By Sam Shamoun in trinity — 08 May 2025

William Craig & the Deity of Christ

The following excerpts are taken from Dr. William Lane Craig’s essay, “Tri-Personal Monotheism”, in One God, Three Persons, Four Views: A Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Dialogue on the Doctrine of the Trinity, edited by Chad A. McIntosh, and published by Cascade Books, Eugene, OR 2024. All emphasis is mine.

Christ as Kyrios

The early Christians’ solution to this problem was startling and ingenious. They adopted the term kyrios (“Lord”) as their principal means of referring to Christ (368 times in the NT). The christological significance of this term lies in the fact that while it, like the English word “lord,” has a wide range of meaning, from a term of polite address (“sir”) to divinity, kyrios is the term Greek-speaking Jews substituted for God’s proper name “Yahweh” in the OT! In reading aloud the Scriptures, Hebrew-speaking Jews would not pronounce the sacred name “Yahweh,” but substituted for it the word Adonai, such usage being represented in our English translations as “Lord” with small capitals. Greek-speaking Jews in turn substituted kyrios for the Hebrew Adonai. It was this divine title that early Christians seized upon to express Jesus’ exalted status.

The theological import of kyrios in reference to Jesus Christ is conveyed by the NT authors’ unsettling practice of quoting OT prooftexts about Yahweh in application to Christ.⁵ To give just three examples: in Romans 10:9 Paul affirms, “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that “Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Paul assures his Roman readers that “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For, ‘Every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved’” (Rom 10:11). The prooftext is Joel 2:32, speaking of Yahweh, “the Lord, your God” (v. 23).

Again, in Philippians 2:10–11, Paul writes, “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” The confession here is drawn from LXX Isaiah 45:23, “to me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess to God,” with reference to “the Lord, the God of Israel” (v. 3). That a text from so fiercely monotheistic a passage as Isaiah 45 should be applied to Jesus Christ displays dramatically the divine status ascribed to him by Christians.”

Again, in Hebrews 1:6: “When he brings the first-born into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him’,” the prooftext is either LXX” Deuteronomy 32:43 or Psalm 97:7, both of which have reference to Yahweh, to whom, as God, worship is solely due, notably, not only from human beings but from the highest angelic beings. Further, in Hebrews 1:10–11 the statements that are cited from Psalm 102:25–27 in application to Christ originally had reference to Yahweh.

5. See Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology. As Capes points out, the theological significance of this practice is that kyrios is employed as a christological title to “apply to Christ concepts and functions which Yahweh is expected to fulfill according to the Old Testament” (164). Not only Paul but the Evangelists as well do the same, portraying the canonical Jesus as applying to himself concepts and texts which the OT applied to Yahweh (179-80). (pp. 30-31)

JOHANNINE WRITINGS

Even highly skeptical critics overwhelmingly admit that by the time we get to the Johannine writings, the belief in the full deity of Christ had evolved and come to expression in the NT.²² The christological bookends of the Gospel of John are the affirmation of Christ’s deity in the Prologue (John 1:1) and Thomas’ ringing confession in the narrative of Christ’s resurrection appearance to Thomas and the Twelve (John 20:28).

John 1:1

The Prologue opens with a triadic formula:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

En arxē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos. (John 1:1)

The Prologue reflects the influence of the Logos doctrine of Middle Platonism.²³ So I shall speak henceforth of the Logos. According to v. 1a the Logos was “in the beginning,” doubtless an echo of LXX Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning . . .” (En arxē). The statement thus endorses the traditional Logos doctrine that the Logos “pre-existed,” in the sense that the Logos did not begin to exist at the moment of creation nor is a creature. As in Middle Platonism, the Logos is the instrumental cause of creation (John 1:3). This Logos is said in v. 1b to have existed with God and so to be in some sense differentiated from God. Nonetheless v. 1c states that the Logos was God, thus in some sense identifying them. As in Middle Platonism, then, the deity of the Logos is clearly affirmed, while an inner distinction within God is postulated.

So the crucial question is, whom are we talking about here? It is indisputable that John identifies the Logos with the pre-incarnate Christ (John 1:14, 17b). The Logos himself entered human history (John 1:10–11). The Prologue thus affirms the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, his uncreated being, and his deity. Although the opening formula involves a host of interpretive niceties, most of them are of no significance for the question in which we are interested, namely, the deity of Christ. For example, whether ho theos in v. 1b is identified with God the Father or with a generic God, that is, a Supreme Being, the Logos or Christ is affirmed in v. 1c to be God.

Again, whether we understand the anarthrous theos in v. 1c definitely to indicate grammatically the predicate position of a definite noun or qualitatively to indicate the nature of deity, the result is the same: Christ is ascribed deity. While John might have instead written theios (divine) or tou theou (of God) instead of theos to express the Logos’ deity, the resulting statement would have been open to the interpretation that the Logos possessed a sort of diluted divinity or merely belonged to God. By choosing the substantive term theos John expresses strongly the equal divinity enjoyed by God the Father and the Son.

Although various translations and paraphrases have been offered to capture the sense of v. 1c, such as

what God was, the Word was (NEB, REB)

what God was, the Word also was (TEV)

the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God (Barclay)

he was the same as God (GNB)

the Word was the very same as God (Cassirer)

the Word had the same nature as God (Harner),

nonetheless Harris advocates sticking with the customary translation “the Word was God” because of its succinctness and force; but he adds the proviso that it requires that the word “God” be carefully defined or qualified to avoid identifying the Logos with the Father.²⁴

John 1:18

No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.

theon oudeis heōraken pōpote; monogenēs theos ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou patros ekeinos eksēgēsato. (John 1:18)

After referring to Jesus as monogenēs para patros in v. 14, now John boldly calls him monogenēs theos. The presence of monogenēs theos in both 𝔓66 and 𝔓75 has convinced most textual critics that monogenēs huios is a later emendation of the text, so that we may proceed with confidence, if not certainty, that here Jesus Christ is called theos.²⁵ By means of the stunning appellation “the only-begotten God” John differentiates Christ the Son from God the Father while regarding both as God.

Although interesting and important interpretive questions arise concerning the meaning of monogenēs, once again their resolution is not germane to our interest in Christ’s deity. For example, is monogenēs an adjective (“the only-begotten God”) or a substantive (“the Only-Begotten, God”)? For our purposes it does not matter, since in either case Christ is referred to as “God.” So, we may ask, what is the meaning of monogenēs, whether construed adjectivally or substantively? As a compound of monos (single) + genos (kind), it might be taken on etymological grounds to mean “unique” or “one of a kind.” In that case monogenēs theos might be translated “God the one and only,” which, though of dubious sense, nonetheless asserts the deity of Christ. In a familial context, however, which is the primary context of usage, monogenēs means “of sole descent,” referring to the only child in a family.²⁶ In the Johannine writings the association of monogenēs with huios (John 3:6, 18; 1 John 4:9) indicates John’s interest in Jesus as the sole Son of God. Accordingly, it would seem appropriate to take monogenēs theos to mean “only-begotten God” or “Only-Begotten, who is God,” just as a man might refer to his only child as “my only-begotten.” We may agree that “does not contemplate the eternal generation of the Son from the Father; but in ordinary language “only-begotten” just means “sole-born.” The translation “the only-begotten God” is therefore unobjectionable, though perhaps, like the translation of John 1:1c, requiring some explanation. However that may be, the overriding point remains that all of the proposed translations of monogenēs theos refer to Jesus as “God.”

Even if theos in John 1:18a is a reference to the Father (itself a moot point), it is obvious that in John 1:18b theos is a generic term for the Supreme Being, not a designation of the Father, for “only-begotten” itself implies a differentiation of the child from the parent, here the Son from the Father (cf. John 1:14: monogenēs para patros), and Christ is said to be “in the bosom of the Father,” indicating an intimate personal relationship of Father to Son. It would make absolutely no sense to say that the only-begotten Father, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known. Nothing could indicate so powerfully both the shared deity of the Son and Father while at the same time emphasizing their personal distinction as this remarkable designation of Jesus Christ as monogenēs theos.

Equally startling as the expression monogenēs theos is John’s claim, in connection with 1:18a “No one has ever seen God,” that the vision of the Lord of hosts described in Isaiah 6:1 was in actuality a vision of the” pre-incarnate Christ: “Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke of him” (John 12:41)! The idea here seems to be that no one has ever seen God the Father, but God the Son has revealed him. Therefore, Isaiah’s vision of the Lord upon his throne was a vision of God the Son! We have here not merely the application of an OT proof text about Yahweh to Jesus, but rather the actual retrojection of Christ into a prior historical circumstance. He is here clearly equated with God. John differentiates the Son from the Father, but he says that it is the only-begotten God that Isaiah saw.

John 20:28

We reach the christological climax of the Gospel of John in Thomas’ confession to the risen Jesus:

My Lord and my God!

Ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou. (John 20:28)

Here we confront no textual issues, no interpretive conundrums, no translation difficulties, just a blunt and straightforward confession. Bringing together the titles “Lord” and “God,” Thomas’ confession of who Jesus truly is constitutes a fitting climax to the entire Gospel. This pairing of kyrios and theos is abundantly attested in the LXX, the closest parallel being LXX Psalm 34:23 [35:23]: ho theos mou kai ho kyrios mou, addressed to Yahweh.²⁷ That Thomas’ confession was not just ecstatic utterance is obvious not only from its OT background but also from the fact that Jesus blesses him for his confession, along with those who believe similarly (v. 29).

Kyrios and theos are both terms used of Yahweh in Judaism and should be given their due force here. That is not to say that Jesus is, in John’s thinking, Yahweh, for John distinguishes throughout his Gospel between the Father and the Son. Rather kyrios and theos are here employed as titles, not proper names, as the use of the possessive pronoun “my” in each case shows. The claim is not that Jesus is the Father but that both the Father and the Son are equally God.

1 John 5:20

we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

oidamen de hoti ho huios tou theou ēkei, kai dedōken hēmin dianoian hina ginōskōmen ton alēthinon; kai esmen en tō alēthinō, en tō huiō autou Iēsou Christō. houtos estin ho alēthinos theos kai zōē aiōnios. (1 John 5:20)

The question, in Greek as in English, concerns the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun houtos (“this” or “he”): is it ton alēthinon (“him who is true” or “the True One”) or is it Iēsou Christō (“Jesus Christ”)? Either is grammatically possible, and so considerations of context will have to guide our decision. We mentioned that although Harris esteemed both alternatives to be equally probable, the wide majority of scholars since he wrote have argued that houtos refers to Jesus Christ as God.²⁸

Generally, houtos refers back to the most recently mentioned available antecedent, which in this case is Iēsou Christō. Nonetheless, houtos may take a more remote antecedent if it is uppermost in the author’s mind. There are two notable instances in the Johannine epistles:

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

The antecedent in both cases is indisputably not Jesus Christ. In 1 John 5:20 it might be thought that what is uppermost in the author’s mind is the True One, who is God the Father. This consideration is, however, not so persuasive as it may at first appear. For in the two noted instances there is absolutely no ambiguity about the antecedent, all the immediately preceding words being collected into a participial phrase that forms a definite description of the thing being referred to.²⁹ Verse 5:20e features no such description and belongs in a different category precisely because of its ambiguity. Referring to Jesus Christ accords with 1 John 5:5–6: “Who is it that overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ.” Harris deems the parallel only verbal, since “this is” is here prospective, not retrospective, in contrast to 1 John 5:20. But pace Harris, surely houtos here does naturally refer back to Jesus, not merely forwards.³⁰

“The True One” doubtless refers to God the Father, not only because we are said to be “in his Son,” but also because God the Father is called “the only true God” (ton monon alēthinon theon) in John 17:3. But who is “eternal life”? When v. 20 is read within the wider context of the Johannine literature, the most probable referent is Jesus Christ. In John’s first epistle we find statements like “the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us” (1:1–2), “God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life” (5:11–12), and “I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life” (5:13). In the Gospel not only is life found in the Son (John 1:4) but Jesus is said to be “the life” (11:25; 14:6). “The only comparable statement in the Johannine literature concerning the Father is John 17:3, which, however, also mentions Christ. So reference to Jesus Christ as “eternal life” in v. 20e seems particularly apt.

One might wonder if ton alēthinon might refer to the Father and zōē aiōnios refer to the Son. But this interpretation runs afoul of Sharp’s Canon, since zōē aiōnios is anarthrous, so that there is one and only one referent for the phrase ho alēthinos theos kai zōē aiōnios. The adjective alēthinos is applied to Jesus five times in the Johannine literature (John 1:9; 6:32; 15:1; 1 John 2:3, 8; Rev 3:14) and so is perfectly appropriate here.

Many commentators have observed that taking houtos to refer to “him that is true” makes the phrase into a tautology (“This True One is the true God”) and functions poorly rhetorically at the letter’s close.³¹ But a description of Jesus Christ as the true God is a dramatic closing wholly consonant with Johannine theology and, in light of John 1:1, 18; 20:28, almost to be expected. Here at the close of John’s epistle the expression forms a beautiful inclusio with the words of his opening in 1 John 1:1–3. Now at the close how suitable to say of Jesus Christ, the Son of him that is true, that this is the true God and eternal life!

One suspects that Harris’ fundamental objection to taking “Jesus Christ” to be the referent of “this” is that 5:20e, understood as an identity statement, makes the Son personally identical with the Father, which is patently not what John believed. Leave aside for the moment the assumption that 5:20e is intended to be an identity statement. The objection presupposes that in v. 20e “the true God” connotes the Father. But this interpretation is dubious. In John 17:3, when Jesus describes the Father as “the only true God,” that expression is plausibly not a definite description connoting the Father, lest Jesus’ assertion be that the Father is the only true Father, which is not John’s intent. Rather, “God” is plausibly used in 17:3 generically for the Supreme Being, to assert that the Father is the true Supreme Being. False gods, by contrast, are not false fathers but false claimants to the status of Supreme Being (cf. 1 John 5:21). Similarly, in 1 John 5:20e “the true God” plausibly connotes the Supreme Being, and Jesus is said to be that Supreme Being. John believed that just as the Father is God, so the Son is God.³² Whether we can make sense of such a statement is a question for the philosophical, not the biblical, theologian.

Harris thinks that if we do not take 5:20e to assert the personal identity of the Son with the Father, “The only other option would seem to be identity of nature.”³³ Harris’ formulation of the option is confused. An assertion of the identity of the Son with the divine nature would seem to be an assertion of divine simplicity,³⁴ which is neither John’s nor Harris’ intent. Rather, the envisioned option is that the Son and the Father both share the divine nature. Never mind that 5:20e is not a statement about both the Father and the Son, that they share the same nature, but about the Son, that he is the true God. The more important point is that the statement that the Son has the divine nature is not an identity statement at all but a predication. According to this option John should not be understood as making an identity statement of any sort but a predication, predicating deity in its fullest sense to Christ.

Harris protests, “The Achilles’ heel of such proposals is the presence of the article. . . . [I]n declaring what anyone is, the predicate must have no article; in declaring who anyone is the predicate must have the article.”³⁵ This stipulation seems to contradict Harris’ own statement that definiteness and qualitativeness are not mutually exclusive categories; a definite noun like ho theos could carry a qualitative sense like deity.³⁶ The principle that the article before a noun is omitted “when the writer would lay stress on the quality or character of the object”³⁷ is consistent with qualitative use of articular nouns.

Compare Thomas’ confession in John 20:28. There Harris gives theos a qualitative interpretation but says that the article is required grammatically by the nominative of address. But analogously one can say that in 1 John 5:20 theos is used qualitatively but the article is required grammatically to bind together the complex expression ho alēthinos theos kai zōē aiōnios to pick out a single referent in line with Sharp’s Canon. In short, we need not think that if houtos refers to Jesus Christ, 5:20e means to affirm the identity of Jesus Christ with the Father.

Most NT scholars, then, do not agree with Harris’ judgment that in 1 John 5:20 it is equiprobable that houtos refers to God or to Jesus Christ. Indeed, many consider the reference to Jesus Christ to be more than merely probable. The preeminent Johannine commentators Raymond Brown and Rudolf Schnackenburg, for example, conclude respectively, “I think the arguments clearly favor houtos as a reference to Jesus Christ”³⁸ and “There is no longer any doubt . . . that the following houtos . . . refers to Jesus Christ.”³⁹ (pp. 38-46)

28. Komoszewski informs me that of the thirty-eight scholarly sources he has consulted on 1 John 5:20 since Harris’ work in 1992, thirty-one think that the text calls Jesus theos, while only seven disagree (private communication, March 23, 2022)…

22. Space permits just two examples. Rudolph Bultmann thought that John 20:28 is the one instance in the NT where Jesus Christ is “undoubtedly designated” as God (Essays, 276). Bart Ehrman thinks that in John’s Gospel, “Jesus is decidedly God and is in fact equal with God the Father–before coming into the world, while in the world, and after he leaves the world” (How Jesus Became God, 271). (p. 38)

30. Harris’ claim that when “Christ” is the antecedent, the pronoun is always ekeinos, not houtos, is counterbalanced by the fact that John never uses houtos in reference to the Father in the gospel or epistles. (p. 43)

38. Brown, Epistles of John, 66.

39. Schnackenburg, Johannine Epistles, 262. (p. 46)

Pingbacks

Pingback: Craig & the Deity of Christ Pt. 2 – Answering Islam Blog
Pingback: Christ: The True God & Only-Begotten Son – Answering Islam Blog
Pingback: St. Augustine on John 17:3 & Predestination – Answering Islam Blog
Pingback: Craig’s Model of the Trinity – Answering Islam Blog
Pingback: William Craig on the Holy Spirit – Answering Islam Blog
Pingback: Unitarian Logic Gone Wild! – Answering Islam Blog
Pingback: The New Testament Use of Theos Pt. 2 – Answering Islam Blog