Presenting the Deity of Christ to Jehovah's Witnesses, part 1 of 2

Alpha and Omega Ministries presents the Dividing Line radio broadcast. The Apostle Peter commanded all

Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence.

The Dividing Line is brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries, Calvary Press Publishers, the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, and Bethany House Publishers.

Your host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now by dialing 1 -888 -TALK -960.

That's 1 -888 -TALK -960. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

And a good Saturday afternoon to you. My name is James White and today I hope you will take the opportunity of grabbing your

Bible and a pad of paper and a pencil and following along as I hope we provide to you some very important information, some edifying information concerning the deity of the

Lord Jesus Christ. Possibly this very morning you had someone knock upon your door and talk to you about Armageddon or families being forever and things like that.

And eventually the conversation in those situations will almost always turn to the deity of Christ because those folks are normally from the

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, better known as Jehovah's Witnesses. And those folks are really prepared to try to explain to you the

Bible does not teach that Jesus Christ is truly God, that he is truly divine.

They believe that he is Michael the Archangel, a creature of God, the first thing the

Jehovah God ever created, but still a creature, a highly exalted creature, yes, but a creature nonetheless, not eternally deity.

And if you've ever attempted to engage them in a discussion of this topic, you may have discovered rather quickly that they've spent a lot of time preparing to talk to you and very few of us spend a lot of time preparing to talk to them.

But they're not the only ones. In reality, almost all liberal groups, whether they be

Protestant or Catholic today, do not really believe in the deity of Christ. They undercut the deity of Christ by their various beliefs.

And so what really does the Bible teach? Why is it that there are issues that we must address in regards to the translation of various passages that are relevant to the deity of Christ?

Well, for the next two weeks, we're going to do the best we can to work through most of the information in regards to the subject of the deity of Christ, taking your calls at 1 -888 -TALK -960.

And then on beginning, I believe it is March 6th, I don't have a calendar in front of me, but I believe it is

March 6th, we are going to have a two -week debate with Dr. Thomas Holland.

Dr. Holland advocates that the King James Version of the Bible is God's preserved word in the

English language, and he believes the King James Version presents a stronger testimony to the deity of Christ than does the

New American Standard Bible or the NIV. And we're going to have a two -week debate on that particular subject.

But before then, it would obviously make some sense to spend some time talking about the deity of Christ in general, and helping you to prepare to share this vital truth with those who are around you.

When we talk about the deity of Christ, when we talk about this important issue, one of the first passages that comes up in anyone's mind is

John Chapter 1. I'd just like to say right off the bat, I would not suggest that unless you are very well prepared in your understanding of the

Trinity and the deity of Christ, that John Chapter 1 would be the first place you'd want to go to in talking to Jehovah's Witnesses.

In fact, in case I forget it later on, I'd suggest passages like Colossians Chapter 2

Verse 9, or the demonstration that Jesus is identified as Jehovah, as we will look at that over the next couple of weeks, long before I would ever get to the prologue of John.

But for Christians and for teaching in the church, I would suggest that the prologue of John, the first 18 verses of the

Gospel of John, is probably one of the clearest, most compelling presentations of who

Christ is in all the New Testament. The great Christological passages are

John Chapter 1, Colossians Chapter 1, Philippians Chapter 2, and Hebrews Chapter 1.

That is not to say that there are not other vitally important passages as well, but certainly those are the great

Christological passages, and we will truly attempt to find some time to look at them as we deal with this subject over the next couple of weeks.

Specifically, however, the prologue of the Gospel of John, John Chapter 1, Verses 1 -18, presents to us what is meant to be, on the part of the

Apostle John, an interpretive window. It is to be the lens through which we look at the rest of the

Gospel of John. And if we understand what he says at the very beginning of his

Gospel presentation, then all sorts of other statements that are made by the

Lord Jesus concerning himself, by others concerning the Lord Jesus, by the Apostle John in passing, so many more of these statements become relevant to us.

They take on new meaning as long as we follow John's lead and look at the rest of the

Gospel of John in the light that he has provided in this prologue. Far too often, those who deny the deity of Christ start with preconceived ideas, provided to them frequently by some authoritarian group,

Jehovah's Witnesses for example, by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses. And so they'll come up with an understanding of the prologue, and once they twist the prologue out of shape and no longer see what it testifies to in regard to the person of Jesus Christ, they then will move to those other passages in the

Gospel of John that are so relevant to the deity of Christ. John 5 -18, where you have the assertion that the

Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus because he was making himself equal with God. John 8 -24 -58, where Jesus uses that important phrase,

I am, before Abraham was, I am, the Jews pick up stones to stone him. And John 18 -5 -6, where he says,

I am, and the soldiers fall back when he utters these words. All of those passages end up taking on much more meaning to us when we hear them in the context that John placed them.

And that context is provided first and foremost by the very introduction that he provides to his own book.

When any of us write something, when I write a book, the introduction that I provide, the first chapter that I write, sets the context and the theme for the entire book.

It is in that introduction that I say, now here's the direction I'm going, here's the context in which you should listen to my words.

Well, we recognize that in what we do, when we write a letter to someone and the letter starts off, it sets the context.

Well, we need to see the same thing in John's writing of his gospel as well, or in anyone else's for that matter.

And so we need to look very closely at the prologue of John, and once we understand it, once we grasp what is being communicated there, then we will get so much more out of the rest of the gospel, because we're allowing the apostle himself to define the parameters of our discussion.

So primarily, here in the next couple of moments, we'll be looking at verses 1 through 3, and then verses 14 through 18.

That doesn't mean that the rest of the prologue isn't important, because obviously it is. But especially in regards to the issue of the deity of Christ, the majority of the conversation focuses upon the very first few verses, and then verses 14 through 18.

John 1 .1, as most of you are well aware, says, In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and the Word was God. This one, that is, the Word, was in the beginning with God.

All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made which has been made.

In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shined in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend or overcome that light.

Now, the very first verse has three clauses in it, and each one of those clauses communicates a tremendous truth to us.

Each one of these clauses communicates a balanced view of the

Godhead. And so many errors, whether it be Oneness Pentecostalism, whether it be

Mormonism, whether it be Arianism, as represented by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, whatever error it might be is normally because one clause is taken over all the others, instead of the three clauses of John 1 .1

being taken in balance. If we take only two of the three, we will end up with a heresy, with a false teaching concerning the nature of God.

The second thing to notice is that the focus throughout the prologue remains upon who the

Logos is. The Logos is the Greek word for the very simple word Word, W -O -R -D, and it's translated as Word in most

English translations. The Logos was a term that would have been well known to John's writers.

It was a term used in Greek philosophy. The Logos was an impersonal force.

It was the ordering principle of the world. Greek philosophers used it this way.

John uses a term they would have been familiar with, but he doesn't allow them, that is the

Greek philosophers, to fill that word Logos with their own meaning. He instead borrows the word and fills his own meaning into it.

The first thing he says was, in the beginning was the Word. Now when was this beginning?

Most people would point to the fact that the two Greek words there, N -R -K, are the same two words that are used in the

Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament in Genesis 1 .1. And so many would say, well, we're talking here about creation.

In the beginning when God created, the Word was already in existence. The little word was in the

English language here is in the imperfect, which would indicate a continuous existence prior to the present point in time, whatever that point in time provided by the context might be.

So the Word pre -exists the beginning. Well, some might say, okay, but that doesn't mean the

Word is eternal. In fact, there are Jehovah's Witnesses who want to very strenuously argue that the beginning here is a limited beginning.

In fact, some have even come up with very convoluted, complex ideas of what the beginning was so that they can say that the

Logos is still a creature, someone who is created. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, of course, believes that the

Logos is Jesus and that the Logos is Michael the Archangel, the first and greatest of Jehovah's creations, the only thing that Jehovah himself directly created, and then through him created all other things.

And so they have a vested interest in trying to make sure that we do not believe that the

Logos is eternal, because if the Logos is eternal, then the Logos must be deity, and therefore their belief that he is

Michael the Archangel is thereby refuted. Well, aside from pointing out that John does not expand upon the phrase, ìin the beginning ,î he doesn't present us with some sort of complex, convoluted concept of what the beginning is, however far back you wish to push the beginning, whatever beginning you wish to make it, the

Logos still pre -exists it. If we want to talk about the beginning of creation and make the

Logos eternal, this is contradictory to John's assertion. We have to try to say that, well, this is one particular beginning, but it isn't the beginning of all creations, because the

Logos himself was created, and that's simply not something that John says. And in fact, in the third verse, he will specifically refute that concept, because he will say that all things were made through him, and if he himself is a thing, that doesn't work.

If all things are made through you, you are the creator. Even here, the

Watchtower Society hasn't been so bold as they have over in Colossians 1, 15 -17, where they've inserted the word ìotherî to try to find a way around the creatorship of the

Lord Jesus Christ, even the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I use the term ìtranslationî loosely there, does not try to insert the word ìotherî at this point.

Why? Well, because you just simply can't find any basis for doing so. All things were made through Christ.

Now if all things are made through you, you are the creator. And so, the point that John first makes, and the point that his original readers would have heard initially, when they heard the phrase ìin the beginning was the

Wordî, is that the Word is eternal. The Word is not a created thing. The Word did not come into existence at a point in time.

That's how they would have understood that first phrase, as it rolled off the tongue of the first speaker who read the

Gospel of John the first time it was read in public. But he doesn't stop there. He says, ìAnd the

Word was with God .î He uses the same term ìwasî, and since we're talking here, the very context provides us with the context of eternity, the context of the time before the beginning, this word ìwasî has far deeper meaning, because the context provided to it, than it would have in pretty much any other context.

For example, the word ìwasî is used in John chapter 2, but there it's provided with the context of just simply what happened in time, around the time of the wedding in Cana of Galilee.

But here, it is provided with the context of ìin the beginningî. And before this beginning even takes place, the

Logos has a relationship with God. The Word was with God.

Now, don't make a common mistake. Many people start trying to figure out all the relationships here before John even finishes a single sentence.

We can't do that. We need to let each clause speak for itself, and each clause be interpreted in the light of the others.

ìThe Word was with God .î Prostanteon, face -to -face with God.

There's a relationship that exists between the Logos, the Word, and God. Now, people start saying, ìWell, who's

God here, and who's the Logos ?î John will tell us. But the emphasis of the passage does not shift from the

Logos to God. The emphasis remains upon the identity of the

Logos, the identity of who the Word is. And the assertion is, the Word has a relationship, a face -to -face relationship with God, and has always had that relationship.

The Logos did not enter into a relationship with God. The Logos has always had a relationship with God.

So what do the first two clauses tell us? That the Logos is eternal, the Logos pre -exists the beginning of all things, and the

Logos is with God. That is, has a personal relationship and has always had this personal face -to -face relationship with God.

Well, of course, the third clause is the one where all the controversy exists. Not really a controversy amongst

Christian theologians. There's never really been a controversy there. It's a controversy amongst those who want to avoid what this verse says, who wish to try to play with the grammar of the text and come up with, for example, the translation of the

New World Translation, and the word was ìa godî with a small ìgî. That type of rendering, that type of theology, comes from outside the text of Scripture.

It doesn't come from within the text of Scripture. The whole reason, of course, that Jehovah's Witnesses argue that God should be translated as ìa godî here is because the word ìGodî does not have an article in front of it and because of the position that it has in the sentence.

It is a predicate nominative for those of you who actually excelled in English, and remember, you're having excelled in English in junior high or high school.

It is a predicate nominative and it occurs before the verb, and therefore they argue that it should be translated as ìa godî because anarthrous, pre -verbal predicate nominatives, they would argue, tell us something about the subject of the sentence.

They are not identifying the subject of the sentence. They say it should be translated as ìa godî.

In reality, I think the strongest translation in bringing that out would be, ìAnd the word was deity .î

Daniel Wallace, a friend of mine, in his grammar of the New Testament Greek language brings this particular issue out and makes the same assertion, though he says in a formal translation it should be ìThe word was

Godî because ìThe word was deityî would not quite communicate as well as ìThe word was

God .î We need to explain instead what the passage is talking about. Well, what about the argument that this should be translated ìThe word was a godî because the article is missing and because the position of the predicate nominative?

Well, I donít think thereís any reason for any of us to avoid some of the complexities of this issue.

There are people who say, ìWell, youíre just getting into too much complexity here and itís too much for me .î No, I think all of us invest far more effort in making sure we understand what weíre doing on our job or making sure we understand what weíre doing in school than sometimes weíre willing to expand in the study of Scripture.

And Iíd like to challenge you to really bend your mind to this and to understand and to do the work thatís necessary here.

Quite simply, in the Greek language, when you have a predicate nominative and a subject, for example, if you have the phrase that John himself uses, ìGod is love .î

When you have that copulative verb, ìisî or ìwasî, a connecting verb like that, and then you have two nouns, both in the nominative, ìGod is love .î

A question might be, could you simply reverse the terms and say, ìLove is God .î

Well, in the English language, we donít have quite the same strict rules of construction that they did in the

Greek language. The Greek language is more specific in most cases than the English language is.

And in the Greek language, you would indicate which is the subject and which is the predicate nominative through the use of the article, the little word ìthe .î

And what you would do is you would place the article with the subject, and you would leave the article off of the predicate nominative if you were attempting to make sure that your readers understood that youíre not trying to make your subject and your predicate nominative equal with each other.

In other words, if you donít want the subject to be exhaustive of the predicate nominative and vice versa, you would place an article with the subject and you would not place the article with the predicate nominative.

That would tell your reader or your listener, ìThis is the subject, over here is the predicate nominative, and Iím not saying that theyíre identical with one another .î

So when John writes ìGod is love ,î he places the article in such a way that we know that God is the subject, love is the predicate nominative.

We could not translate it properly, ìLove is God .î John is not saying that God is all of love and love is all of God and thatís all there is to it.

Heís not making that mistake. He specifically clarifies that for us so that we do not become confused.

Well, in John 1, 1, the third clause of this particular verse, if John had placed an article in front of the word ìGodî, he would have been making ìtheosî,

God, and ìlogosî, the word, interchangeable. He would have been saying everything that the ìlogosî is,

God is, and everything that God is, the ìlogosî is, these are interchangeable terms, and thatís not what

Johnís teaching. If the Oneness Pentecostals were right, thatís what he would have written, but theyíre not.

John maintains his balance, and by not putting an article before the word ìGodî, he is helping us to understand that he is describing the nature of the ìlogosî, he is not identifying the ìlogosî as all of God.

How could he, since the second clause had said the ìlogosî has a relationship with God? Heís using the one word ìGodî in two different ways in these clauses, and he communicates this to us by the way he writes it.

Now, by placing the word ìGodî before the verb, heís also communicating something else to us.

He is communicating to us something about the nature or the being of the ìlogosî. He is telling us that the ìlogosî is divine, that the ìlogosî is deity, that the ìlogosî has the very nature of ìtheosî, the very nature of God.

But he does so in such a way as to make sure that we do not confuse the ìlogosî and the

God with whom the ìlogosî is. Why? Because one of the major emphases of the

Gospel of John is going to present to us both the full and absolute deity of Christ, as well as the fact that you have the

Father, you have the Son, you have the Spirit, and John never confuses the

Father, Son, and Spirit. Even in John 10, verse 30, when

Jesus says, ìI and the Father are one ,î even there he uses a verb that can be translated, ìI and the

Father, we are one .î Even there the distinction between the

Father and the Son is maintained. And thatís why Christians down through the ages have maintained that distinction between the

Father and the Son and the Spirit. We are Trinitarians, we are not Unitarians or Modalists.

A Modalist is a person who confuses the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in one or more different ways, and a

Unitarian is a person who says that Godís being is only shared by one person, and therefore they normally deny the deity of Christ and the deity of the

Holy Spirit. John does not leave us in confusion. By placing the word ìGodî where he does, by not using the article with it, he communicates to us the fact that the

Logos is, as to his nature, essential deity. And of course thatís what the people who heard this first would have understood.

If the Logos is eternal, he was in the beginning, and if the Logos has had an eternal relationship with God, then the

Logos must be, as to his nature, deity. He cannot be a creature, he cannot be some lesser creation, or he could not have eternally had this relationship with the

Father that he has had. And you say, ìWell, it doesnít say the Father .î Thatís quite true. But John hasnít finished the prologue yet, weíve not even gotten out of the first verse.

So what do we understand from John 1, 1? In the beginning was the Word, eternally existent.

The Word was with God, eternal relationship. And the Word is, as to his nature,

God. He is deity. This one, that is the Logos, verse 2, was in the beginning with God.

So here he reiterates that entire verse by saying that this is the one, the

Logos, was in the beginning with God. That relationship, again, pre -exists the creation.

Therefore the Logos cannot be a created being himself. He is, as to his nature, absolute deity.

And then, verse 3, all things were made through him. And without him, that is separate from him, without him was not anything made which has been made.

Now very clearly, if anyone says to you that the Logos, the

Lord Jesus Christ, is a creation, then they are violating

John 1, 3. They are violating the assertion that without him was not anything made which has been made.

Because, if he is a creation, then there was something that was made without him. That's him.

And amazingly, about the only response I get from anyone who denies the deity of Christ's point is, well, is the

Father a thing? As if anyone who understands the biblical teaching of the nature of God would think that a biblical writer would confuse the eternal creator,

God, who has eternally been God, who did not enter into existence at any point in time, with a creation.

No, of course God isn't created. The focus, however, is upon the

Word. And apart from the Word was not anything made which has been made.

He is the creator of all things. And someone says, well, but it's through him. Yes, so?

Creation is through God, by means of God. There's no question about that. But they want to try to focus upon that and say, well, he's just the instrument.

Well, okay, but are you trying to say then that he is a created instrument? Or that the

Son was the one through whom the Father brought these things about? Again, one must assume

Unitarianism, one must assume that the Trinity is untrue, and then read that back into these texts to try to change the meanings of the words.

Now I'm just about out of time, but very quickly. Verse 14, And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory.

The glory is the unique one from the Father, full of grace and truth. The Word invaded into time as the

Lord Jesus Christ. He became, at that point in time, flesh. And John differentiates his verbs here.

This isn't the same verb he used before, it talks about eternal existence. Here at a point in time, the

Word became flesh. Why? Because the Word was not eternally flesh. Jesus hadn't eternally had a fleshly body.

He entered into flesh at a point in time in the

Incarnation. The eternal God invaded human history in the person of Jesus Christ.

And that is the emphasis that he is making here in John chapter 1. We need to take a break.

On the other side of the break, we'll finish off the prologue and look at verse 18, a tremendous passage that cannot be understood outside the doctrines of Trinity.

Stick with us, we'll be right back. The Deity of Christ is our subject today and I hope you will join with me at 1 -888 -TALK -960.

I have to believe that there is someone within the sound of my voice today who has some questions about how primarily to present the

Deity of Christ, how to explain it to others, possibly you have family members and others who do not believe in the

Deity of Christ, they have been misled. You have the opportunity of presenting to them the

Deity of Christ. How do you do so? And you know, it's interesting, most of the calls that we'll get, and we do hope to hear from you at 1 -888 -TALK -960, 1 -888 -TALK -960, most of the calls that you get when you discuss this issue on the air, are not positive in the sense of looking at passages of the

Bible that plainly present the Deity of Christ. They're focused upon the proof texts that various and sundry of these groups use to try to deny the

Deity of Christ. And that brings me to an important issue, and before I finish with the prologue of John, look at verse 18,

I want to address this. It is very common for Christians to make numerous tactical mistakes in their work as apologists in giving a reason for the hope that's within them.

One of the common mistakes that we make is allowing those who deny the truth to define the argument, to define what we're talking about.

And what I mean here is that most of the time, when we talk with people, and when we debate with people, and when we have discussions around the water cooler at work, or wherever it might be, we allow them to attack our position, to make us answer questions about our belief, without holding them to the same standards that they're insisting we need to live by.

In other words, when you're talking with one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and you're talking about passages in the

Bible, don't simply hop, skip, and jump from all their favorite anti -Deity of Christ passages, and go from point to point to point.

You're not going to be making any positive headway if you're spending your time always looking at passages that they believe deny the

Deity of Christ. And, in the process, you need to make sure that every time they raise a passage of scripture, that they can look at the same passage of scripture and fit their belief into it.

That's one of the biggest places people fall down. You need to make sure that they, right up front, just as you do, state their positive belief and make a case for their positive belief.

So every time I examine a passage of scripture with one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I make sure that they explain how

Michael the Archangel could be described in the words of that passage of scripture.

And it's amazing the difference that makes in a conversation. For example, looking at John 1, 1, are we really being asked to believe that in the beginning was

Michael the Archangel, and Michael the Archangel was with God, and Michael the Archangel was a

God? That Michael the Archangel was in the beginning with God, and all things were made through Michael the

Archangel, and apart from Michael the Archangel was nothing made which has been made? That Michael the

Archangel became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory? The glory is the unique one from the

Father, full of grace and truth. That's the glory we're talking about, is Michael the Archangel's glory?

You see how that changes things? You see why I'm very frequently talking to Jehovah's Witnesses and saying things like, so you believe that we're baptized in the name of Jehovah God, Michael the

Archangel, in an impersonal active force? That's what you're promoting to us? And my, how that changes the situation.

And my, how that puts the shoe back on the foot that it needs to be on. Challenging people to say, hey, you need to realize what you're saying is, it's

Michael the Archangel who says, come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Can you imagine Michael saying that? Michael saying, I am the way, the truth, and life, no man comes to the

Father but by me? Michael the Archangel saying, I am the light of the world, I am the living bread?

Those words sound right to you in the words of Michael the Archangel? No, obviously they don't.

And that is probably one of the most, the easiest things that we can communicate to people, you need to make sure that the person you're talking to applies the same standards to their belief.

To the Jehovah's Witnesses, to the Mormons, when the Mormons come along and say, oh, well we believe in the deity of Christ, well what they mean is that Jesus, who is the spirit brother of Lucifer, who is the first offspring of an exalted man from another planet, he's the one you need to fit into all those passages.

And yes, Mormons do believe in the deity of Christ, the problem is their entire concept of deity is so far removed from the biblical concept of deity that you can't put the two of them together.

Saying that Jesus is one God amongst a whole pantheon of gods is not to say that you actually believe in the deity of Christ the way

Christians have believed in the deity of Christ down through the centuries. It's the fact that Mormons are not monotheists like Christians are that makes the difference in the interpretation of those very words.

So we need to make sure we don't give away the store, in essence, by not being good debaters.

We need to keep the subject clearly before us. Now John 1 .18, we didn't get there.

And this is a passage where the textual issue comes up. This is a passage where there are individuals out there, for example, someone that many of you may have heard of,

Dr. J. Green, who is an excellent scholar in most areas, but I think in this area he's just completely missed the boat, would argue, along with Dr.

D .A. Waite and other individuals who are King James -only advocates, or at least a

Textus Receptus -only advocates, that in John 1 .18, the reading that you have in the New American Standard Bible, the

NIV, any translation other than the King James Version and the New King James Version, as far as that are still being published and are readily available, that there is a difference here, and that the rendering you have in the modern translations somehow denigrates

Christ. And here is how it is rendered. No one has seen God at any time.

The unique God, or God the one and only, who is in the bosom of the

Father, He has made Him known. He has exegeted Him.

He has revealed Him. Now let me deal with this as it's found in the modern

Greek texts, in the best Greek text, the most ancient Greek text we have of the

Gospel of John. Let me present to you what this passage is talking about, and then we can talk a little bit about the textual issue.

I do not believe that anyone can make heads or tails out of John 1 .18 without understanding it in a

Trinitarian context. I do not believe that anyone can look at this passage and understand what it's saying outside of understanding the doctrine of the

Trinity. What do I mean? Well, no one has seen God at any time.

What does that mean? When you go to the Old Testament, there are places over and over again where men saw

God. In Isaiah 6, Isaiah specifically says, in the year that King Uzziah died,

I saw the Lord, lofty and lifted up, sitting upon His throne in His temple. In Exodus, we have the reference to the elders seeing

God, Moses seeing God, men over and over again saying, I have seen

God, I'm going to die because I have seen God. And yet, in the Gospel of John, you have this assertion, no one has seen

God at any time, and then later in the Gospel of John, Jesus says to the Jews, you have never seen His form, referring to the

Father. So how can we understand these? Are these just simply contradictory statements?

No. There's only one way, consistently, to understand what this passage is saying, and it's within a

Trinitarian context. And the passage itself provides us the understanding. When the last phrase speaks of the

Father, and it speaks of the unique God who is the Son, who is near to the

Father's heart. I like that translation, near to the Father's heart. He has made Him known.

You see how John is providing us the answer? No one, when he says no one has seen

God at any time, he's talking about the Father. And that's the God he was talking about in John 1 .1,

the second clause. When he says the Word was with God, that's another way of saying the

Son was with the Father. The Son and the Father have had an eternal relationship.

And so when he says no one has seen God at any time, he's talking about the

Father. But the unique God, and here you may have the translation, the only begotten

God. The term monogamous, which is translated only begotten, traditionally anyways, monogamous comes from two terms, monos, which means only, of course, and then for a long time it was assumed that the second part of the word came from genao, to give birth or give rise to.

But in reality it comes from the word genes, which means kind or type. So monogamous, in its fundamental meaning, means unique.

Now by extension it comes to mean the only child of, the only son of, and it's used that way very often.

But fundamentally its meaning is unique, one of a kind. And here in John 118, monogamous theos would be unique God.

Or, I like the translation, and Beasley Murray gives this translation, and I think there's an excellent discussion of this in a number of works.

I went through a fair amount of discussion of this in my book, The Forgotten Trinity, if you want to go beyond what we have time to offer today.

But, I like the translation, the only son who is

God. That is, I think, brings out probably John's fullest meaning.

But it's the unique God, the monogamous theos, the one who is close to the

Father's heart, who is at the Father's side, there is an intimacy of the relationship here that was mentioned back in John 1, but now it's expanded here in John 118.

This unique God who is at the Father's side, He has literally exegeted

Him. He has made Him known. He has revealed Him. So what does that mean?

About Isaiah, in Isaiah 6, when he saw Jehovah lofting, lifted up, sitting upon His throne, who did he see?

Well, all you have to do is go over to John 12, verses 39 -41, and you'll discover that John there very clearly makes it known to us that the one that Isaiah saw was the

Son, Jesus. It was the Son who, as Yahweh walked with Abraham by the

Oaks of Mamre in Genesis 18 -19, it was the Son who has revealed the

Father, and He does so perfectly. And since He reveals the Father perfectly, how can

He be a mere creature? If the Father is the eternal and infinite and unlimited

God, how then can the Son be a mere creature and yet perfectly reveal

Him? It is the Son who is the monogamous Theos, the unique God who has revealed the

Father in John 118. But if you have the King James or the New King James, it doesn't say the unique God.

It says the only begotten Son. We'll explain why that is when we come back from this brief break.

1 -888 -TALK -960 is the number. 1 -888 -TALK -960. And welcome back to Dividing Line.

My name is James White, and we are looking at the Deity of Christ today on the program, and I hope you have been benefited.

We are looking at John 1, verse 18, and specifically the fact that in the

King James Version and the New King James Version of the Bible, both of which are translated from what's known as the Textus Receptus, you do not have a reference directly to the

Deity of Christ through the use of the word God in John 118. Instead, you have the phrase, the only begotten

Son. And certainly, the phrase only begotten Son is used in the Gospel of John. It's used in John 3, of course, verse 16, a passage that most everyone knows.

But the simple fact of the matter is, the Textus Receptus is based upon later texts than the

Greek text we use today. And when you look back at the earliest texts that we have of the

Gospel of John, specifically papyri manuscript P75 and P66, both of which are early, early manuscripts of the

Gospel of John, and are tremendous witnesses to that text, both have the word

God. The earliest manuscripts in vellum, the codexes, also say

God. Now, the issue, of course, is one of dealing with what are the best texts.

The issue is one where, obviously, as we get into this issue in the debate in a few weeks, we will be demonstrating that there are different perspectives amongst people as to what are the best texts to use.

But the simple fact of the matter is, the Gospel of John presents to us some of the earliest testimony to the

Deity of Christ. The earliest manuscript evidence is found in the Gospel of John as well, in P66, P75, manuscripts such as that.

And therefore, the question really is, what is the best text?

And I think without a question, the reading God in John 118 is the best reading that we have, and that's why modern translations will utilize that particular version.

Well, we do have a caller, so let's take some time to listen to what the caller has to say.

This is Ken in Glendale. Ken, how are you doing today? Hi, Jim Boy, long time no talk.

Yeah, if you listened to us years ago, it has been a long time. Yes, yes, glad to get back and find you again.

We go in our separate ways. Jim, I have found a study in a person who has given me so much insight to help me, and his name is

Hugh Ross, and he's with The Reasons to Believe Ministry. He is an astrophysicist and an ordained born -again

Christian minister. I'm familiar with him, yes. Oh, well, good. Now, Hugh has been talking and preaching and advocating the extradimensionality of God, and his latest book,

Beyond the Cosmos, in which he talks about the scientific virtual proof and acceptance that there are at least 11 dimensions that God operates in, and we, of course, are operating in only three plus one time.

But by trying to explain and grasp the significance of God being able to work in 11 dimensions and two dimensions of time as opposed to our one dimension,

Dr. Ross presents a very easily understood means by which we can accept certain things, and this relates very well to the

Trinity, as well as how can God hear a billion people pray and things like this, which are typical questions that most

Christians have. And while it is not totally provable, because we cannot operate in these other things, it has presented a means of understanding and a practical knowledge that's burst on science and the

Bible tied together that makes it very comfortable, let's say, that I no longer have problems worrying about things, even extraterrestrials and UFOs and things like that.

I've long since decreed that they are visitors from another dimension.

And it's just a fine concept. Is that what

Hugh Ross says? Pardon? Is that what Hugh Ross says? Yeah, and this has been a

Christian precept for seven or eight years or more. I remember Zola Levitt had it way back when that these have to be.

Seven or eight years. Huh? Seven or eight years. Normally when folks talk about a Christian position, they're talking about a few centuries down the road, but seven or eight years is not a long time.

Now I understand... Whoop, whoop, whoop, whoop! I'm talking about seven or eight years that I know of, and the concept of what

UFOs are, are extradimensional. I understand. I understand. The problem

I have, Ken, and I understand Hugh Ross's position on a number of issues,

I've seen him on television presenting some of his material. First of all, I have a problem with wetting, quote -unquote, the

Bible and science. I know it's very popular for people to take the current cosmology and try to demonstrate that it is consistent with scriptural teaching.

Now the problem is that current cosmology will probably change by next year. And if it is then discarded, and it was demonstrated to be consistent with scripture, what is the only logical conclusion?

Well, either we were misusing scripture, or scripture is no longer true. One of the two, I'm not sure which people want to embrace.

I have heard of his various dimensional stuff, but to be honest with you, in regards to the doctrine of the

Trinity, the biblical writers didn't have that type of a concept, and yet they communicated the doctrine of the

Trinity to us. Therefore, I would assert that the doctrine of the Trinity needs to be understood within the worldview communicated to us by scripture, not within a worldview that the scripture writers would not have had any concept of and did not communicate in that.

I don't think that there is a need to bring in these parameters, even in the sense of presenting analogous arguments.

Instead, I think the need is to focus upon biblical exegesis and communicating to people a Christian worldview that would make it understandable.

They don't understand it, that's the point. You can say this, and you can tell me that we're supposed to understand the

Holy Trinity from the scripture, but they don't, you see. And all I'm saying is that here is a scientifically valid proposal that does not deteriorate.

Okay, I'm afraid we're out of time, and I don't think science is going to define the Trinity for us.