuflection at

the public announcement of Jesus’ name, which does not necessarily indicate he is God.

The book of Revelation presents vivid and striking accounts of angels doing homage

to both God and Jesus in heaven. But in each case they perform pipto followed by

proskuneo, it is not clear if they worshipped Jesus in the sense of his being God. Maurice

Casey insists that in this book Jesus Christ "is not actually hailed as divine even in the

pictures of him being praised in heaven."

Twice John, the author of Revelation, says of the angel who related these prophecies

to him that he fell down at his feet to "worship" (proskuneo) him. But both times the

angel forbade John’s act and said, "worship God," that is, the Father (Revelation 19.20;

22.9). The angel must have regarded these as more than acts of honor. This arouses the

question of whether only God, and not also Jesus, should be worshipped in this sense.

Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian who wrote more on theology than science.

The main precept of his faith was, "whenever it is said in the Scriptures that there is one

God, it means the Father." He cited mostly 1 Corinthians 8.6 for support. It says "there is

but one God, the Father,... and one Lord, Jesus Christ." He explains, "We are forbidden

to worship two Gods, but we are not forbidden to worship one God and one Lord."

Anti-Trinitarian Newton also distinguished degrees of worship. He assigned ultimate

worship to God as Creator and a lesser worship to Jesus ... He argued that worshipping two or more beings equally, as in the doctrine of the Trinity, is an infraction against the First of the Ten Commandments and thus idolatry.

In conclusion, an increasing number of conservative NT scholars now acknowledge

that proskuneo directed toward Jesus in the NT gospels does not necessarily indicate that

those practitioners believed that he was God. Trinitarian D.A. Carson cautions regarding

the Gospel of Matthew, "it is very doubtful if proskyneo by itself or in connection with

pipto [falling down] suggests anything more than obeisance, homage." And J. Lionel

North asserts that there is "nothing" in the NT "that requires us to conclude that Jesus is

regarded as divine because he is worshipped." Wendy North and Loren T. Stuckenbruck

conclude that what should be "gained from the New Testament" is "that ‘worship’ is too

imprecise a word to point necessarily to the conclusion that Jesus is divine."

Is Jesus God Because of His Resurrection?

All four gospels of the New Testament (NT) culminate with an account of Jesus’

bodily resurrection and his disciples’ discovery of his empty tomb. All of these reports

further relate several post-resurrection appearances of Jesus that occurred during the next

forty days, when his disciples literally saw, touched, and talked to him and ate and drank with him (e.g., Matthew 28.9; Luke 24.39-43; Acts 10.40-41; cf. John 20.27; 21.15).

...

C.H. Dodd asserts, "It is the central belief about which the church itself grew, without which there would have been no church and no gospels." And William Lane Craig, an authority on Jesus’ resurrection, explains, "The origin of Christianity therefore hinges on the belief of the early disciples that God had raised Jesus from the dead."

Many Christians and their best-selling authors claim Jesus’ resurrection indicates he is God. Paul Little says, "Jesus’ supreme credential to authenticate his claim to deity was his resurrection from the dead." Lee Strobel asserts, "The empty tomb,... is the ultimate representation of Jesus’ claim to being God.... the supreme vindication of Jesus’ divine identity." Alister McGrath insists, "The central and decisive Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ is grounded in his resurrection from the dead." 

Those who say these things usually do so arbitrarily, providing no rationale or biblical support. Most contemporary, traditionalist scholars would disagree with this extreme position.

(A traditionalist is a person who believes Jesus is God.)

Leading Jesus researcher N.T. Wright alleges that it is "a frequent misunderstanding" that Jesus’ "resurrection somehow proves Jesus’ divinity." He says of Judaism in the time of Jesus, "resurrection was what was supposed to happen to all the dead, or at least all the righteous dead, and there was no suggestion that this would simultaneously constitute divinization." He adds, "When the New Testament predicts the resurrection of all who belong to Jesus, there is no suggestion that they will thereby become, or be shown to be, divine. Clearly, therefore, resurrection by itself could not be taken to ‘prove’ the ‘divinity’ of Jesus; if it did, it would prove far too much. The over-simple apologetic strategy one sometimes encounters (‘he was raised from the dead, therefore he is the second person of the Trinity’) makes no sense."

The early Jewish Christians preached that Jesus’ empty tomb and post-resurrection

appearances verified that God had vindicated him. They further claimed this as evidence

that he was the Christ, the Son of God, but not that he was God (Acts 2.31, 36; Romans

1.4). These positive maxims were the heart of their message. Wright calls this connection

"the key move in early Christology." James Dunn concludes, "The belief that God raised

Jesus from the dead is, if anything, of even more fundamental importance to Christian

faith than the belief in Jesus as the Son of God."

Dunn makes this statement because most Christians have differed from the early

Christians, as portrayed in the NT, by believing that Jesus’ status as the Son of God

indicates that he was God. They assert that Jesus eternally preexisted as God, being the

ontological Logos-Son of God, and that he became a man. They call man becoming God

"the incarnation," which literally means "enfleshment." But the NT repeatedly identifies

Jesus as the Son of God without suggesting that this status means he was God. So, Dunn

means Jesus’ resurrection is more important than his incarnation.

The book of Acts in the NT reveals that Jesus’ apostles made his resurrection the

chief cornerstone of their faith as well as their evangelistic message. They never preached

that Jesus was God but that God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2.24, 32; 3.15, 26; 4.10; 5.30; 10.40). And despite Jesus saying in John 10.15-18 that God had given him the

authority to lay down his life and take it up again, the early Christians never preached that Jesus actually raised himself from the dead. In fact, Jesus’ resurrection depended upon God the Father, and this dependence further indicates that Jesus was not God. Sometimes, his apostles mentioned that they were eye-witnesses of the risen Jesus (e.g., Luke 1.2; Acts 1.8; 2.32; 3.15; 10.39-41; 1 John 1.1-3). ...

No NT authors ever indicate that Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, or heavenly session

resulted in some kind of divinization or deification of him or a reclaiming or reactivation

of deity or any attributes of deity, as if to confirm the later Church dogma that Jesus was

"Very God of Very God." And there is no biblical evidence suggesting that the essence of

the post-resurrection, heavenly Jesus is any different from that of the pre-resurrection Jesus.

The pre-resurrection Jesus was no more than a man, and the same is true of the post-resurrection, heavenly Jesus. The only difference is that the pre-resurrection Jesus had a physical body that was subject to death, whereas the post-resurrection Jesus has a resurrection, spiritual body that is

glorified, immortal, and eternal.

In conclusion, Jesus’ resurrection indicates his dependence upon God, which always

affirms that he is not God. For, Jesus was not sovereign in rising from the dead. It

happened because the one and only Almighty God accomplished his will through his

obedient Son by means of the Holy Spirit.

Is Jesus God Because He Is Lord?

During antiquity, calling a man "Lord" usually was intended as no more than a politeaddress. On the other hand, kings were often addressed as "Lord" to signify their vested authority. Among Jews, rabbis could be called "Lord" to indicate both.

The early Jewish Christians’ primary creedal statement was that "Jesus is Lord." The

Apostle Peter preached about it in his first sermon on the day of Pentecost following the

Christ event. He proclaimed of Jesus, "let all the house of Israel know for certain that

God has made him both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2.36). And the Apostle Paul wrote, "no

one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12.3).

Jesus had approved of his disciples calling him "Lord." Right before partaking of the

Last Supper, Peter called Jesus "Lord" (John 13.9). Jesus soon affirmed this designation

by saying, "You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am" (v. 13). Jesus

seems to have used these two titles interchangeably. Calling Jesus "Lord" therefore meant

that he was the sole teacher of his disciples.

The synoptic gospels reveal that their writers viewed these and other similar terms

interchangeably, and therefore synonymously, when applied to Jesus. For example, when

Jesus and his disciples were crossing Lake Galilee in a boat and a storm threatened to

swamp them, they awoke Jesus by crying out for help. Matthew says they addressed him

as "Lord" ([Ch. 8].25); Mark records it was "Teacher" (4.38); Luke reports they said "Master"

(8.24). And at Jesus’ transfiguration, Matthew says Peter addressed Jesus as "Lord"

(17.4); Mark records it was "Rabbi" (9.5); Luke reports he said "Master" (9.33).

No writer of the New Testament (NT) reflects this brief confession that Jesus is Lord

more than does Paul. In his ten epistles, he applies the word "Lord" to Jesus nearly 230

times, whereas he calls him "the Son (of God)" only 17 times. The Lordship of Jesus

Christ is without a doubt the dominant theme in Pauline Christology.

However, Paul, unlike other NT authors, applies the title "Lord" (Greek kurios)

exclusively to Jesus and thus never to the Father. For him, God is "the Father" and Jesus

is "the Lord." For example, Paul writes that "there is but one God, the Father,... and one

Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 8.6).

Paul, as with many other early Christians, sometimes proclaims Jesus’ Lordship in

his evangelistic messages. For instance, when the fear-stricken Philippian jailer asked the

imprisoned apostles Paul and Silas, "‘Sirs [kurios], what must I do to be saved?’ They said,

‘Believe in the Lord  [kurios] Jesus, and you will be saved’" (Acts 16.30-31). And Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10.9).

But what did Paul and these other early Jewish Christians mean by their

proclamation that Jesus is Lord? They meant no more than that Jesus ought to be obeyed

regarding his instruction in righteousness. Only if we obey to some extent Jesus’

teachings as a lifestyle can we truthfully say that he is the Lord of our lives.

...

James Dunn says of "Lord" in Paul’s letters, "kyrios is not so much a way of identifying Jesus with God, but if anything more a way of distinguishing Jesus from God."

Paul, in one of his letters, quotes a hymn which some traditionalists have cited as

major support for their belief that Jesus is God. It says of Jesus, "God highly exalted Him,

and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus

EVERY KNEE WILL BOW,... and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to

the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2.9-11; cf. Isaiah 45.23). ...

On the contrary, "Lord" is a title, not a name. Neither is "Lord" God’s name, which

is YHWH [YaHWeH]. And "name," here, more likely refers to "Jesus."

In sum, the NT accounts of the early Christians calling Jesus "Lord" indicate no more

than their recognition of his God-given authority to rule and their voluntary submission to

be ruled by him. And Paul, the premiere proponent of Lordship Christology in the NT,

gives no evidence that he equates the words "Lord" and "God."

Is Jesus God If He Did Not Know the Time of His Return?

"Christians" believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God. (That is, the majority view of so-called orthodox Christianity. However, in contrast, christian monotheists believe that solely the Father is GOD!)

And they generally believe that God is omniscient, thus knowing everything, including all about the future. However, Jesus told his apostles that he would be killed, rise from the dead, ascend to heaven and someday return to earth, and he added that he did not know the day of his return. If Jesus was God, how could he not have known when he would return, since the Father knew it?

As a former Trinitarian, I used to believe that Jesus was and is God. But I began to

question it when I read in the Bible that he said he didn’t know the time of his return. It

caused me to undertake a serious quest for Jesus’ identity that led to my present belief,

which is that Jesus was no more than a virgin-born, sinless man. What is this saying?

Shortly before Jesus’ death and resurrection, he taught his apostles about the future,

including the end of the age. He said of his return at that time, "But of that day

and/or hour no one knows, not even the angels of/in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father

alone" (Matthew 24.36; Mark 13.32). This saying has stirred much scholarly debate.

Church fathers were divided about these words of Jesus. ...

Athanasius, church father in the 4th century, ... argued for the maximalist view of Jesus’ foreknowledge, that by being "very God" in every sense he must have known the day of his return. Athanasius treated Jesus’ saying by applying the two-nature method of exegesis to it. That is, Jesus did not know in his human nature, but he did know in his "Godhead," that is, his divine nature.

There have been other opinions. Thomas Aquinas and many other church theologians

proposed that Jesus said these words while pretending ignorance. And Augustine posited

that it was not the Father’s will for Jesus to know at that time. But this view does not

solve the problem of the impugning of Jesus’ supposedly full deity.

In recent centuries, scholars proposed what are called "kenosis theories" to solve this

and other problems. They are that at the moment of Jesus’ incarnation, he laid aside or

decided not to use some of his divine attributes, such as foreknowledge. But in the latter 20th century, these views fell out of favor with scholars due to the criticism that if Jesus laid aside or did not use part of his deity, he must have been less than fully God.

Both the two-nature exegesis and these kenosis theories are neither biblically basednor theologically and anthropologically sound. They make it seem as though Jesus wasdishonest, or perhaps schizophrenic - saying he didn’t know something when he reallydid - and therefore discredit his character.

...

It should be concluded that Jesus had supernatural knowledge whenever the Father

revealed it to him, and when he did not have it, the Father had not revealed it to him.

In sum, Jesus’ knowledge was limited, the Father has a greater knowledge than the

Son does, and the Father is essentially superior to the Son, so that Jesus is not God.

The above articles were taken from:

• Is Jesus God Because of His Virgin Birth?
• Is Jesus God Because He Did Miracles?
• Is Jesus God Because He Was Worshipped?
• Is Jesus God Because of His Resurrection?
• Is Jesus God Because He Is Lord?
• Is Jesus God If He Did Not Know the Time of His Return?

Some editing has been done on each article.