Because in Him there is continuously and permanently at home all the fullness of absolute deity in bodily fashion. (Col 2:9 Wuest)
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς
In the context, Paul is refuting various doctrinal errors that had crept into the church at Colosse. He is refuting what is now know as Gnosticism. But it was a kind of Gnosticism that had absorbed aspects of Judaism and was now trying to absorb aspects of Christianity. This was viewed with horror by the apostle Paul and in his letter to the Colossians he counters their heresies. He castigates them as:
| Greek term |
Translation |
|---|---|
| τῆς φιλοσοφίας | philosophy |
| κενῆς ἀπάτης | vain deceit |
| τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων | the tradition of men |
| τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου | the ABC's of this world |
| οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν | not according to Christ |
Paul first states that the intellectual origins of these heresies are found in man's attempt to understand God apart from Scripture. Since it began with man instead of God, humanistic philosophy has utterly failed to know God (1 Cor 1:20-21). This is not a condemnation of philosophy per se because Paul elsewhere tells us that Christians have their own philosophy (1 Cor 2:6).
Secondly, the personal motives which prompted these heresies are to be found in their vanity and deceitfulness. Because of their pride, they would rather lie than tell the truth.
Thirdly, instead of following Scripture, they followed the traditions of men just like them. By these traditions, they made null and void the Word of God (Mark 7:13).
Fourthly, what these heretics teach is not really "deep" or "advanced" as they claim. No, their teachings are nothing more than the ABC's of carnal or worldly wisdom. Their ideas are actually quite stupid and devoid of intellectual merit.
Fifthly, they are contradicting the Messiah. In Him alone we find the full expression of absolute Deity in bodily form. Men, angels, or other heavenly beings do not partake of absolute Deity in any manner.
Lastly, this means that to be in union with Him is to be complete. Thus, we don't need men, angels, or other heavenly beings to complete us. Jesus Christ is all we need.
The context reaches its climax with the deity of Christ. Because He is absolute Deity manifested in the flesh, we do not need anything or anyone else. We are complete in Him.
The interpretation above depends on the definitions of the key words in the text and certain grammatical and syntactical observations:
One class of early Gnostics separated the spiritual being Christ from the man Jesus; they supposed that the Christ entered Jesus at the time of His baptism and left Him at the moment of His crucifixion.
The "embodiment" may have begun at the incarnation, but it is an ongoing reality in heaven where the glorified body of Jesus resides until His return to judge the living and the dead. The grammarians Rienecker and Rogers comment:
to settle down, to be at home (Col 1:19). The pres. act. ind. tense indicates the continual state and points to the present reality.
The same point is made by Hendriksen:
Paul uses the present tense. He does not say that the Word became flesh but that the fullness of the godhead dwells or is dwelling in Christ. And surely that indwelling did not just begin with the incarnation. It is an eternal indwelling.
J.B. Lightfoot objected to this by pointing out that a functional approach to the word πλήρωμα was a "disregard for grammar." Nouns ending in -ma are passive and not active. Hence, they are not functional, but ontological in significance. In other words, it is not the action of being filled but the result of having been filled, that Paul has in mind.
The word τὸ πλήρωμα was used by the Gnostic teachers at Colosse. This is why Paul deliberately used it to show how far off they were from the truth. Lightfoot explains:
The term pleroma, we may presume, was common to St. Paul and the Colossian heretics whom he controverts. To both alike it conveyed the same idea, the totality of the divine powers or attributes or agencies or manifestations. But after this the divergence begins. They maintained that a single divine power, a fraction of the pleroma, resided in our Lord: the Apostle urges on the contrary, that the whole pleroma has its abode in Him.
It is not merely divine attributes that are in mind now, but the possession of the essence of deity in an absolute sense.
As Moule points out, Paul is referring to "the whole glorious total of what God is, the supreme Nature in its infinite entirety. Trench comments:
St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up his person for a season and with a splendor not his own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses θεότητος to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son.
Paul here disposes of the Docetic theory that Jesus had no human body as well as the Cerinthian separation between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. He asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form.
Paul stated that absolute Deity was embodied in Jesus in order to correct the errors of the false teachers at Colosse. The implications of this are brought out beautifully by John Eadie:
The fullness of the Godhead was embodied in Him, or dwelt in Him—in no invisible shape, and by no unappreciable contact. It assumed a bodily form. It abode in Him as a man. It made its residence the humanity of Jesus. Divinity was incarnated in Christ. It shrunk not from taking upon it our nature, and realizing the prophetic title "Immanuel, God with us." The same idea is contained in John 1:14 "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." The Logos, yet unfleshed, was God, and was with God, Divine and yet distinct from the Father; but the fullness of Godhead was only spiritually within Him. Now, it has made its abode in his humanity without consuming it or deifying it, or changing any of its essential properties.
In Jesus, we are clearly confronted with The Theophany of all theophanies. But, whereas in the Old Testament, the "form of Yahweh" (תְּמוּנָה יְהֹוָה) was only a temporary physical manifestation, Jesus is the permanent physical manifestation of God in human form.
What must be in order for what is to be what it is? If Jesus Christ is the embodiment of absolute Deity, how could this idea be stated in the Greek language? What Greek words would convey this concept? θεότητος means "absolute Deity" and σωματικῶς means "embodiment." The union of these two words indicates the union of the divine and human in Jesus.
Is it mere coincidence that Paul used the exact words in the Greek language which would clearly convey this idea to the rational mind? While Trinitarians expect to find the authors of the New Testament applying such exalted titles to Jesus, what Arian would ever use such language?
If the authors of the New Testament believed that Jesus was God is well as man, then we would expect to find them applying Old Testament titles and names for God to Him. On the other hand, if the anti-Trinitarians are right and the authors of the New Testament did not believe in Christ's deity, then we would not expect to find them doing so. These two propositions are quite simple and straightforward. Which view is to be substantiated by the evidence?
The New Testament writers did not hesitate to take Old Testament divine titles and names and apply them to Jesus. The fact that they did this with such ease and freedom reveals that they began with the assumption that Jesus Christ is God as well as man. The following chart illustrates some of these title and names.
| Title/Name |
Yahweh in the OT |
Jesus in the NT |
|---|---|---|
| Creator |
Gen 1:1 |
John 1:3 |
| The Rock |
Deu 32:4 |
1 Cor 10:4 |
| The Shepherd |
Psa 23:1 |
Heb 13:20 |
| The King of Glory |
Psa 24:7 |
Mat 25:31-34 |
| The First and Last |
Isa 44:6 |
Rev 22:13 |
| I Am |
Exo 3:13-14 |
John 8:58 |
| Savior |
Isa 45:21 |
John 4:42 |
| Holy One |
Isa 45:11 |
John 6:69 |
That such titles and names rich with Old Testament meaning would be applied to Jesus reveals that He must be God. It would have been sheer blasphemy to apply such titles and names to Jesus, if He were not true deity. That this was understood is demonstrated by John 8:58.
In Exodus 3:13 Moses asked God which divine name he should use when speaking to the people of Israel. God responds in verse 14:
Exodus 3:14 (NASB) God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
The Septuagint reads:
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων· ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. καὶ εἶπεν· οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
From this verse, the Jews came to view the words ἐγώ εἰμι "I Am" as a divine name for God. For a mere man to use this name for himself was blasphemy. It is in this context that John 8:58-59 must be read:
John 8:58-59 (NASB) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
Verse 58 reads in the Greek:
ἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.
The reaction of the Jews to the holy name ἐγώ εἰμι was swift and deadly. They tried to kill Jesus for blasphemy because He used the divine name ἐγώ εἰμι in reference to Himself.
The tense of the verb ἐγώ εἰμι is not in question. It is the present indicative tense. A.T. Robertson comments:
I am (ἐγώ εἰμι). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between γενέσθαι (entrance into existence of Abraham) and εἰμι (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between ἐν in 1:1 and ἐγένετο in 1:14. See the contrast also in Psa 90:2 between God (εἶ, art) and the mountains (γενηθηναι). See the same use of εἰμι in John 6:20; 9:9; 8:24,28; 18:6.
If all Jesus wanted to say was that He existed before Abraham, all He had to do was to use the imperfect tense "I was." But this would not have caused a riot and an assassination attempt. It is His use of the present tense and the way He said it that made them riot.
That this passage is a powerful proof that Christ claimed to be God is seen from the extreme lengths some Arians go to avoid it. The Jehovah's Witnesses in their New World Translation render ἐγώ εἰμι as "I have been" and in a footnote claimed that it is in "the perfect indefinite tense." (They have stopped using this explanation at least from the 1984 edition onwards.) But no such tense exists in the Greek language. The deliberately made it up to justify their mistranslation of ἐγώ εἰμι.
They compound their guilt by pretending in the same footnote that the words ἐγώ εἰμι do not appear in the Greek text of Exodus 3:14. They correctly point out that the phrase ὁ ὤν in Exodus 3:14 is not the same as ἐγώ εἰμι. But then they leave the reader with the impression that only ὁ ὤν appears in Exodus 3:14 and that ἐγώ εἰμι does not appear in Exodus 3:14. Such deceptive practices reflect a total disregard for the sacred text.
The same is true for their claim that ἐγώ εἰμι should be viewed as a historical present. But the historical present refers to narratives not to dialogues and debates. Brooks and Winberry, in their work Syntax of New Testament Greek, explain:
For the sake of vividness or dramatic effect a writer sometimes imagines that he and/or his readers are present and are witnessing a past event. He narrates the past event as though it were actually taking place.
As Robertson points out, "In John 8:58 εἰμι is really absolute. It is not in a narrative. Walter Martin comments:
The Watch Tower's contention on this point is that the phrase in question is a "historical present" used in reference to Abraham, hence permissible. This is a classic example of Watch Tower double talk. Jesus was not narrating but arguing, and the "historical present" is used in narrative not argument as any standard grammar reveals.
After denouncing the Arian interpretations as "dishonest quibbles," Alford goes on to state:
In this verse the Godhead of Christ is involved; and this the Jews clearly understood, by their conduct to Him.
The same argument can be made for all the Old Testament titles and names of God transferred to Jesus in the New Testament. Since two persons cannot be "the First and Last," the Savior, the Shepherd, etc., then the One given such titles in the OT is the same One given such titles in the NT. This principle is axiomatic.
The title "the First and the Last" is an excellent example of this principle. In Isaiah 44:6 we are told:
Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: 'I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me.'
There is no question that "the first and the last" is a divine title of Yahweh. This same claim was made earlier in Isaiah 41:4. When we turn to the New Testament, we find that "the first and the last" is none other than Jesus.
Revelation 1:17 (NASB)When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last,
Revelation 2:8 (NASB)"And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says this:
Revelation 22:12-13 (NASB)"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
As Lenski states, the phrase:
"I am the first and the last," undoubtedly designates Jesus as God.
Since the Palestinian Jews spoke Aramaic before, during and after the birth of Christ, we are not surprised to find the Aramaic word for Lord מָרֵא (mârêʼ) was used as a title for the God of Israel. The precedent had already been set by the book of Daniel which used the Aramaic word מָרֵא (mârêʼ Lord) for God in Daniel 2:47; 5:3 and the Aramaic Targums which also used מָרֵא as a title for God as well (I Q Genesis Apocryphon 20:12-15; 22:16,21; 11Qtg Job 24:6-7; 4QEn 1, iv.5).
The above facts completely overthrow the claim of Bousset, Bultman, etc. that מָרֵא was never used of God, but only of men. Their ignorance of the Jewish literature on this point is as astounding as their dogmatism.
If the Palestinian Jews who became Christians believed that Jesus was God, then we would expect to find them using the divine title מָרֵא as a title for Christ. And this is exactly what we find in 1 Corinthians 16:22:
If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed. Maranatha.
εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον, ἤτω ἀνάθεμα. μαράνα θά.
While the English has only one word "maranatha," the Greek actually has two: the Aramaic title "mare" (from מָרֵא) and the verb "to come," both transliterated from Aramaic into Greek. It means "Our Lord, come!" This translation has been verified by some of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls found in Cave 4.
As R.T. France points out, it is clearly a pre-Pauline act of worship to Jesus in which the saints prayed to Him for His swift return. The early Palestinian Jewish Christians used it as a greeting to each other. It was later used by the Church as part of the communion service.
Paul's use of the Aramaic title מָרֵא for Christ is highly significant because it reveals that the early Palestinian Jewish Christians prayed to Christ as God. This fact completely overthrows the Wrede-Bousset thesis that the Palestinian Church did not speak of Jesus as Lord.
"Against their hypothesis," points out William Childs Robinson, the well-known church historian:
there is evidence of the prior application of Lord to Jesus in the primitive Aramaic community and in the teachings of Jesus. Maranatha, "may our Lord come!" (1 Cor 16:22; Didache 10:9; cf. Rev 22:20), testifies to worship of Jesus as Lord in the Aramaic speaking community which looked for his coming rather than that of the Father (Acts 3:20; 1 Thess 4:16; 1:10). Phil 2:6-11 is now recognized as a part of the primitive kerygma taken over by the Apostle from an Aramaic hymn.
Prof. Herman Waetjen, University of Southern California, explains:
This has meant the destruction to the hypothesis posed by Wm. Bousset in his books: Kyrios Christos (1913) and Jesus der Herr (1916). In this "Kyrios" controversy Bousset argued that primitive Christianity in Jerusalem regarded Jesus chiefly as the Son of Man yet to come and usher in God's kingdom. The title "Lord" was only applied later on Greek soil under the influence of Hellenistic Christianity. Gentile Christians, familiar with the mystery cults, would interpret the lordship of Jesus in ways determined by their previous experience.
We saved our discussion of the significance of the use of κύριος until now because as many other modern scholars have pointed out κύριος must be understood in terms of its Semitic background. As Prof. C.F.D. Moule points out, the old Wrede-Bousset thesis claimed:
it was not until pagan Saviour-cults had introduced a new dimension into Christian thinking that Jesus began to be acclaimed as Lord.
Bousset's Kyrios Christos asserted that κύριος must be understood in its pagan significance of divine hero worship. Thus, Jesus was transformed into a pagan god by gentile Christians. Of course, as we have already demonstrated, this claim was based on his ignorance of the literature of early Judaism. As Moule points out:
Against this view it may be urged that it is largely guess-work, and there are facts which seem to point in a different direction.
Bousset's and then Bultmann's claim that it would be "unthinkable" for a Jew to use the Aramaic מָרֵא (Lord) or the Greek κύριος (Lord) for God has been one of the main pillars of modern liberalism. Bultmann simply assumed it as a fact and never bothered to examine the evidence against it. The evidence against it is more than sufficient to overthrow it:
"There will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt. "(Isa 19:19)
19:19 ביום ההוא יהיה מזבח ליהוה בתוך ארץ מצרים ומצבה אצל גבולה ליהוה
LXX: Τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἔσται θυσιαστήριον τῷ Κυρίῳ ἐν χώρᾳ Αἰγυπτίων καὶ στήλη πρὸς τὸ ὅριον αὐτῆς τῷ Κυρίῳ
Josephus: "For the Prophet Isaiah foretold that There should be an altar in Egypt to the Lord God."
θυσιαστήριον ἐν Αἰγυπτω Κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ
Their hesitation to use word מָרֵא, Θεὸς, or κύριος or any other foreign name for יְהֹוָה (YHWH) had nothing to do with whether these names were valid names for Deity per se. Indeed, these names were used by Jews in other circumstances such as worship where יְהֹוָה was never spoken.
Bultmann and his disciples erroneously assumed that kyrios was no used in these fragments because it was viewed by the Jews as a profane pagan name for God. But they got it backwards. It was the sacredness of the name יְהֹוָה and not the supposed profanity of κύριος that caused its omission. That this is true is seen frcom the fact they omitted the use of Θεὸς as well. Who would claim that the Jews viewed Θεὸς as profane and pagan?
Wrede, Bousset, Bultmann, etc., were dead wrong. The Jews were in fact using both מָרֵא and κύριος as designations for God. As Professor Moule points out, we do not:
... need to wait for the Church to move out into the Greek world, for the bridge to be built between a "Master" to be invoked and a "Lord" to be worshipped and acclaimed: the necessary linguistic bridge was already there... [מָרֵא is] an Aramaic word capable of designating divinity is shown to be current at the time.
After surveying the evidence, Fitzmeyer concludes,
The origin of this title for Jesus is not to be traced to Hellenistic soil, but rather to the use of mareh, adon or κύριος in pre-Christian Palestinian Judaism. The title implies that the exalted Jesus is on a par with Yahweh.
The word κύριος appears719 times in the New Testament. In the Gospels ho ὀ κύριος was often used in the sense of a "slave master" or the "owner" of a house or vineyard.
Mat 10:25; 18:25,27,32,34; 20:8; 21:42; 24:45,46,48,50; 25:19,21,23,26; Mark 13:35; Luke 12:36,37,42-46; 14:21-23; 16:3,8; John 15:15, etc.
But by the time the Epistles were written, ὀ κύριος had become an unique and almost exclusive title for the exalted Jesus.
The crucial issue in the New Testament use of κύριος for Jesus is not whether the people He came into contact while on earth used the word as a polite title (Master) or as a form of worship. That depended entirely on their level of understanding at that time.
The crucial issue centers in the following question: if the authors of the New Testament believed that the God referred to in the Old Testament was at times the pre-existent Christ or a prophecy of Christ, how could they convey this idea to their readers? What must be in order for what is to be what it is?
This question was first asked concerning the Father and we found that the authors of the New Testament took Old Testament passages which speak of God and applied them to the Father. Since this is the method they used to establish the deity of the Father, then we would expect them to take specific Old Testament passages where God was clearly in view and then attribute them to Jesus in the New Testament. Any attempt to deny this method will overturn the deity of the Father as well as the Son.
On the other hand, if the authors of the New Testament were Arians, they would never dream of doing this. It would be blasphemous for them to take a passage referring to Yahweh and attribute it to Jesus.
We are once again faced with a test to determine if the evidence confirms Trinitarianism or Arianism. What does the evidence show? Did the authors of the New Testament take passages from the Old Testament in which God was in view and apply them to Jesus?
The evidence is overwhelming that the authors of the New Testament had no difficulty whatsoever in taking Old Testament passages which clearly have God in view and applying them to Christ. They did this so often and with such ease that it is clear that this practice was already an established Christological principle of the early Church. Several examples will demonstrate this principle.
In Matthew 21:15-16, Jesus took a passage from the Old Testament and applied it to Himself. The context is the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. The multitudes shouted their praise to Jesus as He rode into the city on a colt in fulfillment of prophecy (Mat 21:1-9). While the crowds were receptive to Jesus, the priests and scribes were not:
Matthew 21:15-16 (NASB)But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they became indignant 16 and said to Him, "Do You hear what these children are saying?" And Jesus *said to them, "Yes; have you never read, 'OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABIES YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR YOURSELF'?"
The children were praising Jesus as the long awaited "Son of David," i.e., the Messiah. They used the word "Hosanna" (ὡσαννά) which was an Aramaic word transliterated into Greek. By the first century it had become a Jewish liturgical term used in worship. It was derived from the Hebrew word and is a prayer to God that He may save us (i.e.,Psa 3:8; 6:4; 7:1; 31:16; 54:1; 59:2; 69:1; 109:26; 119:94,146).
Since "Hosanna" was a liturgical term used for worship, the priests and scribes were naturally shocked that Jesus allowed the children to apply "Hosanna" directly to Him. The response of Jesus is significant. He justified what the children were doing by quoting the first part of Psalms 8:2 from the Septuagint.
O LORD, our Lord, How wonderful is thy name in all the earth! For Thy magnificence is exalted above the heavens. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings Thou has perfected praise. (Psa 8:1-2 LXX)
Who has perfected praise for Himself? Whose praise comes forth from the mouths of these children? To whom is David speaking? A comparison of the Septuagint and the Hebrew text will tell us:
LXX: Κύριε ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν (O LORD, our Lord)
Heb. יְהֹוָה אדנינו (Yahweh Adonai)
The Greek word κύριος (Lord) is the equivalent of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה (Yahweh). Thus, the texts reveal that the Person to whom the words "From the mouth of infants and nursing babes" are directed on Psalms 8 is God. Of this there can be no doubt.
What then is the only rational conclusion one can deduce from Jesus' use of Psalms 8:2? Since it was Jesus Himself who took an Old Testament passage addressed to YHWH and applied it to Himself, then theh God to whom David prayed was Jesus.
The New Testament's use of the Old Testament to document the deity of Christ is quite extensive. The following chart illustrates the kind of evidence that is found throughout the New Testament.
We will list only the passages which clearly take an Old Testament deity text and apply it to Jesus. In places where more than one name for God is found (i.e., Yahweh Elohim), we will list only Yahweh. In some cases, the context must supply the specific name of God in view (i.e. Isa. 51:6 cf. 50:1).
| Text | OT Heb. |
Heb. Transl. |
LXX | LXX Transl. |
Text | NT Person in view |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isa 40:3 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Mat 3:3 | Jesus |
| Psa 8:1-2 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Mat 21:16 | Jesus |
| Psa 8:1 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Mat 21:15 | Jesus |
| Isa 40:3 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Mark 1:3 | Jesus |
| Psa 66:16 | אלהים | Elohim | Θεὸς | God | Mark 5:19-20 | Jesus |
| Mal 3:1 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Luke 1:76 | Jesus |
| Isa 40:3 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Luke 3:4 | Jesus |
| Isa 40:3 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | John 1:23 | Jesus |
| Isa 10:33 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Rom 9:28 | Jesus |
| Joel 2:32 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Rom 10:13 | Jesus |
| Isa 45:23 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Rom 14:11 | Jesus |
| Jer 9:24 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | 1Co 1:31 | Jesus |
| Isa 45:23 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Php 2:16 | Jesus |
| Num 16:5 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | 2Ti 2:19 | Jesus |
| Psa 130:8 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Tit 2:13 | Jesus |
| Psa 97:7 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Heb 1:6 | Jesus |
| Psa 45:6 | אלהים | Elohim | Θεὸς | God | Heb 1:8 | Jesus |
| Psa 102:25f | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Heb 1:10 | Jesus |
| Isa 51:6 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Heb 1:11 | Jesus |
| Psa 34:8 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | 1Pe 2:3 | Jesus |
| Isa 8:13 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | 1Pe 3:15 | Jesus |
| Zech 12:10 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Rev 1:7 | Jesus |
| Jer 17:10 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Rev 2:23 | Jesus |
| Psa 62:12 | אֲדֹנָי | Adonai | κύριος | Lord | Rev 22:12 | Jesus |
| Isa 40:10 | יְהֹוָה | YHWH | κύριος | Lord | Rev 22:12 | Jesus |
The chart above demonstrates beyond all doubt that there are passages in the Old Testament which referred to the one true God of Israel which were actually speaking about Jesus either in His pre-incarnate state or as a prophecy of His person or work. Even the Unitarian scholar Joseph Thayer had to admit that this is evidently true. The Greek word Kyrios is this the link between the Yahweh of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament.
Jesus Christ is described as an eternal (Micah 5:2; John 1:1; Col 1:17), omnipotent (Rev 19:16), omniscient (Mat 11:27; John 2:24-25; 16:30), omnipresent (Mat 18:20), Holy (John 6:69), immutable (Heb 1:10-12; 13:8), and true deity (1 John 5:20). No mere creature could be described as such without committing blasphemy.
First John 1:3 once again becomes highly significant. The fact that we can fellowship with the Son not only demonstrates His Personhood, but also demonstrates His divinity. The Apostle John clearly assumed that all believers in all places at all times in all generations under all circumstances can fellowship with the Son who is now in heaven. This is possible only if the Son is eternal, immortal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. In other words, the Son must be God in order for fellowship with Him to be possible.
Hebrews 1:10-12 is also highly significant because the author takes several Old Testament passages (Psa 102:25f; Isa 51:6) which contrasted the attributes of God to the attributes of the creation, and applies these passages to Jesus to contrast His divine attributes to that of Creation. What applied to Yahweh in the Old Testament equally applies to the Jesus of the New Testament.
This of course means that Jesus in His divine nature is equal to God the Father. We are explicitly told this in John 5:18:
For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. John 5:18
In his explanation of why the Jews were trying to kill Jesus, John tells us that it was not His breaking the Sabbath per se that made them want to kill Him, but rather it was His claim that God was His Father in a unique way not shared by others. The Greek text is quite emphatic on this point:
αλλα και πατερα ιδιον ελεγεν τον θεον ισον εαυτον ποιων τω θεω
but and Father was said that God equal making with God
Why did Jesus' unique relationship with the Father get them so mad? John tells us that Jesus was actually claiming to be equal with God. (ισον εαυτον ποιων τω θεω.) It was thus for blasphemy that they wanted to kill Him.
Equality with God the Father is further illustrated in verse 23 where Jesus say that He is to have equal honor with the Father:
John 5:23 (NASB) so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
The equality is seen in the word καθώς (even as) which means that we are to honor (τιμάω) the Son equally as we honor the Father. As Hubner points out: "John 5:23 expresses the center of Johannine theology. A.T. Robertson comments:
Jesus claims here the same right to worship from men that the Father has. Dishonoring Jesus is dishonoring the Father who sent him (John 8:49; 12:26; 15:23; 1Jn 2:23). There is small comfort here for those who praise Jesus as teacher and yet deny his claims to worship.
Jesus is the One who created the universe (John 1:3; Col 1:16; 1Co 8:6; Heb 1:2). He is sovereign over all things (Rom 9:5; Rev 19:16). He is the Savior of the world (John 4:42; 1Jn 4:14) and our Redeemer (Gal 3:13; Tit 2:14).
Such titles as "Savior" are clear indications of deity because Yahweh stated that He was the ONLY Savior:
Isaiah 43:11 (NASB) "I, even I, am the LORD [Yahweh], And there is no savior besides Me.
Hosea 13:4 (NASB) Yet I have been the LORD [Yahweh] your God Since the land of Egypt; And you were not to know any god except Me, For there is no savior besides Me.
In the Old Testament, we are repeatedly told that God is the Savior (2 Sam 22:3; Psa 17:7; 106:21; Isa 43:3; 45:15,21; 59:16; 60:16; Jer 14:8, etc.). In the New Testament, we are repeatedly told that the Savior is Jesus Christ (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Eph 5:23; Phil 3:20; Titus 1:4; 3:6; 2 Peter 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18, etc.).
From these two facts, the Apostles drew the logical conclusion that Jesus was, thus, "our God and Savior" (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1). With the word "Savior" as the middle term, their conclusion that Jesus was both God and Savior is valid.
There are so many ways in which the authors of the New Testament clearly indicated that the God referred to in the Old Testament was at times Jesus Christ. They did this by applying to Jesus key Old Testament expressions which referred to God:
| Expression | OT | NT |
|---|---|---|
| "the word of the Lord" |
Isa 2:3 |
Luke 22:61; Acts 11:16 |
| "the fear of the Lord" |
Psa 34:11 |
2 Cor 5:11 |
| "the day of the Lord" |
Amos 5:18 |
1 Cor 5:5; 1 Thess 5:2 |
The expression "the word of the Lord" was used 241 times in the Old Testament to refer to the divine revelations given by Yahweh to His people. Thus, "the word of the Lord" was revealed to the prophets and they passed it on to the people.
For the writers of the New Testament to refer to the words of Jesus as "the word of the Lord" (Luke 22:61; Acts 11:16) is understandable only if they believed that He was Yahweh.
It is essential that we approach the subject of the worship of Jesus from the context of Judaism, and not pagan Greek mythology. Once again, the Wrede-Bousset thesis which formed the basis of Bultmannianism begins in the wrong place. As Richard Bauckman points out:
In the exclusive monotheism of the Jewish religious tradition, as distinct from some other kinds of monotheism, it was worship which was the real test of monotheistic faith in religious practice... a firm line had to be drawn between God and creatures, and in religious practice it was worship which signaled the distinction between God and every creature, however exalted. God must be worshipped, no creature may be worshipped.
The intertestamental Jews understood that since only God is to be worshipped, they cannot worship anyone or anything else. They were willing to die rather than worship created things, We have already examined their prohibitions against the worship of angels or other heavenly beings in our study of early Jewish literature.
Thus, the issue is not if the words "fall down" (πίπτω) or "worship" (προσκυνέω), are ever used to describe one man falling down in respect before another man. Since the physical act of falling down is the same, regardless whether it is before God or man, we would expect the same word to be used. Thus, it is not the words used, but the attitudes displayed that determine if worship is going on.
How do we worship God the Father? By our prayers and praise in which we offer our faith, hope, love, and obedience to Him (Mat 5:16; 6:9-13; John 4:23-24; Eph 3:14; Phil 4:20; Rev 4:9-11, etc.). How do we praise Him in worship? By speaking highly of Him before others; speaking to Him directly in prayer; and by singing to Him in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.
If the authors of the New Testament worshipped the glorified Jesus, how could they indicate this to their readers? What words would they use? Obviously, they would utilize the words used in divine worship and attribute to them the same attitudes found in the worship of the Father.
If they believed that Jesus is God, then we would expect to find them worshipping Him as God. They should speak highly of Him before others; speak to Him directly in prayer; and sing to Him in psalms, hymns an spiritual songs. We would expect to find them placing their ultimate faith, hope, love, and obedience in Him.
But if they did not believe that Jesus was God, then they would not worship Him. They would not and, indeed, could not sing or pray to Him as if He were God. Their ultimate faith, hope, and love must be placed elsewhere.
Was Jesus worshipped in the New Testament? Yes. How? By the prayers and praises of the saints and by their placing their ultimate faith, hope, love, and obedience in Him. Once again, 1 John 1:3 becomes significant:
1 John 1:3 (NASB) what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
The substance of our fellowship with the Son of God reveals His deity as well as His personhood. How do we fellowship with the Son? By talking to Him in our prayers; by extolling Him in our worship; by listening to His Word; by obeying His law; by giving Him our ultimate faith, hope, love, trust, confidence, and praise; by honoring Him as our Creator and Sovereign Lord, etc. If the Son is not deity, then our fellowshiping with Him would be the grossest kind of idolatry.
Prayer is an act of worship in which you better be speaking to God or you are wasting your time. We pray to God because we assume that He is omniscient and omnipresent. Thus, He can read our thoughts as well as hear our words. He is everywhere present and can listen to us and billions of other people at the same time. He is omnipotent and, thus, has infinite power to answer our prayers.
It does not make any sense to pray to a mere creature instead of to the Creator. Since a finite creature is not omnipresent, omniscient or omnipotent, why bother to pray to him? He is not capable of hearing billions of people and angels at the same time. And, since he is not omnipotent, he could not help us anyway.
When we turn to the Bible, do we find the old Testament saints praying to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob? No. Are any of the Psalms addressed to Moses? No. Did the Jews pray to the prophets or priests? No. Did the temple choirs chant in worship to men, women, or angels? No. They prayed to God alone.
Do we find any prayers addressed to the Patriarchs, prophets, apostles, or angels in the New Testament? No. Then should we find any prayers addressed to Jesus? Not unless He is God. And if they did, in fact, pray to the ascended Jesus, then He has to be God.
The Psalms are composed of several different kinds of literature. There are Psalms where the author addresses himself (Psa 103:1). Sometimes, he would address other believers (Psa 95:6). But when he prayed to God, God was spoken to directly (Psa 43:1).
If the authors of the New Testament worshipped Jesus, then we would expect to find them applying to Jesus some of the prayers recorded in the book of Psalms. And this is exactly what they did.
In Psalms 8:1-2, Yahweh is addressed in prayer:
Psalm 8:1-2 (NASB) For the choir director; on the Gittith. A Psalm of David. O LORD [Yahweh], our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth, Who have displayed Your splendor above the heavens! From the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have established strength Because of Your adversaries, To make the enemy and the revengeful cease.
Since Yahweh is addressed in the vocative, there is no way to avoid that this is a prayer. Yet, when we turn to Mat 21:16, Jesus Himself takes this prayer and applies it directly to Himself!
In Psalms 102:24-27, we have another prayer addressed to God:
Psalm 102:24-27 (NASB) I say, "O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Your years are throughout all generations. Of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. Even they will perish, but You endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment; like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end."
When we turn to Hebrews 1:10-12, we find that this prayer is applied to Jesus by the Father Himself! This is why Christians have always applied many of the prayers recorded in the Psalms to the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e., Psa 116:1-2).
While on earth in the state of humility, Jesus taught His disciples to pray to the Father (Mat 6:9f). But even during this period, He commanded them to come to Him for their spiritual nourishment (John 6:53; 15:1-7). Once He ascended to heaven, the only way we can obtain spiritual nourishment from Him is through prayer.
One good example of this reality is the text:
Matthew 11:28 (NASB) "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
Since He is no longer physically on earth, but sits at the right hand of the Father, the only way to go to Jesus for rest of soul is to go to Him in prayer.
Prayers to the ascended heavenly Jesus are recorded in several places in the New Testament. The earliest prayers were in Aramaic and such words as "Hosanna" (Mat 21:15) and "Maranatha" (1 Cor 16:22) were prayers addressed to Jesus by Palestinian Jewish Christians.
In Acts 1:24-25, the disciples asked the Lord Jesus to help them choose someone to take Judas' place. That the "Lord" addressed is Jesus is clear from verse 2. F.F. Bruce explains:
... the verb used in "thou has chosen" (end of v. 24) is the same as that used in "he had chosen" (end of v. 2), it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus is the subject here as in the former place.
Also, Jesus is called κύριος (Lord) in verse 21 and the pronoun αὐτοῦ (His) in verse 22 refers to Jesus. Thus it is only natural that κύριε in verse 24 refers to Him.
The next prayer to Jesus is found in Acts 7:59-60. After Stephen had a vision of the heavenly Jesus, the mob dragged him outside the city and proceeded to stone him. As Stephen died, according to Luke, he prayed twice to Jesus:
Acts 7:59-60 (NASB) They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" Having said this, he fell asleep.
Notice that the prayers to Jesus occurred outside of the city while the vision of the ascended Christ occurred in the city. That the word "Lord" is in the vocative no can deny. In the second prayer, we have an ellipsis because Luke assumed that the reader would have enough sense to repeat the "Jesus." All attempts to explain away this direct prayer to Jesus has failed. Gloag comments:
Here undoubtedly Stephen prays to Jesus; all attempts to explain this away are unavailing, and rejected by the critics of the rationalistic school.
This prayer reveals that Jesus had the power to forgive or not to forgive sin. As F.F. Bruce point out, this proves that Jesus was worshipped as God from the earliest days of the Church.
Ananias' prayer to Jesus is recorded in Acts 9:10-17:
Acts 9:10-17 (NASB) Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord." 11 And the Lord said to him, "Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight." 13 But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name." 15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake." 17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
We have quoted the entire so that it will be clear that "the Lord" who spoke to Ananias was, according to verse 17, "the Lord Jesus." It was Jesus who appeared to Paul (verse 4) and now commands Ananias to go to Paul.
In 2 Cor 12, the apostle Paul stated that he prayed to "the Lord" three times to have a "thorn in the flesh" removed. Was "the Lord" to whom he prayed a reference to Jesus or to the Father? If we let the context reign supreme, we have another prayer to Jesus:
2 Corinthians 12:8-10 (NASB) Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. 9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
Whose "power" is perfected in weakness? The "power" of the "Lord" to whom Paul prayed. And according to Paul, whose "power" thus dwells with in him? The "power of Christ." Thus, the "Lord" to whom he prayed was the same "Lord Jesus" who met him on the road to Damascus and sent him forth as a missionary.
Most significant is the use of the Old Testament phrase "all who call upon Thy name" found at the end of verse Acts 9:14. The phrase means to call upon the name of God in worship (Gen 4:26; 13:4; Psa 105:1; 116:13,17; Jer 10:25; Joel 2:32). It never meant anything else. Thus, its use in such passages as Acts 7:59 cannot be dismissed so easily.
One clear passage that forges the link between the Old Testament concept of "calling upon the name of God" and "calling upon the name of Jesus" is Romans 10:13 which is a quotation of Joel 2:32:
Joel 2:32 Heb: אשר יקרא בשם יהוה
Joel 2:32 (NASB) "And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD Will be delivered; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem There will be those who escape, As the LORD has said, Even among the survivors whom the LORD calls.
Romans 10:13 (NASB) for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."
Greek: πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται.
That the word κύριος refers to Jesus cannot be doubted in the light of verse 9 where our salvation depends on whether we acknowledge Jesus as κύριος. All the pronouns in verses 10,11, and 12 refer back to Jesus as well as every occurrence of the word κύριος. Thus, the Yahweh (יהוה) of Joel 2:32 is Jesus upon whose name we call for salvation. Indeed, as Peter stated:
Acts 4:12 (NASB) "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."
In this light, Stephen's prayer was an act of worship when he "called" upon the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 7:58). Paul worshipped Jesus as he "called" upon Him to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). In 1 Corinthians 1:2 Christians are described as:
1 Corinthians 1:2 (NASB) ...all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:
A "Christian," according to this passage, is one who worships Jesus as God. Anything less than this is not true Christianity. It is, thus, highly significant that the last prayer recorded in the Bible is a prayer to Jesus. "Come, Lord Jesus!" (Rev 22:20). If Jesus Christ be not God, then such prayers are a waste of time at the least and blasphemy at the worst.
No matter how honored the Patriarch or prophet, hymns were never sung to them in worship. The singing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs has always been part of the worship experience of the people of God. They come from hearts filled with joy and gratitude for all the Lord has done for them.
If the early Church viewed Jesus as God, we would expect to find them singing to Christ in worship and praise. And we open the New Testament, this is exactly what we find. Around a dozen hymn fragments have been so far identified in the New Testament:
| Luke 1:46-55 | Eph 5:14 |
| Luke 1:68-79 |
Col 1:15-20 |
| Luke 2:14 |
1 Tim 3:16 |
| Luke 2:29-32 |
Rev 5:8-14 |
| Phil 2:6-11 |
Rev 7:9-12 |
In the Book of Revelation, direct worship of Christ is pictured as taking place in heaven. It is absolute worship equally shared by the Father and the Son. Read carefully the passage below and observe how Christ is worshipped by the singing of hymns to Him:
Revelation 5:8-14 (NASB) When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they *sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. 10 "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth." 11 Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." 13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." 14 And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped.
In the passage above Christ is being worshipped by the myriads of heaven. Any attempt to ignore or deny this reality is futile. It would be blasphemous to ascribe "power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing" and "blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever" to the heavenly Jesus, if He were not true deity. These are the very same words by which we worship the Father:
Revelation 7:11-12 (NASB) And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying, "Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever. Amen."
Christ is not only the direct object of worship in the book of Revelation, but He is also pictured as receiving equal worship with the Father:
Revelation 7:9-10 (NASB) After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; 10 and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."
The multitude is pictured as worshipping the Father and the Son by ascribing salvation to both of them equally. This cannot be swept aside by saying that Jesus was worshipped as an angel because the worship of angels is explicitly forbidden in Col 2:18.
Colossians 2:18 (NASB) Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels...
We must also point out that in Colossians 1:16, not only was the universe created by Jesus, but also "for" Him. The preposition "for" in this hymn is sufficient by itself to demonstrate the deity of Christ. That Christ created the universe for Himself is unthinkable to the Arian. But this what the hymn says.
Since Jesus was worshipped as God, we are not surprised to find doxologies addressed to Him in the New Testament. A doxology is a spontaneous outburst of worship in which one ascribes glory, honor, and sovereignty to God. We find such doxologies directed toward the Father in the following passages:
Romans 1:25 (NASB) For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Romans 11:36 (NASB) For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
Romans 16:27 (NASB) to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.
Galatians 1:4-5 (NASB) who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be the glory forevermore. Amen.
Ephesians 3:21 (NASB) to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.
Philippians 4:20 (NASB) Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 1:17 (NASB) Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 6:16 (NASB) To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.
1 Peter 5:11 (NASB) To Him be dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Jude 1:25 (NASB) to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
Revelation 7:11-12 (NASB) And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying, "Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever. Amen."
All doxologies manifest the same literary pattern and grammatical structure. They all close with an "Amen" because they are prayers of praise and, thus, acts of worship. The vocabulary used in doxologies ascribe eternal sovereignty, glory, blessing, wisdom, might, power, thanksgiving, majesty, authority, honor, and dominion to God.
Did the authors of Scripture ever burst forth in doxologies to angels or men? No. If mere creatures could be the recipients of such worship, then we should find within Scriptures doxologies to Gabriel or Abraham. Indeed, "idolatry" by definition is ascribing to a creature that which belongs to God alone.
Romans 1:25 (NASB) For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
The very idea of ascribing eternal sovereignty, glory, blessing, wisdom, might, power, thanksgiving, majesty, authority, honor, and dominion to a creature is blasphemous.
What must be for what is to be what it is? If the authors of Scripture believed that Jesus was God as well as man, then we would expect to find them ascribing to Him that which belongs to God alone. We would expect to find them breaking out in spontaneous doxologies of praise to the Lamb who sits on the throne. Thus, the fact that doxologies to Christ are found in the New Testament is sufficient in and of themselves to prove that Christ is God.
Let us begin with Romans 9:5 which is a doxology to Christ:
Romans 9:5 (NASB) whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
Since we have already exegeted this text, we refer the reader to our previous discussion of it. Christ is praised for His sovereignty over all things and blessed as God.
Another doxology is found in 2 Timothy 4:18:
2 Timothy 4:18 (NASB) The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
The context makes it clear that Jesus is"the Lord" Paul has in view (2Ti 1:1 cf. 4:1,8,14 etc.). A.T. Robertson points out that this is "Paul's final doxology, his Swan Song, to Christ." Patrick Fairbairn comments:
The context obliges us to connect this ascription of divine glory with Christ; for it was He, doubtless, of whom the apostle spake as standing by him, strengthening and delivering him.
Every commentary we could find on 2 Timothy agreed that this is a doxology of worship to Christ the Lord.
As the author of Hebrews comes to the end of his epistle, he breaks forth in a doxology:
Hebrews 13:21 (NASB) ... working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
The vast majority of commentators are certain that the context and the grammar of the text demonstrate that the words "to whom" must refer to the immediate antecedent "Jesus Christ." A few commentators refer the doxology back to God the Father. And two try to make it refer to both.
After reading them all, we agree with the majority that the natural reading of the text, which would follow the normal rules of grammar and syntax, address the doxology to Christ. Doctrinal considerations should not overrule grammar.
First Peter 4:11 has another doxology:
1 Peter 4:11 (NASB) Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Does this doxology refer to Jesus or to the Father? A.T. Robertson states that the grammar of the Greek text clearly favors Christ as the antecedent:
"To whom (dative) is," that is to Jesus Christ the immediate antecedent.
But other commentators are just as sure that it is a doxology to the Father and not to Christ. The Greek text is as follows:
διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν.
The grammatical point that tips the scales in favor of Christ as the referent is the presence of the word ἐστιν which is not normal for this kind of doxology. A comparison of the doxologies beginning with the word ᾧ (to whom) will demonstrate this fact.
| Gal 1:5 | ᾧ ἡ δόξα |
| 2Ti 4:18 | ᾧ ἡ δόξα |
| Heb 13:21 | ᾧ ἡ δόξα |
| 1Pe 4:11 | ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα |
J. Hart, in the Expositor's Greek New Testament, explains the significance of the presence of the word ἐστιν:
The inclusion of ἐστι changes the doxology to a statement of fact and thus supports the interpretation of ᾧ as referring to the immediate antecedent Jesus Christ. Already He possesses the glory and the victory; realizing this His followers endure joyfully their present suffering and defeat.
Arian objections to this being a doxology to Christ are invariably theological in nature and ignore the rules of grammar.
In 2 Peter 3:18 we read:
2 Peter 3:18 (NASB) but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
The words αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς ἡμέραν αἰῶνος, ἀμήν. are without a doubt a doxology to Jesus. No other interpretation is grammatically possible. As a matter of fact, we could not find a single commentator who denied that it was addressed to Christ. As the Great Reformer John Calvin stated:
This is an outstanding doxology for showing the divinity of Christ, for this cannot apply to any but God alone. The adverb of present time now means that we must deprive Christ of His glory as long as we soldier on in the world, He adds immediately after unto the day of eternity so that we may now imagine in our minds His eternal kingdom, which will reveal to us His full glory.
Revelation 1:5-6 is another clear doxology to Christ:
Revelation 1:5-6 (NASB) and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood— 6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
A.T. Robertson comments:
To him (αὐτῷ). Another doxology to Christ. The adoration of Christ which vibrates in this doxology is one of the most impressive features of the book" (Moffatt).
The grammar of the text is clear that Jesus is the One who is the focus of this glorious doxology. All the pronouns refer back to Christ.
The enthroned Christ is worshipped by a glorious hymn in Revelation 5:8-14, which ends with a doxology addressed to the Father and to Christ.
Revelation 5:13-14 (NASB) 13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." 14 And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped.
R.T. France points out that:
... worship and praise are offered to him equally with the Father ... The great doxologies of Revelation are not a new experiment involving the worship of one previously regarded in a less exalted light, but the proper expression of an attitude to Jesus which had been there from the beginning, increasing no doubt in intensity and in sophistication, but deriving from the impression made by Jesus himself during his earthy ministry.
The worship of Christ by the hosts of heaven and by the Church on earth reveals His absolute deity. All we needed to find to demonstrate the deity of Christ was just one clear doxology given to Him. But we found six such doxologies. To Him be the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen!
The last consideration is found in 1 Corinthians 16:22:
If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed. Maranatha.
We recognize that there is a problem with the Greek text. Did the original text read "the Lord" (τὸν κύριον) or "the Lord Jesus Christ" (τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν)? Textual critics are divided on this issue.
But we hasten to point out that the identity of "the Lord" per se is not in question. Paul repeats the reference in the next verse as τοῦ Κυρίον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (the Lord Jesus Christ). It is easy to see why some scribes would take the words Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ from verse 22 and insert them after τὸν Κύριον (the Lord) in verse 21 because it is clear that Jesus is the one we must love.
Given the principle that the more difficult reading is more than likely the original text, while we can easily see why a scribe might "correct" verse 21 by adding the two words Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ from verse 22, we cannot see any reason why a scribe would remove both words. Most modern scholars take this position.
The point we want to make concerning this verse is that Paul demands that we place our ultimate love in the Lord Jesus Christ. If we do not LOVE Him, we will end up under the wrath of God (ἀνάθεμα). A.T. Robertson comments:
Ἀνάθεμα (accursed). The word seems a bit harsh to us, but the refusal to love Christ (οὐ φιλεῖ) on the part of a nominal Christian deserves ἀνάθεμα.
In the last analysis, if Jesus Christ be God, then no sacrifice for Him is too great, too difficult or too costly. Our response to the love of Christ is to love Him back and to live our lives in service for Him (2 Cor 5:14-15).
A fervent and passionate love of the Lord Jesus Christ is thus the very soul Trinitarianism and the missing note in Arianism. This is why the Socinians, the Unitarians, the Liberals, and the cultists have never manifested a deep love for Jesus Christ. Their "Jesus" is not worthy of their love.
What must be in order for what is to be what it is? We have found that the authors of the New Testament affirmed the Jewish concept of the deity of Messiah. They did this in so many ways and on so many occasions that no doubts remain. Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, is the Lord God manifested in the flesh. God of very God and man of very man. He is the Savior whom we love, worship, and obey.
The Trinitarian has discovered the secret that to know Jesus is to love Him. To love Him is to serve Him. To serve Him is
to worship Him. Blessing and honor and glory and dominion be unto Him forever and ever. Amen.