Religion_Islam_Christianity

Many Muslims have profound problems with the identity of Jesus. It has been supposed that there is very little evidence in the Bible to substantiate the Christian belief that Jesus is God. Any Christian who has spent much time talking to Muslims will no doubt have come up against the common challenge: 'Where in the Bible does Jesus say, "I am God - worship me"?' This statement, of course, does not exist; hence the reason for its repeated use. Does this, however, mean that the same sentiment is not conveyed in the Bible? Is the deity of Jesus a fabrication of the Christian mind, a relic of pagan worship somehow incorporated into a corruption of the true religion of Allah? This is definitely not the case and it is the purpose of this essay to deal with just one of the many reasons why an open-minded reading of the Bible can leave the reader with no option other than to conclude that Jesus is indeed God.

Before beginning, it must be understood that the Jews of Jesus' time held the name of God in such great respect that they would go to great lengths to avoid pronouncing it. This was to make sure that they were not guilty of breaking one of the greatest commandments of the Torah of Moses - 'You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name' (Exodus 20:7). This can be easily seen in one of the fundamental statements of Judaism, found in Deuteronomy 6:4 and reaffirmed by Jesus in Mark 12:29. It reads thus:

The Hebrew word, here translated as LORD, is the personal name of the God of Israel, often transliterated as 'Yahweh' or 'Jehovah'. Whenever Jews recite this verse, known as the Shema, they do not pronounce the name of God, but substitute instead Adonai, the word translated as Lord (not all in capitals) in most English Bible translations.

Against this background, it is not at all surprising that Jesus did not say 'I am God - worship me', for the reasons stated above. Instead, we see in the New Testament many inferences when Jesus talked about God. For instance, he spoke of God as 'the Father'. In the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:18), the son tells his father, 'I have sinned against heaven and against you.' From the context it is clear that he is referring to God when he mentions 'heaven'. The above has prepared us for the main subject of this essay. The phrase 'Son of Man' is found around 200 times in the whole Bible and 82 times in the four accounts of Jesus' life and words, which we refer to as the gospels. In many instances it simply refers to an ordinary man and is not of any special significance. This can be seen in the 100 or so references in the book of Ezekiel, all of which refer to the prophet Ezekiel himself.

In Numbers 23:19, we find the statement, 'God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.' No doubt some Muslims will jump onto this reference as evidence against the claims of Christians. However, an unbiased reading of the passage in context will show that it is simply stating that God's moral character is way above that of evil men, a sentiment which both Christians and Muslims will have no problem with.

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Here, in Daniel's vision, he saw two people inparticular. One is the Ancient of Days, a title which is given to God and mentioned three times in Daniel 7. The other person mentioned is one like a son of man, referring to the fact that he was human in his appearance. Some facts about this person in the passage are very instructive:

We must ask the question, is it possible that Daniel's vision could refer to one who was merely a man and nothing more? It is utter blasphemy to suppose that the whole world would worship or serve anyone but God whilst they were in his presence. Additionally, who can conceive that God would give sovereign (total) power to anyone else, let alone a mere man? Not one of the human prophets of God, in Christianity or Islam, would claim this. This leaves us with only one conclusion; namely, that this one like a son of man, was more than just a man.

This reference is one of many in the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament, for want of a better word), which point to the coming of a great king who would rescue God's people from their sins and release them from slavery. This expected deliverer came to be called the Messiah, which means 'anointed one'. In the Old Testament, different people were anointed with special oil, in order to set them apart for a specific task, including prophets, priests and kings. It can therefore be concluded that the promised Messiah would combine the offices of prophet, priest and king in one person. Since the time that the book of Daniel was written (in approximately 400BC), the Jews rightly saw this person in 7:13,14 as the Messiah. Therefore, at the time of Jesus, they were expecting the one like a son of man. So in the gospels the term 'son of man' was not simply a way of denoting any old human being, but was used as a title to refer to this special person in the prophecy of Daniel. We will see more of this below.

Below I shall list all the references to the Son of Man in the gospels, so that anyone with an interest can spend time looking them up and checking what is said here. Afterwards, I will go onto quote from those references which are more relevant to our discussion. Please take note that these references are to a specific person and not a general reference to a normal human.

Luke 18:31-33 - Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, 'We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.'

In the light of the above, it will be seen that the Christian position on the person of Jesus has ample support from the Bible. Far from being simply a human prophet of Allah, he is unique, far above all other prophets. The following reference from Revelation 1:12-18 is yet again instructive. John, in his vision from God, says:

I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw... someone 'like a son of man', dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters... His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

Muslims believe that God is one, that there are no gods except the God. They may contend that even though Christians claim to be monotheists, they actually believe in more than one God. Since Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, they therefore err like other people of ancient or modern times who have believed in a plurality of gods or the sons and daughters of God.

But is there another alternative? In suggesting that there is, the following questions are proposed: Has the Christian truly understood what Jesus' Sonship means to the Muslim and why the Muslim rejects it? Has the Muslim truly understood what Jesus Sonship means to the Christian and why the Christian affirms it? On this topic, which for centuries has been notorious for generating more heat than light, could both agree to explain their relative positions more fully and to listen to one another more intently and courteously?

The intention of this essay is to help both Muslims and Christians to penetrate a little deeper into the Biblical concept of Jesus as the Son of God and the significance of this idea for Christians. At the same time, it is hoped that this essay, as it unfolds, demonstrates at least some sensitivity towards a truly Muslim position on this vital topic. Where it needs correction or amplification, gladly let Muslim friends provide it.

To understand the Biblical meaning of Jesus as "the Son of God", first we must examine the Biblical use of the word "son". In the Bible, "son" is a term expressing an intimate relationship with someone or something; basically, it indicates origin, but it is also used to express close association or identification with persons or things. Even when indicating origin, this term does not limit oneself to one's father and mother. One may be called the "son" of the following: his father and mother, his family, his tribe, his people, his place of birth (city or country), and the time or circumstance of his birth. The if "father-son" terminology is also used in connection with kings and their vassals or subjects, masters and servants, teachers and disciples, and almost any situation in which someone is subordinate to or dependent on someone else. The basic requirement of the "son" is to honour and obey his "father", but he should also love him and emulate him.

The term "son" is used in many other ways in the Bible, some of which are connected with origin but others of which mainly express some sort of association with or resemblance to persons or things. A large, somehow homogeneous group may be called "sons" (occupational and ethnic groups especially). Sometimes characteristics or qualities themselves are personified and regarded as having "sons" - those who possess that same characteristic or quality. Still also other uses of the term "son" in the Bible reflect the versatile and imaginative use of this term especially in the Hebrew language.

Other languages also use the term "son" in a variety of ways. Thus, in the Arabic language of the Qur'an "son" need not mean only a direct male issue or descendant. A familiar example is ibnu's sabil ("son of the road"), which means "a traveller". Another example with which many are familiar is "the son of Satan" a vivid descriptive for any mischief-maker (cf. also Acts 13:10). Obviously Satan does not have a wife in order to have a son! The name implies that the mischief maker is like Satan, an embodiment of Satan, a "Satan with us". Worthy of remembrance is also the Arabic term ummu'l kitab (literally "the mother of the book") the heavenly Scripture from which all Scripture with us on earth is derived, as if each Scripture were her child.

In the light of the above, let us turn to well known verses of the Qur'an: "He is Allah, the One.... He begetteth not nor was begotten...." (Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, surah 112:1-4). This surah clearly states that God has no son and that no son can be God. Why? "How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort?..." (surah 6:102). As these and other verses suggest, even to imagine that God would have a wife and sexual intercourse with her would be absolute folly. But do these Quranic verses actually address the Biblical meaning of Jesus' Sonship? Does the Bible affirm that God has a wife and through procreation a son, whose name is Jesus? Our response to these questions will become more intelligible after we consider in greater depth the Biblical meaning of "son of God".

The term "son of God" too is used in a variety of ways in the Holy Bible. As creator, God is the "Father" of Adam and of all mankind (Luke 3:38; Isaiah 64:8; Malachi 2:10; etc.). However, a more specific "Father-son" relationship is achieved by the gracious choice of the Father and the faithful obedience and service of the son, not by creation and certainly not by procreation. In this sense, the following are some of those referred to as "son(s) of God" in the Bible:

If the meaning of the term "Son of God" in the case of Jesus would be limited to the same significance that it has in these cases above, even the Muslims might agree with its use. In fact, some Sufis speak of God as "Father" and humanity as "God's children". Other Muslims, of course, might question this terminology, preferring the use of "servant" instead of "son". Still, the fact remains that God being Father and humanity being His children, apart from any sexual connotation, is an idea compatible with the thinking of some Muslims.

To equate the Sonship of Jesus with the sonship of the above mentioned beings, however, would be denying the plain truth of the Holy Bible and the very essence of the Christian faith. Jesus is more than one of God's chosen people, more than one of His heavenly messengers, more than one who rules on God's behalf on earth, more than one who pleases God, although He is all of those also.

What, then, is the evidence for this tremendous claim? Is it because Jesus, though a man born of a woman, was yet born of a virgin? Some Christians, it is true, might conclude that because Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, therefore He is the Son of God. Likewise, some Muslims, while denying that Jesus is the Son of God, might consider the virgin birth of Jesus to be the basis for Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God. Biblically speaking, however, Jesus' Sonship does not rest upon His being born of the virgin Mary. On the contrary, as we shall later see more clearly, His virgin birth rests upon His Sonship. Before Mary ever was, the Son of God is. Jesus does not become the Son of God, but the Son of God becomes Jesus. Thus Jesus, as the Son, speaks to the Father about "the glory I had with You before the world began" (John 17:5; cf. Colossians 1:13-20), long before Mary ever was. This eternal Son of God entered into the limitations of time and space by the power of God working through the virgin Mary and was born as a man, called Jesus, in Bethlehem some nineteen centuries ago.

Indeed, His works witness to His Sonship. A "son" must be obedient to his "father", doing his will and works, being like him (cf. John 8:37-47). Jesus Himself pointed to His works as evidence of the fact that He is the Son of God: "If I am not acting as my Father would, do not believe me. But if I am, accept the evidence of my deeds, even if you do not believe me, so that you may recognise and know that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:37f.). Jesus did the works of God, His Father, acting as God would.

Others in addition to God Himself, His angel, and the Roman soldier proclaimed that Jesus is the Son of God. Madmen and even unclean spirits confessed to Jesus: "You are the Son of God." (Mark 3:11; cf. 5:7; Matthew 8:29; Luke 4:41; 8:28) . Jesus' disciples also confessed that He is "the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16; cf. 14:33). Jesus, as a true Son, preferred to give glory to His Father, but He too would not deny His Sonship (Matthew 26:63f.; Mark 14:62; John 10:36). Of interest in the first two of these passages (and others) is the close association between the terms "Messiah" and "Son of God".

It is also interesting to note how closely Jesus' Sonship is associated with His suffering (Romans 5:10; 8:32; Galatians 2:20; Hebrews 5:8; 6:6) . When Jesus was famished after a long fast, the tempter said to Him: "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread" (Matthew 4:3, etc.). When Jesus was in agony on the cross, the passersby mocked Him and said: "Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!" (Matthew 27:40). These speakers forgot that Jesus is the Son of God. God, who seeks and serves and even suffers to save those whom He loves, the people of the world. He is not the son of some earthly king, who must show his might and save his pride by appearing to be victorious in the eyes of the world, according to the world's standards. It was just because He is the Son of the God of love that He would not use His power for selfish purposes but perfectly fulfilled the will of His Father, who chose to reveal Himself and His love to all men through His suffering Servant/Son.

Even a casual reading of the verses cited above would show that the use of the term "Son of God" with reference to Jesus is different in both quality and extent from the other uses mentioned previously. Others were graciously chosen by God as His adopted sons; the Son is in the Father eternally. Others obeyed the Father, though imperfectly; Jesus the Son obeyed Him perfectly, without sin (Hebrews 4:15) . Sons should be like their father, but only Jesus was perfect like Him in His goodness, giving Himself completely for Him and His people. The Father has entrusted all judgement to the Son alone, "that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father" (John 5:22,23). Only the Son gives life as the Father gives life (John 5:21). For was the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself" (John 5:26). The Son is obedient to the Father, with the will of the Father becoming concretized in the way of the Son; but the Father also listens and gives heed to the Son (John 11:41-44). Thus there is a sharing of power, authority, knowledge, glory, and kingship which indicates a relationship of equality and mutuality between the Two who are One. About what people, what angel, what king, what pious man could it be said: "In these last days God has spoken to us by the Son whom He has appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word"? (Hebrews 1:2f.)

Many of the uses of the term "son" in the Holy Bible and in various languages can give clues to the significance of the term "Son of God" with reference to Jesus, but in the end its use, directly applied to Jesus, remains as unique as the relationship it expresses is unique. Jesus said: "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

In the first place, it is significant that the Holy Injil does not portray Jesus indiscriminately proclaiming that He is the Son of God - and, for that matter, that He is the Messiah (Christ). Nor need we, especially when we know the term to be offensive to those with whom we converse. When we use it, we should explain it.

The Jews, in fact, were familiar with the title "Son of God", as they were familiar with the title "Messiah". There is evidence, though outside of the Bible, that they spoke about the Torah as the "daughter of God", meaning "the revelation of God", without sacrificing their monotheistic convictions. They did, however, object when Jesus called Himself "the Messiah" and "the Son of God", considering His confession of Himself to be blasphemy and worthy of crucifixion (John 5:18; cf. 10:33). It, therefore, is hardly surprising that Jesus Himself used this term discreetly.

Secondly, it should be made clear that Jesus was a man, a servant and a prophet, just as Muslims have always insisted and just as the Holy Injil claims the Son of God to have become. When the disciples of Jesus first met Jesus, they understood Him to be a man. How could they have understood otherwise? They had heard how Satan tempted Him. They saw Him hungry and weary. They knew Him in need of companionship and prayer. They saw Him weep. They heard Him in prayer and saw Him in action surrendering His will to the Father's will, claiming the Father's will to be His bread. His words: "The Father is greater than I" were intelligible to them. How else should they have understood? Or we, had we been with Him on earth?

Only after the disciples' association with Jesus had deepened, after they heard His words and witnessed His deeds, did they and others begin to wonder and ask questions about Him: "Who is this man?" "From where does He come?" They saw Him feed the multitudes, heal the sick, control nature, raise the dead. They heard Him forgive sins, they heard Him speak in an extraordinary manner about His purpose in coming, about His relation with the Temple, the Law and the prophets, about the love of Cod and His personal relationship with God. Even then, there were those who misinterpreted Him and His works, willfully or otherwise.

The disciples' understanding of both Jesus and His ministry was a gradual and at times a painful process. What He required of them to understand Him was not simply keen intellect but firm trust in God and obedience to His will, readiness for self-examination, repentance, and a change of mind and heart in the light of God's holiness and His holy Law, an openness to receive what He said about Himself, what He had done, what He was about to do, and the purpose of it all. True, Peter confessed Jesus to be the Messiah and Son of God, but immediately proceeded to contradict Jesus by denying that Jesus must suffer and die (Matthew 16:21,22), as if he had sharper insight into the will and ways of God than Jesus (John 12:1-7)! Women seemed to understand better (Mark 14:1-9). In brief, to understand Jesus is not simply to verbally confess Him, to admire and to applaud Him; it is to follow and obey Him.

In fact, the Holy Injil clearly and consistently indicates that Jesus' disciples did not fathom the deeper significance of His Sonship or His ministry until He had risen from the dead! Then their change in mind and heart was dramatic. Does this offer the Christian a clue for his witness? While to legislate techniques for presenting Jesus to the Muslim or anyone may be dubious, is there here a ' procedural pattern on which Christians might meditate, even imitate?

Thirdly, it is often necessary to explain what the term "Son of God" in reference to Jesus does not mean. As already noted above, nowhere does the Holy Injil suggest that God takes Mary as a wife, that He procreates, and that Jesus therefore is the Son of God by virtue of His birth to Mary. God is no male deity! The Injil, like the Qur'an, speaks of Jesus as the son of the virgin Mary. In Arabic Jesus is called ibnu'llah not waladu'llah. Nor does the Injil sacrifice the fundamental Biblical affirmation that God is one. Nor does it suggest that somehow for Christians Jesus, as the Son of God, is another god associated with God, or that somehow Jesus, as the Son of God, is the second or third of three gods, or that somehow Jesus is elevated from His original position of man and servant to the status of the Son of God and then made to supplant the true God. In no way does the Holy Injil's affirmation of Jesus' Sonship transform Biblical monotheism into a subtle form of polytheism. God is one! And Jesus, the Son of God, confirms that God is one! Only after Muslims and Christians have established this common ground, can they proceed to discussion about who the one God is, what He does for mankind, what He expects from mankind, and how God is one while Jesus is the Son of God.

Fourthly, Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God simply echoes the constant, insistent and consistent affirmation throughout the Injil that He is the Son of God. Contrary to what some Muslims suggest, normally with no evidence, Christians, including St. Saul, did not invent this title. For Christians to deny the Sonship of Jesus would mean that they should expunge all references in the Holy Injil to this title. If Christians were to do this, then they would be truly guilty of corrupting their Scriptures, just as many Muslims (but not the Qur'an) have felt Christians to have done. The Qur'an tells Christians that they are to judge according to the Injil (surah 5:46,47). It contains no reference to a corrupted or abrogated Injil.

Fifthly, and closely related to the previous points, Christians should encourage Muslims to read the Holy Injil with an open mind and heart and to compare both the Quranic and Biblical portrayals of Jesus' Sonship. Even if the Muslim rejects the Biblical portrayal of Jesus' Sonship after having seriously studied it, he should at least have understood the meaning of Jesus' Sonship as the Bible portrays it. Would the Muslim, after understanding the Biblical meaning of Jesus' Sonship, then entertain the possibility that the Quranic and Biblical portrayals of Jesus as the Son of God differ from each other, that the Qur'an rejects a concept of Jesus' Sonship which the Bible never affirms and could never affirm because it is really alien to the Biblical concept? Yet the Bible affirms Jesus to be the Son of God - in the Biblical sense of this term!

1. The prime duty of a son is to honour and obey his father, to serve him freely and fully. The ideas of being a servant and a son are very closely related in the Holy Bible. The Christian Church has always regarded the great Servant Songs in the book of the prophet Isaiah as referring to Jesus the Messiah (Isaiah 42:1-4; 52:13-53:12, etc.). This Servant is called "my chosen One" by God. "The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord" is upon Him (Isaiah 61:1). He heals the sick and helps the oppressed. He even suffers and bears the guilt of others and is vindicated by God. The early Christians used the same word found in the Servant Songs and referred to Jesus as God's "holy Servant" (Acts 4:27,30). This Son indeed served the Father, not out of compulsion but because of His unity with the Father and out of love. Which servant serves better than a son? In Jesus, the son and servant are fused!

2. An apostle or messenger is "one sent" by God to proclaim His message. Jesus also is called an "apostle" in the Holy Injil (Hebrews 3:1). In the Gospel account according to John, the Son is very often spoken of as "the sent One", and the two terms are almost synonymous. The other Gospel accounts use this terminology also, and the terms "Father" and "the sending One" are virtually synonymous too (Matthew 10:40; Mark 9:37: Luke 9:48). There have been many apostles who were sent by God. But the Apostle/Son was not only sent by God; He was also sent from God. He came forth from above, from God Himself (John 8:23,42) and so He is called "Immanu-el", "God with us". (Matthew 1:23)

Jesus' parable of the absent landlord is very instructive in the whole matter of His Sonship. The landlord's servants were unable to collect the rent for the vineyard he had planted and fully equipped and then let out to tenants. Finally, the landlord decided to send his son as his personal representative. The tenants killed him, thinking that thereby they had achieved victory and could take possession of the estate for themselves, but in the end they lost everything. (Matthew 21:33-43, etc.)

Plainly enough, the landlord and the son of the landlord in this parable represent the Father and the Son respectively. Whatever else the parable teaches, it clearly distinguishes between "the sent ones" and "the sent One," the prophets and the Son, and the ultimate destiny of "the sent One." Indeed, this parable is strange and unusual! Yet it is no stranger or more unusual than the Person and event to which the parable points.

Thus, it is clear for what purpose the Son has been sent by and from the Father: to reveal Him, to carry out His plan of salvation for mankind, to serve as His "personal" representative, and to expend Himself in the process (John 3:16f.; Romans 8:3,29; Galatians 4:4-7). In carrying out God's saving will, the unique Son was to acquire many "brothers", who, by following Him, also became God's "sons" by His gracious adoption. Those who follow the obedient Servant/Son sent from the Father are also God's obedient servants/sons, true "muslims" (as the followers of Jesus are called in the Qur'an - surah 3:52; 5:111). Son/Servant/sent One/Saviour: all these are closely connected in the Holy Bible.

3. For Muslims, as for Christians, the Word of God is eternal, even as God is eternal. It is through His Word that God acts, creating and sustaining the universe and revealing His will. If one should refer to the Word of God among Muslims, they would naturally think of the Qur'an. However, many of them know that Jesus also is called "the word (Word?) of God" in the Qur'an. Even though they regard Jesus as only a prophet, could not their idea about His being "the word of God" be filled with the Biblical significance of the same expression? Some will say, "No!" Others have found this a very useful means for explaining Jesus' relationship with the Father, including the concept of Sonship. As He is God's eternal Word, so He is God's eternal Son (John 1:14) . It may also help remove the deep-rooted misunderstandings about this relationship, leading Muslims to understand that Christians believe in only one God, that they do not set up the Son as another God, nor do they displace God by the Son, nor do they make a man into God.

Even among people we depend much on one's word to know what a person wants and does, and what he is like. Through his word a man makes himself known, bringing out what is within him. We trust Abdullah because we trust Abdullah's word. We trust Abdullah's word because we trust Abdullah. We distinguish between Abdullah and his word and we equate Abdullah and his word. Both are true.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men .... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.... No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom[1] of the Father, he has made him known."[2] (RSV, John 1:1-4,14,18)

If a Muslim can accept that the Word of God, which is eternal as God Himself is eternal, can enter into the limitations of time and space and become available in book form, could he not also comprehend that this same Word might be made manifest as a human being? If on earth the uncreated Word of God in its created form of a book can be described as both uncreated and created, then cannot the uncreated Word of God in its created form of a human being be described as both uncreated and created, if the one God should so will it? That God has so willed is the testimony of the Holy Injil: God's eternal self-expression, His Word, His Son, has entered human form as Jesus the Messiah.

We all know that God is the creator of all creation. We know that he continually points mankind to manifold signs in creation and in history which, in turn, point mankind beyond these signs to God Most High Himself as mankind's creator and judge. We know that periodically He has intervened in creation's history through prophets and apostles and the Scriptures. He has mediated through them, whereby He has offered mankind a pattern for life. Probably we all also agree that he bears witness to Himself through human conscience. In all these ways God reveals to us something about Himself so that we can know something about Him. But does He reveal Himself? Can we know Him?

Angels, persons and things can reveal to us something about God. But God alone can reveal God! It takes God to reveal Himself to mankind . It takes God to reveal Himself to mankind under created circumstances congenial to human understanding. What better way for the eternal revealer to be revealed to mankind on earth than by clothing His self-expression in human flesh!

In Jesus, His eternal Son, the revealer becomes also the revealed for us. This is why the Holy Bible speaks of Jesus as God manifested in the flesh. In turn, the revealed Son becomes the revealer of the Father among mankind. "Trust in God; trust also in me," says Jesus (John 14:1). In inviting His hearers to trust Him, Jesus is not subtly deflecting trust away from God; rather He is simply affirming that God, forever Most High, is revealing Himself through Jesus by His presence in Jesus.

God, the revealer and the revealed. We would agree that God creates the world, appoints prophets, sends Scriptures and provides laws for human guidance. But can He Himself enter His own creation to be with us? Would this not be unworthy of Him? Would He not demean Himself thereby? Would not His entry into the world conflict with His sovereignty, cloud the brightness of His glory, and make Him less than greater?

God indeed is greater. To Him alone belong the kingdom, the power, and the glory. He alone is sovereign. But, we may ask, what is the nature of God's sovereignty? And how does God Himself manifest the nature of His sovereignty so that humanity too can begin to understand the nature of His sovereignty? Stated otherwise, are we to understand God's sovereignty simply as the sovereignty of any earthly potentate magnified to its ultimate degree? Does God Himself manifest His sovereignty over His creation by remaining aloof from it? Does He safeguard His sovereignty by insulating Himself in celestial serenity, far removed from the suffering and sin of this dying world? Or is it possible that our understanding of God's sovereignty conflicts with His own understanding of His sovereignty; that His thoughts are not our thoughts and our ways are not His ways, even as God has declared through His prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 55:8)? Is it possible that God not only answers but even anticipates the yearning of this prophet: "Oh, that You would rend the heavens and come down...!"? (Isaiah 64:1)

According to the Bible, God is love. In Biblical perspective, by entering into this world, God does not demean Himself; rather He exalts Himself. By His visitation on earth, He does not cloud His glory; rather, He magnifies it among mankind. By His presence among us, He does not become the lesser; rather, He becomes the greater for our greater praise. By being not only above us but with us in Jesus Immanuel, He not only acts in conformity with Himself; even more, He is being Himself and He is being what He will be.

Some Muslims do not appreciate the fact that a Christian does not believe in this type of sonship regarding Christ Jesus. The Bible nowhere speaks of God having a wife; there is not the least suggestion of a sexual relationship between God and any of his creatures. Such an idea is as utterly blasphemous and repulsive to Christians as it is to Muslims. Christians will be deeply horrified and grieved to learn that this is the view that some Muslims have of their innermost faith. Obviously there has been a misunderstanding.

Even today it is quite common, particularly in eastern societies, for elderly men and woman to call young people "my son" or "my daughter", even though they are not their real sons and daughters. Just as one understand these examples with common sense, we ask Muslims to interpret Bible passages about Jesus the Messiah without assuming a physical relationship.

"There came to the Prophet (Muhammed) two (Christian) monks from Majran. The Prophet proposed Islam to them, and they replied, 'We embraced Islam before thou didst.' To this the Prophet replied, 'Ye have told a lie. Three things keep you from Islam: pork eating, cross-worship, and the claim that Allah has a son.'" Al-Hassan adds that the Prophet was never too quick but always waited for Allah's command. Hence the text revealed by his Lord: 'Verily Jesus is as Adam in the sight of Allah.'[9]

"The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven."[12]

It is easy to understand that since God is eternal then His Word must also be eternal. No one on this earth has been called the Word of God other than Jesus. If Muslims can accept the idea that the eternal God gave expression to His eternal Word as the eternal Qur'an, then why should it not be possible to accept that God gave expression to His eternal Word in the Christ? The Word became incarnate as the Son of Man. Why hesitate? The Qur'an 600 years later acknowledged that Jesus was the Word from God.[17]

This brings to an end our brief survey of these seven crucial passages. Seen as a whole, they prompt some general observations. First, the ascription of the title God to Jesus is found in four New Testament writers - John (three uses), Paul (two), Peter (one), and the author of Hebrews (one). Second, this christologica] use of the title began immediately after the resurrection in 30 (John 20:28), continued during the 50s (Rom. 9:5) and 60s (Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1), and then into the 90s (John 1:1, 18). Third the use of "God" in reference to Jesus was not restricted to Christians who lived in one geographical region or who had a particular theological outlook. It occurs in literature that was written in Asia Minor (John, Titus), Greece (Romans), and possibly Judea (Hebrews), and Rome (2 Peter), and that was addressed to persons living in Asia Minor (John, 2 Peter), Rome (Romans, Hebrews), and Crete (Titus). Also, the use is found in a theological setting that is Jewish Christian (John, Hebrews, Peter) or Gentile Christian (Romans, Titus). Fourth, the three instances in John's Gospel are strategically placed. This Fourth Gospel begins (1:1) as it ends (20:28), and the Prologue to this Gospel begins (1:1) as it ends (1:18), with an unambiguous assertion of the deity of Christ: "The Word was God" (1:1); "the only Son, who is God" (1:18); "my Lord and my God!" (20:28).[18] In his preincarnate state (1:1), in his incarnate state (1:18), and in his postresurrection state (20:28), Jesus is God. For John, recognition of Christ's deity is the hallmark of the Christian.

First, in all strands of the New Testament the term theos usually refers to the Father. We often find the expression God the Father, which implies that God is the Father.[19] Also, in trinitarian formulas "God" always denotes the Father, never the Son or the Spirit. For example, 2 Corinthians 13:14 reads, "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." What is more, in the salutations at the beginning of many New Testament letters, "God" is distinguished from the Lord Jesus Christ." So Paul's letters regularly begin, "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." As a result of all this, in the New Testament the term theos in the singular has become virtually a proper name, referring to the trinitarian Father.[20] If Christ were everywhere called "God," so that in reference to him the term was not a title but a proper noun, like "Jesus," linguistic ambiguity would be everywhere present. What would we be able to make of a statement such as "God was in God, reconciling the world to himself," or "the Father was in God, reconciling the world to himself" (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19)?

Second, another reason why "God" regularly denotes the Father and rarely the Son is that such usage is suited to protect the personal distinction between Son and Father, which is preserved everywhere in the New Testament. Nowhere is this distinction more evident than where the Father is called "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. 1:17) or "his God and Father" (Rev. 1:6), and where Jesus speaks of "my God."[21]

Closely related to this second reason is a third. The New Testament clearly indicates that Jesus is subordinate to God. Although they both possess the divine nature, there is an order in their operation. It is the role of the Father to direct, of the Son to obey. Theologians refer to a functional subordination alongside an essential equality. Consequently, Christ can be said to belong to God (1 Cor. 3:23) and to be subjected to God (1 Cor. 15:28). So, then , by customarily reserving the term theos for the Father, New Testament writers were highlighting the Son's subordination to the Father, but not the Father's subordination to the Son. We often find the expression Son of God where God is the Father, but never Father of God where God is the Son.

Fourth, if Jesus had been regularly called "God" by the early Christians, problem would have been created for their evangelistic efforts. Their Jewish friends would have been convinced that Christians had given up monotheism, for there were now two "Gods": Yahweh and Jesus. On the other hand, their Gentile neighbors would have viewed Jesus as simply another deity to be added to their roster of gods.

Finally, the New Testament authors generally reserve the term theos for the Father in order to safeguard the real humanity of Jesus. If "God" had become a personal name for Christ, interchangeable with "Jesus," the humanity of Jesus would tend to be eclipsed; he would seem to be an unreal human being, a divine visitor merely masquerading as a man.

If, then, the word God does not become a personal name for Jesus anywhere in the New Testament, what is the actual significance of the seven uses? As used of Jesus, the term theos is a generic title, a description that indicates the class or category (genus) to which he belongs. Jesus is not only God in revelation, the revealer of God (an official title) - he is God in essence. Not only are the deeds and words of Jesus the `deeds and words of God - the nature of Jesus is the nature of God. By nature, as well as by action, Jesus is God. Other New Testament titles of Jesus such as "Son of God" or "Lord" or "Alpha and Omega," imply the divinity of Jesus, but the title God explicitly affirms his deity.

It may help to illustrate the distinction I am making between a proper noun (in this case, a personal name), a generic title, and an official title. Consider these two sentences: Winston Chruchill was a Britisher and a prime minister of the United Kingdom. John Kennedy was an American and a president of the United Sates. In these sentences "Winston Churchill" and "John Kennedy" are proper nouns (personal names); "Britisher" and "American" are generic titles; "prime minister" and "president" are official titles. The parallel sentence relevant to our discussion would be "Jesus is God and the Revealer of God."

First, to say that "Jesus is God" is true to New Testament thought, but it goes beyond actual New Testament diction. The nearest comparable statements are "the Word was God" (John 1:1), "the only Son, who is God" (John 1:18), and "the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever" (Rom. 9:5). So we must remember that the theological proposition "Jesus is God" is an inference from the New Testament evidence - a necessary and true inference, but nonetheless an inference.

Second, if we make the statement "Jesus is God" without qualification, we are in danger of failing to do justice to the whole truth about Jesus - that he was the incarnate Word, a human being, and that in his present existence in heaven he retains his humanity, although now it is in a glorified form. Jesus is not simply "man" nor only "God," but the God-man.

Third, given English usage of the word God, the simple affirmation "Jesus is God" may be easily misinterpreted. In common English usage God is a proper name, identifying a particular person, not a common noun designating a class.[2] For us God is the God of the Judeao-Chrisitan monotheistsic tradition, or God the Father of Jesus and of the Christan, or the trinitarian Godhead. So when we make the equation in English, "Jesus is God," we are in danger of suggesting that these two terms, "Jesus" and "God," are interchangable, that there is a numerical identity between the two. But while Jesus is God, it is not true that God is Jesus. There are others - the Father and the Spirit - of whom the predicate God may be rightfully used. Jesus is all that God is, without being all there is of God. The person of Jesus does not exhaust the category of deity. So then, when we say, "Jesus is God," we must recognize that we are attaching a meaning to the term God - namely, "God in essence" or "God by nature" - that is not its predominant sense in English.

My analysis of the New Testament evidence for the deity of Christ is now complete. The three branches of evidence we have examined all point in the same direction. Whether we consider the status Jesus enjoys, the functions he performs, or the title he bears, there can be no doubt that the early Christians believed in his full divinity as an essential ingredient of their teaching. Consequently, any modern form of Christianity that has surrendered a wholehearted belief in Jesus' deity has drifted from its moorings and is at sea in a vessel that has forfeited its rating as "Christian." On the other hand, when we bow the knee before the risen Jesus and make the confession of Thomas our own, we are securely moored to uniform Christian tradition and, more importantly, to the divine Person who is at the center of that tradition. Can you - will you - address Jesus with the words "My Lord and my God"?

The historical name for this teaching is Arianism. Arius was a fourth-century heretic whose doctrine was opposed by Athanasius and condemned at the council of Nicea in 325. Arius's doctrine of the Incarnation was virtually identical to that of modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses. Arius even used many of the same arguments JWs employ today. Athanasius brilliantly responded to Arius and exposed his distortions of Scripture. Athanasius's work entitled On the Incarnation stands as an effective reply to the Jehovah's witnesses.

But for the moment let's ignore the writings of Athanasius, the documents of the Nicene Council, and every other historical and theological source except Scripture itself. Is it possible to demonstrate conclusively from the Bible alone that Jesus Christ is set forth in Scripture as God? I believe it is. And I am convinced that those who reject Christ's deity must therefore also reject the plain meaning of the Word of God.

Psalm 2 is a Messianic Psalm and was recognized as such by Jewish scholars centuries before Christ. In Acts 13:33, Paul affirms that this psalm has a Messianic meaning. The psalm closes with these verses, "Worship [Jehovah] with reverence, And rejoice with trembling. Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!" (vv. 11- 12).

There the phrases "Worship [Jehovah] with reverence" and "Do homage to the Son" are parallel. And as is typical in Hebrew poetic parallelism, this means the two phrases are logical equivalents. Worship [Jehovah]" means "do homage to the Son." Moreover, this psalm presents the Son as Someone in whom believers can take refugea Savior who is God's own Son, identical in character and rank with God the Father.

Psalm 110 is identified as a Messianic Psalm by the writer of Hebrews (Heb. 5:6; 7:17). Here David calls Him Lord: "The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet" (v.1). Jesus Himself quoted this verse in Matthew 22:43-45 to demonstrate that He existed before David and was superior to any earthly king. The word translated "Lord" in that verse does not necessarily designate deity. It is a Hebrew word that often applies to an earthly Master. So it's only a single piece in the puzzlenot particularly significant by itself, but when weighed with the rest of the evidence, its full meaning becomes clear.

Isaiah 9:6, for example, is a clear promise of the Messiah. It gives a string of names that apply to Him: "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father [or, "father of eternity"], Prince of Peace." An earlier prophecy by Isaiah, found in Isaiah 7:14, gave Him the name Immanuel, which literally means, "God with us."

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the Lord of hosts. But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

At this point the well-trained Jehovah's Witness would want to make a distinction between the word Adonai, which is translated "Lord" in most English Bibles, and the Word Jehovah (or Yahweh, also translated "Lord" in most English Bibles. If you want to tell the difference between the words in most translations, when the original is Adonai, the word "Lord" will appear in capital and lowercase letters; when the Hebrew word is Jehovah, the word "LORD" will appear in capital and small capital letters.

Let's suppose our hypothetical Jehovah's Witness points out that in all the verses I have cited so far, the word Adonai has been employed, not Jehovah. Since the Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jehovah is the one true name of God, any passages that apply the term Jehovah to Christ would conclusively destroy their entire theology. Are there any such verses?

There certainly are. Psalm 23:1, for example, says, "Jehovah is my shepherd." Jesus very clearly applied this passage to Himself in John 10:11, 14 when He said, "I am the good shepherd." And the writer of Hebrews also applied this passage to Christ in Hebrews 13:20, when he wrote, "The God of peace . . . brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord" Jesus our Jehovah.

In Isaiah 6:5, when Isaiah saw his vision of heaven, with the Lord high and lifted up, he said, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts." Yet the apostle John, referring to this same incident, writes that Isaiah saw Christ's glory, "and he spoke of Him" (Jn. 12:41).

And in Jeremiah 23:5-6, a very crucial text for the doctrine of justification by faith. This verse introduces a new name for God, Jehovah Tsidkenu, "Jehovah our righteousness." Notice to whom it is applied: "Behold, the days are coming," declares [Jehovah], "When I shall raise up for David a righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land. [This is very clearly a messianic prophecy.] In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; and this is His name by which He will be called, '[Jehovah] our righteousness'" (Jer. 23:5-6).

In Isaiah 10:20, we find the expression, "Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel." The Holy one is said to be no less than Jehovah Himself. And in Acts 3:13-4, Peter tells the men of Jerusalem, "You delivered up [Jesus], and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One."

In Isaiah 44:6 we read, "Thus says [Jehovah], the King of Israel and his Redeemer, [Jehovah Sabaoth]: 'I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me." That verse in and of itself offers strong proof for the Trinity, because it differentiates between Jehovah and His Redeemer Jehovah. But it also reserves for Jehovah God this expression "the first and the last." That title surfaces again in Revelation 1:8, where it is again applied to Jehovah: "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." No question about who owns that title. Notice, too that it is a title that can hardly be shared with any created being: the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the One who is and who was and who is to come, the almighty. Yet at the end of the book of Revelation we read these words again, this time spoken by Jesus Christ: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:13).

In Isaiah 43:11, God speaks: "I, even I, am Jehovah; and there is no savior besides Me." Did you realize the title "Savior" is reserved in Scripture for God? This verse says so in the plainest possible terms. "I am Jehovah; and there is no savior besides Me." That is why Paul, writing to Titus, did not shrink from applying the name God and the word Savior both to Jesus Christ. Titus 2:11-13 says this:

Zechariah 12:10 includes a most interesting prophecy. In context, this is Jehovah speaking. Verse 4 tells us so. Then verse 10 says, "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first- born." Who was the One who was pierced? It was Christ. And John 19:37 specifically applies this text to Christ.

Deuteronomy 10:17 says, "[Jehovah] your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God." Yet Revelation 17:14 applies the title "Lord of Lords" to the lamb, Jesus Christ: "These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful."

He is omniscient. On the night Christ was betrayed, the disciples told Him, "Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God" (Jn. 16:30). Later, Peter appealed to Christ's omniscience in his own defense, John 21:17: "Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, 'Do you love Me?' And he said to Him, 'Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.'" In Revelation 2:23 Christ describes Himself in these terms: "I am He who searches the minds and hearts.

He is immutable, unchanging. This attribute could never be true of any created being. Yet Hebrews 1:10-12 says, speaking of Christ, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands; they will perish, but Thou remainest; And they all will become old as a garment, and as a mantle Thou wilt roll them up; As a garment they will also be changed. But Thou art the same, And Thy years will not come to an end.

Colossians 1:16 says the same thing in more detail, ruling out the possibility He could be any kind of archangel: "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesall things have been created by Him and for Him." Verse 17 takes it a step further and pictures Him not only as Creator but also as Sustainer: "And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

He oversees the operation of divine providence. In John 17:2, Christ prays to the Father, "Even as Thou gavest [the Son] authority over all mankind, that to all whom Thou hast given Him, He may give eternal life. Ephesians 1:22 echoes that: "And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church."

He forgives sin. This was a huge controversy in Jesus' earthly ministry. Matt 9:2-7 and Mark 2:5-10 give the accounts of how the Pharisees were offended that He forgave sins. In Mark 2:7 they ask, "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" They understood clearly the implications of His authority.

He has the power to raise the dead and judge final judgment. In John 5:22, Jesus said, "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son." That is a very explicit claim of deity, and in verse 24, Jesus even makes the basis of judgment the issue of whether someone hears His word or not. Acts 10:42 says Christ "has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead." Acts 17:31 says the same thing. 2 Timothy 4:1 says "Christ Jesus . . . is to judge the living and the dead."

Jesus Himself in Matthew 4:10 said told the Devil, "Begone, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'" If Jesus Himself were only a creature, He would have been guilty of hypocrisy, for He himself received worship. Not once did Jesus ever rebuke anyone for worshiping Him. Never did He refuse anyone's worship. In fact, He corrected those who scolded others for worshiping Him, as in John 10, when Martha was angry that Mary sat at His feet. And in Matthew 26, He rebuked the disciples for being indignant that a woman had anointed Him with expensive ointment.

Contrast Jesus' response to worship with Peter's response when "Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him" (Acts 10:25). Verse 26 says, "Peter raised him up, saying, 'Stand up; I too am just a man.'" Acts 14:11-18 tells of a similar episode in Paul's ministry, when he and Barnabas refused the worship of an entire crowd. Then in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9, we have angels refusing worship from the Apostle John. In 22:9 the angel says, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book; worship God."

Scripture explicitly states that the Son is to be worshiped. John 5:22-23 says, "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." Jesus placed Himself on the highest possible level when He made Himself an object of our faith, John 14:1: "Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me."

What is declared is that "in the beginning"not "from the beginning" but "in the beginning,"when first things came to be, the Word, not came into being, so that He might be the first of those things which came into being, but already was. Absolute eternity of being is asserted for the Word in as precise and strong language as absolute eternity of being can be asserted. The Word antedates the beginning of things; He already was.1

This eternal relationship between God and the Word is underscored by a phrase in John 1:18, "the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father . . . ." Jesus Christ was eternally in the bosom of the Father, somehow distinct from God yet at the same time identical to Him. By the way, the New American Standard translation in v. 18 is accurate; in the Greek, the literal wording is, "the only-begotten God"another straightforward proof of Christ's deity. The whole principle of the Trinity is wrapped up in this expression, "the Word was with God."

But let's return to the third phrase in John 1:1, for this is the part Jehovah's Witnesses feel they can answer: "The Word was God." That is precisely and literally what this text says in the Greek. A well-trained JW will attempt to convince you that our translation is faulty. In the Greek, they will tell you, the word God lacks any definite article (quite right). Therefore, they say, an indefinite article must be supplied: "The Word was a God." That is bad Greek and totally unwarranted. Was is what is known as a copulative verb. You may have called it a "linking verb" in grammar school. It simply connects the noun on one side with the noun on the other The Word was God. "God" in that sentence is a predicate nominative. It can only be translated the way you find it in most Bibles: "The word was God." To insert the word "a" is both bad Greek and bad grammar.

Jehovah's Witnesses have produced their own Bible with their own translation. And they have a handful of Greek scholars who have tried desperately to defend this translation. But what these JW "scholars" do not tell their own people is that there are dozens of places in their Bible where they are forced by common sense to violate the very rule they want to try to impose on John 1:1. I'll give you two examples from this very same context. If we followed the JW construction and added the word "a" every time the definite article is missing, here's how a couple of other verses from John 1 would read:

So John 1:1 is the achilles' heel of the Jehovah's Witnesses' theology, and that is why every JW is taught what to say when it is brought up. But their answers are not at all satisfying to anyone who knows the smallest amount of Greek grammar, and their denial of Christ's deity is easily debunked merely by the context of this verse. You needn't be shaken by the JW arguments on this.

Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 refer to Jesus as "Our God and Savior." Romans 9:5 says He is over all God, blessed forever. Philippians 2:6 says He existed from all eternity in the form of God. And 1 John 5:20 says, "We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."

Actually, He did. What He says in John 8:58 was to His Jewish audience a far more explicit statement than if He had merely said "I am God." It is important to see this passage in its context. In verse 53, we see that the Pharisees were becoming uncomfortable with Jesus' claims, beginning to suspect that He was putting Himself on a level of authority no mere man would have any right to. They said:

Notice that these men understood precisely what Jesus was saying. And because He obviously also understood what they were asking, His reply is all that much more significant. He was telling them He was God, using the name Jehovah Himself had revealed to Moses at the burning bush, "I AM." He could have made no stronger claim of deity. If that had not been His meaning, if he were claiming only to be the firstborn angel, He would have said, "before Abraham was born, I was."

The gospel of John includes a whole series of statements Jesus made about Himself using this name "I AM"I am the way, the truth, and the life (Jn. 14:6); I am the good shepherd; I am the door; I am the bread of life; I am the light of the world. Each one of these statements, studied in context, reveals that He was making claim after claim of absolute deity.

The biblical evidence for the deity of Christ is conclusive. It is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence. In fact, what we have covered here is only a representative sample. I haven't even mentioned John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." That, and many other similar passages could be adduced to prove even more conclusively that according to Scripture, He is God.

So much evidence cannot be swept aside or ignored. You either believe it, or you condemn yourself to an unthinkable eternity. In fact, Jesus said, "Unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins" (Jn. 8:24). There Jesus holds forth His "I am"without a predicateas the object of our faith. He is very obviously setting Himself in the place of God, and He can do that only because He is God. Those who know that Scripture is the Word of God can only believe, and join in the worship of Him at whose name every knee shall bow.