Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

Thus the Trinitarian translation of John 1:1 is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The corresponding Unitarian translation would be: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (JW Translation)

So which of these is correct? Are the Unitarians guilty of degrading Jesus and depriving him of the honor due to him as the Trinitarians allege; or are the Trinitarians guilty of idolatry as the Unitarians allege? Both degrading God and idolatry are serious enough sins for us to lay aside our pre-formed beliefs and seek the truth.

Before we look at John 1:1, it is necessary to make a few general observations applicable to all these twelve verses, and hence applicable to John 1:1 also. The first is that in the original Greek, there is no special capitalization. At the time the New Testament was written, Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters. The upper and lower case letters were not blended as we do today. In the Greek, the verses read:

When we write in English today, we make a distinction between "God" and "a god" by capitalizing the "G" in "God". But this distinction cannot be made on the basis of the Greek words. And this is not the only problem, which brings us to the second observation – the distinction cannot be even made on the basis of Greek grammar! Unitarians make much of the fact that in John 1:1, while the first THEON is with the definitive article TON, the second one has no definitive article before it:, and in fact, the definitive article is applied to LOGOS and not to THEOS:

EN ARCHEE EEN HO LOGOS KAI HO LOGOS EEN PROS TON THEON KAI THEOS EEN HO LOGOS

Translated literally and in all capitals, this would read:

IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD AND GOD WAS THE WORD

Thus the third "THE" is applied to God as its subject, implying that there is one unique God with whom the Word was, while the first, second and fourth "THE" have LOGOS as its subject implying that there was one unique LOGOS. But there is no definite article before the second "God" implying that this word is one of a class of many and hence should be translated "a god". There is good merit to this argument since the words occur in the same verse and the author would be doubly careful to draw the distinction. However it can be used only as a strengthening argument; it is not conclusive because the Greek words used in the New Testament for "God" or "a god" – THEOU, THEOO , THEOS, THEOIS, THEOI, THEOUS, THEON , THEION, THEE, with or without the definite articles HO, TON, TOO, TOU, are used both for "Almighty God" as well as "other gods", as can be seen from the following table:

The verses in which the reference is to "other gods" are:

In the verses Acts 7:43, 2 Cor 4:4, and Phil 3:19, even though the definite articles HO or TOU are present, the translators correctly don’t translate them as "God", but as "god". In fact 2 Cor 4:4 refers to the devil! And of course there are 316 instances where no definite article is used for "God." Thus the mere presence or absence of a definite article provides no help to a correct understanding of whether the reference is to "God" or "a god." The reason could be that most of the New Testament was written in "koine" or common Greek which may not necessarily be grammatically correct Greek! The purpose was to communicate clearly, and if clear communication was achieved, neither the writers nor the readers would have even noticed that the grammar was incorrect! Most of the readers were unlettered, unschooled people. "He is taller than me" is grammatically wrong English while "He is taller than I" is grammatically correct. But leave alone unschooled, unlettered men, even many post-graduates wouldn’t know it! "He is taller than me" is "koine" or common English, and if clear communication is achieved by that sentence, most of us couldn’t care less whether it’s grammatically correct or not.

So besides the wording, we can’t rely on Greek grammar too to help us here!

Then what’s left? If we can’t rely on Greek words or grammar here (something which is the first thing one goes to), then what’s left? What’s left is the most important thing – Context! "Context rules" is an oft-repeated axiom while doing Bible study and is certainly very true. And always so, for very good reasons. Much as many people like to use it, the Bible is not a group of sentences thrown together arbitrarily to make a hodge-podge of verses, to be pulled out and used conveniently as proof texts to prove their favorite fancies. The Bible is a complete whole, consisting of books which themselves are complete wholes – whether historical narratives or the poetical psalms, the prophetic books or the letters – they are all complete wholes in themselves. The books can be divided in passages and paragraphs, which focus on particular aspects, but taken as a whole, present a complete picture. Each sentence or verse has to be seen and understood in the context of its paragraph, each paragraph in the context of the passage it appears in, each passage in the context of the book it appears in, each book itself in the context of the entire Bible! "Context rules" because many a times, it is not possible to deduce the exact meaning of a word from itself because a word may have multiple meanings (just like "trunk" in English), plus the grammar also may not be of much help. But to make sense, a word HAS TO fit into the context of the sentence it is in, a sentence HAS TO fit in the paragraph it is in, a paragraph HAS TO fit in the section it is in, and a section HAS TO fit in the book it is in. In fact translators HAVE TO use context to determine the correct meaning (out of a possible multiple meanings) of a particular word at a particular place in the Bible.

In most cases, the correct meaning of a Hebrew/Greek word is obvious from the context, and its translation does not cause any problems. But not always! Sometimes, as in the case of the controversial translations of the verses above, the translation itself throws a flaming torch in a box of explosives! Which forces us to lay both the translations aside for the time being, keep our existing beliefs aside, and look afresh for ourselves which meaning of the two ("God" or "a god") provides a better fit in the context.

Summarizing these observations for the twelve verses,

1. The correct translations for these verses – whether "God" or "a god" – cannot be made on the basis of the Greek words alone because the Greek in the New Testament is in all capitals. The same words in all-caps were used for both "God" and "a god."
2. The correct translation cannot be made on the basis of Greek grammar also, because in some cases (Acts 7:43 and Phil 3:19) the definite articles appear for words which clearly mean "a god". In many cases (316 ones) the Greek word for "God" appears without the definite article. Plus most of the New Testament was written in common Greek which may not be grammatically correct just as common English may not be grammatically correct.
3. The correct translation has to be arrived at by looking at the context – the context of the sentence the word appears in, the context of the paragraph the sentence appears in, the context of the passage the paragraph appears in, and the context of the book the section appears in.

With these general observations applicable for all twelve verses clear, we can now turn our attention to John 1:1 and straightaway start looking at its context. In Greek, the verse reads

EN ARCHEE EEN HO LOGOS KAI HO LOGOS EEN PROS TON THEON KAI THEOS EEN HO LOGOS

Translated literally and in all capitals, this would read:

IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD AND GOD WAS THE WORD

Looking at its context, the verse is part of the opening paragraph (first two verses) of the book of John. Although paragraph markings are not a part of the original Greek, they are generally helpful devices. The paragraph is a part of the Prologue of the book of John (verses 1:1 to 1:18). A prologue is a preface or an introduction to the main body, its objective being to prepare the mind for what is to follow by giving a quick and brief overview of the themes that are going to be worked out in detail in the main body. Now when we read the rest of the book of John, we find that one of the most important themes presented is the pre-incarnate existence of Jesus as a person, a person who existed "with God" before he came in human form. Sure, Jesus is presented as a person having great glory, power and authority when he existed in that state, and who created the universe. But also, he is presented as a person who is clearly distinct from "God" (not just clearly distinct from "the Father," which he of course was as even Trinitarians agree, but distinct from "God" – note the italicized portions of the verses below), and he was "with God," not just "with the Father" and that he came "from God," not just "from the Father". These characteristics are clearly seen from the following verses (note especially the italicized portions).

But it’s not just the book of John which presents Jesus as a pre-incarnate person. This theme is presented in other books also –

These then, are the themes presented, especially by John – the pre-incarnate existence of Jesus as a person, a person who existed "with God" before he came in human form, a person having great glory, power and authority and who created the universe (hence a person who can appropriately be called "a god"), but a person who is also clearly distinct from "God" (not just clearly distinct from "the Father", but distinct from "God"). And if John 1:1 can be considered a neat, succint summary of these themes, then the translation "a god" fits in very bautifully. Even in the immediate context, it provides a better fit since the very next verse emphasizes the very same point – "He was with God in the beginning."

The second strong reason for translating the last part of the verse as "and the Word was a god" is logical. How can somebody "be with God" and "be God" at the same time? Please let’s not cover up with pious-sounding statements like "it’s the mystery of God – you have to take it by faith." Agreed, there are things in the Bible which are beyond our natural understanding. But the first rule of Bible interpretation, as any Bible teacher will tell you, is to take the natural, obvious meaning of a sentence, and if it makes good sense in its context, to accept it. This is because the Bible was written for people who were largely uneducated folk. Its purpose was to communicate the character and will of God so that people would come to know Him and walk in His ways. Just as a good communicator understands the level of his audience and tailors his language accordingly, God too communicated in simple direct words which simple people would understand easily. Hence if there is a simple, natural meaning of a sentence which fits well into its context, it is considered wise to accept it.

I am a simple person, and I cannot understand how Jesus can be "with God" and "be God" at the same time. That Jesus was "with God" (also corroborated by the very next verse, the rest of the book of John, and other books in the Bible), and was also "a god" (meaning a powerful being) at the same time requires no mental acrobatics to understand. I prefer to be like a child when it comes to the things of God. I ask the simple question, "Daddy, Daddy (Church Father, Church Father), How can Jesus be ‘with God’ and ‘be God’ at the same time?" and I get some mumbo-jumbo about ‘it’s the mystery of God, take it by faith.’ But unfortunately for "adults", children have one quality which can be embarrassing for them! Children can see through the cover-ups of adults, and have no hesitation in blurting out the truth, before they "grow up" to be spoilt by social niceties. Let’s not forget that it was the child who blurted out, "The Emperor has no clothes!" while the adults kept up the charade that nothing was wrong. "Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven"

The church has used the argument "it’s the mystery of God – you have to take it by faith" for hundreds of years to kill the simple, direct meaning of sentences in the Bible which make perfect sense and which even a child can understand. "It’s the mystery of God – you have to take it by faith" is a pious-sounding cover-up which cannot be accepted in cases where the simple, direct meanings make perfect sense, while the convulated meanings attached by the church make no sense.

Enough said about John1:1, it’s time to conclude about this very important and beautiful verse: I simply cannot accept the Trinitarian translation of this verse ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God") because

1. it makes no sense (how can Jesus be "with God" and "be God" at the same time?
2. It doesn’t fit into its immediate context (the prologue of John 1:1-18), nor in the entire book of John.

I prefer the Unitarian translation ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god") because

1. it makes perfect sense (Jesus can easily be "with God" and be "a god" at the same time) and does not require any mental acrobatics to make sense of it.
2. It fits very well into its immediate context (the prologue of John 1:1-18), in the entire book of John, and also in the rest of the Bible.

But before we move on, a word about "Logos." At the time of the first century, "Logos" was also used to mean the "wisdom" or the "plan" of God. Indeed, it has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like "reason," (thus "logic" is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a "word," "saying," "command" etc. William Tyndale translated "Logos" as "Reason" in his translation, and was persecuted by the church for it. Although I disagree with the church’s methods, I do agree with the church’s stand at this point that "Logos" in John refers to a person and not to an abstract principle. That meaning does not fit well in its context – both immediate and larger. In the immediate context, it is clear that the very next few verses are speaking of a person and not an abstract principle – "He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men." (1:2-4) is obviously talking about a person and not an abstract principle. And so also in the rest of the passage – "The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'" From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." (1:9-18)

Anyway, this verse does not say that Jesus was God. All it says is that Jesus made everything. Since that is quite possible even if Jesus was God’s first creation, it cannot be used to support the doctrine of the Trinity.

The NIV and NASB represent theologians who believe that the original text read "ho monogenes theos" = "the unique, or only begotten God," while the KJV is representative of theologians who believe that the original text was "ho monogenes huios" = "the only begotten Son." I am not an expert at manuscripts, and it really doesn’t matter. The important thing is the word "monogenees" which is present in all manuscripts and about which there is no dispute. The Greek word "monogenees" (Strong’s 3439) appears in nine places in the New Testament:

"Monogenees" is a derivative of two words: "mono" and "ginomai." "Mono," as we all know it, means "single" or "one and only." The Greek root word "ginomai" (Strong’s 1096) refers to "something that came into being, which was once not before." The English words generate, genes, genetic etc. are related. By definition, it means something that was not before. Since "monogenees" is used of Jesus in five of the above verses, Jesus was clearly not in existence at the time before he "came into being." This flies right in the face of the Trinitarian’s belief that Jesus is "eternal."

It doesn’t matter whether it’s "theos" or "huios" after "monogenees." Even if it is "theos", it has to be translated as "god" and not "God" (see notes under John 1:1) because of the "monogenees" since God cannot "come into being" and only "a god" can "come into being." In my Interlinear, the word after "monogenees" is in brackets and the verse reads:

THEON OUDEIS HEOORAKEN POOPOTE MONOGENEES HO OON EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS HE EXEEGEESATO

THEON = God

OUDEIS = no man/ no-one

HEOORAKEN = has seen

POOPOTE = at any time

MONOGENEES = only begotten

HO = which/ who

OON = is

EIS = in

TON = in

KOLPON = the bosom

TOU = of

PATROS = Father

HE = he

EXEEGEESATO = made known/ has unfolded

Thus I would translate it as:

and leave it at that. I would not get into discussions of the following kind, which I quote from a Unitarian defense without endorsing it (since I am no expert on such matters):

I leave it to the experts to get into such discussions; for me, the presence of the word "monogenees" settles the issue.

ALLA KAI PATERA IDION ELEGEN TON THEON ISON <HEAUTON> POIOON TOO THOOO

ALLA = but

KAI = also

PATERA = father

IDION = his own

ELEGEN = said/ call

TON THEON = God

ISON = similar

<HEAUTON> = <himself>

POIOON = was making

TOO THEOO = with God

The word "heauton" (himself) is actually not there in many manuscripts. Even if it is there in some others, it can be as correctly translated as "him" By skipping it, the phrase gets translated as:

(literally) but – also – father his own – calling – God – similar - <him> - was making – God.

(gramatically) "but also calling God his own father, he was making <him> similar to God."

Making similar who? Not himself, but his own father (his human father)! That makes far more sense than "by calling God his own father, he was making himself equal with God." How can calling God his "Father" make him similar to God? By calling God his father, he would make his (human) father similar to God. Jesus was of course not doing any such thing, it would only be a misunderstanding on the Jews’ part. More likely, in the enraged state they were in, it would provide another reason to kill him, whether right or wrong.That is exactly what happened as vs. 18 says: "For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father."

Jesus was of course, used to referring to God as "his Father" and had used the expression plenty of times before even in public, but it was mainly with the people of Galilee, who were used to it understood it well. But John 5:17 is the first time that Jesus uses the expression "my Father" with the Jerusalem Jews. Till then, they were persecuting him because he was doing things on the Sabbath they thought shouldn’t be done (5:16). But for the first time, they hear the words "my father" from Jesus’ lips, they think that he is making his (human) father similar to God, and it provides another reason for them to try to kill Jesus.

The Jews took statements far more literally than we imagine, and Jesus’ spiritual statements escaped them completely. When Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days," the Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" (John 2:19-20) Even his disciples understood what he meant only after he was raised from the dead (2:22). When Jesus said to Nicodemus, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again," he asked, "How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" (John 3:3-4) When Jesus said to the woman at the well, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water," she asked "Sir, you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water?" (John 4:10-11) When Jesus said, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:51-52) Even the reaction of many of his disciples as, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60) When Jesus said, "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free," the Jews answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" (John 8:32-33). Spiritual slavery was a concept alien to them. John 10:6 says about Jesus’ statements in 10:2-5 regarding the sheep and the shepherd, "Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them." John 11:13 says that "Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep." Even to his disciples, Jesus had to explain the parable of the weeds (Mt. 13:36-43) and clean and unclean things (Mt. 15:15-20).

The Jews took statements far more literally than we imagine, and Jesus’ spiritual statements escaped them completely. So when Jesus used the words "my father" for the first time with them in 5:17, they naturally thought he was referring to his natural father.

So how does saying "My father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working" amount to equating God with his (human) father? The context and their mindset when they heard this throws light. The context is that the Jews had caught the healed man walking with his mat on a Sabbath (5:9-10) and immediately pounced on him, saying "It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat." They came to know later on that it was Jesus who had made him well and told him to pick up his mat and walk. And because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him (John 5:16). And in this mindset, Jesus says, "My father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." That’s like throwing a flaming torch into a box of explosives! His father working on Sabbath day! Only God was always supposed to be working! Having never heard Jesus refer to God as "his Father" before, they naturally assumed that he was talking about his human father.

In the discourse 5:19-47, Jesus uses the words "my Father" many times in ways that would help make it clear to the Jews that he was referring to his Heavenly Father i.e. God, and not his human father; mixing up the words "my Father" with things only God can do such as raising the dead (5:21), having life in himself (5:26), having all authority (5:27), the one to whom all must give an account (5:45).

I am aware that translating the verse as "but also calling God his own father, he was making him similar to God" is not according to the generally accepted translations but I would not press my point any further because it is secondary to the main point and might lead to unnecessary waste of time. For argument sake, let’s assume that the verse is indeed saying, "but also calling God his own father, he was making himself equal to God." The important question is: Is Jesus actually making himself equal to God, or did the Jews misunderstand him to be doing so? That is not clear from this particular passage, and in a sense, it is not even important what the Jews understood his claim to be. What is important is what Jesus claimed for himself. and in a later passage (10:31-36), Jesus makes it clear to them that he was not claiming himself to be God. This increases the probability that actually it was the Jews who had misunderstood him. Also possible is that the Jews, who were in an enraged state of mind and were looking for ways to kill him, found it a convenient ruse, and purposely did not bother to ascertain the truth.

What about the statement that Jesus gives "life" to the world? Isn’t only God capable of giving "life"? And if Jesus gives life, and if only God is capable of giving life, then doesn’t that make Jesus God if both the statements are to be true?

Not necessarily. What if Jesus was the first (and only) person created by God, and then God gave him the power and authority to create everything else? That would still make both the statements true without Jesus having to be God. That in fact is what I believe the Bible states as will be clear from other pages. By calling him "monogenees" (only created) in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18 and 1 John 4:9, the Bible says that Jesus was the first (and only) person created by God. The following verses then say that God then created everything else through him. These verses draw a clear distinction between "God" and Jesus ("the Lord"):

When this verse is understood in its context, it is a powerful testimony of how closely Jesus walked with his Father. There is nothing in the context that would in any way indicate that the word "beginning" refers to the beginning of time. Jesus had just fed the five thousand, and they said, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world" (6:14). Right away that tells you that the people did not think Jesus was God, but a prophet. The people wanted to make Jesus king, but only because he filled their stomachs (6:15 and 26). When he challenged them to believe in him (6:29), they grumbled (6:41). As Jesus continued to teach, the Jews began to argue among themselves (6:52), and even some of Jesus’ disciples began to grumble at the commitment Jesus was asking from them (6:60 and 61). Jesus, knowing his disciples were upset with his teaching, did not back off, but rather pressed on, even saying that he knew some would not believe (6:64). The result of this discussion was that some of his disciples left him (6:66). Since some disciples left him after this teaching, it would be easy to say that perhaps Jesus acted unwisely by pressing on with his difficult teaching. Not so. Scripture reminds us that Christ knew from the beginning who would not believe, and even who would betray him. Thus, he also knew that his hard words would not drive any of the true sheep away. The "beginning" being referred to here is the beginning of his ministry. When he started gathering disciples and apostles and teaching them, God showed him by revelation who would believe and who would betray him.

The purpose of the Gospel of John is clearly stated in 20:31: "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is ("God"? No!) the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." In light of the explicitly stated purpose of the Gospel of John, teaching that unless one believes in Christ’s "deity," he will die in his sins, is particularly unwarranted.

• firstly that it indicates the existence of Jesus before Abraham,
• secondly that Jesus uses the words "I am" for himself, which only God used, and
• thirdly, at this statement the Jews picked up stones to stone him (8:59), an act carried out for blasphemy.

Firstly, the verse does indicate the existence of Jesus before Abraham. But as the note on John 6:33 shows, the pre-existence of Jesus is not the same as his being God. The picture that emerges from taking all the relevant passages in the Bible is that Jesus was God’s first (and only) creation, and then God created everything else through him.

The second reason, that Jesus used the words "I am" of himself, something which only God did, is simply not true. It appears true because of the way translations are done into English. There are actually two translation problems. The first is that when "ego eimi" is used by others or of others, it is not translated as "I am." Only when Jesus uses it of himself is it translated as "I am." The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and according to the English translations he said,"I am the man," (NIV) or "I am he." (KJV) But the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., "ego eimi" (John 9:9). Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as "I am" (Acts 26:29). When Jesus warned his disciples not be deceived, he used the same phrase (in Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8 and John 13:19) yet there it is translated as "I am he." In Matt 26:22 and 26:25, when the disciples ask Jesus whether it was they, they used the same words "ego eimi." No one would say that the disciples were trying to deny that they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." "I am" was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God.

The second translation problem is that the same English words "I am" is used to translate the Hebrew phrase "hayeh" of Exodus 3:14 and "ego eimi" of Greek, whereas their meanings are quite different! While the Greek phrase in John does mean "I am," the Hebrew word "hayah" means to "exist" and the Hebrew phrase "ehyeh sher ehyeh" in Exodus 3:14 gets literally translated "I exist that (or because) I exist" meaning "I am he whose existence is not because of someone else" or "is not dependent on the existence of anyone else." Everyone else’s existence depends on God, only God exists "by himself." However, the Greek "ego eimi" can closest be translated as "I exist" in the context of this verse. Nothing more. At the most the Jesus could be claiming in John 8:58b is that he existed before Abraham. Which is not the same as claiming to be God.

The third reason why Trinitarians use this verse to support the belief in the Trinity is that at this statement the Jews picked up stones to stone him (8:59), an act carried out for blasphemy. Now it is important to distinguish between what Jesus claimed for himself and what the Jews understood (or misunderstood) his claim to be, either because of the words used or/and because of the state of mind they were in – gripped by rage and wanting to kill Jesus using one or the other excuse. The same necessity for distinction came up in John 5:18b, it is here, and it will come up again in John 10:33. As in 5:18b, here again, it is not important what the Jews understood his claim to be, what is important is what Jesus really claimed. In his reply to them in John 10:34-36, Jesus would clarify to them that if they were thinking that he was claiming to be God, their understanding was wrong, and that he was not claiming to be God; indeed he was claiming just the opposite.

"Oneness" does not only mean oneness of identity, it also means oneness of spirit, purpose, desires, methods etc. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "he who plants and he who waters are one" (1 Cor. 3:8 - KJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being." Furthermore, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as "he who plants and he who waters have one purpose." Why translate the phrase as "are one" in one place, but as "have one purpose" in another place? In this case, translating the same phrase in two different ways obscures the clear meaning of Christ’s statement in John 10:30: Christ always did the Father’s will; he and God have "one purpose."

John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God’s children "one." The context of John 10:30 shows conclusively that Jesus was referring to the fact that he had the same purpose as God did. Jesus was speaking about his ability to keep the "sheep," the believers, who came to him. He said that no one could take them out of his hand and that no one could take them out of his Father’s hand. Then he said that he and the Father were "one," i.e., had one purpose, which was to keep and protect the sheep.

I have two children – Ashish the elder son and Isha, the younger daughter. One day, I know there is a box of sweets in the kitchen having ten pieces. In the evening, I open it to find that there is only one little piece left! Knowing that my wife would have taken at the most one, I ask my son, "Ashish, how many pieces have you eaten?" "Three" he answers. "What?" I shout at him, "You know you are not supposed to take more than one! How can you take three?" "But dad, Isha has taken five!" he answers. "Isha!" I shout immediately.

This is of course a hypothetical example to illustrate the logic of Jesus’ reply. For my son’s logic to be valid, what he was claiming for himself had to be less than what he claimed for Isha. "Why are you shouting at me dad? If you are shouting at me, first shout at Isha, she has done a more serious thing." "Why do you accuse me of blasphemy? If you are accusing me of blasphemy, first accuse those ‘to whom the word of God came’ since they are called ‘gods’; I am only saying that I am the Son of God." For Jesus’ logic in 10:34-36 to be valid, what he was claiming for himself had to be less than what was claimed for "those to whom the word of God came." In 10:35, Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 in which "those to whom the Word of God came" are called "gods." The word "god" in the Bible is also used of powerful people and men with authority on earth (see note on Gen 1:1) and especially chiefs and judges. They are definitely not "God" and the people refereed to in Psalm 82:6, whoever they are, are definitely not "God." They are only "gods."

Now for Jesus’ answer to be meaningful, he had to be claiming something for himself which was LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO what was claimed by Scripture for the people who were called "gods" and "sons of the Most High" in Psalm 82:6. Otherwise it is a meaningless answer. Psalm 82 is actually a denunciation of the corrupt judges in Israel who oppress the people. Asaph, the writer, saw much bribery and corruption in the government of his day and shows God judging His judges. It is a rebuke to those who are pledged to uphold the Mosaic law by their office, but yet have trampled upon it for their own selfish ends. Instead of living righteously, these unjust judges had shown favor to wicked persons who were powerful and wealthy. Amazingly, these wicked judges are called "gods"! Yet not so amazingly, because anyone who had great power and authority was likened to a "god". In Exodus 7:1, God said to Moses, "See, I have made you like a god to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet." The wicked judges in Psalm 82 were also called "sons of the Most High" in verse 6 because they did resemble God in one way – they had the power and authority over the Israelites to judge them!

For Jesus’ answer in John 10:34-36 to be meaningful, he had to be claiming for himself something less than was claimed for these judges in Psalm 82. And it is no one’s case that the wicked judges in Psalm 82 were being equated with God when they were being called "gods" and "sons of the Most High!"

Not only so, Jesus’ answer is actually an answer designed to shut the mouths of people who were skilled in legal arguments. It was not an emotional answer appealing to the sentiments of people. It was an answer which would stand in a court of law! And indeed it was this legally sound counter-question of Jesus, which did shut the mouths of the Jewish leaders. Till this point, we can see the confrontation between Jesus and the Jewish leaders increasing, actually feel the tension rising, as the Jewish leaders try to trap Jesus with their questioning. But after this answer, they stopped questioning him, stopped trying to find a reason to accuse him, and only try to kill him without reason. That is a behavior typical of people who have lost all valid reasons to accuse. The next we see of them is in 11:46-48, having given up all attempts at confrontation. From that day on they plotted to take his life (11:53). So for this legally sound counter-question to be valid, Jesus had to be claiming for himself something LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO what was claimed by Scripture for the people who were called "gods" and "sons of the Most High" in Psalm 82:6. And all that was claimed in Psalm 82:6 for them, was that they had power and authority from God. So if they were not stoned for being called "gods" and "sons of the Most High" by "Scripture which cannot be broken," even though they were wicked, on what basis were the Jewish leaders stoning him, since all he called himself was "son of God?" This was the counter-question which shut their mouths (but not convict their hearts).

That was indeed all that Jesus was claiming for himself as he makes explicit in the last part of verse 36: that he was the son of God. And for his logic to be valid when he asks, "Why do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’", his meaning of "Son of God" has to be less than the meaning of "gods" in Psalm 82:6.

We can now look at the statement in John 5:18 that "Jesus was making himself equal to God." As said there, the really important issue is what Jesus claimed himself to be, not what the Jews understood him saying, for their understanding could have been wrong. Jesus’ correction in John 10:34-36 makes it clear that if they understood his claim to be of equality with God, then their understanding was indeed wrong. An equally likely possibility is that the Jews were on the lookout for some excuse or the other to kill Jesus (a desire running through the book of John as seen in 5:18, 7:19, 7:25, 8:22, 8:37, 8:40, 12:10 etc.), and such a meaning would have provided them with a ready excuse. So they would be ever ready to ascribe such a meaning to the term "Son of God". This also explains the High Priest’s haste in tearing his clothes and ascribing blasphemy to Jesus’ words in Matthew 26:63-65, Mark 14:61-62, and Luke 22:69-71.

When used in the sense of "in God," or "in Christ," the word "in" refers to a close communion, a tight fellowship. This verse can only be used to show the close communion between the Father and Jesus, not that Jesus was God.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (KJV)

This verse is a strong proof that there is no Trinity. This event occurred after the resurrection, and Jesus said to Mary that he was ascending to "my God, and your God." Jesus’ statement makes it clear that "God" is both his God and Mary’s God. If Jesus is God, he cannot have a God, for by definition if someone has a "God," he cannot be "God." If Jesus had a "God" as he said, then he cannot be part of that God. This is especially clear in this verse, because he and Mary have the same God. If he were God, then he would have been Mary’s God, too. He would not have said that he was going up to her God, because "her God," i.e., Jesus himself, was standing right there. One of the most recognized principles of Bible interpretation, and one that is accepted by conservative scholars from all denominations, is that to be properly understood, the Bible must be read in a literal, "normal," or "standard" way, i.e., the words of the Word should be understood the way we understand them in everyday speech, unless figurative language is demanded by the context. Everyone understands the phrase, "my God." Christ used it both before and after his resurrection. He called to "my God" when he was on the Cross. He told Mary he was going to ascend to "my God." He spoke of "my God" to both the churches of Sardis and Philadelphia (Rev. 3:2 and 12). It is hard to see how Jesus can be assumed to be co-equal and co-eternal with God when he calls Him, "my God." The Bible simply means what it says in this verse: God is indeed both our God and Jesus’ God.