Why Does the New Testament Rarely Call Jesus God?

Greetings, brethren. Happy Sabbath to all of you. Those who are listening in. That was very lovely, beautiful music. And it's funny, you see people when they're much younger, and then they grow up and they were able to do that, and it's pretty awesome. So what I want to talk about today, I was asked if I could take the sermon this afternoon, and I was thinking about it. And then, you know, I heard about an issue that seems to come around every once in a while, and we had a big thing in the church a while back.

These ideas about, you know, that Jesus supposedly not having been the one that the Israelites knew as God in the Old Testament, it is important that we understand that truth. I don't think at the moment we have much of a problem with that, but I'm just saying, it's good to review this because it does come back, and then there's a lot of confusion over certain issues to deal with it.

And I did want to talk about that. As we get closer to Passover, it's good for us to reflect again on just who Jesus Christ was. We had several years ago an article about the greatest sacrifice, and of course we talked about what Jesus went through and his horrible agony and what he bore for us.

But part of that sacrifice was leaving where he was in glory with the Father and in that awesome position that he had and giving that up and coming to the earth. And I'll mention that again going through this a little bit. But it's just something important that we need to understand. So I want to tackle that subject, but I want to hit a certain angle. If Jesus was God, then why is he not called God throughout the New Testament?

Was Jesus really God? And putting the question another way, why does the New Testament usually use God in reference to the Father and not Jesus if Jesus is also God? It's a good question, and I've titled the message simply, Why Does the New Testament Rarely Call Jesus God? Why does the New Testament Rarely Call Jesus God?

Now, I'm going to break this into two parts. The first part I want to go through and show that the New Testament does declare Jesus as God. So we're going to look at some of these where we see that Jesus is definitely declared to be God. And then the second part, I want to tackle more that question that I was just asking, that if that's so, then why isn't he basically called God all the time through the New Testament? And it's a question we need to think about.

So first of all, I get to turn over to John 1.1. It's a common one we turn to on this subject because it really sets up everything. It's the beginning, the very beginning, even before Genesis 1.1. It tells us here in John 1 and verse 1 that in the beginning was the Word. And we see in verse 14 that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and that's why it's talking about Jesus Christ.

So in the beginning was this one, the Word, who became Jesus Christ. And the Word was with God. Now the word God there actually has a definite article in front of it in the Greek. So it's actually not just theos. Theos is the word for God. It actually says the Word was with hothaios, meaning the Word was with the God. And we're talking about the one who became the Father in this case.

And the Word was God. Now there, it's just theos. It doesn't have a definite article. So that is, you know, and why is it saying that? Because the Word was not the same being as this other person. There were two here. There was the Word and there was who was with the God. And the Word was God, but the Word was not the God, at least in this context.

So the one who became Jesus was God, bearing the name of God, along with the one who became the Father. But the God here was a specific designation for the one who became the Father. Now I want to clarify, though, because there could be some context where Jesus could be part of the God with the definite article. That is, the one God of which the Father and Son are both part. But in this context that we're reading right here, a distinction is being drawn between these two.

So that we make it very clear that there are two beings here that we're talking about. One is called here the God, and the other is called the Word who was with the God and was himself God, but not, he was not the God.

So we're tied up on that, but it's an important distinction that's made here. So the Word who became Jesus was the one the Israelites knew as God in the Old Testament. I'm going to go all through that. There's a lot that could be said about it.

And it's a matter of controversy among some, but it's supported throughout the Scriptures. And one place I'd like us to turn in the New Testament, because we're focused on the New Testament here, is John 8. And I look in verse 58 here, and what we see here is that Jesus was having this discussion with the Jews.

They were getting upset at some of the things that Jesus was saying. He was talking about how they were not following Abraham, and he said that Abraham rejoiced to see my day. Then in John 8.57, they said, you know, you're not yet 50 years old. Have you seen Abraham? And Jesus said to them, most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.

And of course, in the next verse, they didn't take that so well. They took up stones to throw at him, because they believed he was blaspheming, declaring himself to be, I am, the one who spoke that name to Moses. Now, that basically was a clear statement from Jesus about who he was in that regard. All the various titles of God could be applied to him, along with the one who became the Father.

God applied to both of them in that sense. And besides John 1.1, Jesus is identified as God in several other places in the New Testament. And I do want to look at some of these other ones. John chapter 20. Let's turn over there. John chapter 20.

Thomas made a declaration about Jesus when he finally saw him. You might recall that Thomas was not there the first time that Jesus appeared among the disciples after his resurrection. He was away for some reason, and it seems like he showed up right after Jesus was gone. So I think it was intentional that Jesus came back right after Thomas showed up. He left right before Thomas was there, so Thomas would be upset about it. That was, I believe, intentional on Christ's part to do that. And he did not return for a week. There was a whole week, it says here in this account, in John 20 verses 25 through 28. We'll see it says in verse 26, I guess, eight days after his disciples were again inside. So it's eight days later. Probably doesn't mean... it probably is the same day of the week. That's just the way the Jews do an inclusive reckoning of count. But anyway, so it's probably the next Sunday, I'm assuming. His disciples were again inside and Thomas with them, Jesus came and the doors being shut and stood in the midst and said, Peace to you, or Shalom, which is common greeting at that time. And he told Thomas, reach your finger here. Look at my hands. You know, reach your hands here. Put it in my side. Don't be unbelieving but believe. Now, because Thomas had, you know, said, unless I feel the wounds enough, I don't see this, then I'm not going to believe. And so Jesus is offering this to him. And then when Jesus presents that to him, what does he say? He says in verse 28, and Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God.

Now, Jesus didn't say, Wait a minute, you got that wrong. The mistake here. No, Jesus said, Thomas, because you've seen, you believe. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. That's what he followed with here. So Thomas was right in what he declared here. But here's an interesting question. Why did Thomas say this? Some people actually believe that, you know, Thomas was actually saying, you know, like a curse, like, Oh, my God, like, my Lord and my God, like, as if, you know, he's just a shocked, his big statement.

But that really is is not accurate. That is actually absurd for a couple of reasons. First of all, devoted followers of a Jewish rabbi at that time, and actually the Jews in general, were not very flippant about using God's name as a curse or a swear like that. And certainly, these men who had been following Jesus around would not be so cavalier in spouting God's name like that.

That's just not something that would happen. And then if he did say that, why didn't Jesus make a comment about that? And then on top of that, why did John just record it as if this was okay to do? It doesn't make any sense. Clearly, Thomas was saying, my Lord, my master, and my God. He was calling him God. So the very fact of that declaration should tell us that he had that understanding. Now, why did he have that understanding? Well, we don't exactly know. I mean, it doesn't seem like the disciples had a clear understanding of this through Christ's ministry, of understanding that Jesus was God.

But maybe there were times they had an inkling like, you know, who is this? Who even the wind and the waves obey, and he was doing all these amazing things. And then, of course, he made a statement that we just read, you know, that they were present for when he said before Abraham was, I am. They heard him make that statement. So that made them think. And, you know, you say, well, they wouldn't have thought something, you know, that he meant that. Well, the Jews thought that. That's why they tried to stone him. So you think the disciples might have thought that as well.

And there's more to this. Let's remember something that happened after Jesus died and was resurrected. Jesus, after he was raised, he appeared on the road to Emmaus with these two disciples that were walking along. They didn't know it was him. But, you know, he's in what happened there. They were all upset. Jesus said, oh, slow of heart to believe all the prophets have said.

This is Luke 24. We're going to have to turn over there right now. But, you know, in the beginning, it says, beginning with Moses, he went through all the law and the prophets and showed them the things concerning himself. Now, do you think maybe he explained or he was able to show them how there was one who was called God or Yahweh, but then there was another called the messenger or the angel of the Lord, the Eternal, who was also called God.

And this is, you find this all through, and it says he went through a bunch of the Bible here explaining the things concerning himself. And, you know, maybe he also pointed a number of things out about the identity of this one who would come as the Messiah and what he had to go through. I'm sure that was probably one of the most amazing Bible studies that's ever happened. I'd like to have heard what that was all about. But then, after that, Jesus showed up among his disciples, and he talked to them for a while. We don't know all the things that he said, all the things he explained. But surely in the discussions all these men had after their encounter with Christ, you know, they would have been talking about these things.

They would have been talking about them all of that week. And Thomas got back right after Jesus left, so he would have been there all that week, too. He would have been hearing all this stuff, even though he was refusing to accept the reality of it. It was really a stubbornness on his part there. Because how is he going to deny that they all saw Jesus? You know, they all saw him. They all talked with him. They all ate with him. And so, really, it was actually undeniable, and he should have accepted it then. He didn't yet. But of course, he would have heard these discussions about who Jesus was and what he actually had come to do.

And so, it makes sense to me, then, that when he was there and Jesus showed up finally on that eighth day, that Thomas said, My Lord and my God, he made that profession. He actually declared that as a very powerful declaration. Now, that doesn't mean that they had full and perfect understanding even then. I'm sure more was revealed to them as time went on. If they had the Holy Spirit in them yet, that would come soon, and that would give them a greater understanding of the Scriptures.

There was further revelation to come through the New Testament period. But definitely, there was an understanding of this, and it's important that we recognize it. They must have understood this for Thomas to say that. It makes a lot of sense that we should understand. So, Romans 9.5, I'd like you to turn over there, something Paul says here in Romans 9. Romans 9.5, Paul writes about the Israelites in the previous verses, and says this in verse 5, That is, these patriarchs from over the people of Israel.

That is quite a statement, what Paul says right there. Christ came who is over all the eternally blessed God. This basically is a direct statement that calls Jesus the eternally blessed God. He is the eternal God, Yahweh. You know, the name that means the one who exists, the one who was and is and is to come, the self-existent, the eternal. And that's the way we often interpret that name. And here we see that Jesus is called the eternally blessed God, so that he is, you know, this is a very direct statement we find from Paul right here. And remember, Paul had been taught by Jesus himself out in the desert for three years. So Paul understood a number of things straight from Christ and his direct teaching to him, and that was after his resurrection when he wanted Paul to go and pass these teachings on as his apostle. He had a lot of understanding about Jesus as well, then. 1 Timothy 3, something else from Paul. Let's look over there. 1 Timothy 3. And this is sort of a creed, creedal statement that was given. And you can find it here in verse 15. Paul says, but in 16. You know, but if I'm delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy, so this wasn't a controversy even then. This was just the fact. And if you have a, maybe in your Bible, like in the New King James Version, there's an inset here, which it seems to me, again, like this is some kind of creedal statement, that they basically all agreed to, that they all believed this statement is what he's saying. So without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen by angels preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory. That is quite a statement too. So God was manifested in the flesh, and then at the end, he was taken back up into glory. That is what this is telling us here, as a quite a direct statement about who Jesus was.

Philippians chapter 2, slip over there, another thing that Paul stated.

One that bears on what I was saying a while ago about what Jesus gave up to become a human being. We're told in Philippians 2 verse 5, it starts out, And then this is wrong in the New King James and in the King James, where it says, Being in the form of God did not consider it robbery to be equal with God. The way that should be worded is in some other translations, which say, Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to cling to, or something to use to his advantage, something to hold on to. But it says, where it says he made himself with no reputation, that's a word, you know, like a kenosis. It has in the Greek, it's to empty himself. But he emptied himself. He basically let go. So he's saying that equality with God, since he was in the form of God, was not something to hold on to, but he let it go. And he dropped down into the flesh to what we are to be like us, and not just to be like us, as it goes on to say, To become like a slave, and even to the point of death, and even the death on the cross. From the very highest high, he went to the very lowest low. He went the whole way down. But he was up there at the beginning. It says that not just that he was in the form of God, but he had a certain equality with God. That he gave up. That equality referring to being the same kind of being. They had the same nature. They were both together God, the Father and the One who became Christ, and Christ. And he gave that up to become a human being, Jesus Christ. So it's a pretty amazing passage that we're given here. Titus 2, if you'll flip over to there, Titus 2, another statement from Paul. He tells us in verse 13 of Titus 2 that we are, all of us should be, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Now some people say, well, that's talking about two different things. It's talking about the Father and Christ. Like it's our great God is the Father and our Savior, Jesus Christ. But that's not the way this is worded. And actually the context, we're waiting for that appearing. And when that appearing comes where every eye will see him, they won't see the Father yet. The Father is still going to be up in heaven. When Christ comes down, that's the glorious appearing. The appearing of our Savior, Jesus Christ. That is a single appearance here that's being talked about. The waiting for the appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. So Jesus is our God and Savior. And by the way, the Father is also our God and our Savior. It's not like we're parsing these out like as if God is just this one we worship and Christ is our Savior. Both the Father and Christ are, they're both together God and they're both together our Savior. They both have both of those roles and we could go through the Bible and show that, that that is indeed the case. But they had different roles to play in, in being our Savior. And, you know, it's again some important that we understand.

But another place that we see this similar reference is in 2 Peter. So what did Peter say?

And by the way, you know, Peter, when he was asked by Jesus, who do men say that I am? You know, he said, you are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And people say, see, you know, and he said, blessed are you Simon, Bar-Jonah, flesh and blood has not revealed this to you. So he said, see, he was just the Son of God. He wasn't really God, he was just the Son of God. Well, just because you're the Son of God, that doesn't mean you're not also God. You know, Jesus also said he was the Son of man. Does that mean he's not man? I mean, that's not what that means. And in fact, the Jews didn't like him saying he was the Son of God because to them, that meant that he was making himself God. They actually say that back in John 10. It says, because you, you know, we're upset with you because you, being a man, you claim that God is your father. And so you, being a man, make yourself God. To be a son of this being in that sense, they look like he was saying he was on that kind of a level.

And they didn't like it at all. But so we think about Peter. Well, he made a confession about who Jesus was. He didn't say, well, you're the God of Israel or something like that. He just said, you're the Messiah, the Son of the living God. But let's also remember that Peter had a very limited understanding at that time. For instance, Peter didn't know that Jesus was going to die for our sins. He didn't know any of that stuff that was going to happen. And it was all very limited what those disciples at that time knew. So over time, they would have gained more understanding. And by the time they got to, you know, much later in the New Testament period, it seems like they would have understood a lot more. And so we see here in 2 Peter, just the very first verse of chapter 1 and verse 1, Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. Now, you might be able to say that's parsed out as somehow the Father in Christ. However, it's exactly the same phraseology that Paul used about we're waiting for the appearance of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. So putting those together, I believe this is very clearly the same designation for Christ that he was understood to be in that role. Recognizing then Jesus as God. And of course, I'll just, you know, give you this one as well as a reference. Matthew 1, verse 23. That's where Matthew is writing about, you know, when Jesus came to the earth, he says that he was, and he quotes Isaiah's prophecy, where he says he was Emmanuel, which is translated God with us. Actually, Matthew wrote that. Matthew would have written, which is translated God with us. He was trying to make it very plain that that's who Jesus was, that he was God with us. He was God made flesh, as we read in that creedal statement back in Timothy. And then I'd like you to turn over to Hebrews. This is also quoting from the Old Testament, Hebrews chapter 1.

Hebrews chapter 1. And this is in verses 8 through 12. We'll look at first, I guess, here. And let me say something about this before I read this. Part of the point in Hebrews is showing the superiority of Christ over the Judaic system as it was, but it's also showing his high role even above the angels here at the beginning. These first two chapters, actually it's twofold. It's actually showing that the glorious destiny of all of mankind is to exceed that of the angels. But Jesus leads the way in that. And Jesus is even more than just a human being leading the way in that.

So what it says is, in this passage, it says, verse 8, let's read what it says. It says, And by the way, let me back up. Verse 6, But when he again brings the firstborn into the world, he says, So that's what we're talking about Christ here. And of the angels, he says, he makes his angels spirits and ministers a flame of fire.

They are created spirits. But to the sun, verse 8, he says, So the sun is God who has a forever throne. And he says, So I'm going to break this down a little bit. First of all, the beginning of verse 8 is very clear that to the sun it says, So the sun is God who has a forever throne. And then, verse 9, where it says, Depends on where you put the commas. If you say, That could just mean, But if you have commas in a different place, like if you put the commas before and after the first God here, it would say, So it could be that.

But it doesn't really matter whether it is that or not, because verse 8 makes it very clear that the sun is God. The sun is definitely declared to be God. And that is a straight, kind of in your face a little bit, to say, Get the picture. That's who we're talking about. And then it says in verse 10, And, and that's a big and, by the way, and there's a question about why is that here?

And we read what it says. And then it says, And the word Lord there is the word in the Old Testament. It's Yahweh, the Eternal. So, and you, Eternal, in that sense, Now here's a question. Why is this whole passage here of verses 10 through 12 even here? Somebody says, well, that's just a general statement about God as creator. No, it isn't just a general statement about God as creator, because it would make no sense in context.

The only thing that makes sense about this passage is that it is also referring to the sun. So that you have in verse 8, it says, but to the sun, he says, You're God, O throne, O God, is forever and ever.

And then in verse 10, and to the sun, he also says, You, Eternal, in the beginning, laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. So that's what's happening here in this passage, and it's quite stunning, because it not only tells us that Jesus is God in a general sense, it says that Jesus is Yahweh, the Eternal.

He is the, and he is the creator, and we already know that, by the way, because it tells us that in John 1. that all things were made through him, and there was nothing made that was made. Everything was made through Jesus Christ, and there's numerous other verses that say that. Now, so now then we have the testimony of Matthew, John, Thomas, Peter, and Paul, who I think probably wrote Hebrews, and if it wasn't Paul, then that's another testimony, and Jesus Christ himself, that Jesus was God.

So this is, you know, important that we understand it. It's in numerous places in the New Testament, but it's not all over the New Testament, and that's what I want to discuss through this second part here. And that is, I want to talk about reasons for God usually designating the Father rather than Christ. Reasons for God, in quotes, usually designating the Father rather than Christ.

Let's first of all remember that Jesus came to reveal God the Father. Just to list some verses for that, John 1. 18, Matthew 11. 27, Luke 10. 22. You know, people at that time in the Old Testament didn't understand that very well, but there were hints that there were two there all the way through the Scriptures.

You know, there was all these various indications. One, I mentioned a while ago how there was the Eternal, and then there was another called the Messenger of the Eternal, who was also the Eternal, which can only exist if there's two beings that are both God. One, acting as a messenger for the other one. That's what existed at that time, but it wasn't, again, fully understood. I do believe that the patriarchs and the prophets of God understood that in the Old Testament, but I don't know that it was generally understood, and even if it was kind of understood, it was very mysterious. They didn't really know what to make of that.

And Jesus, though, let's talk about this in John 17. I would like you to flip over there. This is something that we need to note in regards to what he came to do. First of all, he came to reveal the Father. The Father wasn't generally known, so Jesus wanted to make him known. But he didn't only want to make him known, he wanted to make him the focal point of everyone's worship.

And we see this here in John 17 in the prayer that Jesus gave in John 17, verse 3. He's praying to God, and he says, And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. This is a big key here. This is the way that Jesus wanted the disciples going forward to think.

It's how he wants us to think. But some people will take this verse as proof that Jesus isn't God. They'll say, wait, it says, But that's not Jesus' point here exactly. He's not talking about the nature of God or some understanding of who made up the divinity in that sense. Jesus was pointing to the Father as supreme, as the supreme focal point of our worship, as the one we aim our life to, just like Jesus did when he was a man aiming his life. And we are to emulate him in all we do.

That does not mean that Jesus is not God or part of the true God. He's an intrinsic part of what God is. Jesus said, for instance, Jesus says, well, the Father sends his spirit. But then he comes and says, well, but I'll send you the spirit. That should tell us that he's God along with the Father. How else can he do that? I mean, it doesn't, you know, we're trying to parse something that's very difficult in earthly physical terms.

Jesus, though, wants us to think of him as representing the Father and, in fact, not just representing him, but as the only way to the Father. He is the way, as in John 46, I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. So he wants us to think of him as that way to God, which he is. That doesn't mean he's not God, but he is the way into a relationship with God.

Now, I'm sure that the wording here in this verse, even, greatly influenced the disciples and how they referred to the Father and Jesus going forward. So the name God was particularly the designation for the Father, and we see that throughout the New Testament. If both of them were typically called God, you know, further distinction would always be needed. You'd always have to say, God the Father, God the Son, or God both of them together.

You'd always have to specify and clarify who you're talking about. If you were saying, well, God did this and God went there, God did that, and you'd be like, wait a minute, which God are you talking about? You know, that's not... there was an avoidance of that. The New Testament regularly calls the Father God and Jesus Christ Lord. That's just the very common phrasing we see. Now, to help understand this, I found a lengthy quote from a 1998 book titled, Jesus as God, the New Testament use of Theos in reference to Jesus.

Jesus as God, the New Testament use of Theos in reference to Jesus. The author, Murray Harris, gives a number of points as to why the Greek term Theos, meaning God, was frequently used by New Testament writers of God the Father and very infrequently used of Christ, even though Christ was understood to be God along with the Father.

So he has a list here in his book on pages 282 to 283. Now, there's a problem in that he writes in a very scholarly, erudite manner. So please forgive some of the technical language here. I'm going to try to simplify some of the phrasing as we go, lest I be accused of speaking in tongues without an interpreter.

So I'll interpret as we go and try to make clear what we're talking about. So I've broken this into points to make it easier to follow. Actually, six points are from this source, and I've added a seventh point, again, under this heading above of reasons for God usually designating the Father rather than Christ. So number one, to avoid confusion over who's being referred to. We just mentioned this. To avoid confusion over who's being referred to. To quote that source, it says, It says first, in all strands of the New Testament, Theos generally signifies the Father.

That is the word for God. When we find the expression, Theos pater, that is, God-Father, we may legitimately deduce that Ho Theos, that is the God that we saw earlier, is Ho Pater, that is the Father. In identifying a particular person, God must be equated with the Father. If Jesus were everywhere called Theos, so that in reference to Him, the term ceased to be a title and became a proper noun, like Jesus, then linguistic ambiguity, or not knowing whom is meant, would be everywhere present.

We would just have this problem and you wouldn't be able to easily figure it out. It would be confusion. You would not be able to follow this clearly. Number two, to protect the personal distinction between the Father and Son, to protect the personal distinction between the Father and Son. Here's a quote from that source. Another reason why Theos regularly denotes the Father and rarely the Son is that such a usage is suited to protect the personal distinction between the Son and Father, which is preserved everywhere in the New Testament, but nowhere more dramatically than where the Father is called.

And this I'll just reference is Ephesians 1.17. The Father is called the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. So the God of our Lord Jesus Christ can only be the Father. Or, as it says in Revelation 1.6, His God and Father. So Christ's God and Father is clearly God the Father. And also, I'll have you flip over to John 20, if you will again. John 20. And this is where Jesus said to Mary, because she wanted to hold on to Him, but He hadn't ascended yet.

And He says here to her, Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father. But go to My brethren and say to them, I am ascending to My Father and Your Father, to My God and Your God. That wording there, again, to My God is the Father, in that sense, clearly. And also, turn over to Revelation 3, if you will, as well. Look at something there.

In Revelation 3, it's interesting, because in verse 3 it says, I'm sorry, verse 2, not 3. In verse 2, it says at the end of it, For I have not found your works perfect before God. And that's Jesus speaking. So if He's saying, I have not found your works perfect before God, before God in that usage, seems like it would be the Father, since it's Jesus speaking, but I will say it could be the Father and Christ together as God, and that He's the spokesman for their joint counsel. Let's put it that way. So it could mean that. But then when we come to verse 12, it's very distinct, because it says, He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more, and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, which comes down out of heaven from My God. So this is only the Father that Jesus is referring to here in this statement. God was the one who Jesus prayed to, and He called him His Father and His God. And what I want to note about that is that Jesus, in coming down as a human being to lead us to God, has taken on the role of man, basically preeminent man in coming to God. He became a man to lead us all into glory with Him, and in doing that, the focal point became, in that sense, the Father, because He came down to lead us into that relationship with God through Him to be able to commune with the Father.

We also have seen that both the Father and Jesus Christ are our God, and we will forever look to them both as God. So Jesus, as a man, He was looking to the Father as God. But even now that He's back in glory, He still refers to the Father as My God. And for us, when we are talking about Our God, it is actually both the Father and Christ are together our God. But of course, the Father is the ultimate focal point of worship. We look supremely to Him as God, just as Jesus did. And it's interesting to contemplate that and to think about how He's setting the example in that. Number three, to keep it clear that Jesus is subordinate to the Father. To keep it clear that Jesus is subordinate to the Father. And to quote this here, it says, Clearly related to this second reason is a third. The element of subordinationism, that is Christ being subordinate to the authority of the Father, that finds expression in the New Testament. And I'll just give you several references, like John 5.30, John 8.38, 10.29, 14.28. Actually in that one, John 14.28, Jesus said, My Father is greater than I. And John 15.10, is another one, Jesus said, Well, maybe this is actually in 10.29, I guess, He said, My Father is greater than all. And 15.10 is where He says, I've kept My Father's commandments. But yeah, John 10.29 says, My Father is greater than all. So in all these places, I mean, He's acknowledging the Father as the ultimate greatest in that sense. And then also, that's how it always will be. Turn over to 1 Corinthians 15. 1 Corinthians 15.

And we see in this passage, The end all and be all here, how it's all going to work out. It's given this orders of resurrection starting in verse 23.

Christ the firstfruits afterward those who are Christ is coming, verse 24. Then the end when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father. When He puts it into all rule and authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. Verse 27. For He has put all things under His feet. But when He says all things are put under Him, that is under Christ in that sense, it is evident that He who put all things under Him is accepted. That's the Father. The Father is not put under Christ. Everything else is under Christ. Except for one. The Father only is not put under Christ. Now, when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, under the Father, that God may be all in all. So, ultimately, that is the picture of the way that God has structured the family. It's going to be like that. That Christ came down as a man to lead us all into this glory. Where we, of course, worship the Father Christ, and we, for ever, from Christ's vantage point, the Father is God, and we, along with Him, as our brother, are focused on the worship of our Father, who is supreme overall. And that is the way we are supposed to be focused on that. And just to continue this quote here, it says, these expressions of saying how the Father is supreme or greater may have checked any impulse to use theos regularly of Jesus. Like, you know, people aren't saying, well, God says this and God says that. They're thinking of God in more general terms, or they're thinking of the Father in that sense. By customarily reserving the term theos for the Father, New Testament writers were highlighting the fact, whether consciously or unconsciously, that while the Son is subordinate to the Father, the Father is not subordinate to the Son. One finds the expression, the Son of God, where God is the Father, but never the Father of God, where God is the Son. But I will note that we do see the Father as God of the Son, and in Hebrews we saw this, he said, Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever. But he didn't say, Your throne, O my God. Jesus is God, but He is not the God of the Father. So the Father is able to call Him God in that sense, but it's not a common occurrence through the Scriptures. We are to approach the Father through Christ, but that does not diminish Christ's position as God. The Father wants us, though, also to honor the Son. In fact, we're told that. In John 5, it says that all must honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. So that's pretty incredible. And by the way, Jesus wasn't taking on honors and saying that. He was just communicating the will of the Father, that that should be done. Number four is to avoid the appearance of polytheism, to avoid the appearance of polytheism, of worshipping multiple gods.

And to quote this source, it says, A fourth reason that may be suggested for the comparatively rare use of Theos as a Christological ascription, or maybe just say as a name for Christ, was the danger recognized by the early church that if Theos were applied to Jesus as regularly as to the Father, that is, if Jesus were called God as much as the Father, then the Jews would have tended to regard Christianity as incurably deuterotheological, that is, embracing a second God. And the second theology is God, so they would believe that they're believing in a second God.

And Gentiles would probably have viewed it as polytheistic, worshipping multiple gods. If Theos, God, were typically used as the personal name of the Father and the Son, then Christians would have been hard-pressed to defend the faith against charges of dithyism, belief in two gods, if not polytheism, however adamant their insistence on their retaining of monotheism, belief in one God. And we find something similar here, by the way, in Paul's wording in 1 Corinthians 8, verse 6, and I'm not going to have us go there.

We have a whole sidebar written up on this in our Trinity Bookland, and I definitely recommend going through that, because I believe that's very well worded and put together, explaining there, because that's where Paul says, there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. Now, why does he say it that way? I think there's a lot of reasons for understanding that and going through that. But these terms, God and Lord, were both terms for deity, but Paul represents them for different roles here. They're both important to showing who God is, both the Father and Christ.

Now, I want to stress this too. The Bible does teach that there is one God. Remember? In James, it says, you believe there is one God, you do well. Even the demons believe and tremble. There is one God, okay? That is what we're told. But that one God is two beings at present. The one God being the God family of perfect unity, of mind and purpose, that is often described in singular terms.

In the Old Testament, you have this word Elohim as a plural noun, and it applies to a plurality. It could be translated gods, like the pagan gods in some places, but it's often translated as a singular because it's paired with singular verbs. It's understood as a singularity, even though there's a plurality of form. That is what we see in the Father and Christ.

You know, so in one sense there is one God of multiple beings, but in another sense there is one God in the sense of the supreme focal point of worship. And that for us is to be the Father. The supreme being is the Father, but that doesn't diminish Christ also being God. He's in total perfect union with the Father and is the way to the Father for all. They're both Yahweh, the eternal God. They've existed together from eternity. They're both worthy of our worship, and we just saw, I just mentioned from John 5, how we are to honor the Son just as the Father because they're both God.

And it's God's will that we consider Christ in that way and that we should be worshipping Him along with the Father. But it's relative to our worship of the Father. The Father is the focal point. We worship Christ because that is the will of the Father. So that's how that's all set up for us, and it works that way. Number five, to safeguard against Gnostic ideas that Jesus had not really been human.

To safeguard against Gnostic ideas that Jesus has not really been human. This is very interesting. To quote this, it says, fifth, behind the impulse generally to reserve the term theos, or God, for the Father, lay the need to safeguard the real humanity of Jesus against, forgive these terms, docetic or monophysitic sentiment in its embryonic form. That is referring to Gnostic ideas that Jesus was never truly human, but remained omnipotent God in His life on earth. In the early years of the Church, there was a greater danger that the integrity of the human nature of Jesus should be denied than that His divinity should be called into question.

Witness the fact that Dostatism, that is, which regarded Jesus on earth as a mortal, omnipotent God hidden in flesh, not Arianism, that's a doctrine that saw Christ as a created being less than God, was the first Christological deviation. Okay, let me interpret that. People went off the track first in saying that Jesus wasn't a man before they came up with the idea that Jesus hadn't been God from eternity, that He was created.

So they were first going off the track and saying Jesus wasn't really a man, that He just was God who appeared as a man. That was an early heresy, and that was being guarded against by the New Testament writers. They did not want any inkling of that. They wanted to make it clear that Jesus was a man. I'll just mention 1 Timothy 2.5, by the way.

We have a Q&A on this, I think, at our website. You can look this up. But where it talks about there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, which is kind of a strange statement. He says, the man Jesus Christ. We think, well, wait a minute, Jesus isn't a man now. Well, He is in a way. He is glorified man. That's what He is. Man raised up into divinity. And He's the representative of humanity before God.

So it's important that they wanted to stress the humanity of Christ, that He was representing us in that way, and not let people get confused about who He was while He was on earth. Number six, the New Testament stresses what Christ does rather than what exactly He is. The New Testament stresses what Christ does rather than what exactly He is.

It's a more Hebraic way of thinking. They didn't get into these esoteric questions of being, like we often do today in thinking about this. And so here's a quote from this source about this. It says, Finally, the relative infrequency of the use of theos for Jesus corresponds to the relatively infrequent use of ontological categories, that is, classifications of being or existence. That's not what they were about. In New Testament Christology, which is functional in emphasis, stressing what Christ does rather than what He exactly is. You know, the love of God, how He expresses it, the things He's done for us, what He's made.

It says very clearly of Jesus that without Him, nothing was made that was made. Everything was made through Him. This tells us who Jesus is just by describing what He's done. The focus was not on defining what He was, but brethren, He did define what He was when He said, Before Abraham was, I AM. That is the all. That's it. He's the Eternal, the Great God of Israel, the Creator of us all, and still our God today, along with the Father, of course.

And in fact, the Father is the supreme focus of our worship, and Christ is God along with Him. So while we see the name God often applied to the Father, and not usually to Jesus specifically, we have seen that Jesus was at times also referred to as God. And we should also consider another factor not listed in the source of encoding. This is my last point here. Number seven, some references to God include the Father and Jesus together as one. Some references to God include the Father and Jesus together as one. In fact, some references to God must include both the Father and Jesus, even when the reference to God is singular.

And that's consistent with Old Testament usage, where the Hebrew name for God, I mentioned Elohim, is often singular in usage. And it's then translated in the New Testament with the Greek word theos, which is a singular word. And again, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew, would use the singular as well. There's one time where it uses a plural, and it's where Jesus said, is it not written in your law? I said, you are God's Elohim, and that is translated in the Septuagint and the New Testament as theoi, which is a plural of God. So that's a plurality definitely specified there.

But normally, Elohim, when it's referring to the true God, is going to be singular. Now, we should see that many of the mentions of God in the New Testament, quotes of the Old Testament, where the New Testament is quoting the Old Testament, are referring to the union of the one who became the Father and the one who became the Son operating together as God.

We sometimes see this from the New Testament writers themselves. Look over at 1 Corinthians 8.6. I did mention that. I want to pick out a particular aspect of it, and I'm going to have us look at this, and then a comparison verse, and that'll be all we turn to today. But 1 Corinthians 8, verse 6, says, Yet for us, there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him, and I want to note that, of whom are all things.

The of is the Greek ek. It's out of, or from. It's out of. So out of this one. So there is one God, the Father, out of, or of whom are all things, and we for him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.

That's diya in the Greek, through. So there's one who it's all out of, and there's one who it's through. So it comes out. It's out of the Father, in the sense that he's determining what to do, and it's carried out through the Word who became Christ. That's how it operates. So that's what we're told here. You've got these two different roles. One, it's ek, and one, it's diya. One, it's out of, and one, it's through. Now with that in mind, I would like us to turn over to Romans 11.

And Paul says something a little different here. In Romans 11, he says in verses 33 through 36, he says, "'O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable are His judgment and His ways, past finding out. For who has known the mind of the Lord, or of the Eternal, in that sense, quoting the Old Testament, or who has become His counselor, or who is first given to Him, and it shall be repaid to Him? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, notice that, for of, ek, Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things, to whom be glory forever.'" This says that everything comes out of Him and through Him.

Well, what is that telling us? We just read that everything is out of the One who became the Father, and everything is through the One who is the Son. So what that tells us is that the Him that's here is referring to both of them. It's a singular Him, but it's actually referring to both roles of the Father and Christ.

And we see that, by the way, all through the Bible. This use of He and Him for the plurality of God and the Word, the Father and Christ, it's all in the Old Testament, especially you see it everywhere.

And, you know, we understand they're not one single being, but they exist together as God in a singular way, enough to be referred to by the singular pronoun Him, just as we see with many references to God in the Old Testament. You know, like, here's an example. We understand that Jesus is the One who spoke in the Old Testament. He's the One who spoke the commandments to Israel. But yet He said, you shall have no other gods before Me.

Who's Me? It wasn't just Him. It was the Father and Him together as the Me. So He could represent God perfectly in that way, and together they are one, not one being, but one in mind and purpose, and as one God. Still, it's quite true that the term God in the New Testament is usually in reference to God the Father. But it's nevertheless quite clear and vital to understand that Jesus Christ is also God along with the Father.

So, brethren, let's keep that in mind. There's a lot of important material here. It's very good to review this, as it's one of the most important foundational things that we can understand. Let's treasure this wonderful understanding that God gives us through His Word.