Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze 404 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Halcon

  Slim -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.

  Making the most important verse, at least to believers, in John all more significant.

  John 3:16- for God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten son...

  Any parent understands that sacrificing himself for others is only outdone by offering up their son. It is in fact nearly impossible if not impossible to fathom giving up a son for he would be too valuable to give up.

  But the point is that the significance John attempted to communicate in 3:16 is lessened when the simple non academic concept of the separation between father and son is disregarded.
• 

  Earnest

  @ aqwsed12345 :

  Thank you for your willingness to clarify your understanding of ho theos ("the God") in the gospel of John.

  You have said ho theos is the standard designation for the Father and indicated that in John 1:1, 1:2, 3:16-17, and 5:18 ho theos specifically refers to the Father.

  I understand you consider that in John 4:24 it does not refer to the Father specifically, and that in John 20:28 it refers to the Son specifically.
  

  I listed fourteen other instances that John uses "the God" (ho theos/ton theon) in his gospel. Would I be correct to assume that in these fourteen instances you also understand "the God" to refer specifically to the Father? The instances were :

  John 3:33,34 "He that has accepted his witness has put his seal to it that [the] God [ho theos] is true. For the one whom [the] God [ho theos] sent forth speaks the sayings of [the] God [tou theou], for he does not give the spirit by measure".
  

  John 6:27 "Work, not for the food that perishes, but for the food that remains for life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you; for upon this one the Father, [the] God [ho theos], has put his seal [of approval]".

  John 8:41,42 "You do the works of your father.” They said to him: “We were not born from fornication; we have one Father, [the] God [ton theon].” Jesus said to them: “If [the] God [ho theos] were your Father, you would love me, for from [the] God [tou theou] I came forth and am here. Neither have I come of my own initiative at all, but that One sent me forth."

  John 9:29 "We know that [the] God [ho theos] has spoken to Moses; but as for this [man], we do not know where he is from.”
  

  John 9:31 "We know that [the] God [ho theos] does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is God-fearing and does his will, he listens to this one."

  John 11:22 "And yet at present I know that as many things as you ask [the] God [ton theon] for, [the] God [ho theos] will give you."

  John 13:3 "[Jesus], knowing that the Father had given all things into [his] hands and that he came forth from God and was going to [the] God [pros ton theon]"

  John 13:31,32 "Hence when [Judas] had gone out, Jesus said: “Now the Son of man is glorified, and [the] God [ho theos] is glorified in connection with him. And [the] God [ho theos] will himself glorify him, and he will glorify him immediately."
  

  John 14:1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith in [the] God [ton theon], exercise faith also in me."

  John 17:3 "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God [ton monon alethinon theon], and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

  John 21:19 "This [Jesus] said to signify by what sort of death he would glorify [the] God [ton theon]. So, when he had said this, he said to [Peter]: “Continue following me.”

  Thanks, again, for clarifying this matter.
  
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  1. Does "ho theos" refer specifically to the Father in most of these instances?

  Yes, in most of the instances cited (e.g., John 3:33–34, John 6:27, John 8:41–42, etc.), ho theos refers specifically to the Father. This is consistent with the Trinitarian understanding that "the God" is often the standard designation for the Father in New Testament usage. However, this does not exclude the Son or the Spirit from sharing in the divine nature. The consistent pattern of New Testament language reflects the Father as the source (arche) within the Trinity, from whom the Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit proceeds.

  2. What about John 20:28?

  In John 20:28, Thomas directly addresses Jesus as ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou ("My Lord and my God"). Here, ho theos refers specifically to Jesus, affirming His full divinity. This is not an isolated instance but aligns with John's high Christology, starting from the prologue (John 1:1: "the Word was God"). The phrase eipen auto ("he said to Him") leaves no ambiguity that Thomas's declaration is directed at Jesus, not the Father. This confession climaxes the Gospel’s theological arc, affirming Jesus as fully God and fully man.

  3. How does this fit with Trinitarian theology?

  The Trinitarian framework understands "ho theos" as:

  • (1) The standard designation for the Father (e.g., John 3:34, John 6:27).
  • (2) Occasionally applied to the Son (e.g., John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8).
  • (3) Used to refer to the divine essence shared by the Father, Son, and Spirit.

  These uses reflect relational distinctions within the Trinity without implying a difference in divine nature. For example, in John 17:3, the Father is called "the only true God," but this does not exclude the Son and Spirit from being truly God. The phrase emphasizes the Father as the source of the Godhead, consistent with the Nicene Creed.

  4. Addressing specific verses cited

  Let’s examine a few of the verses listed:

  • John 3:33–34: The passage refers to God as the one who sends and speaks through Jesus. This highlights the relational distinction between the Father and the Son, a cornerstone of Trinitarian theology.
  • John 13:3: "Going to God" reflects Jesus's return to the Father, not a denial of His divinity. In John 17:5, Jesus prays to be glorified with the glory He had "before the world existed," affirming His preexistence and equality with the Father.
  • John 17:3: The phrase "the only true God" emphasizes the Father as the source within the Trinity. Jesus’s distinction from the Father as the "one whom you sent" reflects relational, not ontological, difference. The context of John's Gospel (e.g., John 1:1, John 20:28) affirms the Son's full divinity alongside the Father. A syncategorematical use of "only" (monos), just like for example in Jude 4. So "monos" does not exclude other divine persons from being the true God, but it excludes foreign gods, hence this simply asserts monotheism, not unitarianism.

  5. Why is the distinction important?

  You seem to suggest that the frequent use of ho theos for the Father excludes the Son from being fully divine. However, this reasoning conflates personal distinction with ontological inequality. Trinitarian theology recognizes the Father as the source (or "font") of the Godhead while affirming that the Son and Spirit share the same divine essence. The relational language used in the Gospel of John (e.g., "sent by the Father") reflects the eternal relationships within the Trinity, not a hierarchy of nature. The Son is subordinate to the Father in role, not in essence. This is why Thomas's confession in John 20:28 is so significant: it directly attributes to Jesus the same divine titles used for the Father.

  6. Does this contradict monotheism?

  Absolutely not. The Shema ("The LORD is one," Deuteronomy 6:4) is fully compatible with Trinitarian theology. You seem to be conflating monotheism with unitarianism. Christians affirm one God in three persons, not three gods. The unity of essence ensures monotheism, while the distinction of persons accounts for the relational dynamics revealed in Scripture.
• 

  Earnest

  aqwsed12345 : You seem to suggest that the frequent use of ho theos for the Father excludes the Son from being fully divine.

  I am not suggesting anything. I am only listing those instances in the Gospel of John where theos is preceded by the definite article (excluding genitive and dative cases), and asking who/what you think it identifies.

  aqwsed12345 : Yes, in most of the instances cited (e.g., John 3:33–34, John 6:27, John 8:41–42, etc.), ho theos refers specifically to the Father.

  I wonder if there are any instances apart from the two you have mentioned (John 4:24; 20:28) where ho theos does not refer specifically to the Father.

  Let me explain why I ask. I, personally, understand that "ho theos" refers specifically to the Father in all instances in the Gospel of John and I want to know whether there are good reasons to understand it differently in any verse with the exception of John 20:28.

  It would be a great help to me if you could list those instances in the Gospel of John where you believe that "God" preceded by the definite article does not refer specifically to the Father, and possibly explain why you think John would make an exception (if there are other exceptions) to his normal use of ho theos.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  The problem is with the implication that the Greek article "ho" is allegedly a linguistic tool, the absence of which indicates that this is not really "God" in the true sense, but a kind of mighty spirit creature only could be interpreted in a henotheistic-monolatristic framework. While it is true that "ho theos" most commonly designates the Father in John's Gospel, this does not preclude its application to the Son or the Spirit in appropriate contexts. Importantly, Trinitarian theology does not hinge on every instance of "ho theos" applying equally to the Son or the Spirit. Instead, it recognizes the relational distinctions within the Godhead while affirming the shared divine essence.

  In Trinitarian theology, the Father is often described as the arche (source or principle) within the Godhead. This relational role naturally explains why "ho theos" is the standard designation for the Father. John's Gospel reflects this theological reality, using "ho theos" most often to refer to the Father without excluding the Son and the Spirit from the divine essence. The Father’s role as the source does not imply that the Son or Spirit are subordinate in nature but highlights their distinct relational roles. For example:

  • John 3:16-17: The Father sends the Son into the world.
  • John 14:26: The Father sends the Spirit in the Son's name.

  These verses demonstrate a relational ordering within the Trinity, not an ontological inequality. While "ho theos" typically refers to the Father, there are instances in John’s Gospel where the context suggests a broader application:

  • John 1:1: The Logos (Word) is described as "theos" (without the article) and is explicitly distinguished from the person of "ton theon" (the God, i.e., the Father). This highlights both the personal distinction between the Word and the Father and their shared divine essence. While "ho theos" here refers to the person of the Father, the Logos is equally God in essence, denoting His quiddity, not his identity. According to JWs, John 1:1c has "only" theos, and not ho theos, to justify the henotheistic Arian Christology, even though John could not have written ho theos here because that would justify Sabellian modalism. If ho theos here would justify Sabellianism, and theios Arianism, then what would justify the Nicene Christology? The anarthrous theos, exactly.
  • John 20:28: Thomas addresses Jesus directly as "ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou" ("My Lord and my God"). The use of "ho theos" for Jesus here is unique and deliberate, underscoring His divine identity and equality with the Father.
  • John 10:30: Jesus states, "I and the Father are one." While "ho theos" is not explicitly used here, this unity implies shared divine essence, consistent with Trinitarian theology.

  These examples demonstrate that John does not rigidly restrict the use of "ho theos" to the Father, particularly when emphasizing the Son’s divine nature. John 20:28 stands out because it explicitly applies "ho theos" to Jesus. Thomas’s declaration, "My Lord and my God," is addressed directly to Jesus, as indicated by the Greek phrase "eipen auto" ("he said to Him"). This is not a generic exclamation but a personal confession of Jesus’s divine identity. The Gospel’s prologue (John 1:1-18) sets the stage for this climactic moment, affirming the Logos as both distinct from and fully equal to God.

  John’s use of "ho theos" reflects the relational distinctions within the Trinity while affirming the full divinity of the Son and the Spirit. The deliberate application of "ho theos" to Jesus in John 20:28 is not an exception but a culmination of John’s theological narrative. By placing this confession at the conclusion of his Gospel, John underscores its significance: Jesus is fully God, fully man, and worthy of worship.