Is Jesus God?

John 1: the Word who was God became flesh

John opens his account this way:

Both halves of that sentence stand. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. Neither half is allowed to cancel the other.

John goes on to say that the Word made everything that was made, and he names the world itself:

Then he says that this same Word became a man and lived among those who saw him:

And he names him:

John the Baptist then points to Jesus as the one he has been speaking of:

These are steps in one account about one person: the Word who was God, who made all things, who became flesh, and who is named Jesus Christ. The link is not made by gathering the word "Word" from unrelated places. It is John's own continuous telling.

John 20: Thomas speaks to Jesus

After the resurrection, Jesus speaks to Thomas, Thomas answers him, and Jesus answers Thomas:

Thomas says both titles "unto him", to Jesus. Nothing in the passage shows Thomas turning to speak to someone else. Nor is it treated as a mistaken cry: Jesus calls Thomas's answer belief. John then says why he wrote:

Calling Jesus "the Son of God" there does not take back what Thomas said to him. Earlier in the same chapter, Jesus calls the Father his God:

The chapter holds both statements, and both stand.

Hebrews 1: God speaks to the Son as God, and as the Maker

Hebrews begins:

So the Son is the one through whom God made the worlds. He holds all things up, he purged sins, and he sits at the right hand of the Majesty, who is distinct from him.

The writer then compares the Son with the angels, through a series of passages from Scripture:

Verse 8 is spoken "unto the Son", and it calls him God. Verses 10 to 12 carry on the same address: no new hearer is named between verse 8 and verse 10. Only in verse 13 does the writer return to the angels. The words about laying the foundation of the earth also match what the writer said of the Son in verse 2. And in verse 9, the Son who is called God also has God as his God. The writer puts both side by side.

The passages Hebrews quotes were read whole in their own chapters.

Psalm 45 is a royal song, with blessing, anointing, a queen, and a daughter addressed:

Because this is a song about a king, a title in it could not, on its own, carry the whole weight. But Hebrews itself says who is spoken to: the Son.

Psalm 102 is a prayer in distress to the LORD. His years last for ever, while the one praying has his days cut short and creation passes away:

The LORD says the same of himself in Isaiah:

Hebrews takes these words about the lasting Maker of earth and heaven and applies them to the Son. That is more than a ruler being given an exalted title.

The other quoted passages were read in their settings too. Hebrews 1:7 comes from a psalm praising the Creator's works:

Hebrews 1:5 joins a king's account of the LORD's decree, given while other kings oppose him, with the LORD's promise to David through Nathan:

The promise to David carries a real "if" about discipline. Quoting its words about sonship does not say that the Son ever did the wrong that "if" speaks of.

Hebrews 1:13 comes from a royal oracle, which Jesus also quoted:

That oracle keeps a distinction between the LORD who speaks and the Lord who is spoken to.

Where Hebrews 1:6 comes from is taken up under "What this reading leaves open", below.

Readings that fall

Some readings would make a verse false, and so they fall.

That Jesus is merely a man who was given the title "God". Scripture does use "god" for someone given a role on God's behalf:

That use is real. But it does not cover the Son through whom the worlds were made (Hebrews 1:2), or the words to the lasting Maker that Hebrews speaks to him (Hebrews 1:10). Nor does it cover Thomas's words to Jesus, which Jesus calls belief (John 20:28, John 20:29). This is not what Scripture teaches.

That Jesus is the Father himself, so that his praying and his being sent only look like a relationship. Jesus truly prays to the Father, and speaks of glory he had with him:

This is not what Scripture teaches.

That Jesus is a second, independent true God alongside the LORD. The LORD rules out any other God:

This is not what Scripture teaches.

That the Son was the first thing God created, and everything else was then made through him. This needs an exception that the text does not contain. John says nothing that was made was made without him (John 1:3). The section "Maker, not made", below, shows this in full. This is not what Scripture teaches.

The answer

Scripture teaches this. Jesus, the Son, the Word made flesh, is truly God. He is not the Father. He is not another, independent God. He is not merely a created being who stands in for God. He truly became a man. The Father remains his God, and the Son is truly related to the Father as the one sent and the one who obeys.

This answer rests on what the text says, not only on other readings failing. John says the Word was God and became flesh. Thomas speaks to Jesus as God, and Jesus calls that belief. Hebrews speaks to the Son as God and gives him the words that belong to the Maker of earth and heaven.

The same reading also holds, just as firmly, that there is one God, that the Son's obedience and subjection to the Father are real, and that the limits of his human life are real. Each of these is shown below. Scripture states all of them. How they fit together on the inside, this reading did not find, and it does not invent an explanation. That limit does not make the question itself unsettled.

No detail of anyone's own situation is needed to answer this question.

There is one God

Moses gave Israel this declaration, inside a command to love and obey the LORD and to turn from other gods:

Jesus affirmed it, and approved the scribe who agreed:

When Satan tempted him, Jesus answered from the same chapter of Deuteronomy:

In Isaiah, the LORD who creates, saves and foretells is set against gods that people make. He rules out any other God, and any other maker beside him:

Isaiah 44:8 rules out another God, not only some particular nation's idol. These passages give no room for a lesser true God existing on his own beside the Father.

Other passages say the same thing in their own settings. Malachi uses God as the one Creator of all as a reason not to betray one another. Paul uses God's oneness to show that Jew and Gentile are justified alike. James says that believing God is one is right, but is not enough on its own:

Paul sets the living and true God against idols, and names his Son separately:

These passages support God's oneness. On their own, they do not settle how the Son is related to the Father.

The Father is the only true God, and the Son is distinct from him

Jesus prays to the Father:

This is one of the strongest passages against a careless "yes", and it is kept in full. The Father is the only true God, not one true God among several. Jesus Christ is the one he sent, and is named separately. Yet in the same prayer Jesus speaks of the glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5). So the prayer does not present Jesus as a man whose whole existence began when he was sent.

John 1:1 already holds these two things together: the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Calling the Son God says what the text says of him. It does not turn the sent Son into the Father he prays to.

Paul is just as strong:

Paul calls the Father the one God, and Jesus Christ the one Lord. He says all things are "of" the Father and "by" Jesus. He makes this distinction while rejecting rival gods and lords. Neither clause puts Jesus among the things that were made. Elsewhere, Scripture plainly places all made things in relation to him as their Maker and the one who holds them together (John 1:3; and Colossians 1:16-17, quoted below). So two opposite mistakes are ruled out:

• Saying that, because the Father is "the one God", the Son must be a false god or a mere creature. That would make John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17 and Thomas's words in John 20:28 false.
• Saying that Paul's distinction between the Father and the Son is not real. That would make Paul's own sentence false.

Paul draws the same distinction when he urges unity:

He also names the man who stands between God and people:

At Jesus's baptism, the voice from heaven speaks of the Son as someone other than the speaker:

When Jesus tells Philip that seeing him is seeing the Father, he explains what he means straight away, through their dwelling in one another and the Father's works:

That explanation does not erase the difference between them. Nor does it say that anyone looking at Jesus saw the Father as a separate figure with a body. Jesus also says:

So the reading holds only these points together: there is one God; the Father is God; the Son is truly called God and shares in the creating that belongs to God alone; the Father sends and the Son is sent. A second, independent God is ruled out. The Father and the Son being one and the same speaker is ruled out. No account of how this unity works on the inside is offered, because none was read in these verses. That limit does not weaken what the text says outright: the Son is God.

He took flesh and blood, and died

John says the Word became flesh (John 1:14). That tells the reader that what is said of his life in the flesh is about a real bodily life.

Paul describes the same Christ Jesus as being in the form of God, taking the form of a servant, becoming a man, obeying even to death, and then being exalted by God. Paul says this to urge his readers to be humble:

None of it can be dropped: not the form of God at the start, not the obedience, and not the name God gave afterwards. The words about every knee bowing are related to the LORD's oath in Isaiah:

Hebrews explains why he took flesh and blood. He suffered death and was made like his brothers so that he could be their saving high priest:

Hebrews 2:9 applies to Jesus a psalm about mankind and the rule God gave it:

Hebrews 2:12 and Hebrews 2:13 quote a sufferer who was rescued and praises God, and the prophet's trust in the LORD with the children the LORD gave him. Both were read in their settings:

The Gospels record a real human life. Jesus grew tired:

He prayed with strong crying and tears, and learned obedience through what he suffered. The prayer in Hebrews 5 is addressed to "him that was able to save him from death", who is distinct from the Son:

The priesthood Hebrews speaks of rests on the LORD's oath:

Hebrews 7 likens Melchisedec to the Son. The reading does not turn that likeness into a claim that Melchisedec and Jesus are the same person.

In the garden, Jesus asked for the cup to be taken away, and gave his will over to the Father's. This is a real prayer with a real will in it, not a performance:

On the cross he prayed in the words of a psalm:

That psalm's opening cry does not replace the trust and praise that follow later in it. Then he died:

The apostles preached him as a man, truly dead and raised by God, and as the man through whom God will judge the world:

John makes his coming in the flesh part of the true confession:

His being a man is part of the answer to the question, not a qualification set against it.

That being God means Jesus was not really a man, did not truly suffer, or did not die. This makes Hebrews 2:14 false, with its plain statement of what he shared and why. No explanation that he only seemed to be a man covers his sharing in flesh and blood, or his death. This is not what Scripture teaches.

That Jesus first became God as a reward after his death. Philippians separates his exaltation (Philippians 2:9) from the condition he was in before he took the form of a servant (Philippians 2:6). John places the Word as God before the world was made (John 1:1, John 1:3). His exaltation is real, but it is not when he first existed, or when he was first God. This is not what Scripture teaches.

He does nothing of himself, yet does what the Father does

Jesus said he acts from the Father and seeks the Father's will. These words must not be turned into a claim that he acted on his own. In the same breath, he claims works that belong to God:

He depends on the Father. Yet whatever the Father does, the Son does too. He gives life to whom he will. He is to be honoured as the Father is honoured. He has life in himself, as the Father's gift. Scripture states the dependence and the reach of his works together.

The same holds in John 6. He came down from heaven, and he lives by the Father:

When he washed his disciples' feet, he knew the Father had given all things into his hands. He accepted the titles they gave him. He still did a servant's work, and he spoke of the one sent and the one who sends:

The apostles say God anointed him, God raised him, he received from the Father, and God made him Lord and Christ. They pray to God about him as God's anointed:

After rising, Jesus said his authority was given to him:

Calling him God does not permit turning his obedience into independence.

"My Father is greater than I"

Jesus said it plainly:

He said it when telling his disciples he was going to the Father, and why they should rejoice. The same chapter speaks of his praying to the Father and obeying him:

Jesus himself puts "greater" beside service, and speaks of the kingdom the Father appointed to him:

The original word behind "greater" in John 14:28 is used elsewhere in more than one way. In Romans it is the word for "elder", in an oracle quoted from Genesis:

That comparison shows only that the word alone cannot say in what respect one is greater. It draws no conclusion about either child.

So "greater" is real. Philippians 2 gives positive grounds for his truly taking a servant's place. That does not permit rewriting "greater" as "equal in every respect". Equally, "greater" does not say "created", "a false god", or "never God". Taking it to rule out every statement that he is God would make John 1:1 and John 20:28 false. The reading affirms that the Father is greater, and rejects that added step. Luke 22 does not show that his relation to the Father ends when his earthly service ends. 1 Corinthians 15, below, rules that out.

God is the head of Christ, and Christ is God's

Paul says it twice:

These are further strong passages against any "yes" that would make the Son independent of the Father, or deny the order between them. Their settings concern conduct under headship, and boasting about human ministers. They do not say Christ is a created thing. The same headship sentence speaks of man and woman, without saying one is less human than the other. So headship shows a real order, not by itself a different kind of being. No full theory of headship is needed to keep this fact.

At the end, the Son is subject to the Father

This is not only about the days before the cross. Paul looks to the end:

Paul expressly leaves the Father out of the "all things" put under the Son. The Father's supremacy in this relation is not denied. Nor does the passage say that the Son then stops being God, any more than it says he stops being the Son.

The Father is his God, even after he rose

Jesus called the Father his God after his resurrection (John 20:17). Paul's prayer and the risen Lord's own words in Revelation say the same, and the exalted Jesus receives from God:

This cannot be put aside as something Jesus said only before he rose.

That the Father is not really greater, or that the Son's subjection ended when he rose. This makes John 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 15:28 false. A right "yes" carries neither denial. This is not what Scripture teaches.

That having a God means the Son cannot truly be called God. Hebrews 1:8 and Hebrews 1:9 say both, about the Son, side by side. This is not what Scripture teaches.

A reading that limits all his subjection to his earthly life is false, and so is a reading that being God leaves no room for real obedience or subjection.

Colossians 1

Paul names the Son and then describes him:

"Firstborn" in verse 15 is followed at once by "For", which explains it. All things in heaven and on earth, seen and unseen, including the powers, were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and they hold together by him. The aim is that he should have first place in all things. He is also "firstborn from the dead".

To read "firstborn" as "first creature", an exception has to be added to these words about creation, and to John 1:3. Reading it as his priority and supremacy over creation follows the explanation the passage actually gives.

Why this does not rest on counting the word "all"

The reading checked whether "all things" always means everything without exception. It does not:

There, "all things" takes its reach from what Paul is talking about. So the mere absence of words like "all other things" would not, by itself, prove anything. The created-Son reading is still ruled out, on firmer grounds:

• John 1:3 adds a negative clause: nothing that was made was made without him.
• John 1:10 names the world itself.
• Colossians 1:16 names heaven and earth, and the seen and unseen powers.
• Hebrews 1:10 gives the Son the founding of earth and heaven.

These leave no room to shrink "all things" to some later group, or to the things made after the Word. The line Scripture draws runs between the Maker through whom things came to be, and the things that were made.

Two more steps keep this in balance. Creation by the Son is not creation apart from the Father:

Isaiah 44:24 rules out another, independent creator. John 1:3 gives the further reason against making the Son a created tool: if the Son were made, the one through whom everything made came to be would himself be among the things made through him, and the text states no such self-making and no such exception.

So the reading that the Son was the first thing God created, through whom only the rest were made is not what Scripture teaches, as stated above.

What "firstborn" means elsewhere

The reading did not claim that "firstborn" always means rank without birth. The same original word is used for a mother's firstborn child:

It is used for the firstbegotten in Hebrews 1:6, and for him as the first raised from the dead:

It is used for the firstborn among many brothers, for the firstborn in the Passover, and for the church of the firstborn:

These are different relations, and each passage shows which one it means. None of them makes "firstborn" a fixed claim to be the first creature. The church's title of "firstborn" does not give its members the Son's work of creating heaven and earth.

The psalm about David is a comparison of meaning, not a claim that the Hebrew and the Greek are the same word. There, being made firstborn is explained as being higher than the kings of the earth:

Colossians itself gives the main explanation of its own word.

"The beginning of the creation of God"

The risen Lord calls himself this, in a message that commands the church at Laodicea to repent:

The original word for "beginning" is used for beginnings in time, for rulers and powers, and even for corners and an angel's "estate":

In another vision, the one on the throne calls himself "the beginning and the end", and that title plainly does not mean a created thing:

The word alone does not choose between these uses. What rules out "first created thing" here are John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-18, and Hebrews 1:2 and Hebrews 1:10-12. Read with them, the meaning is that creation has its beginning through him, and that he stands before it and over it. The reading does not claim that a dictionary was supplied for this word, or that Revelation 3:14 alone would prove this.

He was with the Father before the world

Jesus spoke of glory he had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5). He spoke of going back up to where he had been:

He spoke of coming from the Father and going back to him:

When his opponents questioned his age, he said:

That passage, read with its dispute over Abraham and the attempt to stone him, supports his existing before his birth. The reading does not rest this on matching the English words "I am" with other passages.

John also writes of the life that was with the Father, and was then heard, seen and handled:

A check: God's plans can be spoken of before they happen

The reading tested this more carefully than by the tense of the verbs. Scripture does speak of things as done before they happen. God calls Abraham a father of many nations while the nations are still promised:

Romans 8 speaks of glory still to come, and also says believers have been "glorified":

Peter separates being foreordained before the world from being made known in the last times:

Revelation uses "from the foundation of the world" with the book of life:

Revelation 17:8 plainly ties "the foundation of the world" to names written in the book. Whichever words that phrase attaches to in Revelation 13:8, it cannot move the crucifixion to before his birth and death as John 19 tells them. No teaching about any particular person being chosen is drawn from these verses.

So the argument that any mention of someone before the world proves that person was there, alive and acting, fails, and the reading does not use it. Jesus also speaks of the Father's love for him "before the foundation of the world":

That the Word was only an impersonal plan, and Jesus did not exist before his earthly life. A plan can account for a purpose existing before it is carried out, and for a sure future spoken of as done. It does not account for everything together: Jesus asking for glory he had with the Father before the world (John 17:5), speaking of going back up to where he was before (John 6:62), and of coming from the Father and returning to him (John 16:28); and the world actually being made through the Word before he was made known (John 1:3, John 1:10); and the eternal life that was with the Father being heard and handled, with fellowship named with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:1-3). Together these give positive support to his personal existence before his birth. The foreordination passages do not say he existed only as a plan. Adding "only" would turn a statement of purpose into a denial it does not contain. This is not what Scripture teaches.

Christ in Israel's wilderness history

Paul names Christ in Israel's earlier history:

The events behind these were read in their own chapters:

Numbers records that the people spoke against God and Moses, and the LORD sent the serpents. Paul's words strengthen the conclusion that Christ is more than a man who first existed at his birth. The "spiritual Rock" is kept as the figure Paul makes it, not a claim that Jesus is a physical stone. Paul's point is how the Corinthians should behave. His use of the wilderness example does not make the Father and the Son one and the same speaker, and it does not make Moses the LORD.

These passages add support. Each is read with its limits.

The fullness of the Godhead in him bodily

Those made complete in him are set apart from him, their head. This verse supports the answer, read together with the plain statements that he is God and the statements that all things were made through him. It is not a test that would work on its own, because believers are also spoken of as filled with God's fullness (see "Words that do not prove it on their own", below).

The Lamb honoured with the one on the throne

Every creature gives the same honour to the one on the throne and to the Lamb. Those who give it are distinct from the two who receive it. The Lamb is also distinct from the one whose book he takes: shared honour does not erase that distinction. The Lamb was slain and redeemed people to God by his blood.

The risen Jesus was worshipped, and Stephen, dying, prayed to him:

Matthew records that some doubted, and that Jesus said his authority was given to him (Matthew 28:18). Those words stay with the record of worship. Others refused worship given to them (see below). That contrast supports the answer, but does not replace the direct testimony.

God's church, bought with his own blood

Paul gives this to the Ephesian elders as the reason to care for the flock. It adds positive testimony that ties God to the self-giving known elsewhere as Christ's blood:

Revelation 1:5 speaks of the same blood. Acts 20:28 must be read with the Word's real flesh. It must not be turned into a denial that God is a Spirit, or a claim that the Father was the one crucified:

John also writes of God's love shown in a life laid down. This supports the self-giving of divine love, without cancelling the flesh and blood Hebrews 2 speaks of:

Emmanuel, "God with us"

The angel names the child and his purpose, and Matthew says his birth fulfils Isaiah:

Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 8 were read whole: the threat to King Ahaz, the near sign about two kings, the child, and the later words to Immanuel:

The name supports God's presence in this birth. A divine name on its own would not prove the whole conclusion.

The child called "The mighty God"

The very next chapter uses "the mighty God" for the LORD, to whom the remnant returns. Moses uses it for the LORD too:

So "mighty God" cannot be put down as a lesser kind of god. The Hebrew word behind "God" in that title is also used for human "power" and for "gods". The word alone does not define the title; its use in Isaiah 9 and Isaiah 10 does:

The angel ties Jesus to David's throne and an endless reign:

Luke 1:35 gives the reason he is called the Son of God at his birth. It does not say that was when he first existed. Matthew applies Isaiah's words about light in Galilee to Jesus's ministry:

The links are the son, David's throne, the endless kingdom, and the setting Matthew expressly applies, not just a name that sounds similar. The title "The everlasting Father" does not permit erasing Jesus's relation to the Father he prays to in John 17. The reading keeps the title as written, without adding a meaning for "Father" that it did not check.

The way of the LORD

Isaiah calls the way to be prepared the way of the LORD, a highway for God. The Gospels apply this to John the Baptist as the voice, and to Jesus as the one coming:

This ties his coming to God's promised coming. It does not, on its own, explain the distinctions between the Father and the Son.

God in Christ, and God made known in the flesh

This supports God present and at work in Christ, and it keeps them distinct. It cannot prove on its own that Christ is God, because verse 20 also speaks of God appealing through the apostles. In the other direction, making Christ an ambassador like any other does not cover John 1:3, John 20:28, or Hebrews 1:10-12.

1 Timothy 3:16 supports his being made known in the flesh, in a letter about conduct in God's house.

"The Word of God" as his name

A rider who acts is given this as his name. That supports "the Word" as a personal title, not a rule about every ordinary use of "word".

The first and the last, who was dead

His having died and now living identifies the speaker more securely than the title would alone.

No one can take them from his hand

Jesus gives eternal life and keeps his own, as the Father does. The Father gave them to him and is greater than all. "I and my Father are one" is read with these protecting hands and with the indwelling of verse 38 (quoted below). It is not used alone to settle the question.

The resurrection passages, traced to their sources

Peter says Psalm 16 spoke of Christ's resurrection. Paul applies Psalms 2:7 and Isaiah 55:3 to Jesus raised from the dead. Each source was read in its setting: Psalm 16 is a prayer of trust and hope, and Isaiah 55 is an invitation to an everlasting covenant.

Here Scripture itself makes the link. The words "this day have I begotten thee" are used of his resurrection and its fulfilment. They do not say the Son was created out of nothing on that day. These passages strengthen the chain of sources without making every quotation in those sermons a further proof that he is God.

The reading tested shortcuts on both sides, by the same standard. Several words, taken alone, cannot settle the question, because Scripture also uses them of others. The answer above does not rest on any of them alone.

"God" and "gods"

Scripture calls Moses "a god to Pharaoh", in a role it plainly limits (Exodus 7:1):

Psalm 82 speaks to "gods" who judge unjustly and are sentenced to die:

Paul uses the same Greek word for "the god of this world", who blinds minds, and for the God whose image Christ is:

In Isaiah, the LORD challenges false gods to prove themselves, and then declares them nothing. That challenge does not call them true creators:

The serpent's words use "gods" too, and they are the serpent's, not a definition the narrator approves:

So the bare word "God", or sharing the same original word, does not by itself prove someone is the Creator. The answer rests instead on the passages that put the Son on the Maker's side of creation.

John 10: "Ye are gods"

When his hearers accused him, Jesus answered from Psalm 82:

His quotation defeats the charge that using such a title must be blasphemy. He calls himself the one the Father sanctified and sent, and he points to his Father's works and to their dwelling in one another. He does not say he is merely one of the condemned gods of Psalm 82.

That John 10 says no more of Jesus than that he is one of the unjust gods of Psalm 82. The psalm's gods are rebuked for injustice and sentenced to die (Psalms 82:2, Psalms 82:7). Jesus does not link his character and works with their injustice. He points his hearers to the Father's works and their dwelling in one another (John 10:38). This reading also fails to cover John 1 and Hebrews 1. This is not what Scripture teaches.

That the hostile accusation alone proves the answer, or that "one" and "dwelling in" alone prove it. The accusation in John 10:33 is recorded as an accusation. Being one and dwelling in one another are likened, in Jesus's prayer, to believers (below). These arguments are too weak to carry the answer. The answer rests instead on the positive testimony already shown.

"One", and dwelling in one another

Jesus prays that believers may be one, as he and the Father are:

John also writes that God dwells in those who love one another:

That likeness does not make believers creators, or people Thomas could speak to as he spoke to Jesus. The direction matters: a likeness asked for in believers' unity does not make every feature of believers the same as every feature of the Father and the Son.

That being one and dwelling in one another make Jesus the Father, or make all believers creators. John 17:21 extends a likeness of unity to believers, and that likeness does not equate everything about those who share in it. This is not what Scripture teaches.

"Image"

Mankind is made in God's image, a man is called the image and glory of God, and the new self is renewed after the image of its Creator:

So "image of the invisible God" in Colossians 1:15 must be read with the creation words that follow it. "Image" alone does not identify the Creator.

"Fullness" and "the divine nature"

Paul prays that believers be filled with all the fullness of God. He speaks of the church as Christ's fullness, and of believers growing to the fullness of Christ. John says all have received of his fullness. Peter speaks of believers sharing in the divine nature:

So fullness, or sharing in the divine nature, does not by itself show that the one who receives it is God. Colossians 2:9 supports the answer, read with the plain God-statements and the creation statements. It is not a lone test that would also turn believers into God.

The word translated "Godhead" in Colossians 2:9 appears only there in the index searched, so no full definition can be drawn from comparing it with other uses. The other two places "Godhead" appears in English use different original words. One warns against picturing God as a made image, and the other speaks of God's power known through creation:

No ranking of meanings is drawn from those different words. Paul also keeps the Creator and what he made apart:

"Worship"

The same Greek word is used for a servant falling before a king in Jesus's parable, and for soldiers mocking Jesus:

So bowing, or this word alone, does not settle who the one receiving it is. Peter refused worship. So did the heavenly fellowservant, who commanded John to worship God:

The Lamb's honour from every creature, together with the one on the throne (Revelation 5:13), goes well beyond the king's debt-collecting in Matthew 18.

"Equal"

The Gospel records that Jesus's opponents sought to kill him for "making himself equal with God" (John 5:18):

That is the opponents' reason, read with Jesus's own explanation in John 5:19-30. It is kept apart from Paul's teaching in Philippians 2:6. The same original word for "equal" is used for equal pay, for testimony that agrees, for a like gift, and for a city's equal measurements:

Being equal is not, by itself, being the same person.

"Only begotten"

The same Greek word is used for a widow's only son, a ruler's only daughter, a father's only child, and Isaac:

It is used of God sending his Son:

These show a particular child's relation to a parent. The reading draws no theory of the Son's origin from the word.

"Word"

The Greek word behind "the Word" in John 1:1 is also used for Jesus's "sayings" and for a king's "account":

Paul urges his readers to hold out "the word of life":

So the word does not always mean a personal divine being. Sharing the English phrase "word of life" with 1 John 1:1 does not make them the same thing. What shows that John 1 is speaking of a person is John 1's own words, and 1 John 1's account of being heard, handled and having fellowship.

"Form"

The Greek word for "form" in Philippians 2:6-7 also appears where the risen Jesus appeared "in another form":

Philippians gives its own contrast between the form of God and the form of a servant. The word alone does not prove a full theory of substance, or of mere appearance.

"Immortality"

1 Timothy 6:16 says God "only hath immortality" (quoted under the hard passages, below). Paul also says mortal people put on immortality:

So the word alone does not make everyone who has immortality God. Immortality that is received is set apart from immortality that belongs to God alone.

That anyone called God, filled with God's fullness, made in God's image, or receiving an act called worship must therefore be the Creator. These tests, taken alone, fail. The servant before the king (Matthew 18:26) defeats the worship-word test. The prayer for believers (Ephesians 3:19) defeats the fullness test. Moses as "a god to Pharaoh" (Exodus 7:1) and mankind in God's image (Genesis 1:27) defeat the title and image tests. These counterexamples defeat only the shortcuts. They neither copy nor answer the further words that the Son made all things. This is not what Scripture teaches.

These passages are the strongest ones that seem to pull against the answer. Each is kept as it stands.

"Neither the Son": what Jesus did not know

Jesus said this privately to four disciples, while teaching them to keep watch. Nothing in the passage allows "did not know" to be changed into "knew but would not tell". Luke records real growth:

Scripture also says God knows all things, and Jesus's disciples twice say that he knows all things:

In John 16, Jesus had just known the question they had not asked. They concluded that he came from God. He answered with a searching question, and went on to foretell their scattering. In John 21, after the resurrection, Peter appeals to Jesus's knowledge of all things, and in particular to his knowledge of Peter's love.

These are real testimony. They are not set aside as mistakes just because disciples said them. But neither passage explains Mark 13:32, or gives a time when the limit about the day and hour changed. So the denial in Mark 13:32 is not reversed, and no total denial of Jesus's knowledge is drawn from it either. Both the testimony to his knowledge and the stated limit stand. Being God cannot be used to deny the recorded limits of his human life, and those limits do not cancel John's plain statement that the Word was God. This reading does not invent an account of how his knowledge was shared out to make these meet.

That the Son knew the day and hour, and merely would not reveal it. Nothing in the passage supports this, and it turns the plain denial of Mark 13:32 around. This is not what Scripture teaches.

God cannot be tempted, yet Jesus was tempted

James forbids blaming God for being tempted to do evil, and describes temptation that comes through a person's own desire. Hebrews says plainly that Jesus, the Son of God, was truly tempted, yet without sin:

Matthew records that the devil truly tempted him:

The devil's "if"s do not prove that Jesus could have given in, or what would have followed. The same Greek word for "tempt" is used where Jesus tests Philip, and Hebrews describes Abraham as "tried" (Hebrews 11:17), in the testing that Genesis records:

In Genesis 22 the testing had a purpose, and the killing was stopped. So not every use of "tempt" means being drawn to evil by one's own desire. James's own words, "with evil" and "his own lust", show what he means. Israel "tempted the LORD" at Massah by challenging whether he was among them (Exodus 17:7), and Paul warns against tempting Christ (1 Corinthians 10:9). Being tested or challenged by others does not by itself imply evil in the one tested.

So Jesus's temptation was real. Neither sin in Jesus, nor an evil inclination in God, may be drawn from it. John 1:14 and Hebrews 2:14-18 give the positive reason for taking his real flesh and suffering seriously. The reading does not claim that the exact way he could be tempted is explained by the meaning of a word.

That being tempted means Jesus sinned; or, the other way, that being God made his temptation unreal. Both fail against Hebrews 4:15, which states real temptation and no sin together. James 1:13 gives no grounds for making God the source of a pull towards evil. This is not what Scripture teaches.

"God is not a man"

This is the LORD's word through Balaam to Balak, who was trying to turn God's blessing into a curse. Its own clauses say what is being denied: lying, and going back on his word, as men do. It cannot be stretched into a rule that the Word could never become flesh. That would make John 1:14 false. In the other direction, Christ becoming man does not mean God became untruthful.

Elsewhere the LORD is called "a man of war", in a song of victory:

That figure of speech is not the real birth and flesh described of Jesus.

That God's being unlike lying men forbids his Word ever becoming flesh. No such rule is in Numbers 23:19's own reasons, and it contradicts John 1:14. This is not what Scripture teaches.

God alone is immortal and unseen, yet Jesus was seen and died

Paul names God and Christ Jesus separately in this charge, and gives praise to the only immortal Sovereign, whom no one can see. The passage does not permit denying that Jesus died. Hebrews 2:14 explains that he shared flesh and blood in order to act through death, and the first and the last says he was dead and now lives for ever (Revelation 1:18).

John himself puts the unseen God and the Son who makes him known in one sentence (John 1:18). He names the Father as the one seen only by the one who is from God (John 6:46). He explains seeing the Father in Jesus through their relation and the Father's works in him (John 14:9-10). None of these says that anyone looking at Jesus saw the Father as a separate figure with a body.

"Why callest thou me good?"

Jesus questions the man's way of addressing him, and then confronts his attachment to his wealth. The passage's own test is how the man responds to the command to follow Jesus. Verse 18 says goodness belongs to God alone. It does not say Jesus is not good, or not God.

That Mark 10 says Jesus is not good, or not God; or, the other way, that its question alone proves he is God. Neither sentence is in the passage. Treating the question as a denial adds words Jesus did not say, and runs into the plain statements elsewhere that he is God. Treating the question alone as a hidden proof reads more into it than the kind of sentence it is. This is not what Scripture teaches.

Four verses whose wording can be taken two ways

Four passages were not settled on their own by this reading. They are not offered here as decisive proofs.

Paul describes Christ "as concerning the flesh", and the sentence runs on to "who is over all, God blessed for ever". The sentence as it continues favours applying these words to Christ. The other proposal reads the closing words as a separate blessing of God, which needs a change of subject that the wording as fetched does not show.

In Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, the two titles are closely joined. That favours applying both to Jesus Christ. The other proposal reads them as naming God and Jesus together. The distinction between God and Jesus is plainly present nearby, as in 2 Peter 1:2. The index searched supplied no rule of grammar that settles this on its own. Titus 2:14 continues with the redeemer who gave himself.

The nearest person named before "This is the true God" is Jesus Christ, which favours him. The earlier words about knowing "him that is true" and being in "his Son" allow a proposal that "This" means the Father. The verses around it put eternal life in the Son, and warn against idols:

Either way, the Son is distinct from the Father, and he is the one in whom life is given.

The reading tested both proposals in each case against the verses gathered. No verse it gathered makes either way of taking these four passages false just by being another way of taking them. So this reading did not settle them. That is a limit of this reading, not a claim that Scripture is unclear.

The answer does not turn on them. If they apply to Christ directly, each adds another statement that he is God. If they are taken the other way, they speak of God's glory, or of the Father and the Son together. Under either, the answer is carried unchanged by John 1:1, John 20:28-29 and Hebrews 1:8-12. Nothing about whether Jesus is God waits on these verses.

How these truths fit together on the inside

What the reading established is the set of statements themselves:

• the Son is God, and distinct from the Father;
• he truly became man;
• he did not know the day and hour (Mark 13:32), and the disciples' testimony to his knowledge also stands;
• the Father is truly greater and is his head;
• the Son will finally be subject to the Father.

It did not establish a detailed account of how these are joined within him. No such account is offered here, and none should be invented. This is not a claim that Scripture is silent on how they fit: the whole Bible was not read, and not every search result was opened. It is a limit of this reading, and it leaves the answer to the question unchanged.

The source of Hebrews 1:6

The closest wording the searches found for Hebrews 1:6 is in a psalm praising the LORD who reigns:

Hebrews says "angels", and the psalm as fetched says "gods". The exact source of Hebrews' wording was not established. The answer does not depend on it.

Copy notes on two passages

The text fetched for this reading flagged that this verse is missing from some early copies:

The text of Mark 16 carried similar flags. The reading made no claim about the history of these copies beyond the flags themselves. It did not research that history. The answer does not depend on 1 John 5:7, and uses Mark 16 only as one comparison for the word "form".

The reading used Scripture alone, from the text supplied to it. No commentator, tradition, outside grammar, dictionary, or history of manuscripts was used.

It searched by English words and phrases, by concept, and by the original-language words behind key terms, and it read each passage it relied on in its setting. Some search results were read and set aside as not about this question. For example, 2 Chronicles 33:13 is about King Manasseh coming to know the LORD, and Genesis 4:13 is about Cain's punishment.

Several things were not claimed:

• Speakers in Genesis are not identified with Jesus.
• Not every "servant" passage in Isaiah is made to mean Jesus.
• Hostile words, and the words of confused hearers, are not treated as statements the writer approves.
• Jude is not read as identifying Jesus with Michael.
• Titles in the last visions of Revelation are not moved from one speaker to another where the speaker changes.

The whole Bible was not read, and the largest search indexes were not gone through to the end. Search results that were not opened were not counted as evidence either way, and no claim is made that Scripture is silent on anything here.

The answer does not turn on what was left unread. It rests on many direct passages, connected to one another, which were read whole and in their settings. The strongest passages against it were gathered and are answered above in their own words:

• the Father as the only true God (John 17:3);
• one God, the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6);
• the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5);
• the Father greater (John 14:28);
• God the head of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3);
• final subjection (1 Corinthians 15:28);
• the day and hour (Mark 13:32);
• God cannot be tempted (James 1:13);
• God is not a man (Numbers 23:19);
• firstborn and beginning (Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14).