Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible

slimboyfat

7. "Stop trying to ventriloquise him to support your theology."
This accusation is unfounded. Your argument carefully distinguishes between Hart’s grammatical observations and his theological conclusions. You have demonstrated that Hart rejects the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ reading of John 1:1c (Psalm 82-sense “divine being”, which is basically: nothing special) and affirms the Logos’ full divinity. Your use of Hart’s commentary is not ventriloquism but a faithful representation of his views.
AI malfunction. You’ve got it addressing yourself rather than me here. Oops.
peacefulpete

He rejects the idea that the Logos is “God most high” in the sense of being the Father but affirms the Logos’ full divinity
Yes, that is correct. That is the very definition of the Logos concept. Logos was God in action/at work in the material world. It/He was not the sum of all of the Most High.
SBF...you are also correct that coeternity/coequality with the Father is not found in the NT or most pre-Nicaean Christianity. Before time, the Most High was without emanations. Most early writers held something much closer to the Logos conception of deity.
slimboyfat

What I said:
3. "Hart allows for the possibility that Thomas is praising God, not Jesus."
What AI bot said:
This is incorrect. Hart explicitly addresses the grammar of John 20:28, pointing out that the phrase eipen auto (“he said to him”) leaves no ambiguity: Thomas is directly addressing only one person: Jesus.
What Hart says:
Well yeah, it could be a fervent expression of praise of God. I mean that was one of the arguments of the past, among those who said you know, he is not addressing Jesus. And how can you tell? Because it’s not in the vocative. He doesn’t say kyriou mou ke theou mou. So it could be either.
peacefulpete

Think of the fully developed Logos concept this way. If I break off a piece of my Kit-Kat bar, for the action of sharing,
1. That piece is not the whole bar. The bar is greater than the piece. That piece is not THE Kit-Kat bar, but it is at the same time, Kit-Kat bar.
2. It is also true that, the piece exists because of the bar. Before the piece was broken free, it did not exist.
The biggest difference between the Logos concept and my Kit-Kat bar, is that the bar is finite while God (Most High) was conceived of as infinite. The breaking off a piece diminishes my bar but the Most High was not thought of as diminished through his emanations.
Think deeply about this and you will understand 2000 years of theology.
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
You accuse me of being an AI bot, sometimes your problem is that there are no typos, sometimes there are. My problem is that you are not willing to argue about anything else except what Hart (or other authors) said or thought.
The grammatical construction eipen auto ("he said to Him") of John 20:28 leaves no ambiguity: Thomas’ declaration is directed to Jesus. Hart acknowledges this in his broader analysis, even if he briefly entertains alternative historical interpretations as part of scholarly rigor.
Hart may reference historical debates about whether Thomas’ exclamation could hypothetically be a fervent expression of praise to God the Father, but this is not his conclusion. He explicitly engages with the context and grammar of the passage, which confirm that Thomas’ statement is an address to Jesus. The phrase auto refers specifically to Jesus, making it linguistically and contextually untenable to interpret the statement as directed elsewhere. Even Hart himself acknowledges the narrative intent:
"The withholding of the full revelation of Christ as ho theos, God in the fullest sense, until Thomas confesses Him as such in the light of Easter, must be seen as an intentional authorial tactic."
This statement demonstrates that Hart views John 20:28 as climactic in revealing Jesus’ divine identity—not as an ambiguous moment open to reinterpretation.When Hart mentions that some have argued Thomas’ declaration could be praise of God the Father, he is recounting historical arguments made by others. He does not adopt this interpretation as his own theological position. Recognizing that certain interpretations exist does not equate to endorsing them. Hart explicitly notes that such a view hinges on the absence of the vocative case (kyrios mou kai theos mou), but this grammatical feature is not decisive in Greek. The nominative case (ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou) is often used in direct address, particularly in Semitic-influenced Greek (e.g., LXX usage). The context of the dialogue—Thomas’ direct response to Jesus and the use of auto—clearly indicates that the statement is addressed to Jesus, not the Father. The nominative for vocative structure is just as legitimate a way to address someone as the vocative, see Hebrews 1:8.

@peacefulpete

The analogy of the Logos as a "piece" of a Kit-Kat bar misrepresents both the Scriptural and historical Christian understanding of the Logos. The Logos (John 1:1) is not a "part" of God or an emanation that diminishes the whole. John 1:1 explicitly states, “and the Word was God.” The Greek grammar (anarthrous theos) emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Logos as fully divine. This does not imply that the Logos is a fragment or derivative of God but that the Logos fully participates in the divine essence. The phrase “with God” (pros ton theon) indicates a distinction of persons while maintaining unity of essence. It rules out the idea that the Logos is a mere attribute, action, or emanation of the Father. The Logos is eternally divine, not a created entity or a derivative of God that came into existence later. The idea of the Logos as a "part" or "emanation" undermines the biblical assertion of the Logos' coeternity with the Father (John 1:1, John 17:5).

The claim that coeternity and coequality are not found in the New Testament or early Christianity is incorrect. While the formal theological language of Nicene orthodoxy was developed later, the foundational concepts are present in Scripture. John 17:5 affirms Jesus’ preexistence and coeternity with the Father. Sharing in divine glory is not compatible with the idea of being a "lesser emanation." The Greek hen (one) in John 10:30 indicates unity of essence, not merely unity of purpose. This is further confirmed by the reaction of the Jews, who sought to stone Jesus for blasphemy, understanding his claim as one of equality with God (John 10:33). In Philippians 2:6 Paul affirms Jesus’ equality with God while emphasizing his voluntary humility in the Incarnation. In Hebrews 1:3 the Greek term charaktēr (exact representation) underscores that the Son perfectly reflects the Father’s divine essence. These verses demonstrate that coeternity and coequality are biblical concepts, even if they were later articulated more formally at Nicaea.

The Kit-Kat analogy fundamentally distorts the relationship between the Logos and the Father, because:

a) God Is Not Composed of Parts: Christian theology asserts that God is simple (divine simplicity), meaning that God’s essence is undivided and not composed of parts. The Kit-Kat analogy assumes a divisible deity, which is incompatible with biblical monotheism. The Logos is not a “piece” of God; the divine essence is fully shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

b) The Logos Did Not Come Into Existence: The analogy suggests that the Logos did not exist before being "broken off" from the Father. This contradicts John 1:1-3, which states that the Logos existed "in the beginning" and was the agent of creation. The Logos is uncreated and eternal, sharing fully in the divine essence.

c) Diminishing God’s Essence: The claim that the "Most High was not thought of as diminished through his emanations" is an attempt to reconcile the analogy’s limitations, but it fails to address the inconsistency. If the Logos were truly a part or emanation, it would necessarily imply a change or division within God’s nature, violating the doctrine of divine immutability.

While some early Christian writers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Origen) used Logos terminology influenced by Hellenistic thought, their writings do not support the idea of a subordinate or created Logos. Instead, they affirmed the Logos’ divinity. Justin Martyr described the Logos as the preexistent and divine Word through whom all things were made (First Apology 63). The Nicene Creed clarified this apostolic teaching by stating that the Son is “begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.”

Emanationism is a feature of certain Hellenistic philosophies (e.g., Neoplatonism), not biblical Christianity. The Nicene Creed explicitly rejects the idea of the Son as an emanation by affirming that the Son is “begotten, not made.”

The Logos’ full divinity is essential to Christian theology. If the Logos were merely an emanation or a part of God, then the Incarnation would not involve God Himself but a lesser being, undermining the salvific work of Christ, and worship of Jesus would constitute idolatry, as only God is worthy of worship (Matthew 4:10). However, the New Testament consistently affirms that Jesus is fully divine and worthy of worship (e.g., John 20:28; Revelation 5:12-14).
peacefulpete

Well since we are being blunt. I was addressing that to SBF and illustrating the logos concept. I was not describing the Trinity. You also seem to just wish to argue, as I made very clear the theological point that God was not diminished by his emanations. Maybe that is how you can type 970 words in less than 9 minutes. You don't read the comment you are responding to.
slimboyfat

Here’s a dose of your own medicine, aqwabot
To understand John 20:28, we must critically examine the text, its context, and the linguistic arguments that might support an alternative interpretation. While the mainstream interpretation holds that Thomas' declaration ("My Lord and my God") is directed to Jesus, there is a case to be made for understanding this exclamation as praise to God the Father, prompted by the revelation of Jesus' resurrection.
While the construction eipen auto ("he said to Him") appears straightforward, it does not explicitly dictate the object of Thomas' exclamation. In Greek, it is possible for a speaker to address one person while making a statement about another. The phrase could introduce a moment where Thomas expresses awe and reverence toward God the Father, inspired by the revelation Jesus brings as His agent.
In the Jewish context of the time, direct worship of a human figure—no matter how exalted—was unprecedented and controversial. The Shema ("Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one" - Deuteronomy 6:4) formed the bedrock of Jewish monotheism. It would be more natural for Thomas, a devout Jew, to offer his declaration as worship to God the Father, recognizing Jesus' role as the mediator of divine revelation, rather than explicitly identifying Jesus as God.
The use of the nominative case ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou rather than the vocative is often cited as evidence of direct address. However, it could also indicate a statement of fact or an exclamation of praise rather than direct speech to Jesus. The nominative might reflect a Semitic influence, where declarative exclamations about God are common.
For example, in Psalms (LXX), phrases of praise often use the nominative to refer to God in a declarative, rather than vocative, sense. This reading suggests that Thomas’ words could reflect a sudden recognition of God’s power and presence, manifested through Jesus’ resurrection.
John's Gospel consistently emphasizes Jesus' role as the revealer of the Father (e.g., John 14:9: "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father"). If we view the Gospel through this lens, Thomas’ declaration might be seen as an acknowledgment of God's presence revealed through Jesus, rather than a direct confession of Jesus as God. This interpretation aligns with the Gospel’s overarching theme of Jesus as the one who points to the Father.
As Hart notes in recounting historical debates, some early interpreters entertained the possibility that Thomas’ exclamation was directed to God the Father. While this view did not dominate early Christian thought, it reflects a strand of interpretation that resists reading too much into a single, ambiguous moment. Recognizing Jesus as Lord (kyrios) and the agent of God does not necessarily equate to identifying Him with God (theos) in the fullest ontological sense.
The author of John often leaves room for multiple layers of meaning. For example, in John 1:1, the Word (logos) is both with God and is a god, a paradox that invites reflection rather than dogmatic closure. Similarly, Thomas’ exclamation could be deliberately ambiguous, functioning as a climax that allows for both a high Christological reading and a recognition of God’s work through Jesus.
While the dominant interpretation of John 20:28 sees Thomas’ words as a direct declaration of Jesus' divinity, a plausible alternative is that the exclamation is directed to God the Father, inspired by Jesus’ resurrection. This interpretation respects the Jewish monotheistic framework and aligns with the Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus as the revealer of the Father. The ambiguity in the grammar and the broader theological context allow for this reading, even if it challenges the traditional consensus.
slimboyfat

pete, some may have pursued the idea that Logos is an emanation of God, but it’s not the direction the gospel of John and the early Christians took. For John, the Logos was the personal Son of God who became flesh, Jesus of Nazareth. He was with God when God created the universe and God created everything through him. The Son is less than his Father in power, position, and knowledge. He was sent by God to do his will as an obedient Son. The closest analogy Jews had to understanding such a figure is an angel of God. But not just any angel, the unique only begotten Son of God: “no ordinary angel!” as scholar Susan Garrett describes Jesus. The gospel of John is especially clear in presenting Jesus as an angelic messenger from God, as senior scholars such as John Ashton and Adela Yarbro Collins have noted. JWs are far closer to John in their understanding of who Jesus is and his position than the later Trinitarian formulations, or the intermediate Neoplatonic formulations either, for that matter. Second century apologist, and later Trinitarians were steeped in philosophy, and obsessed concepts of essence, abscission, substance and so on. There’s none of that in the gospel of John itself. Jesus is simply the obedient Son of God, his firstborn.
Earnest

@ aqwsed12345 :
Thank you for your discussion of John 20:28 in response to my question, but I'm still not quite sure how you understand ho theos. In response you said :
While ho theos generally refers to the Father (just like ho kyrios generally refers to Christ in the NT), it is also used for Jesus in contexts that affirm His divine nature (cf. Hebrews 1:8). ... It was only the ignorant linguists of the Watchtower Society who invented that ... only ho theos denotes the proper sense God.
The Watchtower Society has never claimed that "only ho theos denotes the proper sense God", but I am more interested in how you understand it. Hart said, regarding ho theos, (@ 44:40) that "there is a reticence about this right up until very late, several centuries along, ever to use the term ho theos for anyone other than the Father".
In John 1:1 it says that the Word was "with [the] God" [pros ton theon]. It seems to me that this is a clear case where ho theos/ton theon refers to the Father only. But I am not sure whether you understand it that way. Do you understand it is saying the Word was with the Father, or if not, what do you understand ton theon means in this context?
Do you ever understand ho theos refers only to the Father? I have listed below all the cases of "the God" (either ho theos or ton theon) in the Gospel of John, excluding genitive and dative cases as that would just make the list too long. If you think that any of them refer only to the Father, can you indicate which verses. Or if you think most of them refer only to the Father, perhaps you could indicate which verses don't.
John 1:1 "... the Word was with [the] God [ton theon] ..."
John 1:2 "This one was in the beginning with [the] God [ton theon]"
John 3:16,17 "For [the] God [ho theos] loved the world ... For [the] God [ho theos] sent forth his Son ..."
John 3:33 " ... that [the] God [ho theos] is true".
John 3:34 "For the one whom [the] God [ho theos] sent forth ..."
John 4:24 "[The] God [ho theos] is a spirit ..."
John 5:18 "... calling [the] God [ton theon] his own Father, ...".
John 6:27 " ... for upon this one the Father, [the] God [ho theos], has put his seal [of approval]".
John 8:41,42 "... we have one Father, [the] God [ton theon]... If [the] God [ho theos] were your Father ..."
John 9:29 "We know that [the] God [ho theos] has spoken to Moses ..."
John 9:31 "We know that [the] God [ho theos] does not listen to sinners, ..."
John 11:22 "... as many things as you ask [the] God [ton theon] for, [the] God [ho theos] will give you."
John 13:3 "[Jesus], knowing that ... he was going to [the] God [pros ton theon]"
John 13:31,32 "... [the] God [ho theos] is glorified in connection with [the Son of man]. And [the] God [ho theos] will himself glorify [the Son of man] ..."
John 14:1 "Exercise faith in [the] God [ton theon], exercise faith also in me."
John 17:3 "... the only true God [ton monon alethinon theon]"
John 20:28 "...My Lord and my God" [literally, "The Lord of me and the God [ho theos] of me"]
John 21:19 "This he said to signify by what sort of death he would glorify [the] God [ton theon] ..."
Please be assured I am just trying to understand how a trinitarian can consistently understand the way John writes about [the] God. Thanks for your assistance.
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
In Greek, the pronoun αὐτῷ ("to him") unambiguously identifies Christ as the recipient of Thomas' words. This construction directly links Thomas' declaration to Christ, as no other subject is introduced in the immediate context. Throughout the Gospel of John, when a pronoun like αὐτῷ is used with the verb εἶπεν ("he said"), it always refers to the person being addressed directly. For example:
- John 1:48: "Nathanael said to him (εἶπεν αὐτῷ), 'How do you know me?'"
- John 14:8: "Philip said to him (εἶπεν αὐτῷ), 'Lord, show us the Father.'"
In these cases, the construction clearly indicates direct address, and there is no linguistic basis for interpreting the phrase differently in John 20:28. The nominative case (rather than the vocative) in Thomas' exclamation does not undermine the direct address to Christ. In Greek, the nominative is often used for direct address, particularly in Semitic-influenced Greek, such as the Greek of the NT. For example:
- Hebrews 1:8: "Your throne, O God (Ὁ θεός), is forever and ever."
- Matthew 16:16: Peter declares to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος)."
In these examples, the nominative functions as direct address, demonstrating that Thomas’ words, "Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου," are appropriately understood as spoken directly to Jesus.
The broader context of John’s Gospel supports the interpretation that Thomas' confession is directed exclusively to Christ as both Lord and God. John 20:28 serves as the climactic declaration of Jesus' divine identity, echoing the prologue (John 1:1: "the Word was God") and fulfilling the Gospel’s purpose statement (John 20:31: "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God"). It is unlikely that such a climactic moment would redirect attention away from Jesus to God the Father. The risen Jesus invites Thomas to touch His wounds, directly addressing Thomas' doubts (John 20:27). Thomas' response in the next verse is naturally understood as directed to the one who has just spoken to him and offered proof of His resurrection. The possessive pronouns "my Lord" and "my God" emphasize a personal recognition of Jesus’ identity. If Thomas were addressing God the Father, the possessive pronouns would be unusual in this context, as Jewish prayers typically address God in more general terms.
The argument that Thomas, as a devout Jew, would not address Jesus as "my God" due to the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) misunderstands early Christian theology. This argument is precisely self-defeating, because indeed, a religious Jew in light of the Shema would only make such a statement if he truly believed that Christ was Yahweh God. Scholars such as Richard Bauckham have demonstrated that early Christian belief included Jesus within the unique identity of Yahweh, consistent with Jewish monotheism. John’s Gospel frequently emphasizes Jesus’ divine authority and unity with the Father (e.g., John 10:30: "I and the Father are one"). The NT provides multiple instances of Jesus being worshiped without contradiction to Jewish monotheism (e.g., Matthew 28:9, Hebrews 1:6). Thomas’ confession is consistent with this pattern.
The mention of historical debates about the interpretation of John 20:28 does not negate the traditional reading. As previously noted, David Bentley Hart supports the interpretation that Thomas’ confession is directed to Christ and reveals His full divinity. Hart writes:
“The withholding of the full revelation of Christ as ho theos, God in the fullest sense, until Thomas confesses him as such in the light of Easter, must be seen as an intentional authorial tactic.”
Hart acknowledges alternative views only as part of scholarly rigor but firmly aligns with the traditional understanding of John 20:28 as a direct affirmation of Jesus’ divine identity.The argument that John 1:1 presents the Logos as “a god” rather than fully divine is also flawed. The anarthrous (lacking the definite article) θεός in John 1:1c emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Logos, not a subordinate or lesser status. As Hart and others have noted, if the evangelist intended to describe the Logos as a subordinate divine being, he could have used the term θεῖος ("divine" or "godlike").
The assertion that the Logos is an "emanation of God" reflects a philosophical framework foreign to the Gospel of John. While some early thinkers might have used language resembling emanation to discuss the relationship between God and the Logos, John’s Gospel avoids such speculation and instead directly identifies the Logos as God Himself (John 1:1). The text begins unequivocally: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This opening statement places the Logos within the identity of God, not as a created being or an emanation, but as God Himself who is fully involved in the creation of all things (John 1:3). Far from a philosophical abstraction, John grounds the Logos in the tangible reality of Jesus Christ, who "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).
The claim that the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as "less than his Father in power, position, and knowledge" misinterprets the text's theological depth. While it is true that Jesus, in His incarnation, willingly subordinated Himself to the Father to accomplish the mission of redemption, this subordination pertains to His role, not to His nature. The Gospel of John repeatedly emphasizes the equality and unity of the Son with the Father: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). These statements reflect the ontological unity between Father and Son. Jesus’ mission as the obedient Son is not evidence of inferiority but of His voluntary humility in the economy of salvation (Philippians 2:6-8).
The analogy of Jesus as an "angelic messenger" falls short in capturing the full reality of Christ as presented in John. Although angels are indeed God's messengers, the Gospel makes it clear that Jesus is far more than a messenger. Unlike angels, who are created beings, Jesus is described as the eternal Logos, the agent of creation, and the one through whom all things were made (John 1:3). Angels are never attributed such creative power or divine prerogatives. Furthermore, John declares Jesus as "the only-begotten God" (John 1:18, depending on manuscript tradition), a title that sets Him apart not only from angels but from all creation. This language highlights the unique relationship between the Father and the Son—an eternal, intrinsic relationship rather than one resembling the service-oriented role of angels.
The suggestion that second-century apologists and later Trinitarians misinterpreted John due to their engagement with philosophical concepts like "essence" and "substance" ignores the historical development of Christian doctrine. These terms were not imposed upon the text but developed as the Church sought to articulate the biblical witness to Christ against heretical misinterpretations. The Church Fathers, far from distorting John’s theology, sought to preserve its core truths amidst challenges such as Arianism, which attempted to reduce Christ to a created being. The formulation of Trinitarian doctrine in the Nicene Creed was a faithful response to John’s high Christology, affirming that the Son is "of one substance with the Father" as implied in texts like John 1:1, John 10:30, and John 17:5.
Finally, the assertion that JWs align more closely with John’s understanding of Jesus is unsubstantiated. The theology of the JWs, which posits that Jesus is not a begotted divine person, but a created being and a lesser "god" (in Ps. 82 sense), directly contradicts the central claims of John’s Gospel. John’s declaration that "the Word was God" leaves no room for the idea of Jesus as a secondary divine figure or a created being. Furthermore, Jesus’ acceptance of worship (John 9:38; John 20:28) and His identification with the divine name "I AM" (John 8:58) affirm His full divinity, which is incompatible with the Jehovah’s Witnesses' interpretation.

@Earnest
According to the estabished NT terminology, "ho theos" is generally the standard designation for the Father, "ho kyrios" is the standard designation for the Son, and "to pneuma" is the standard designation for the Holy Spirit, so the terminology adopted in patristic literature is to refer to the persons of the Trinity as "the God and the Lord and the Spirit", although in fact it is true for all three Divine Persons that they are God, Lord and Spirit. This is called Trinitarian appropriationesin theology, which could be translated into English as ascription, attribution, or designation. The word "God" is used in three basic senses:
1. As a standard designation (appropriatio) for the person of the Father - #1
2. For the entire Trinity, the divine essence (theotes) - #2
3. As a designation for quiddity, i.e. in a qualitative sense - #3
These three different senses cannot be played off against each other. For example, from the primitive JW argument that phrases like "the God and Jesus" are intended to conclude that the Son is not God (in #3 sense either). When all that follows from this is that the Son is not identical with God neither in the #1 sense nor in the #2 sense (and this is not even stated in Nicene theology). So it is correct that "ho theos" most often refers to the Father in the NT, including the Gospel of John. However, this does not mean that "ho theos" exclusively refers to the Father, nor does it imply that the Son (the Logos) is excluded from being fully divine.
The presence or absence of the article “ho” does not indicate different degrees of divinity, but generally indicates that it is an appropriatio: denoting a single divine person with an established nominator without indicating any difference in the quiddity. To use a modern profane analogy, it's like calling Elvis "the King." Watch:
https://youtu.be/zMnXR7sHgsI
That "theos" and "ho theos" do not denote a quiddity difference is evident from the fact that 1) the Son is also called "ho theos", 2) the Father is also called "theos" without the article (ho). The Hebrew words El, HaElohim and Yahweh (all referring to God) were rendered as anarthrous "theos" in the LXX at Nahum 1:2, Isaiah 37:16, 41:4, Jeremiah 23:23 and Ezekiel 45:9 among many other locations. Moreover, in the NTanarthrous theos was used to refer to God the Father in locations including John 1:18a, Romans 8:33, 2 Corinthians 5:19, 6:16 and Hebrews 11:16. In John 1:1 the distinction between "ton theon" ("the God" #1 sense) and "theos" ("God" #3 sense) in the prologue highlights the personal distinction between the Father and the Son while affirming their shared divine essence. The phrase "pros ton theon" (God in #1 sense) emphasizes the intimate relationship between the Word and the Father, while "theos ēn ho logos" ("the Word was God" in #3 sense) affirms the full divinity of the Logos. This does not create two gods but distinguishes persons within the one divine essence.
In John 20:28, when Thomas exclaims "ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou" ("my Lord and my God"), the grammar and context unequivocally indicate that this statement is addressed to Jesus. The possessive pronouns "mou" ("my") and the verb "eipen auto" ("he said to Him") make it impossible to interpret this as a statement directed to the Father or as a generic exclamation (“Oh my God!”). Here, "ho theos" is applied directly to Jesus, affirming His full divinity (being God in #3 sense).
Hart’s observation that early Christians were reticent to use "ho theos" for anyone other than the Father reflects a historical hesitancy in formal theological language, not a denial of the Son’s divinity. The Nicene Creed later clarified the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, but this does not negate the Gospel of John’s implicit Trinitarian theology. Hart himself affirms the Logos' full divinity and continuity with the Father’s essence in John 1:1 and elsewhere.
While "ho theos" typically refers to the Father since the above reasons, this is consistent with Trinitarian theology, which recognizes the Father as the source (arche) within the Godhead. The Son and the Spirit share in the divine essence but are distinct persons who proceed from the Father. This framework accounts for the predominant use of "ho theos" for the Father while still affirming the full divinity of the Son and the Spirit.
Below is an analysis of the listed verses to demonstrate their compatibility with Trinitarian theology:
1. John 1:1: "The Word was with [the] God#1 [ton theon]"—This refers to the Father. The second clause, "and the Word was God#3 [theos]," affirms the Logos' full divinity, using the qualitative anarthrous theos to emphasize the divine nature of the Word without creating a second deity.
2. John 1:2: "This one was in the beginning with [the] God#2 [ton theon]"—Again, this refers to the Father, consistent with Trinitarian theology.
3. John 3:16-17: "[The] God#2 [ho theos] loved the world... [The] God#1/2 [ho theos] sent forth His Son"—This refers to the Father, highlighting the relational distinction within the Trinity.
4. John 4:24: "[The] God#2 [ho theos] is a spirit..."—This describes the nature of God as spirit, applicable to the divine essence (theotes) shared by all three persons.
5. John 5:18: "Calling [the] God#1 [ton theon] his own Father"—The Father is explicitly referred to here. Jesus’ claim makes Him "equal with God," a direct assertion of His divine nature.
6. John 20:28: "My Lord and my God#3"—As noted earlier, this is a direct confession of Jesus' divinity, using "ho theos" in reference to Him. The grammar and context eliminate any ambiguity.
1. Does "ho theos" Exclusively Refer to the Father?
No, "ho theos" (God #1) most often refers to the Father in John’s Gospel, but it is also used to affirm the deity of Jesus (e.g., John 20:28 God#3). This usage is consistent with Trinitarian theology, which recognizes the Father as the source within the Godhead while affirming the full divinity of the Son and the Spirit.
2. Does "ton theon" in John 1:1 Refer to the Father?
Yes, "ton theon#1" in John 1:1 refers to the Father, emphasizing the distinct personhood of the Logos in relation to the Father. However, this distinction does not negate the Logos' divinity, as affirmed in the same verse ("theos [#3] ēn ho logos").
3. How Can Trinitarians Consistently Interpret "ho theos" in John?
Trinitarians understand "ho theos" to generally refer to the Father (#1) while recognizing its application (#3) to Jesus in contexts like John 20:28. This reflects the relational and personal distinctions within the Trinity without compromising the unity of the divine essence.

Is Jesus the Creator?

Share this