Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | John 10:30 "I and the Father are One [in essence and nature]." |
Bible Question: is jesus god |
Bible Answer: Hebrews 1.2-3 again emphasises His uniqueness. He is 'the outshining of the glory of God (the visible revelation of the gory of God - see John 1.14, 18), the stamped out image (the exact representation) of His substance' and is the One through Whom all things were made and Who upholds all things by His powerful command. Thus the One Who spoke and it was done in Genesis 1 is Jesus. He is the Creator. It is difficult to think of any way of putting it that could more clearly declare His full deity. Yet at the same time it is made clear that He is not the whole of the Godhead. That is why He is called 'the Son' as against ‘the Father’ in an otherwise inexpressible relationship. This term indicates that He is of the same nature and essence as the Father, but not the whole of the Godhead. It is of course using human terminology to get over divine truth. He is the ever-existent, eternal Son. There was not a time when He had a beginning. Human sons are born after their fathers and are of the same nature. Thus ‘the Son’ was of the same nature as ‘the Father’. But we must not press the analogy too far. Because He is of the same nature as the eternal Father He is the eternal Son. But there was no time when He was not. He was not 'born' later than the Father like a human son is born (except when He became man). Theologians speak of Him as being 'eternally begotten'. The Apostle John further stresses His Godhood. 'In the beginning the Word (Logos) was already in existence, and the Word (Logos) was face to face with God in personal communion (pros with the accusative), and what God was the Word (Logos) was' (John 1.1), and this Word (Logos) 'became flesh and dwelt among us' (John 1.14). It is sometimes argued by those with a limited knowledge of Greek that the lack of the definite article on theos ('God') in the third clause of 1.1 somehow suggests a lessening in His divinity (as though there could be levels of Godhood). However to have put in the definite article ('the') would have been incorrect, firstly because in Greek it would have meant John was saying that Jesus was all there was of the Godhead, i.e. that the terms 'Jesus' and 'the Godhead' were exact equivalents, and secondly because it ignores the fact that the very purpose of the lack of article is to show that theos is used adjectivally to mean 'of the essence of what God is'. As theos has already been used in the second clause, to use it in the third clause adjectivally quite clearly makes the use of theos indicate the same essence and thus it refers to the essential nature of God. 'He was 'face to face with' God in close personal communion, and was Himself of the same 'essence of Godhood'. Thus John depicts Jesus as the creative Word Who made all things (John 1.3), the Creator of Genesis 1, and as of the essence of the Godhead. |