9. The New Testament Cumulative Evidence, Part 2: John

This article continues the cumulative examination of the major New Testament passages I marked in my Study Bible under the question, “Is Jesus God?” Part 1 considered the Synoptic Gospels; Part 2 turns to the Gospel of John. John contains many of the passages most frequently used to argue that Jesus is God. For that reason, I do not think the best way to approach John is to begin with a handful of famous proof texts and ask if they prove Jesus' deity or not. Before considering those passages, I think we need to ask a more basic question: Who does the Gospel of John positively and repeatedly present Jesus to be?

After studying John as a whole, I believe the Gospel presents an extraordinarily high Christology—but a genuinely human Christology. John’s Jesus is not an ordinary man. He is the preexistent Son of God, the Messiah, the King of Israel, the Son of Man, the Savior of the world, the Lord, the one through whom humanity comes to the Father, the one entrusted with judgment and resurrection life, and the one in whom God is uniquely revealed. That is an astonishing portrait of Jesus.

But throughout the same Gospel, this extraordinarily exalted Jesus is repeatedly distinguished from God. God sends him, teaches him, gives him words, gives him works to accomplish, gives him authority, gives him life in himself, gives him the Spirit, gives him glory, and ultimately glorifies him. Jesus says that he can do nothing from himself, that his teaching is not his own, that his words are not his own, that he lives because of the Father, that the Father is greater than he is, that the Father is “the only true God,” and—after his resurrection—that the Father is “my God and your God.”

I think those statements must be allowed to define John’s Christology just as much as the frequently used passages to prove Jesus' divinity in John are, namely John 1:1-14, John 8:58, John 10:30, and John 20:28.

1. John’s Christology: An Exalted Human Messiah

John repeatedly tells us who Jesus is.

John does not leave Jesus’ identity undefined. From the beginning of the Gospel to its stated conclusion, Jesus is repeatedly identified with a cluster of extraordinarily exalted—but recognizably biblical and Messianic—titles. Andrew announces:

Nathanael confesses:

Jesus also identifies himself with the prophetic category. John 4:44 says:

After the feeding of the five thousand, the crowd likewise says:

The Samaritans reach an even more expansive conclusion:

And Martha gives one of the clearest confessions of Jesus’ identity anywhere in the Gospel. Immediately after Jesus makes the extraordinary declaration, “I am the resurrection and the life,” Martha responds:

That combination is significant. John can give Jesus the astonishing role of “the resurrection and the life” and still have the confession of his identity be: the Christ, the Son of God. This pattern continues all the way to the end of the Gospel.

After Thomas’s extraordinary confession in John 20:28, John tells us explicitly why he wrote his gospel:

I think that statement deserves enormous interpretive weight. John does not say that he has written so that we may believe that Jesus is “God the Son,” “God in the flesh,” or the one God of Israel. He says that he has written so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Trinitarian Christians understandably believe those titles are compatible with Jesus also being God, and the proof texts considered below are central to that conclusion. But the point here is that John’s own stated identity for Jesus is consistent with the confessions that have accumulated throughout his Gospel: Messiah, Son of God, King, Savior, Lord, Son of Man. Son of God is not a title of divinity.

I therefore do not think we should begin with the assumption that John’s “high Christology" must mean “Jesus is God.” John’s Christology is unquestionably high. The question is what kind of high Christology John actually gives us.

Jesus is extraordinarily exalted—but he receives what he has from God.

One of the clearest patterns in John is that the Father is repeatedly the giver, while Jesus is the extraordinarily exalted recipient. John 3 says:

This is an incredibly exalted description of Jesus. He comes from above. He speaks the words of God. God gives him the Spirit without measure. The Father loves him. All things are placed into his hand. But notice the direction of the language. God sends. Jesus is sent. God gives the Spirit. Jesus receives the Spirit. The Father gives all things. Jesus receives all things into his hand.

The same pattern becomes even more explicit in John 5. Jesus says:

Then John continues:

Again, the authority attributed to Jesus could hardly be higher. Jesus participates in giving life. He is entrusted with judgment. The dead will hear his voice and rise. But John tells us where this authority comes from. The Father gave the Son life in himself. The Father gave the Son authority to execute judgment. Jesus does not describe these things as powers he possesses independently because he is Almighty God. He repeatedly describes them as gifts and authority he receives from the Father.

Jesus then says again:

This is one of the most important statements in John for me. Jesus does not merely say that he chooses to cooperate with the Father despite possessing equal independent authority. He says, “I can of myself do nothing.” John’s Christology is therefore simultaneously astonishingly high and radically dependent. Jesus can give life because God has given him life in himself. Jesus judges because God has given him authority to judge. Jesus performs extraordinary works, but says he can do nothing from himself. I do not think dependence diminishes Jesus. It defines the nature of his greatness in John. He is the perfectly faithful Son who receives everything from God and perfectly carries out what God gives him to do.

Jesus speaks God’s words because God sent and taught him.

The same pattern appears in Jesus’ teaching. Jesus says:

Later, while disputing with his opponents, Jesus describes himself in strikingly human language:

That is an extraordinary self-description in the middle of the Gospel most frequently used to argue that Jesus is God. Jesus calls himself “a man.” He says that the truth he speaks is truth he heard from God. He is not the God from whom the truth originates in this sentence. He is the man who heard the truth from God and faithfully speaks it.

The same relationship appears again near the end of Jesus’ public ministry:

And again:

This is exactly what a prophet and perfectly faithful agent of God does: he speaks the words God gives him. John’s Jesus is greater than every ordinary prophet, but he is not less than a prophet. He is the supreme revealer of God because God has uniquely filled, commissioned, taught, and empowered him. This is why I think John’s language of Jesus being “sent” matters cumulatively. Merely being sent by God does not, by itself, prove that someone is not divine; the Holy Spirit is also sent. But Jesus is not merely “sent.” He is sent and given the Spirit, and given words, and given works, and given authority, and given life, and given glory. He repeatedly says that what he teaches and does originates with the Father.

The pattern is cumulative.

The Father is the source; Jesus is the Son who depends upon Him.

John 6 gives another statement that I think receives far too little attention in discussions of Jesus’ deity:

Jesus says, “I live because of the Father.” That is an astonishing statement if Jesus is the Almighty God who possesses life inherently and eternally from no one. Earlier John said that the Father “gave to the Son also to have life in himself” (John 5:26). Now Jesus says that he lives because of the Father. Again, this does not make Jesus insignificant. In the very same verse, Jesus says that believers will live because of him. Jesus is the God-appointed source through whom resurrection life reaches humanity.

But Jesus himself locates the ultimate source above himself: the living Father. The same pattern appears in Jesus’ language about glory. Jesus does not glorify himself independently. He says:

Notice how much is contained in that sentence. Jesus distinguishes himself from his Father. His Father glorifies him. And Jesus identifies this Father as the One his Jewish hearers call “our God.” Again, the direction remains consistent: God glorifies Jesus; Jesus is glorified by God.

Jesus explicitly distinguishes himself from “the only God” and “the only true God”.

This cumulative pattern reaches one of its clearest expressions in Jesus’ own language about God. In John 5, Jesus says:

Jesus speaks of “the only God” while speaking of himself as the one sent by that God.

Then, in John 17, Jesus prays:

I think this passage is one of the most important Christological passages in the entire New Testament precisely because it contains both the extraordinary height of John’s Christology and the distinction I am arguing for. Jesus speaks of glory he had with the Father before the world existed. I therefore believe John presents Jesus as genuinely preexistent. Jesus has authority over all flesh. Jesus gives eternal life. These are enormous claims.

But in the very same prayer: The Father gave him authority. The Father gave him a work to accomplish. Jesus asks the Father to glorify him. And most strikingly, Jesus calls the Father “the only true God” and distinguishes himself as “Jesus Christ, whom you sent.” This is why I do not think the choice is between a “high” Trinitarian Christology and a “low” human Christology. John gives us a third possibility: an extraordinarily high human Christology.

Jesus can preexist his earthly ministry, share glory with God in the beginning, receive universal authority, give resurrection life, reveal God perfectly, and be the indispensable Messiah through whom the world is saved—while still remaining distinct from the One he calls “the only true God.”

Jesus says that the Father is greater than he is.

The same distinction appears in John 14:

This statement is often explained within Trinitarian theology by distinguishing Jesus’ human role from his divine nature. I address that larger framework elsewhere. But before importing that framework, I think we should allow Jesus’ sentence to have its ordinary force. “The Father is greater than I.” John has already shown us what that greater status looks like in practice. The Father sends; Jesus is sent. The Father gives; Jesus receives. The Father teaches; Jesus speaks what he is taught. The Father gives life in himself; Jesus receives it. The Father gives authority; Jesus exercises it. The Father glorifies; Jesus is glorified.

The claim that the Father is greater than Jesus therefore does not appear in isolation. It summarizes a relationship John has been showing throughout the Gospel.

God is in Jesus and revealed through Jesus.

But if Jesus is not God, how can John use such extraordinary language about him? How can Jesus say, “He who has seen me has seen the Father”? How can he say that he and the Father are one? I think John himself gives us the framework. Philip asks Jesus to show the disciples the Father. Jesus responds:

This is extraordinarily high Christology. To see Jesus is to see the Father. But Jesus immediately explains the relationship in terms of indwelling and revelation: the Father is in him; his words are not from himself; the Father who lives in him does the works. In other words, Jesus reveals God so perfectly because God dwells and works in him with extraordinary fullness.

John then makes this even more striking by extending similar language to Jesus’ followers. Jesus prays:

This is crucial. Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus—but believers are invited to be “in us.” Jesus and the Father are one—but Jesus prays that believers will be one “even as we are one.” Jesus possesses glory—but he explicitly says that this glory was given to him by the Father, and then he gives that glory to his followers. Believers do not thereby become God. Therefore, divine indwelling, profound unity with God, sharing God-given glory, and revealing God cannot by themselves prove that Jesus is God. John portrays Jesus as the unique foundation and supreme example of a human being so filled with, united with, and glorified by God that the invisible God is perfectly revealed through him. That is an extraordinarily high Christology. But it is still a human Christology.

Even after the resurrection, Jesus still calls the Father “my God”.

Perhaps the clearest place to test this reading is after Jesus’ resurrection. If Jesus’ distinction from God were merely a temporary feature of his earthly humiliation, we might expect that distinction to disappear once he is risen and glorified. It does not. Jesus tells Mary:

The resurrected Jesus has a God. More than that, Jesus says that his God is the same God his disciples have: “my God and your God.” That statement occurs only eleven verses before Thomas says, “My Lord and my God!” Whatever Thomas’s confession means—and I address it fully below—it must be interpreted in a way that also accounts for Jesus’ own explicit statement that the Father is his God.

And then John concludes the Gospel by telling us what he wants us to believe:

This is the cumulative framework in which I think the major proof texts in John must be read. Again, John does not say that he is writing so people will believe that Jesus is God. He is writing so they would believe he is God's Son. God's Son is not a title of divinity; it is a title given to Adam, for example (Luke 3:38), and every male Christian.

John’s Christology is high—but high does not have to mean “Jesus is God”.

I want to emphasize this because I do not think the correct response to Trinitarian readings of John is to lower Jesus. John presents an astonishing Jesus. He is the Messiah. He is the Son of God. He is the King of Israel. He is the Son of Man who receives universal rule. He comes from above. I believe John portrays him as genuinely preexistent. He is the Savior of the world. He is the bread of life. He is the good shepherd. He is the resurrection and the life. He is the way, the truth, and the life through whom humanity comes to the Father. He is the true vine through whom believers bear fruit. He gives resurrection life. He judges. He receives universal authority. He reveals God so completely that seeing him is seeing the Father who sent him. Believing in him is necessary for life. None of that should be weakened. But neither should it cause us to ignore the other half of John’s Christology: this Jesus receives everything from God, worships God himself (John 4:22), and completely depends on God.

The Father sends him. The Father gives him the Spirit. The Father gives him words. The Father gives him works. The Father gives him life in himself. The Father gives him authority. The Father gives him people. The Father gives him glory. The Father glorifies him. Jesus can do nothing from himself. Jesus does not seek his own will. Jesus’ teaching is not his own. Jesus’ words are not from himself. Jesus says he is a man who heard the truth from God.

Jesus lives because of the Father. Jesus says the Father is greater than he is. Jesus calls the Father “the only true God.” And the risen Jesus calls the Father “my God.” In my reading, the cumulative picture is remarkably coherent: John presents Jesus as God’s uniquely exalted, preexistent, fully human Son and Messiah—the one whom God sent, filled, empowered, authorized, glorified, and through whom God perfectly reveals Himself to the world.

That is the Christology I think we should establish before turning to the handful of passages most commonly used to argue that Jesus is God.

2. The Major Proof Texts in John

The passages below are important. Some are genuinely difficult, and I do not think they should be dismissed or explained away. But neither should they be isolated from the Gospel that contains them.

The question is not simply whether a phrase such as “the Word was God,” “before Abraham was, I am,” “I and the Father are one,” or “my Lord and my God” can sound like a declaration of deity when read by itself. The question is whether that interpretation best fits John as a whole in context.

1. Passage: John 1:1–14

John 1:1-14 may be the most frequently used passage in the Bible to argue that Jesus is God. Most Christians read the opening words and immediately make one identification:

The Word is Jesus.

Verse 1 says,“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”If the Word is Jesus, the conclusion seems straightforward: Jesus existed with God before creation and was himself God.

But is that actually the identity John gives the Word? Does John 1 itself require us to identify the pre-creation Word as Jesus? And does that identification fit what John says throughout the rest of his Gospel, where Jesus repeatedly distinguishes himself from God, says that God is “the only God” (John 5:44) and “the only true God” (John 17:3), receives his words, works, authority, life, and glory from God, and repeatedly describes himself as the one sent from God?

I believe there is another—and better—biblical identification of the Word:

The Word is the Holy Spirit.

Could the Word Be the Holy Spirit?

John deliberately begins with the words:“In the beginning.”

This unmistakably recalls Genesis:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Genesis 1:1

And who is explicitly present with God in that opening creation scene?

“The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”—Genesis 1:2

So when John takes us back to “the beginning” and introduces a divine person who is with God and involved in creation, I believe the Holy Spirit should immediately be considered.

The rest of Scripture strengthens this connection.

Psalm 33:6 says: “By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and all their army by the breath of his mouth.”

The Hebrew word translated “breath” is ruach, the same word translated Spirit. Here a creation passage places God’s Word and God’s Spirit/breath together in the creation of the heavens (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “רוּחַ”).

Psalm 104:30 says:“You send forth your Spirit: they are created.”

Job 33:4 says:“The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

Again we see the same cluster of ideas: Spirit. Creation. Breath. Life.

And those are precisely the kinds of ideas John associates with the Word.

Wisdom, the Spirit, and the Word

Proverbs adds another major piece of the biblical picture.

“Yahweh by wisdom founded the earth.”—Proverbs 3:19

In Proverbs 8, Wisdom describes herself as existing before the earth, being present when God established the heavens, and standing beside God in the creation scene:

“When he established the heavens, I was there…”—Proverbs 8:27

and:

“I was beside him, like a master workman.”—Proverbs 8:30

Most importantly, Isaiah explicitly connects Wisdom with the Holy Spirit:

“The Spirit of Yahweh will rest on him: the Spirit of wisdom…”—Isaiah 11:2

The Spirit of the Lord is the Spirit of Wisdom.

When these passages are placed beside John 1, the parallels are striking:

Are all of these similarities merely coincidence?

I do not think so.

The creation correspondence is especially strong. Genesis places the Spirit of God with God at the beginning. Psalm 104 says that when God sends His Spirit, creatures are created. Job says the Spirit of God makes. Proverbs says God creates through Wisdom and portrays Wisdom beside Him in the creation scene. John then says that all things were made through the Word.

Wisdom, Spirit, and Word are therefore not merely vaguely associated with creation. All three are intimately connected with God’s creative activity (Brown 519–24; Ashton 161–86).

And Isaiah gives us a crucial biblical connection:

The Spirit of Yahweh is the Spirit of Wisdom.

Paul also says there is one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4; Ephesians 4:4).

I therefore believe the biblical evidence points strongly toward Wisdom and the Holy Spirit being the same divine person. And once that identification is recognized, John’s Word—who is with God, is God, participates in creation, and contains life—fits the Holy Spirit, the feminine Spirit of Wisdom, remarkably well (Engberg-Pedersen 36–73).

The Wisdom Books Strengthen the Connection

The deuterocanonical Wisdom books make this identification even stronger.Sirach 24 portrays Wisdom as coming from God, dwelling among Israel, and then identifies the Wisdom being described with God’s Torah:

“All this is the book of the covenant of the Most High God, the law that Moses commanded us…”—Sirach 24:23

Sirach therefore closely associates feminine Wisdom with God’s revelation, commandments, and spoken instruction—with what we might naturally call God’s Word.

Wisdom of Solomon 7–9 goes still further.

Wisdom is described as a spirit (Wisdom 7:22), the breath of God’s power, the radiance of eternal light, the spotless mirror of God’s working, and the image of His goodness. She is called the fashioner of all things, can do all things, renews all things, indwells holy souls, gives immortality, sits beside God’s throne, knows all things, guides humanity, and is present with God in the creation of the world (Wisdom 7:22–8:1; 8:3–4; 9:4, 9–11, 17–18).

These descriptions fit the Holy Spirit extraordinarily well.

Wisdom is a Spirit.

Wisdom creates.

Wisdom gives life.

Wisdom indwells holy people.

Wisdom knows and teaches.

Wisdom is with God.

Wisdom is explicitly feminine.

This is why I do not believe Wisdom should simply be assumed to be Jesus.

In fact, Jesus and Wisdom are portrayed quite differently. Throughout John, Jesus says that his words are not his own. His teaching comes from God. His authority comes from God. His works come from God. His life comes from God. He says repeatedly that he can do nothing independently of the Father.

Wisdom, by contrast, is described as possessing extraordinary divine capacities and as participating directly in creation.

The biblical profile of Wisdom therefore fits the Holy Spirit much more naturally than it fits the human Messiah Jesus.

Christians Have Long Connected the Logos with Wisdom

Connecting John’s Logos with biblical Wisdom is not itself an unusual interpretive move.Very early Christian writers identified the Logos with Wisdom. Justin Martyr, for example, explicitly calls the preexistent Logos “Wisdom” and reads Proverbs 8 in connection with this figure (Justin Martyr, ch. 61). Tertullian likewise writes that “the Word of God is also the Wisdom of God” and interprets Proverbs 8 as describing the divine Word (Tertullian, ch. 6). These writers identify the Logos/Wisdom figure with Christ; I disagree with that identification, but their testimony is historically important because it shows that the connection between Logos and biblical Wisdom is ancient rather than a modern invention (Justin Martyr, Dialogue 61; Tertullian, Against Praxeas 6).

My disagreement is not over whether Wisdom helps us understand John’s Word.

My disagreement is over who Wisdom is.

The traditional Christian answer became Jesus.

I believe Scripture points instead to the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah calls the Spirit of Yahweh the Spirit of Wisdom. Proverbs portrays Wisdom as feminine. Genesis places the Spirit with God at creation. Psalms attribute creative work to God’s Spirit. Proverbs attributes creation to Wisdom. John attributes creation to the Word.

Why, then, should we automatically assume that the Word is Jesus rather than the Holy Spirit?

“The Word Was God”

John does not merely say that the Word was with God.

He says:

“The Word was God.”

I agree that this is genuine deity language.

The Greek noun theos means God/god, while theios is an adjective meaning divine. The absence of the article before theos does not reduce the Word to merely “a god,” nor do I think John is simply saying that the Word possessed some vague divine quality (BDAG, s.vv. “θεός,” “θεῖος”; Wallace 266–69).

In my understanding, John attributes genuine deity to the Word.

And that fits the Holy Spirit.

As I argue throughout my “Who Is God?” section of this blog, I believe the Holy Spirittruly is God. Therefore, if the Word is the Holy Spirit, John means exactly what he says:

The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Father and the Spirit are personally distinguishable, yet both are divine.

The question is therefore not whether the Word is God.

The question is: Who is the Word?

I believe the biblical evidence points to the Holy Spirit.

What About Jesus and Creation?

John 1:3 says:“All things were made through her. Without her, nothing was made that has been made.”I do not think Jesus’ humanity or his belonging to creation means that God could not also have worked through Jesus in His creative purposes. Passages such as Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2 explicitly associate Jesus with God’s creative work using “through” language.

That is extraordinarily exalted language about Jesus, and I do not want to minimize it.

But being the person through whom God works does not automatically identify that person as God, the ultimate source of the action. Scripture repeatedly distinguishes God as the source from the agent through whom God accomplishes His purposes.

So I do not need to deny that God created through Jesus in some genuine sense.

My point is different.

Before John ever introduces Jesus by name, the Old Testament already gives us a divine figure who is with God, creates, gives life, communicates God’s truth, and is identified with Wisdom:the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit is explicitly present in Genesis 1. Psalm 104 attributes creation to the Spirit. Job says the Spirit made him. Proverbs associates Wisdom with God’s creative work. Isaiah identifies the Spirit as the Spirit of Wisdom.

The Holy Spirit therefore fits John’s description of the divine Word independently of the passages that describe God later working through Jesus.

What About the Masculine Grammar of “Word”?

The Greek noun logos is grammatically masculine, and Greek therefore uses corresponding masculine grammatical forms.

But grammatical gender does not establish personal gender.

The Greek word pneuma, “spirit,” is grammatically neuter (Bauer et al., s.v. “πνεῦμα”), yet Christians do not conclude that the Holy Spirit is personally neuter. Likewise, the Hebrew noun ruach is grammatically feminine (Brown et al., s.v. “רוּחַ”). Grammatical gender does not by itself determine personal gender, but neither should the Hebrew and Greek data be misstated.

The grammatical gender of a noun and the personal identity of the one represented by that noun are not the same question.

Therefore, the grammatical masculinity of logos does not prevent the Word from being the feminine Holy Spirit.

I use feminine pronouns because of my larger biblical conclusion that the Word is theHoly Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is feminine. My full biblical case for this is in my page, “Who is God?”, on this blog.

What About John 1:14: “The Word Became Flesh and Dwelt Among Us”?

This is the verse most often considered decisive against my interpretation:“The Word became flesh and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the only born Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Read through the traditional identification Word = Jesus, the verse naturally sounds like a divine person transformed into or assumed human flesh.

But that interpretation depends first upon identifying the Word as Jesus.

If the preceding biblical evidence instead identifies the Word as the Holy Spirit, John 1:14 must be read within that framework.

The Greek says:

ho logos sarx egeneto kai eskēnōsen en hēmin.

The traditional translation, “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” is grammatically possible. But that translation does not by itself prove the traditional theological interpretation that an eternal divine Son literally transformed into or assumed a human nature.

Two features of the Greek deserve particular attention.“Dwelt in Us”

The phrase is:eskēnōsen en hēmin.

The preposition en fundamentally expresses being in something, although context can allow English translations such as “among” (BDAG, s.v. “ἐν”).

The phrase can be translated:“dwelt [tabernacled] in us.” (Brown 13; Christian Disciples Church, ch. 8).

That reading is especially significant because it corresponds directly with what the Holy Spirit does.

The Spirit dwells in human beings.

John later says concerning the Spirit:“He (She) lives with you and will be in you.”—John 14:17

The entire Gospel therefore moves toward precisely this reality: God’s Spirit dwelling in human beings.

And Jesus is the beginning of this new covenant reality.

John 1 itself later describes the Spirit descending from heaven and remaining on Jesus:“I have seen the Spirit descending like a dove out of heaven, and it remained on him.”—John 1:32

John the Baptist then explains that this was the identifying sign God had given him:“On whomever you will see the Spirit descending and remaining on him is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.”—John 1:33

Thus within the very same chapter, John moves from the Word dwelling in us to the Spirit descending upon and remaining on Jesus.

I do not think that connection should be ignored.“Tabernacled in Us”

The verb eskēnoō comes from language associated with a tent or tabernacle (BDAG, s.v. “σκηνόω”; Brown 13).John therefore does not merely say that the Word was present. He uses imagery of tabernacling.

In the Old Testament, the tabernacle was the place of God’s indwelling presence and glory.

Under the new covenant, human beings themselves become God’s dwelling place.Jesus is the first and supreme human temple of this indwelling divine presence. The Spirit descends upon him and remains on him. Later, that same Spirit is given to Jesus’ followers and dwells in them.

Seen within that biblical trajectory, John 1:14 reads remarkably naturally as a statement about the divine Word—the Spirit—entering a new relationship with human flesh:The Word came to dwell in humanity.

First in Jesus, and through Jesus eventually in the entire people of God.

The old physical tabernacle gives way to living human temples filled with God’s Spirit.“The Word Came to Be Flesh”

The other important phrase is:ho logos sarx egeneto.

The verb ginomai has a broad range of meaning. It can mean to become, come to be, happen, arise, or enter into a new state or condition. The form used here, egeneto, therefore does not by itself tell us exactly what kind of change has occurred (BDAG, s.v. “γίνομαι”).

That is important.

Egeneto can describe something entering a new condition or state without implying that its underlying identity or substance has been transformed into something fundamentally different. In other words, the verb itself does not require the idea that the Word ceased to be Spirit and literally became a material human being.

“The Word became flesh” is therefore a legitimate English translation, but it is not the only way the Greek can be expressed or understood. A more interpretive rendering consistent with the semantic range of ginomai is:“The Word entered the state of flesh.”

I believe that rendering communicates what is happening more clearly within the interpretation I am presenting.

The point is not that the Holy Spirit stopped being Spirit and was converted into flesh.

The point is that the divine Word entered into a new relationship with human flesh by dwelling within it.

Beginning with Jesus, the Holy Spirit came to dwell in humanity in a new and extraordinary way.

This is precisely the kind of transition egeneto can describe: entrance into a new state, circumstance, or mode of relationship without requiring a change in the essential identity of the subject (BDAG, s.v. “γίνομαι”).

This interpretation also fits the narrative John actually gives us. John does not narrate an eternal divine Son descending into Mary’s womb and becoming a human being. Instead, when John introduces the divine Spirit entering Jesus’ story, he describes the Spirit descending upon Jesus and remaining on him:“I have seen the Spirit descending like a dove out of heaven, and it remained on him.”—John 1:32

That event occurs in the same opening chapter.

The traditional translation “the Word became flesh” therefore does not settle the theological question. English readers can easily hear “became flesh” as meaning that a divine person literally changed into or assumed human nature, but the Greek verb egeneto itself does not require that metaphysical interpretation.

It tells us that the Word came to be in relation to flesh in some new way. Egeneto can be used for entering a new state or condition. The verb itself does not encode a metaphysical theory of substance change, nor does it require the conclusion that the Word ceased to be Spirit in order to become something fundamentally different. The larger context must tell us what that means.

If the preceding biblical evidence identifies the Word as the Holy Spirit, then ho logos sarx egeneto can naturally be understood within John’s larger theology of divine indwelling: the Spirit, who remained the divine Spirit, entered a new state or circumstance with respect to humanity by dwelling in human flesh.

And the very next phrase strengthens that reading:the Word tabernacled in us.

The two ideas fit together naturally:the Word entered the state of flesh and tabernacled in us.

On this reading, John is not describing the Holy Spirit ceasing to be Spirit and becoming a human being. He is describing the divine Word entering human flesh as God’s indwelling presence—beginning uniquely with Jesus and eventually extending to the people of God.

Why I Think This Reading Fits John Better

The traditional interpretation requires John’s opening to introduce Jesus as the eternal divine Word who is himself God and then became human.

But the rest of the Gospel repeatedly presents Jesus differently.

Jesus is sent by God.Jesus receives his words from God.Jesus receives his works from God.Jesus receives authority from God.Jesus receives life from God.

Jesus says he can do nothing from himself.Jesus prays to God.Jesus worships God.

Jesus calls the Father “the only God” and “the only true God.”

He identifies himself as the Messiah whom that God sent.

The Holy Spirit, by contrast, fits the profile of John’s divine Word extraordinarily well.

She is divine.She is with God.She is involved in creation.She gives life.She communicates God’s words and truth.She is the Spirit of Wisdom.She indwells human beings.

And John’s Gospel explicitly centers the new covenant on Her coming to dwell within God’s people.

I therefore believe John 1 makes better sense when the Word is identified as the Holy Spirit rather than Jesus.

Father, Mother, and Creation

This interpretation also has a profound implication for how we understand creation.Genesis says that humanity was created:“male and female”“in the image of God.”—Genesis 1:27

And the two divine persons visibly present at the opening of Genesis are God and His Spirit.

If, as I argue elsewhere, the Father is the masculine divine person and the Spirit is the feminine divine Mother, then John’s creation scene becomes striking:God the Father and the feminine Spirit of Wisdom are together in the beginning.

The God whose image is expressed in humanity as male and female is Himself revealed through Father and Mother.

This makes better sense to me of creation’s testimony to God than the later picture of a Father and an eternal divine Son creating together while the feminine dimension of God largely disappears.

Creation itself points toward Father and Mother.

The Spirit, who gives spiritual birth to God’s children, is not a secondary or peripheral figure.

She is there in the beginning.She creates.She gives life.She is Wisdom.She is God.

And I believe She is the Word.

Conclusion

John 1 unquestionably presents an astonishing divine figure.

The Word existed in the beginning.The Word was with God.The Word was God.

All things were made through the Word.Life was in the Word.The Word came to dwell in human flesh.

I affirm all of that.

My disagreement with traditional Christianity is not over the greatness or deity of the Word.

It is over the Word’s identity.

When Genesis, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, the Wisdom books, and John are allowed to interpret one another, I believe the biblical evidence points toward the same divine person again and again:the Holy Spirit—the feminine Spirit of Wisdom, God our Mother.

Jesus is not diminished by this conclusion.

Jesus remains God’s unique human Son and Messiah, the one whom God fills with the Spirit, through whom God works with extraordinary power, through whom God reveals Himself to the world, and through whom God brings humanity into the new covenant reality of divine indwelling.

John does not give us a small Jesus.

It gives us an extraordinarily exalted human Son filled by God.

But the divine Word who was with God in the beginning and was God, I believe, is the Holy Spirit—not Jesus.

2. Passage: John 1:18

John 1:18

If Jesus is not God, why does John 1:18 say in some translations (like the ESV or NIV) indicate that he is “God the only Son” or even “the only one, himself God”? First, this verse contains a real and well-known textual variant. The majority of Greek manuscripts read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός—“the only [begotten] Son”—which is the reading reflected in translations such as the King James Version and the WEB. Several very early manuscripts, however, read μονογενὴς θεός or ὁ μονογενὴς θεός—“the only [begotten] God.” Modern textual critics often favor the “God” reading because it is found in several early witnesses and because it is the more unusual or difficult reading. The difference may also have arisen very early because “God” and “Son” were commonly abbreviated as nomina sacra in Christian manuscripts, making the two abbreviated forms differ by only one letter (Metzger 169–70; Ehrman 78–82).

Significantly, some of the earliest manuscript evidence for ‘God’ comes from Egypt, at a time when Christians were engaged in intense disputes over the identity and nature of Christ. Textual scholar Bart Ehrman has argued that ‘Son’ was original and that scribes, probably in Alexandria, changed the reading to ‘God’ in the context of these Christological controversies, making the text more explicitly affirm Jesus' divinity. Other textual critics disagree and believe ‘God’ was the original reading. Therefore, a theological alteration is a serious scholarly proposal, but it cannot simply be assumed. So, there is evidence for the “God” reading possibly being the original. The more significant question, though, is: which reading best explains all of the evidence and best fits John's writing?

There are good reasons, in my view, for preferring “the only Son.” John repeatedly describes Jesus using precisely this language. John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1 John 4:9 all refer to Jesus as God's monogenēs Son. By contrast, the expression monogenēs theos—“only [begotten] God”—is never used in the New Testament. This makes “Son” very natural within John's own vocabulary. At the same time, this argument should not be overstated: textual critics who favor “God” argue that this very familiarity could have caused scribes to change an unusual “God” reading into the familiar “Son” reading. Thus, the Johannine parallels support “Son,” but they do not settle the textual question by themselves.

The early Christian evidence is also mixed. Tertullian quotes the passage with “the only-begotten Son,” and Irenaeus preserves the “Son” wording in some places. Clement of Alexandria, however, quotes “the only-begotten God,” and the surviving text of Irenaeus elsewhere also contains that reading. This is important because it shows that both readings are ancient. We should therefore be cautious about claiming that one side simply invented its reading for theological purposes. The textual question appears to have existed very early in Christian history. Context is therefore especially important. Which reading best fits what John says throughout his Gospel? John 1:18 begins by saying that “no one has ever seen God.” It then describes the one who is in the Father's bosom as the one who has made God known. On my reading, “the only Son” creates a very natural distinction: no one has seen God, but God's unique Son, who is intimately related to the Father, has revealed Him. If the reading was “the only God”, I think this does not make as much sense given “no one has ever seen God”, as Jesus was seeable.

That distinction between God and Jesus, the one sent by God, continues throughout John. In John 5:44, Jesus speaks of “the only God.” In John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father and calls Him “the only true God,” and then distinguishes himself from that God as “Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” In the context of these statements, I believe “the only Son” in John 1:18 fits John's consistent distinction between God the Father and Jesus, God's Son and Messiah, better than a reading that appears to identify Jesus straightforwardly as “the only God.” Additionally, “the only [begotten] Son” occurs elsewhere in John's writings, while “the only [begotten] God” occurs nowhere else in Scripture. Again, uniqueness does not by itself make a reading wrong, but when deciding between two ancient readings, John's repeated use of “only Son” deserves significant weight.

There is another important point. Even if θεός (“God”) were ultimately determined to be the original reading, we should still ask what John means by applying that word to Jesus rather than immediately importing the later Nicene doctrine into the verse. Scripture can use words translated “god” for representatives of God without identifying them as Yahweh Himself. God tells Moses, for example, “I have made you a god to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1), and Jesus himself points out in John 10:34-35 that Scripture could call human beings “gods.” This does not mean that John 1:18, if it originally read theos, is insignificant. It would be genuine evidence that must be taken seriously. But the theological meaning of that designation would still need to be determined from John's wider use of “God,” his repeated distinction between Jesus and the Father, and Jesus' own identification of the Father as “the only true God.”

In other words, if the original reading is “Son,” John 1:18 does not call Jesus God at all. If the original reading is “God,” then the verse becomes part of the larger exegetical question of how Scripture can apply divine language to God's uniquely authorized Son while still distinguishing him from the God who sent him. For these reasons, I believe “the only [begotten] Son” is the better reading of John 1:18. It is supported by the majority of Greek manuscripts, is attested in early Christian writers, corresponds closely to John's repeated language elsewhere, and fits what I believe is the larger theological pattern of the Gospel: the Father is God, and Jesus is God's unique Son who reveals Him. At the very least, because the wording of John 1:18 itself is textually disputed, this verse should not be presented as though it were an uncontested declaration that Jesus is God. And even if the “God” reading is original, that fact does not end the discussion; its meaning must still be interpreted in light of the whole Gospel of John.

3. Passage: John 1:41, 49, 51

“We have found the Messiah.”

Jews understand the Messiah to be the Christ, the King of Israel (verse 49 below), not a God-man. That thinking did not develop till significantly after Jesus’ ascension. The Messiah is NOT a divine title but is a fully human one in Judaism. Jews still maintain this, which is part of the reason they are so averse to becoming Christians who mostly believe Jesus is God (Collins, The Scepter and the Star; Lamm). Further “Son of God” is NOT a title of divinity either. It is a kingly title. Adam, Solomon, and David were all called sons of God, and they were decidedly not God. Nathanael is making no pronouncement of deity, rather, he is declaring he believes Jesus is the human Messiah. Finally, Son of Man is not a divine title either (verse 51). “Son of man” just means that Jesus is a human in its most basic form. “Son of man” may also refer to Daniel 7, which is a prophecy about the “Son of man” approaching God and being given rule over the earth.

Daniel 7:13-14 says, “As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that should not pass away, and his kingship shall never be destroyed.” Christians agree that the "human being" coming with the clouds of heaven is Jesus, and many think this passage is evidence of his deity. I think this actually shows the opposite. The Ancient One he is presented to is God. This passage says that this “human being” was GIVEN dominion and glory, etc., that all should serve him. This is proof he is not God, as God already owns everything as the Creator and does not need to be given anything. This passage is simply affirming what many other passages do: that Jesus was established as King of Kings and Lord of Lords by God, and that God gave Jesus his kingdom and his authority. Jesus has the highest role of any human, but this does not mean he is God, as he was given all of it by God.

The titles used for Jesus in this passage—“Messiah,” “Son of God,” “King of Israel,” and “Son of Man”—do not mean that Jesus is God. They identify him as God's promised Messiah and exalted King. When Andrew says, “We have found the Messiah” (John 1:41), he is identifying Jesus as the Christ—God's “anointed one.” Messiah itself is not a title meaning “God” or “God-man”; it means “anointed one.” In the Old Testament, kings and others appointed by God could be called God's anointed. The title therefore should not have the later Christian doctrine of the incarnation simply read back into it. The question is what John means by identifying Jesus as Israel's Messiah. The immediate context helps answer that question. Nathanael declares to Jesus in verse 49, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” These two titles occur together. “Son of God” is therefore closely connected here with Jesus' identity as Israel's King.

This has deep Old Testament roots. Psalm 2 speaks of God's “anointed” (messiah), calls him God's king, and then has God say to that king, “You are my son” (Psalm 2:2, 6-7). Likewise, God promised concerning the Davidic king, “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me” (2 Samuel 7:14). Solomon is explicitly called God's son (1 Chronicles 28:6); Israel itself is called God's son (Exodus 4:22); and Adam is called “son of God” (Luke 3:38). None of these usages means that the person or people called God's “son” are therefore God Himself. Thus, “Son of God” is not a title of deity. In a messianic context, it has a powerful royal meaning: Jesus is God's chosen and uniquely exalted Messianic King. Nathanael is certainly making an extraordinary confession about Jesus, but the text itself tells us what kind of confession it is: “You are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.” This is not a declaration that Jesus is God.

The same care is necessary with Jesus' next title, “Son of Man” (verse 51). In its most basic Hebrew and Aramaic sense, “son of man” can simply refer to a human being. In John 1:51, however, Jesus is likely invoking the much more exalted “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7, especially given the context of angels descending and ascending on the son of man in verse 51. Daniel 7:13-14 says: “As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being [some translations, “son of man”] coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that should not pass away, and his kingship shall never be destroyed.” Christians commonly identify this figure with Jesus, and many consider the passage evidence of Jesus' deity. I think the passage points in the opposite direction.

Notice what actually happens in Daniel's vision. There are two distinguishable figures: the Ancient of Days, who is God, and the humanlike figure who comes before Him. The Son-of-Man-like figure does not possess the kingdom independently. He is presented before God, and dominion, glory, and kingship are given to him. That distinction matters. God is the source of the authority; the Son of Man is its recipient. This corresponds closely with what the New Testament repeatedly says about Jesus: God gave Jesus authority, exalted him, appointed him, and established him as Lord and King. Jesus' extraordinary authority therefore does not require the conclusion that Jesus is the God who gave him that authority. It demonstrates just how highly God has exalted His Messiah.

Some Christians point particularly to the Son of Man coming “with the clouds of heaven” and to the universal service he receives as evidence of deity. These are unquestionably exalted images, and I do not think their force should be minimized. But being an extraordinarily exalted ruler is not the same thing as being God, or the Ancient of Days Himself. Daniel's own vision distinguishes the two and explicitly portrays the Son of Man as receiving his dominion from God. If Jesus was God, why would he need to receive dominion? There is another important detail in Daniel 7 that is sometimes overlooked. Later in the same vision, the kingdom is also said to be given to “the holy ones of the Most High” (Daniel 7:18, 22, 27). Thus, receiving God's kingdom—even an everlasting kingdom—cannot by itself mean that the recipient is God. The chapter's own interpretation describes God's people sharing in this rule.

For this reason, I do not believe Daniel 7 establishes that the Son of Man is God. It establishes that God gives the Son of Man an astonishingly exalted position: dominion over the nations and an everlasting kingdom. This is exactly what I believe Scripture teaches about Jesus. He is God's Messiah, the supreme human King, exalted above every other human being and given authority over the world by God. His greatness should not be diminished—but neither should the authority God gives him be turned into proof that he is God. So the titles accumulate throughout John 1: Messiah. Son of God. King of Israel. Son of Man. They present an extraordinarily exalted picture of Jesus. But none of these titles, properly understood in their biblical context, mean Jesus is God. Rather, together they proclaim that Jesus is God's promised Messiah, God's Son, and the King whom God has appointed to rule His kingdom. For a fuller discussion of Daniel 7 and the title “Son of Man,” see my commentary on Matthew 10:23.

4. Passage: John 2:11

Miracles

Jesus’ miracles are not proof of his deity. Scripture explicitly says that God performed miracles through Jesus: Jesus was “a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him” (Acts 2:22). Likewise, “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power,” and Jesus performed his works because “God was with him” (Acts 10:38). Jesus himself says, “the Son can do nothing on his own” (John 5:19), “I can do nothing on my own” (John 5:30), and “the Father who dwells in me does his works” (John 14:10). He even says his disciples would do “greater works” than he did (John 14:12). Jesus’ miracles therefore demonstrate God’s extraordinary power working through His Messiah, not that Jesus himself is God.

5. Passage: John 3:13

“Descended out of heaven”

John 3:13 says:

I do believe John cumulatively presents Jesus as genuinely preexistent. But preexistence is not the same thing as deity. John 3:13 does not tell us that Jesus was eternally God the Son; it tells us that the Son of Man has a heavenly or preexistent origin. That distinction matters. John repeatedly describes Jesus as coming “from heaven,” “from above,” or “from God,” and later gives even stronger language: Jesus speaks of ascending “where he was before” (John 6:62) and of the glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5). I therefore do not think the best explanation is simply that Jesus existed only in God’s foreknowledge. I believe he truly preexisted.

At the same time, none of those statements by themselves identify Jesus as God. A person can preexist his first-century human life without being the eternal God. The question of what Jesus’ preexistence means is a separate question from whether Jesus is God, and I return to it later in this section. The phrase “who is in heaven” in John 3:13 is also a textual variant: several early manuscripts omit it, while many other manuscripts contain it (Metzger 174–75). I therefore would not build the argument on that disputed phrase. The central point does not depend on it: John gives Jesus a genuine heavenly and preexistent history, while throughout the Gospel Jesus remains distinct from the God who sent him. I therefore think John 3:13 supports Jesus’ preexistence, but preexistence does not equal deity. There are ways of understanding a genuinely preexistent human Messiah that do not require identifying him as God. For the purposes of this article, the important point is simply that preexistence by itself does not establish deity.

6. Passage: John 8:58

John 8:58

Read by itself—and especially through later Christian theology—John 8:58 can sound like an explicit claim that Jesus is God: “Before Abraham was born, I am.” Many Christians understand Jesus’ words “I am” (ego eimi) as an identification with Yahweh, particularly God’s words in Exodus 3:14. I understand why this verse is read that way, particularly as I have been taught this verse proves Jesus is God my entire life. However, I do not think either the Greek phrase itself or the larger context requires that conclusion. Ego eimi simply means “I am” or, depending on context, “I am he/the one.” The expression is not intrinsically a divine name (BDAG, s.v. “εἰμί”; Wallace). In John 9:9, for example, the man Jesus healed repeatedly says ego eimi—“I am he”—when people ask whether he is the formerly blind man. Jesus similarly says ego eimi to the Samaritan woman when identifying himself as the Messiah: “I am he, the one speaking to you” (John 4:26). She certainly does not think he is claiming to be God in John 4.

Even within John 8, Jesus uses the same expression before verse 58. In verse 24 he says, “unless you believe that I am [ego eimi] he, you will die in your sins,” and in verse 28, “then you will know that I am [ego eimi] he.” English translations commonly supply “he” because Greek can leave the predicate implied. Whatever theological significance one gives these statements, the phrase ego eimi itself does not automatically mean “I am Yahweh.” There is an argument on the other side that should be acknowledged. In the Greek Old Testament, Yahweh sometimes identifies Himself simply with ego eimi—particularly in Isaiah 41:4, 43:10, and 46:4. For this reason, many Christians understand John’s repeated absolute “I am” sayings as deliberate echoes of Isaiah’s language about God. I do not think this possibility should simply be dismissed. But an echo of language used by Yahweh that is also used by other humans (like the blind man in John 9) does not by itself establish that Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh; the meaning still has to be determined from the context of John as a whole.

The frequently claimed connection specifically with Exodus 3:14 is also not as exact as it can appear in English. The Septuagint renders God’s statement there ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (ego eimi ho ōn), approximately, “I am the One who is,” and then tells Moses to say that ὁ ὤν (ho ōn), “the One who is,” sent him (Rahlfs and Hanhart, Exod. 3:14). Jesus does not say ego eimi ho ōn in John 8:58; he simply says ego eimi. Therefore, John 8:58 is not a direct verbal quotation of the Greek Exodus 3:14. This does not prove there is no allusion to divine language, but it means the connection cannot simply be assumed from the English words “I am.” The immediate context is also extremely important. Only eighteen verses earlier Jesus says: “But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God” (John 8:40).

Jesus explicitly calls himself a man and distinguishes himself from God, from whom he heard the truth. Throughout the same conversation he says that God is his Father (8:42, 54), that God sent him (8:42), that he honors his Father (8:49), that he does not glorify himself (8:50, 54), and that it is his Father who glorifies him—the One his Jewish hearers call “our God” (8:54). I believe this context weighs strongly against suddenly interpreting verse 58 to mean that Jesus said, “I am that very God.” So what does Jesus mean by “Before Abraham was born, I am”? At a minimum, Jesus is making an extraordinary claim about his relationship to Abraham and his own identity. Some Biblical Unitarians understand this as ideal or prophetic preexistence: Jesus existed beforehand in God’s foreknowledge, purpose, and promises. One indication supporting such an approach is Jesus’ immediately preceding statement that Abraham “rejoiced that he would see my day; and he saw it and was glad” (8:56)—language that itself can involve prophetic anticipation.

While there is genuine Jewish precedent for speaking this way about things and persons foreknown by God, I do not think this adequately explains the cumulative language about Jesus in John, particularly his reference to ascending “where he was before” (John 6:62) and to the glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5). I believe Jesus truly preexisted Abraham. Where I disagree with the traditional Christian interpretation is not over whether Jesus preexisted, but over what that preexistence means. Again, preexistence does not equal deity.

Finally, why do Jesus’ opponents pick up stones immediately afterward? Many Christians understandably see this as evidence that they interpreted Jesus’ statement as blasphemous and therefore as a claim to deity. That possibility should be taken seriously, but the text itself does not explicitly say, “They picked up stones because he claimed to be God.” In Judaism, “blasphemy” is broader than a claim to be God. For example, in Deuteronomy 18:20, “But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.” Jesus’ opponents in this story certainly did not think Jesus was speaking the words of God.

What is more, their desire to kill Jesus began well before verse 58. Jesus says in verses 37 and 40 that they are already seeking to kill him. The confrontation then becomes increasingly severe: Jesus tells them that they are not truly Abraham’s children, that they do not know God, and ultimately that their father is the devil (8:39–47). They respond by accusing him of being a Samaritan and demon-possessed (8:48, 52). They are also offended by what they perceive as Jesus placing himself above Abraham: “Are you greater than our father Abraham?” (8:53). The hostility therefore did not suddenly originate with the words ego eimi in verse 58 when, as many Christians understand it, Jesus “claimed to be God.”

Jesus’ statement that he was before Abraham is unquestionably extraordinary, and I do not want to minimize it. Nor do I think the possible echoes of Yahweh’s ego eimi language in Isaiah should simply be ignored. But neither the Greek phrase ego eimi, the possible Old Testament echoes, nor the attempt to stone Jesus proves by itself that Jesus is Yahweh. These elements must be interpreted in the context of the entire discourse—and, ultimately, the entire Gospel. Only eighteen verses earlier Jesus identifies himself as “a man” who heard the truth “from God.” He distinguishes himself repeatedly from the Father who sent him, teaches him, glorifies him, and whom his Jewish audience calls “our God.” In that context, I do not believe John 8:58 overturns all of those repeated distinctions and suddenly identifies Jesus as Yahweh. John 8:58 strongly supports Jesus’ preeminence and, in my view, his preexistence. But it does not prove that Jesus is God.

7. Passage: John 10:30–39

John 10:30-39

If Jesus is not God, how can Jesus say, “I and the Father are one”? And similarly, how can Jesus later say, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9)? Jesus is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). He reveals the Father with extraordinary fullness: the Father dwells in him and does His works through him (John 14:10), and Jesus reveals God’s character, words, works, and love. Thus, to see Jesus is to see what the Father is like. But does this mean Jesus is God? I do not think so. Scripture promises an extraordinary degree of unity with God to believers as well. Jesus prays that Christians “may all be one,” just as the Father is in him and he is in the Father, and even prays that believers may be “in us” (John 17:21–23). Paul prays that believers will be “filled with all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 3:19). God abides in believers who love one another (1 John 4:12), Christians are being conformed to Christ’s image (Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18), and one day “we will be like him” (1 John 3:2).

Therefore, profound unity with God, divine indwelling, and reflecting God’s image do not by themselves make someone God. In fact, Jesus explicitly prays that his followers will share in the same kind of profound relational unity that exists between himself and the Father.“I and the Father are one”The immediate context of John 10:30 is Jesus’ protection of the sheep. Jesus says that no one can snatch them from his hand (John 10:28), and then says that the Father has given them to him and that no one can snatch them from the Father’s hand (John 10:29). He concludes:“I and the Father are one.”In context, Jesus and the Father are perfectly united in preserving and caring for God’s people. The Father has entrusted the sheep to Jesus, and Jesus carries out the Father’s work with complete unity of purpose and action. Many Trinitarians understand this unity to include unity of divine essence. I understand that interpretation, particularly because Jesus is making an extraordinarily exalted claim about his unity with the Father. However, the verse itself does not say, “I and the Father are one God,” or “one essence.” Those theological conclusions must be inferred from the statement. The Greek is also worth considering carefully. Jesus says: ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν — “I and the Father are one.” The word translated “one,” hen (ἕν), is neuter, while the verb esmen means “we are.” This makes clear that Jesus is not saying that he and the Father are one person. But the grammar alone does not tell us whether their unity is unity of purpose, action, power, essence, or some combination of these. Context must determine that (Wallace).

What is especially significant is that John later uses the same neuter word, hen, when Jesus prays that believers will be one:

“that they may all be one [hen], even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you…that they also may be in us” (John 17:21). And again: “that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:22). Believers obviously do not become one divine being or one essence with one another—or become God Himself. Yet Jesus explicitly compares their unity with the unity between himself and the Father. Therefore, I do not think the word “one” in John 10:30 can establish that Jesus and the Father possess one divine essence, and that Jesus is God with the Father. In the immediate context, it very naturally describes their perfect unity in caring for the sheep; in John 17, Jesus extends this extraordinary pattern of unity to his followers. But why did Jesus’ opponents accuse him of claiming to be God? The strongest challenge comes in the next verses: “We are not stoning you for any good work…but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God” (John 10:33).

This accusation should be taken seriously. I would not argue that the Greek must be translated “you make yourself a god,” lessening the statement, though “a god” is grammatically possible. The Greek is ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν (poieis seauton theon), and “make yourself God” is a legitimate—and, in this context, very natural—translation. Greek does not have an indefinite article corresponding exactly to English “a,” and the absence of the definite article before theos does not automatically mean that it should be translated “a god.” Anarthrous theos can refer to the true God (BDAG, s.v. “θεός”; Wallace 243–70). Therefore, I do not think my argument should depend on changing the translation to “a god,” though again, “a god” is a grammatically possible translation. The Greek itself does not determine the capitalization or require either “God” or “a god”; the meaning must be determined from context. So, I think Jesus’ response to the accusation is far more important. Jesus answers:

“Isn’t it written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture can’t be broken—do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:34–36). This is remarkable. Jesus’ opponents accuse him of making himself theos. Jesus does not respond, “Yes, because I am Yahweh.” Instead, he appeals to Psalm 82, where Scripture itself calls beings other than Yahweh “gods,” and then states his own claim as:“I am the Son of God.”There is disagreement over exactly who the “gods” of Psalm 82 are—human judges/rulers or heavenly beings—but that debate does not change the central point here: Scripture can use god/gods language for beings who are not Yahweh. Jesus himself brings this fact into the conversation. Trinitarian interpreters often understand Jesus’ argument as a lesser-to-greater argument: if Scripture can call these lesser figures “gods,” how much more appropriate is elevated language for the uniquely sanctified and sent Son of God. But even so, Jesus identifies himself explicitly as God’s Son, not as God, or “God the Son”. This fits the Old Testament background of “Son of God.” The Davidic Messiah is God’s anointed King and Son (Psalm 2:2, 6–7; 2 Samuel 7:12–14). “Son of God” is therefore a profoundly exalted messianic title, but it does not mean “God the Son.” Jesus’ description of himself in verse 36 of the same chapter also maintains the distinction: he is the One whom the Father sanctified/set apart and sent into the world. The Father is the One who sends; Jesus is His consecrated and sent Son.“The Father is in me, and I in the Father”Jesus then says: “Believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (John 10:38). Again, this expresses extraordinary unity between Jesus and God. But John later uses remarkably similar language for believers: “You, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us” (John 17:21). Thus, being “in” God and having God “in” someone cannot by itself mean that the person is God. Jesus’ relationship with the Father is uniquely foundational, but the Gospel explicitly presents believers as being invited into this extraordinary unity with God through Christ (John 17:20-23). What, then, does the attempt to stone Jesus prove? Their reaction shows that they considered Jesus’ claims blasphemously exalted. It is certainly evidence for how they understood what Jesus was saying. But their accusation should not be allowed to speak more loudly than Jesus’ own response to it. And, as already explained, claiming to be God is not the only blasphemous claim in Judaism.

Jesus explains his claim as “I am the Son of God.” He appeals to Scripture’s broader use of the word “gods" with beings that are not Yahweh, identifies himself as the One whom the Father set apart and sent, and continues to distinguish himself from the Father whose works he performs, who he says twice in John is the “only God” (John 5:44, John 17:3). These are not the words or actions of someone who thinks he is God. This distinction appears again at Jesus’ trial. John 19:7 records his opponents saying:“We have a law, and according to our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”Likewise, the Synoptic trials center on whether Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God/the Blessed One (Matthew 26:63–66; Mark 14:61–64). For these reasons, I do not think John 10:30–39 proves that Jesus is Yahweh. The passage unquestionably gives Jesus an extraordinarily exalted relationship with God: he protects God’s sheep, acts in complete unity with the Father, performs the Father’s works, and is uniquely consecrated and sent as God’s Son. I do not want to minimize any of that. But profound unity with God is not the same thing as being God. Jesus later prays that believers will be one as he and the Father are one, will be in the Father and Son, and will share in the glory God gave him (John 17:21–23). And when accused of making himself God, Jesus’ own stated claim is not ‘I am Yahweh,’ but ‘I am the Son of God’—an extraordinarily exalted title with clear Old Testament royal and messianic roots that is not a claim to be God. I therefore believe John 10 is better understood as revealing Jesus as God’s uniquely exalted, united, divinely authorized Son and Messiah—not as identifying Jesus with God Himself.

8. Passage: John 15:1–11

John 15:1-11

This passage is similar in some respects to John 6:35, where Jesus says:“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”Likewise, John 15:1–2 says: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.” Both passages use vivid metaphors to describe Jesus’ essential role in bringing people into life with God. Jesus came to reconcile the world to God. Those who believe in him receive what he came to make possible: reconciliation with the Father and the gift of the Holy Spirit. In this sense, those who come to Jesus will no longer hunger or thirst, because through him they come into relationship with God, the ultimate source of life. The vine imagery communicates a similar truth. Those who remain “in” Jesus—trusting him, following him, and continuing in the way of obedience he taught and modeled—bear fruit. Through faith in Jesus, believers receive the Holy Spirit and are brought into living relationship with God. Jesus is therefore indispensable to their fruitfulness. Yet I do not understand this to mean that Jesus is himself the ultimate source of the growth. Scripture elsewhere attributes that role to God.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 3:5–7: “What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” Although Paul is discussing a different context, the underlying principle is relevant: God is the one who ultimately produces spiritual growth. Jesus likewise says that he can do nothing from himself, but acts in dependence upon the Father (John 5:19). Thus, I do not think Jesus’ description of himself as the vine requires us to identify him as God. Rather, Jesus is the one through whom God has made reconciliation, life, and the gift of the Spirit available to humanity. John 15:5 makes Jesus’ role especially strong:“I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.”Again, this is metaphorical language describing an extraordinary spiritual union between Jesus and his followers. To “abide” in Jesus involves remaining united with him in faith, love, obedience, purpose, and life with God. Through this union, believers receive the Spirit and are empowered to bear fruit. Jesus therefore truly can say, “Apart from me you can do nothing.” But I do not believe this means that Jesus is the independent source of divine power. Jesus himself repeatedly describes his life and works as dependent upon the Father. Rather, apart from Jesus, we would not have the reconciliation and access to God that he came to accomplish. Through Jesus we come to the Father and receive the Holy Spirit; through that relationship with God, we are empowered to bear fruit. Thus, John 15 presents an extraordinarily exalted picture of Jesus and his indispensable role in salvation without identifying Jesus as God. Jesus is the true vine through whom humanity is brought into life with God, while the Father remains the vinedresser and the ultimate source of the life and growth that follow.

9. Passage: John 18:5–6

John 18:6

Some Christians interpret John 18:6 as evidence of Jesus’ divinity, arguing that when Jesus says “I am,” he invokes the divine name and thereby causes Judas and the arresting party to draw back and fall to the ground. However, neither conclusion is required by the text. First, Jesus’ words are a natural response to the question being asked. When they say they are looking for “Jesus of Nazareth,” Jesus answers, “I am he” (egō eimi)—that is, “I am [Jesus of Nazareth].” The phrase egō eimi can function as ordinary self-identification; its use does not by itself constitute a claim to be God or an utterance of the divine name. Second, John does not tell us explicitly why the arresting party drew back and fell to the ground. Perhaps they were startled or overwhelmed by Jesus’ unexpected boldness and authority: rather than hiding or fleeing, Jesus steps forward and openly identifies himself. Or perhaps God intervened in some way to demonstrate that Jesus was not being taken because his enemies possessed greater power, but because Jesus willingly submitted to what was about to happen.

This latter possibility fits the broader Gospel portrayal of Jesus’ death. In Matthew 26:53, Jesus says that he could ask his Father for more than twelve legions of angels. Likewise, in John 10:17–18, Jesus says that no one takes his life from him, but that he lays it down willingly. John 18 itself emphasizes Jesus’ control of the situation: Jesus knows what is about to happen, comes forward voluntarily, identifies himself, and then commands that his disciples be allowed to leave (18:4, 8–9). John portrays Jesus as being arrested only because he willingly gives himself over. Finally, falling before someone does not by itself identify that person as God. Throughout Scripture, people fall before kings, prophets, angels, and other human beings, as well as in response to manifestations of God’s power. More importantly, nothing in John 18 suggests that the soldiers or Jewish officials suddenly recognize Jesus as God. They immediately proceed with his arrest.

Therefore, the striking scene in John 18:6 certainly emphasizes Jesus’ authority and his willing surrender, but it does not establish that Jesus is God. Even if the falling backward was supernatural, that would no more prove Jesus was God than Jesus’ other miracles do; throughout the Gospel, Jesus repeatedly attributes his works and authority to God who sent and empowered him. The central point remains: Jesus is not helplessly overpowered. He willingly, lovingly, and courageously gives himself up.

10. Passage: John 20:28

John 20:28

If Jesus is not God, why does Thomas say, “My Lord and my God”? And why does Jesus not correct him? John 20:28 is one of the strongest passages used to argue that Jesus is God. Thomas responds to the risen Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” Read in isolation, this can certainly sound like Thomas is identifying Jesus as God. However, this statement does not occur in isolation. It comes at the end of a Gospel that has repeatedly distinguished Jesus from God, taught that Jesus reveals the unseen Father, and described the Father as Jesus’ own God. The immediate context is especially important:

1) Only eleven verses earlier, the resurrected Jesus explicitly identifies someone else as his God.

In John 20:17, after his resurrection, Jesus tells Mary:“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.”Jesus therefore still has a God after his resurrection—and he identifies his God as the same God his disciples have. This statement should have enormous interpretive weight when Thomas says only eleven verses later, “My Lord and my God.” Thomas had already referred to Jesus as “the Lord” in this same passage. The disciples tell him, “We have seen the Lord” (20:25). Jesus himself has now explicitly identified the Father as “my God and your God” (20:17). Therefore, when Thomas says, “My Lord and my God,” the immediate context has already supplied two natural referents: Jesus is Thomas’ Lord, while the Father is Thomas’ God—and Jesus’ God as well. This does not by itself prove that Thomas intended two different referents in verse 28, but it makes that interpretation worthy of serious consideration. Whatever Thomas means, his words should not be interpreted in a way that erases Jesus’ own declaration just eleven verses earlier that the Father is both “my God” and the disciples’ (including Thomas’) God.

2) The Bible repeatedly teaches that God is invisible and has not been seen—yet Thomas literally saw Jesus.

This is particularly important because Thomas’ entire problem was that he refused to believe until he saw Jesus. He says that unless he sees Jesus’ wounds, he will not believe (John 20:25). Jesus then appears bodily before Thomas, and Thomas sees him. Yet Scripture repeatedly distinguishes the God who cannot be seen from the visible one through whom God is revealed:

• Exodus 33:20: God tells Moses that no human can see his face and live.

• John 1:18: “No one has seen God at any time.”

• John 5:37: Jesus says of the Father, “You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form.”

• Colossians 1:15: Jesus is “the image of the invisible God.”

• 1 Timothy 1:17: the “only God” is described as “immortal, invisible."

• 1 Timothy 6:16: God is described as the one “whom no one has seen or can see.”

• 1 John 4:12: “No one has seen God at any time.”

This is not an isolated statement. The invisibility and unseen nature of God recur throughout Scripture.

Jesus, by contrast, was seen continually. Thousands of people saw him during his ministry. His disciples saw him, touched him, ate with him, watched him die, and saw him bodily after his resurrection. Thomas’ entire encounter in John 20 depends upon the fact that the previously unseen-by-Thomas Jesus has now become visible to him. This creates an important interpretive question: If John means that Thomas literally looked at Jesus and thereby discovered that the visible person standing before him was the God whom John says “no one has seen,” how do these statements fit together? John himself gives us an answer to precisely this kind of question: God is seen through Jesus because Jesus reveals God, not because Jesus is the invisible God whom he reveals. Jesus says: “He who sees me sees him who sent me.” — John 12:45 Notice the distinction. The person being seen—Jesus—is not the same person as “him who sent me.” Yet Jesus can nevertheless say that seeing him is seeing the One who sent him. Jesus makes the same point in John 14. Philip asks Jesus, “Show us the Father.” Jesus responds:

“He who has seen me has seen the Father.”

But Jesus immediately explains what he means:

“The words that I tell you I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works.”

Jesus does not say, “I am the Father.” He distinguishes himself from the Father while explaining that the Father is present and revealed through him. Therefore, seeing Jesus is seeing God representatively and revelationally: the invisible God makes himself known through his visible Son. This fits Colossians 1:15 perfectly: Jesus is “the image of the invisible God.” An image reveals someone who is distinct from the image. Jesus is the perfect visible revelation of the God who remains invisible. This makes Thomas’ experience especially meaningful. Thomas demanded to see Jesus before he would believe. When Jesus finally appears to him, Thomas sees his risen Lord and, through him, finally perceives the God whom Jesus has been revealing throughout the Gospel. Thomas literally sees his Lord; through his Lord, he sees his God.

There is also a striking narrative connection between Thomas’ earlier confusion in John 14 and his final confession in John 20. Thomas himself begins the discussion in John 14 by saying, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going. How can we know the way?” (14:5). Jesus responds by explaining not only that he is the way to the Father, but that knowing and seeing him means knowing and seeing the Father: “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on, you know him and have seen him” (14:7). Philip then asks to see the Father, prompting Jesus to explain further: “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (14:9). Thomas was there for this entire teaching.

This makes Thomas’ encounter with the risen Jesus in John 20 especially significant. Thomas again struggles to believe without seeing: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails... I will not believe” (20:25). When Jesus finally appears to him, Thomas sees what he had demanded to see—and his response is, “My Lord and my God!” This creates a powerful connection between the two scenes. Earlier, Thomas had struggled to understand Jesus’ teaching about the way to the Father and had heard Jesus explain that seeing him is seeing the Father. Now, after doubting again and demanding to see Jesus for himself, Thomas finally sees his risen Lord and confesses, “My Lord and my God.” His confession can therefore be understood as the culmination of a lesson Thomas had already been taught earlier in John: in seeing Jesus, he sees the Father whom Jesus reveals. Thomas literally sees his Lord, and through his Lord finally perceives his God. This interpretation does not require Thomas to identify Jesus as the invisible God; rather, it brings Thomas’ final confession into direct harmony with Jesus’ own teaching to him earlier in the Gospel.

3) The Greek grammar also leaves open the possibility that Thomas is acknowledging two figures.

Thomas says: "Ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou", literally, “the Lord of me and the God of me.” The Greek text repeats the definite article: ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou the Lord of me AND the God of me. This matters, although it should not be overstated. Thomas does not use the grammatical construction in which one article governs two titles joined by kai (“and”), a construction that under certain conditions can indicate that both titles necessarily refer to the same person. Instead, the article is repeated: the Lord ... and the God.... The repeated article does not prove that Thomas is referring to two different persons. Greek can use repeated articles while referring to the same person. Therefore, it would be too strong to say that Greek grammar establishes a two-person interpretation. However, the opposite is also important: the grammar does not require “my Lord” and “my God” to have the same referent. The wording leaves open the possibility that Thomas is acknowledging two figures (Wallace 270–90).

The immediate context then becomes significant. Eleven verses earlier Jesus identified “my God and your God.” Thomas already knows Jesus as “the Lord.” Thus, a two-referent reading makes coherent sense in context:“My Lord [Jesus] and my God [the Father whom Jesus reveals].”John also says that Thomas “said to him,” which understandably leads many readers to take both titles as being addressed directly to Jesus. That evidence should be acknowledged. But speaking these words to Jesus does not necessarily settle the theological identity of both titles if Thomas is responding to what the appearance of Jesus has caused him to recognize. Jesus himself had already taught Thomas and the other disciples that seeing him means seeing the Father (John 14:7–11). Thomas could therefore be speaking to Jesus while acknowledging both the risen Lord standing before him and the God whom that Lord perfectly reveals.

4) Scripture already has a pattern of acknowledging God together with his appointed king.

The idea of acknowledging God and his chosen human ruler together is not foreign to Scripture. In 1 Chronicles 29:20, the people bow before Yahweh and the king. In 2 Samuel 18:28, Ahimaaz bows before King David while distinguishing between “the LORD your God” and “my lord the king.” Jeremiah 30:9 anticipates Israel serving “Yahweh their God, and David their king,” and Hosea 3:5 similarly places “Yahweh their God” alongside “David their king.” The New Testament repeatedly preserves this God-and-Lord distinction. Paul can write of “one God, the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:6). Other passages similarly distinguish God the Father from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, acknowledging Jesus as “my Lord” while acknowledging the Father as “my God” fits an established biblical pattern of naming God and God’s chosen king together rather than requiring the two identities to collapse into one.

5) Even if Thomas directly calls Jesus “God,” that still does not necessarily mean that Jesus is the one God.

There is another possibility that should also be considered. Suppose both “my Lord” and “my God” refer directly to Jesus. Would that settle the question?Not necessarily.Jesus himself points out in John 10:34–36 that Scripture can use the term “gods” for human beings who receive God’s word. His argument depends upon the fact that divine terminology can be used representatively without making the person the one supreme God. This fits the agency theology running throughout John. Jesus is sent by God, speaks God’s words, performs God’s works, exercises authority given to him by God, and reveals God so perfectly that seeing Jesus is seeing the One who sent him. Calling Jesus “God” in this representative sense would therefore not necessarily mean that Jesus is literally the invisible God whom he represents. This is especially important because the same Jesus who might be called “God” in verse 28 explicitly calls someone else “my God” in verse 17. Any interpretation must account for both statements.

6) John himself tells us the conclusion he wants his readers to reach.

Immediately after Thomas’ confession, John gives the stated purpose of his Gospel: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” — John 20:31 This is striking. After recording Thomas’ extraordinary confession, John does not conclude:“These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is God.”Instead, John states the identity he wants his readers to confess: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. That is the same identity repeatedly confessed throughout John. Nathanael calls Jesus “the Son of God” and “King of Israel” (John 1:49). Martha confesses, “You are the Christ, the Son of God” (John 11:27). John finally tells his readers that this is precisely what he has written his Gospel for them to believe.ConclusionJohn 20:28 is a significant passage and should not be dismissed. Thomas truly says to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” But that statement must be interpreted within everything John has already told us. Only eleven verses earlier, the resurrected Jesus identifies the Father as “my God and your God.” Scripture repeatedly teaches that God is invisible and has never been seen, while Jesus is visibly seen before and after his resurrection. John explains this apparent tension by teaching that seeing Jesus is seeing the God who sent him: Jesus is the visible image and perfect revelation of the invisible God. The Greek wording of Thomas’ confession does not require “my Lord” and “my God” to refer to the same person, leaving open the possibility that Thomas is acknowledging Jesus as his Lord and the Father revealed through Jesus as his God. And even if Thomas applies both titles directly to Jesus, Scripture’s use of divine titles for God’s representatives means that this still does not by itself establish that Jesus is the one invisible God.

Thomas had demanded to see his risen Lord. When he finally saw Jesus, he saw more than proof that Jesus was alive: in his risen Lord, Thomas finally perceived the God whom Jesus had been revealing all along. He saw his Lord—and through his Lord, he saw his God. This interpretation takes Thomas’ confession seriously without overturning Jesus’ own words in the very same chapter:“I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.”

3. Conclusion: John Must Be Read Cumulatively

John contains some of the strongest passages used in support of Jesus’ deity in the entire New Testament. I understand why Christians point to John 1:1-14, John 1:18, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 18:6, and John 20:28. Read in isolation—especially after centuries of Trinitarian interpretation—several of these passages can sound like straightforward declarations that Jesus is God. But I do not think a responsible reading of John can begin and end with those verses.

John has to be read as a book. That means the proof texts have to fit the Gospel’s repeated, undisputed descriptions of Jesus just as much as those other descriptions have to fit the proof texts. We have to account for John 1:49, where Jesus is confessed as “the Son of God” and “King of Israel.” We have to account for John 4:44, where Jesus places himself in the category of a prophet. We have to account for John 4:42, where he is called “the Christ, the Savior of the world.”

We have to account for John 5:19, where Jesus says, “the Son can do nothing of himself.” We have to account for John 5:26–27, where the Father gives the Son life in himself and gives him authority to judge. We have to account for John 5:44, where Jesus speaks of “the only God" not being him. We have to account for John 6:57, where Jesus says, “I live because of the Father.” We have to account for John 7:16, where Jesus says, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.”

We have to account for John 8:40, where Jesus calls himself “a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God.” We have to account for John 8:54, where Jesus says that his Father glorifies him and identifies that Father as the One his hearers call “our God.” We have to account for John 12:49, where Jesus says that the Father gave him a commandment concerning what he should say. We have to account for John 14:10, where Jesus says that his words are not from himself and that “the Father who lives in me does his works.” We have to account for John 14:28, where Jesus says, “the Father is greater than I.” We have to account for John 17:2, where the Father gives Jesus authority over all flesh. We have to account for John 17:3, where Jesus calls the Father “the only true God” and distinguishes himself from that one true God as “Jesus Christ, whom you sent.” We have to account for John 17:22, where Jesus says that the glory he possesses was given to him by the Father and that he then gives that same glory to believers.

We have to account for John 17:21–23, where believers are invited into the extraordinary unity and indwelling Jesus shares with God. We have to account for John 20:17, where the resurrected Jesus still calls the Father “my God and your God", stating that his God is the same as his disciples. And finally, we have to account for John 20:31, where John himself tells us why he wrote:

This is why I do not think we can take a few difficult proof texts and allow them to determine the meaning of the entire Gospel while treating all of these other statements as secondary qualifications that must somehow be explained away. The interpretation has to work in both directions. If John 8:58 means Jesus is Yahweh, that conclusion has to make sense beside Jesus calling himself “a man” who heard truth “from God” only eighteen verses earlier.

If John 10:30 means Jesus and the Father are one divine essence, that conclusion has to make sense beside Jesus saying that the Father gave him the sheep, that the Father is greater than all, and later praying that his followers will be one “even as we are one" using the same Greek word for "one". If “seeing Jesus is seeing the Father” means Jesus is literally God, that interpretation has to account for Jesus’ own explanation that the Father lives in him and does His works through him, for Jesus’ prayer that believers may likewise be “in us", and for the Bible's greater witness as well as John's own witness that God is invisible and no one has seen God (John 1:18), and God is Spirit, not man (John 4:24).

If Thomas’s “My Lord and my God” means that the risen Jesus is straightforwardly being identified as the one God, that interpretation has to account for the risen Jesus saying only eleven verses earlier, “my God and your God,” and for John immediately following Thomas’s confession by saying that his purpose is for readers to believe Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of God.” And if John 1 is read as saying that the eternal Word is Jesus and therefore Jesus is God, that interpretation still has to account for the entire Gospel that follows—where Jesus continually receives from, depends upon, obeys, reveals, and Jesus himself calls someone else God.

This cumulative method is especially important in John because John’s Christology is so high. The Gospel does not present a merely ordinary teacher whose significance can be reduced to that of one prophet among many. Jesus is God’s unique Son and Messiah. I believe he genuinely preexisted his earthly life. He possesses extraordinary glory. He is the Savior of the world. He is the appointed judge. He gives resurrection life. He is the way through whom humanity comes to the Father. God has entrusted all things into his hand. He reveals God with a fullness no other human being had yet revealed Him. But extraordinary exaltation is not the same thing as identity as God. In fact, John repeatedly explains Jesus’ exaltation in precisely the opposite direction: Jesus is great because God gives, sends, fills, authorizes, works through, and glorifies him. The Father is the source. Jesus is the Son who receives from the Father and perfectly reveals Him. That distinction does not make Jesus small. It makes John’s portrayal of Jesus coherent.

Jesus can be the visible revelation of the invisible God without being the invisible God. He can speak God’s words because God gives him the words. He can do God’s works because the Father dwelling in him does the works. He can possess universal authority because God gives him universal authority. He can give life because the Father gives him life in himself. He can share God’s glory because God gives him glory. He can be one with God because God dwells in him—and he can bring his followers into that same extraordinary unity.

He can be Lord without being the God who made him Lord. He can be the Son of God without being “God the Son.” He can be the Savior of the world without being the God who sent the Savior. He can be the perfect human revelation of God without being God Himself. That, after reading John cumulatively, is the Christology I believe best explains the Gospel. I therefore do not think the strongest question is: “Can I find verses in John that sound like Jesus is God?”

Clearly, we can. The stronger question is: “Does interpreting those verses as statements that Jesus is the one God make the best sense of everything John says about Jesus?” After working through the Gospel verse by verse, my answer is no. I believe John presents an extraordinarily high—but genuinely human—Christology: Jesus is the preexistent Messiah and Son of God, perfectly filled with and united to God, entrusted with extraordinary divine authority, and made the supreme revealer and agent of the Father.

The God Jesus reveals remains the One who sent him, empowered him, gave him his words and works, gave him life and authority, glorified him, and whom Jesus himself calls “the only true God” and “my God.” And John tells us the confession he wants his readers to reach: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He does not say he wants readers to reach the confession: Jesus is God, though John is often taught as if that is John's purpose.

4. Read John in the Full New Testament Study Bible

This article focuses on the major passages commonly raised in the debate over Jesus’ deity. But I strongly encourage readers not to stop with the proof texts—or even with this article.

If the central argument here is that John must be read in context, the best way to test that argument is to read the Gospel itself in full and follow the pattern from beginning to end.

My New Testament Study Bible commentary on John walks through the Gospel chapter by chapter and verse by verse, including many passages that are not normally included in debates about whether Jesus is God. Those passages matter because theology should be formed from the cumulative witness of the biblical book, not only from a handful of verses selected because they are frequently used in doctrinal debates.

You can find the New Testament Study Bible here: https://www.yourkingdomcome.online/blog/categories/the-new-testament-study-bible.

I encourage you especially to read the full commentary on John and ask one question as you go: Who does John, taken as a whole, actually present Jesus to be?