Jesus Christ is God — an Examination of Selected Scriptures

Introduction

The Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is by far one of the most controversial and debated doctrines within Christianity. This precious doctrine has been attacked on all sides ever since the days of the early church. From adoptionists in the early 2nd to 3rd century, Arians in the 4th century, Muslims beginning in the 7th, Socinians in the 16th, and now modern day incarnations of these older heresies, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the “Biblical Unitarian” movement. One particular issue pertaining to this debate has been upon this writer’s mind as of late, namely, the instances in Scripture wherein the title “God” is predicated of our Lord. I thought it might be helpful to share some of my thoughts on the subject, by compiling a list of such instances, and providing some brief but succinct commentary upon them, answer certain objections, and defend them against the interpretations of those who oppose the orthodox understanding of these texts. It is my hope that these notes will be of help to those who read, and serve as a handy reference if needed.

Matthew 1:23 (Isaiah 7:14)

In Matthew 1:23 we see Matthew applying a prophecy found in Isaiah 7:14 to the Lord Jesus Christ in fulfillment of his miraculous conception and birth. The verse reads as follows:

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Several things must be noted when considering this verse.

Firstly, it is commonly objected that Matthew is either misapplying this prophecy, or that he is applying it to Christ in a secondary sense, whereas it was originally fulfilled by someone else. This argument is typically brought up by those attempting to discredit the New Testament, or by Unitarians who are seeking to weaken the force of the passage and it’s usage by Trinitarians. All objections cannot be answered here for sake of time, however I would strongly recommend the reader take the time to read through John Gill’s commentary on Isaiah 7–9, as well as chapter 5 of his work entitled The Prophecies of the Old Testament [1]. Suffice it to say, there is simply no good argument showing that this prophecy has been fulfilled by anyone other than the Lord Jesus. The two primary candidates are Hezekiah, and Isaiah’s son who is born in the next chapter.

However, as Gill points out, the child prophesied about in this verse cannot possibly be Hezekiah. Ahaz had reigned only 16 years (2 Kings 16:2), and Hezekiah was 25 years of age when he began to reign (2 Kings 18:2), meaning that Hezekiah would have been about 9 years old when Ahaz had begun his reign, and around 12 or 13 when this prophecy was given. Nor can this be understood as referring to Isaiah’s son, born in chapter 8, for he was not a Davidic King, as Isaiah 9:6–7 describes the same child, let alone Lord over Judea as Isaiah 8:8 indicates the child would be. Not only this, but Isaiah’s wife could not properly be styled a virgin (almah in Hebrew), since she had already borne him children. No other candidate for the fulfillment of this prophecy fits except for the Lord Jesus Christ. As noted earlier, it is recommended that the reader refer to Gill’s work on the subject for further vindication of the Messianic nature of this prophecy.

With that being said, we must now consider whether or not this prophecy actually lends itself to supporting the deity of Christ. Unitarians will often argue that the name Immanuel may just as easily be translated as “God is with us” rather than “God with us”. While this is technically true, it is worth noting that Matthew omits the verb εστιν (is) when translating the name Emmanuel in this verse, rather he renders it simply as μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός (with us the God), as it is translated in the Greek edition of Isaiah 8:8, when addressing Immanuel directly. It makes much more sense, when addressing the Messiah directly, to understand Immanuel as “God with us” rather than “God is with us”. Simply compare:

and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O God with us!

Versus:

and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O God is with us!

Thus, while it is true that the phrase also occurs in verse 10 within the Greek OT, as a simple statement of fact (“for God is with us”), it makes much more sense to understand it as “God with us” when being used as a name, as it is in verse 8.

Furthermore, we have evidence from the context of both Matthew 1–2 as well as Isaiah 7–9 which supports the Trinitarian understanding of this verse. Just two verses earlier in Matthew 1:21, the Angel tells Joseph to name the child “Jesus”, and the reason given is that he will save his people from their sins. The Aramaic name for Jesus is Yeshua, which literally means “savior”, this is a contracted form of the Hebrew name Yehoshua, which means “Jehovah saves”; the reason for which Joseph is to name the child “savior” or “Jehovah saves” is because He (i.e the child) will save his people from their sins. This is not merely a temporal redemption, such as when Moses led Israel out of Egypt, but a supernatural deliverance, attributed to the child who was to be born. It is in this immediate context that the child is named “God with us”.

Furthermore, 4 verses later, in Matthew 2:2, we read of the magi coming to “worship” the child who was to be born. It is often objected that “worship” here is the term proskuneo in Greek, which can simply refer to bowing before someone, however the context shows that the wise men intended on doing more than simply bowing to the child, but rather offering gifts to him, obviously a much stronger form of devotion than just bowing down in respect. We also see a very striking connection based upon the content of the gifts that are given to the child Jesus, as Irenaeus points out in Against Heresies Book 9 Chapter 3 Section 2:

But Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the east, exclaimed “For we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him;” and that, having been led by the star into the house of Jacob to Emmanuel, they showed, by these gifts which they offered, who it was that was worshipped; myrrh, because it was He who should die and be buried for the mortal human met; gold, because He was a King, “of whose kingdom is no end;” and frankincense, because He was God, who also “was made known in Judea,” and was “declared to those who sought Him not”

We have here a powerful accumulative contextual argument. The child is named Savior, or Jehovah Saves, because he himself is the one who would save his people from their sins, two verses later he is prophetically styled “God with us”, and four verses after that the wise men come to worship him, and offer gifts, including frankincense, which is only ever offered to Jehovah in the Old Testament. There is no coincidence that the wise men were providentially guided to offer what they offered to the child Jesus.

We find further support within the context of Isaiah chapter 8, where Immanuel is prophetically addressed again, this time, however, the LORD himself is spoken of:

Isaiah 8:13–14 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. (14) And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Verse 14 is expressly applied to Jesus in 1 Peter 2:8:

1 Peter 2:7–8 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, (8) And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

It is also very likely that Peter has Isaiah 7:13 in mind in 1 Peter 3:15 in the Received Text:

(Isaiah 8:13) “Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.”

(1 Peter 3:15) “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”

In this case, this means that Peter explicitly calls Jesus “the Lord God”. Once again, this strongly points to the fact that Peter believed Jesus to be Jehovah; given this connection, this further supports the supposition that the prophetic name “Immanuel” or “God with us” does in fact point to the true and proper deity of the child who was to be born.

Isaiah 9:6

The next piece of contextual proof is to be found in our next selected scripture in which Jesus is expressly called ‘God’:

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The child in this text is clearly the same child prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, and Matthew applies Isaiah 9:1–2 to the ministry of Jesus in Matthew 4:15–16, further showing that this prophecy is messianic in nature. The fact that the child will be called “The mighty God” is significant because Jehovah is called by this exact same title in the very next chapter:

Isaiah 10:21 The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.

Jeremiah also applies this same title to Jehovah:

Jeremiah 32:18 Thou showest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name,

Once again, this strongly suggests the divinity of the child who was to be born. It must also be kept in mind that these names are not denoting what the child would be commonly called by in his everyday life, but rather they denote what he would actually be; this means he would actually be The mighty God, he would actually be the everlasting Father (in terms of being creator, not the first person of the Trinity), he would actually be Wonderful, and so forth. Given this fact, as well as the other evidence, we have every reason to interpret Matthew 1:23 as teaching us the true deity of Jesus Christ. The present text adds further support to this conclusion, as we see the term “God” applied to the Messiah twice within the same stream of Messianic prophecy, Isaiah 7:14 & 9:6. These two prophecies also strongly teach the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ, for we see that the child to be born would naturally be a human being, while simultaneously being truly God.

Hebrews 1:8 (Psalm 45:6)

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Our next passage is a quotation from Psalm 45, a Messianic Psalm, quoted by Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews. The primary Unitarian objection is that this Psalm was originally addressed to Solomon, and the fact that he was apparently called “God” shows that the Messiah being called by this term does not prove him to be Jehovah.

There are several problems with this argument, however.

Firstly, there is evidence within the Psalm itself that this is not referring to Solomon. For one thing, Solomon is never described in scripture as being fairer than anyone else (Psalm 45:2), nor was Solomon a warrior (Psalm 45:3–5).

Secondly, this Psalm describes the King as exceedingly righteous, and his kingdom lasting forever (Psalm 45:6–7), how can this possibly be descriptive of Solomon, whose apostasy and sin was so bad that it ended up renting his kingdom in two? On top of that, this King is exalted and anointed on account of his righteousness, whereas Solomon inherited the throne from his immediate father. Some have also attempted to suggest that this was a wedding Psalm celebrating Solomon’s marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh and other pagan kings, who are mentioned later on in the chapter, yet it is unthinkable that the Holy Ghost would inspire such a Psalm to be written, seeing as Solomon’s marriage to these heathen women was sinful, and they were responsible for leading him into sin and idolatry (1 Kings 11:1–8).

In addition to this, the Psalm Targum, which would have been contemporarily known to the Jews during the time of the Apostle, understands this Psalm as referring to the Messiah, it reads in Psalm 45:2–3:

2 My heart desires fine speech; I will speak my work to the king; the utterance of my tongue is quick, like the pen of a fluent scribe.

3 Your beauty, O King Messiah, is greater than the sons of men; the spirit of prophecy has been placed on your lips; because of this the LORD has blessed you forever.

(Ps. 45:2–3 PST)

The Targum also refers to the Messiah as the LORD:

7 The throne of your glory, O LORD, lasts forever and ever; the scepter of your kingdom is an upright scepter.

8 Because you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness because of this the LORD your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your fellows.

(Ps. 45:7–8 PST)

Furthermore, another glaring problem with this argument is that, contrary to Unitarian claims, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews during David or Solomon’s time were going around casually referring to them as “God”; it is true that angels and human judges are called “gods” (elohim in Hebrew), due to their authority received by God himself, to act as judges or to carry out his judgment, but not once in all of scripture do we ever read about a creature being called “God” directly, as we see here in Psalm 45. It would be unthinkable and even blasphemous for a pious Jew to do such a thing. I suspect that Unitarians even know this, as evidenced by the fact that I have never heard a Unitarian casually refer to Jesus as “God”, either while singing praises, worshiping, or even using common speech, yet they expect us to believe that this was a perfectly acceptable thing to do in ancient Israel, despite there being absolutely no Biblical evidence. Thus, we see in this text yet another clear indication of the fact that this King would be fully God and fully Man, and this is in fact what Hebrews chapter 1 clearly conveys to us.

John 1:1

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 is one of the most well-known verses we will be covering. I’ve already offered several arguments proving that Jesus is in fact the one referred to as “the Word” in this passage [2], which I would encourage the reader to check out if you haven’t already, and are doubtful as to who or what the subject of John’s Prologue is.

Most will already agree on this point, Jesus Christ is introduced in this passage as the Word who was with God the Father in the beginning. The point of debate primarily lies in John 1:1c, and whether or not the word was “God” or “a god”. This is because in the Greek text, John 1:1b says that the Word was προς τον Θεόν — that is, with the God, while John 1:1c says that the Word himself was simply Θεoς without the definite article. This has led those who hold to an Arian Christology to conclude that the Word was simply “a god” alongside “the God”.

The first problem with this position is that it overlooks the fact that if John had included a definite article in John 1:1c, he would have been teaching Modalism. Aside from this fact, it also isn’t even grammatically necessary for him to have done so in the first place. However the primary argumentation against this understanding of John 1:1c is within the immediate context. Verse 1 starts off by telling us that the Word was already present with God in the beginning, prior to creation itself; then in verses 3–4 we read:

John 1:3–4 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. (4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

We see John clearly distinguishing the Word from all created things in verse 3, hence his emphasis on the fact that “not any thing that was made” was made apart from the Word, the Word is clearly distinct from everything that was made. This verse uses the verb εγενετο (eyeneto) for “was made” and it means “to come to be”, the Word himself did not come to be, he was already in existence as per John 1:1a. Furthermore we see in verse 4 that life likewise was in the Word, and he is the one who lightens all men who come into the world in John 1:9, hence the Word is the giver of life, and the cause of all existence. If John 1:1c were to be translated the way Arians suggest it ought to be translated, then we have John quite literally teaching Polytheism. We would then have two uncreated gods, one of whom created all things and is the giver of all life, who was with another “god” in the beginning. Hence the context shows that the Word was indeed God, as to his nature, not a separate “god” alongside the Father.

John 20:28

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

John essentially “bookends” his Gospel by referring to Jesus as the Word who was “God” within his prologue, and then recording the incident with Thomas towards the end. It is undoubtedly the case that Thomas refers to Jesus as “my God” here. Unitarians will typically attempt to circumvent this evidence in a similar fashion to how they attempt to deal with Psalm 45:6/Hebrews 1:8 — they will simply argue that since angels and judges are called by the plural term “gods” in scripture, that Thomas was simply referring to Jesus as his God in a similar fashion.

However, once again, we not only have no instance whatsoever within scripture of a mere creature being called “my God” by anyone in the Old Testament, but in fact we see that phrases like “my God” and “our God” always refer to the one true God, Jehovah, within the Old Testament; it would be utter blasphemy and absolutely unthinkable for a pious Jew to call an angel, or a judge, or a king, or any other creature “my God”. Jesus himself uses the phrase “my God” when referring to the Father in verse 17, this not only reinforces the fact that God alone is to be addressed this way, but it also shows that Jesus is himself equal to the Father, and fully God as well as the Father.

1 John 5:20

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

1 John 5:20 is another heavily debated text between Trinitarians and Unitarians, the latter will argue that it is the Father who is being addressed as “the true God, and eternal life”, while most Trinitarians agree that it is Jesus Christ who is being referred to as such. Once again, the context will help us determine who the referent is here. Not only do we have the fact that the Father is never called “the life” or “eternal life” anywhere else in John’s corpus, but we know that Jesus himself is explicitly called such in John’s Gospel (John 11:25; 14:6). Not only this, but just as in the case of John 1:1 and John 20:28, John bookends his epistle by referring explicitly to “the eternal life” in the beginning and end of his letter. Observe:

1 John 1:1–2 THAT which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (2) (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

Notice the parallel language to John 1:1–2 here, Jesus is referred to as “the Word of life”, and we see likewise parallel language used of “the eternal life” which was used of “the Word” in John 1:1–2, namely that the “eternal life” was πρὸς τὸν πατέρα — with the Father — and was manifested to us. This is obviously connected directly to 1 John 5:20, and 1 John 1:2 rules out the Father as being “the eternal life” here, thus we have definitive proof that it is Jesus who is referred to as “the true God, and eternal life” in 1 John 5:20.

Acts 20:28

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Some Unitarians will object that there is a textual variant with regards to this verse. The two other variants are “the church of the Lord” and “the church of the Lord and God” — the latter variant does not help in the least because it is in the Granville Sharp construction and identifies Jesus as both “the Lord” and “God”. However, neither of these variants is likely, seeing that Paul always refers to the church as “the church of God”, and never as the church of the Lord, or the “the church of the Lord and God”. Obviously, God in His divine nature does not have “blood”, this passage again points to the understanding of the dual-nature of Jesus Christ, he is truly God, but truly man as well, and hence had blood to offer on our behalf.

Romans 9:5

Romans 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

This verse is especially supportive of the dual nature of Christ, since Paul references his physical lineage “according to the flesh”, and in the next breath refers to him as “God blessed for ever”. Some have attempted to circumvent the force of this passage by suggesting that Paul was speaking of Christ in the first half of the verse, and then breaks out into a random doxology of God the Father in the latter half of the verse. There are a number of reasons to emphatically reject this interpretation.

First, “who” must have an antecedent, the nearest and only plausible antecedent would be “Christ”, and there is simply no room whatsoever for another referent in this text.

Secondly, this presents an incredibly forced and unnatural reading of the text. There is no exegetical warrant for thinking that Paul, in speaking specifically about Jesus Christ, would suddenly change the subject and break out into a doxology to God the Father.

Third, whenever Paul does in fact give a doxology to God the Father, it is when he is the immediate subject, see Romans 1:25, Galatians 1:5, and 2 Corinthians 11:31.

Fourth, it would completely derail the design of the Apostle, who is here intending to extol Jesus Christ, and illustrate the privilege Israel had of bringing forth the promised Messiah, if he were to suddenly begin talking about God the Father. It is much more natural to see him exalting Jesus in the highest light possible in the latter half of the verse, in conjunction with the former description of Jesus regarding his human nature.

Furthermore, this verse describes Jesus Christ as being “over all”, expressing his sovereignty over all creation, and this is directly tied to the fact that he is God, who is forever blessed.

Titus 2:13 & 2 Peter 1:1

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

2 Peter 1:1 SIMON Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

A word needs to be said about some misconceptions surrounding these verses.

Often times, when these passages are appealed to in favor of the Deity of Christ, Unitarians will appeal to these verses as they appear in the King James Bible, in an attempt to suggest that the verse could be translated as if referring to two distinct persons. What’s more, there are many well meaning, albeit ignorant, Trinitarians, who charge the KJB translators with not properly rendering this verse, due to ignorance of the Granville Sharp rule, thus lending credence to the Unitarian appeal to the KJB in this instance.

The fact is, only someone who does not use the KJB would make this sort of mistake. For one thing, the KJB translators, as well as commentators and theologians during the 17th century, were indeed aware of the grammatical construction which later became known as the Granville Sharp construction. This “rule” is simply a form of the literary device known as “Hendiadys”, or “one by means of two”, which refers to a single object using two words to describe it. This figure of speech is used in both Old and New Testaments.

The particular “rule” in view here says that when we come across a definite article, followed by a noun, kai (and) and another anarthrous noun, that both nouns refer to the same subject, provided that they are singular. An example of this would be 2 Peter 1:11 which contains the phrase “our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ”; in Greek this is τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ — “the Lord of us and savior Jesus Christ” — this is the exact same construction as in 2 Peter 1:1, except instead of having the Greek word for “Lord”, it has the word for “God”, hence proving that 2 Peter 1:1 is in fact referring to Jesus as “our God and Savior”.

Secondly, the KJB certainly does not lend credence to a Unitarian interpretation of these texts, once again only a person who does not regularly use the KJB or pay attention to what it says would make such an argument. The KJB is saying the exact same thing that modern versions are saying in this verse, just in a different way, Jesus is called “God and our Saviour” in the KJB. This is no different from when God the Father is referred to as “God and our Father”, observe:

Ephesians 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Colossians 1:3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you

Philippians 4:20 Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Thus, Unitarians have no hope by appealing to these passages as they appear in the King James Bible, the King James Bible very clearly and obviously teaches the Deity of Christ in these two passages, Jesus is expressly called our God, just as Thomas confessed him to be his God in John 20:28.

Jude 4

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

We have a similar occurrence of the Granville Sharp construction in Jude 4 as in Titus 2:13 & 2 Peter 1:1:

και τον μόνον δεσπότην Θεον και Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστον ἀρνούμενοι

And the only Lord/Master God and Lord of us Jesus Christ denying

If “the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” refers to one and the same person (as the construction demands) then this means that “our God” is undoubtedly referring to Jesus Christ in the earlier part of the verse.

1 Timothy 3:16

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

This verse is particularly controversial, given the textual variants which come along with it. Essentially, the difference is between the word Θεος, meaning “God”, which appears as ΘΣ in many uncials; Ο, which simply means “which”; and ΟΣ, which means “who”. One can easily see how such a text could have been corrupted at some point in time, considering how similar the words for “God” and “who” are. We are not able to offer an incredibly detailed defense of the traditional reading of this verse; however, we may offer some points of evidence for our purposes here. The reading “which was manifest in the flesh” has the least manuscript support, appearing mostly in some old Italic manuscripts; not only this, but such a reading wouldn’t make sense, seeing as Paul is obviously describing a person here. The reading “who” has a bit more manuscript support, but with regards to Greek MSS support, it is still lacking; out of 250 cursive manuscripts which contain the reading for “God”, only two or three are read “who”. The traditional reading is also found within the overall Majority of Greek MSS [3], and is either expressly cited or strongly alluded to by several early church Fathers [4] [5].

The external evidence for this reading is quite frankly overwhelming, however the internal evidence is also quite helpful in answering this question. Paul calls the event described here a “mystery”, there is nothing mysterious about an ordinary man appearing in flesh, this is true of all men, and it completely undermines the whole point of Paul calling this appearance a “mystery”. The “God” reading makes much more sense in this regard. On top of this, there is a grammatical difficulty which arises if the ος (who) variant is adopted, which has been noted and well documented by various theologians [6] [7] [8] as far back as the 1800s when the traditional reading was first seriously being called into question, and the problem is obvious both in Greek as well as in English. The word for “mystery” in the Greek text of this verse is neuter, while ος is masculine; if this variant is adopted, then we would have a masculine pronoun agreeing with a neuter antecedent. This sort of problem is obvious even when reading an English translation, a “mystery” is obviously not a “who”.

As John William Burgon said: “Such an expression is abhorrent alike to grammar and to logic — is intolerable in Greek as in English.”. This may possibly explain how it is that the “which” reading came into existence; a scribe could have possibly seen the text with the corrupted ος reading, and changed it to o (which), thinking he was correcting the text, since the neuter pronoun would then agree with the “mystery” previously referred to.

“God” is simply the most logical and well attested reading here. I don’t expect Unitarians to agree, but one simply cannot deny the overwhelming evidence in favor of the traditional reading here. We then have a powerful testimony to the incarnation and dual nature of Christ. He is fully God, and he was manifest in the flesh, meaning he has a human nature. This is the common theme that we see with essentially all of these passages which refer to our Lord as “God”, they are all affirming his deity in the midst of speaking of him as human. We can then see how easily the doctrine of the two natures of Christ are deduced from the Holy Scriptures.

--

--