The Greek word in John 1:1 is “προς” (pros). Almost every one of my more than two dozen English translations render the word as “with” in John 1:1.
Concerning calling men ‘Gods’:
" Jesus had told them that he and his Father were united in the task of caring for the sheep. The Jews had misunderstood him (a theme throughout the Gospel of John) and tried to stone him because “you, being a man, make yourself out to be God.” Here is a serious opportunity for Jesus to speak to the issue we are investigating. What does he say? Does he levitate himself two feet off the ground and in the voice of many waters say, “I am the God of your ancestors and your puny, little stones can’t hurt me?” No! Instead he responds by referring them to Ps. 82, a text we have already mentioned. Essentially he asks them, “If the judges were called Gods (because they received the word of God), what is wrong with calling me the Son of God?” Anthony Buzzard’s comments on this text are instructive:
“Quoting Psalm 82.6, he pointed out that the word “God” could be legitimately used of human beings who enjoyed special positions as divinely commissioned agents. “God” in the case of the judges of Israel certainly did not mean God, the Almighty. No one would claim Deity in that sense for these human leaders of Israel…Jesus based his argument for a correct understanding of “Son of God” on this Psalm where “gods” are defined as “sons of God”: “I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High .’ Nevertheless you will die like men” (Ps. 82.6, 7).
It is unreasonable to maintain that Jesus changed this special Old Testament meaning of the word “god,” equivalent to the phrase “Son of God” (“Sons of the Most High”), when he expressly appealed to Psalm 82 to clarify his own right to the title “Son of God.” In countering the charge of blasphemy, Jesus laid claim to a unique position as divine agent. He is the supreme example of a human ruler invested with divine powers…Thus Jesus’ defense of his own status explicitly contains the claim not to be Almighty God. Trinitarians frequently pass over John 10.34-36 in silence.”[13]
Thus, Jesus himself understood that the word “God” can be applied to both the Creator and those who represent him to the people. Furthermore, Jesus opted for the latter definition when the question of his own claim to the title came into question."
A full essay on this subject at: https://restitutio.org/2016/01/11/explanations-to-verses-commonly-used-to-teach-that-jesus-is-god/
1 Like
I might add that the essay I linked to explains all or nearly all of the verses that supposedly support the deity of Christ. It’s well written and scriptural imo. Ok, I just posted the whole thing in a post titled “Representational Deity.”
Thanks Dave, I’ve read most of it (just skipped the last section a little).
It’s certainly a mystery and I appreciate the read from one side of the debate. I think another consideration is that (I am told) the early Jewish Christians worshipped Jesus in a way that would only be appropriate (in their mindset) to the deity but it’s difficult for a layman to know which expert has the better argument.
I know that many Christians suggest that the defining element of all cults is how they reject the deity of Christ [It is Satanic!!]. It DOES seem to be very common amongst cults but I don’t know that gets us anywhere.
I am also aware that many churches would make the belief in the deity of Christ an essential requirement for salvation. All I can say is that I hope God’s grace is bigger than that.
4 Likes
There is the viewpoint of Christian Inclusivism (1, 2, 3, 4) and Hopeful (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Universalism…both are viewpoints I subscribe to.
Personally, I doubt that the position held by either side in this centuries-old debate (Trinitarian vs Unitarian) can be proved by references to Scripture. As a Trinitarian, I am not convinced by the arguments of those who take the different view. That does not mean I do not love and respect those who do not believe that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, God incarnate.
I hold to Covenant Theology. (As a Scot, I have great respect for the Covenanters of the 17th Century). The following extract is from an article by the Ligonier Ministries about the belief known as “the Covenant of Redemption”: (highlighting is mine)
The covenant of redemption is intimately concerned with God’s eternal plan. It is called a “covenant” inasmuch as the plan involves two or more parties. This is not a covenant between God and humans. It is a covenant among the persons of the Godhead, specifically between the Father and the Son. God did not become triune at creation or at the Incarnation. His triunity is as eternal as His being. He is one in essence and three in person from all eternity.
The covenant of redemption is a corollary to the doctrine of the Trinity. Like the word trinity , the Bible nowhere explicitly mentions it. The word trinity does not appear in the Bible, but the concept of the Trinity is affirmed throughout Scripture. Likewise, the phrase “covenant of redemption” does not occur explicitly in Scripture but the concept is heralded throughout.
I realize that not all of you accept the account of creation in Genesis. I presume, possibly wrongly, that you may reject the phrase in Gen 1:26 where God says “let us make man in our own image”. I’m no Hebrew scholar, but I simply take words and phrases at their face value.
Noman, I respectfully disagree - That ‘us’ is well-known as NOT referring in any way to some OT Trinitarian thought. The OT writers were presenting a sort of henotheism, where their God was not the only god, just the greatest of man other gods and spiritual beings. There is no evidence of talking to two other ‘Gods’ here - that would be completely at variance with the rest of the OT, and the bible as a whole.
If you want a whole lot of info on this, go here: https://restitutio.org/2015/12/15/let-us-make-man/
Snippet: "What does all of this have to do with the “us” texts—Genesis 1.26, 3.22 or 11.7? In the first instance, God somehow involves the heavenly beings in the making of man, the second refers to how God and His angels have the knowledge of both good and evil, and the last speaks about God and His angels going down to the tower to confuse the languages there. Thus, God is not a plurality but a single person—the Father (John 17.3)—who does not act in a vacuum but in concert with His spirit beings. He can say “us” if He wants to in an uncomplicated way, referring to both Himself and someone else other than himself—angels. What an awesome God, who demonstrates His perfect character even through His leadership style.
Whoa, David. I haven’t been called by my given name since the last time my mother was mad at me for something I did or said. 
1 Like
You really must be mad at me. I confess to never hearing or reading that before. Maybe it’s not as “well-known” as you obviously think it is. 
There is no madness here, Norm. I have heard, many times, that the ‘us’ referred to HAD to be some incipient trinitarian theory, way back when there WAS no trin theory. That’s what I was referring to. I thought EVERYBODY knew that but, then again, I only have met 1 Canadian so I’m not sure what kinda crazy stuff goes on up there. 
OK, Dave. I’ll take your word on it - the madness part that is.
It is the case that contemporary biblical scholars don’t see the language of “us” in Gen 1:26, 3:22, or 11:7 as suggesting plurality of persons in the godhead. The first Israelites likely believed in the existence of other gods, but that theirs was the only one worthy of worship (monolatry–or “one worship”).
This would make good sense of the exodus narrative, with God meting judgement “on all the gods of Egypt” (Exo 12:12) and the first commandment “thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exo 20:6). The force of the judgement and commandment are built upon the putative existence of other deities. What’s more, the temptation towards idolatry throughout the OT suggests the belief in other deities.
Thus, in the Genesis accounts, the “us” seems to be referencing some kind of divine counsel, with Yahweh clearly over all and creating without the need of any other deity. (Yahweh speaks creation into being, rather than sending demigods out to do the work or tag-teaming with other deities to create.)
How Many Gods Are There?
The originator of this topic (Paidion?) chose, deliberately?, a provocative title. He must have understood that all Christian contributors to the thread would confirm that there is only one God and there is no other. The real question is whether or not God consists of three Persons within the Godhead.
The answer may be impossible for mere fallible mortals to determine. God is ineffable, too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words. Isaiah wrote: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Is. 55:8,9).
The authors of the Shorter Catechism did their best:
Q. 4. What is God?
A. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
Q. 5 Are there more Gods than one?
A. There is but one only, the living and true God.
Q. 6 How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.
IMO, these answers are wholly compatible with what Scripture teaches, despite the authors fallibility. After all, God thinks on a level far beyond human comprehension. It should amaze us why God would seek fellowship with His created, sinful beings. As the Psalmist reflects, “What is man, that thou shouldst be mindful of him?” (Ps 8:4). But He does mind us and that’s our hope of glory.
Hi qaz. There is a grammatical explanation for this apparent paradox. The Greek says “The Word was with the God.” The God is the Father, “the only true God” as Jesus addressed Him in prayer.
Although most translators have rendered the word “pros” as “with” in this context, the word “pros” usually means “toward.”
The writer to the Hebrews affirms that the Son is the exact image of God’s essence. So He is another exactly like His Father. After all the early Christians affirmed that the Father begat (or “generated”) Him before all ages as His first act. So… " as the saying goes: “like Father, like Son.” So where John wrote in his gospel (or “memoir” as the early Christians called it) that the Logos or “Word” (Jesus) was with the God" or “toward the God” he probably meant that the Son was with God in mind and purpose and every other way. Perhaps the meaning of the clause is “The Word was pro-God.”
However “and the Word was God” is an entirely different matter. It is not saying that the Word was the God Himself. First of all there is not article before “God.” Secondly, the word order is “God was the Word.” This word order in Greek indicated that “God” or “Divinity” was a quality of the Word The quality come directly before the verb… Exactly the same word order is used in John 1:46 “God is love.” The word order is “God love is.” Again, the quality “love” comes directly before the verb. Again this word order occurs in John 17:17. "Your word is reality (or “truth”). The word order is “Your word reality is.” Once again the quality “reality” or “truth” comes directly before the verb.
Martin Luther concurred with this understanding. Whatever else he might have been, Luther was a good Greek scholar. He put it quite succinctly, saying that the lack of an article is against Sabellianism and the word order is against Arianism.
Sabellianism was a form of modalism or “oneness”, the idea that God is a single divine Individual who reveals Himself in three modes, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If this had been John’s understanding, the word order would have been, “The Word was the God.”
Arianism may have originated from the early Christian teaching that the Son of God was begotten by God before all ages, and being God’s only begotten Son, he was therefore fully deity. Arius himself, when writing in 321 A.D. to Eusebius bishop of Nicodemia, referred to the Son as “fully God”. Arius wrote:
“But what we say and think we both have taught and continue to teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor part of the unbegotten in any way, nor is he derived from any substance; but that by his own will and counsel he existed before times and ages, fully God, only-begotten, unchangeable.”
However, Arius was perceived by Martin Luther and many others, as having taught that Christ was “a lesser god”. This thought may have arisen from Arius’s error in teaching that since the Son was begotten before all ages as an act of God, there must have been a time at which He did not exist. If this had been John’s understanding, he would have written “And the Word was (a) God.”
So the Logos of God was Deity. He was not God Himself. Nor was He part of a Trinity. He Himself in His prayer declared His Father to be the only true God:
John 17:3 "This is lasting life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
By the addition of “and Jesus Christ whom You have sent”, Jesus indicates that He is Someone other than “the only true God”.
Dave, good points.
There is a difference between God-men and Godly men. Belief in God-men( the offspring of a divine being and a human) was common among the pagans. These men and their descendants weren’t just plain humans. They were superior and therefore had the right to rule. However, the God of Israel was different. His sons were humans born via the word and the rule of Israel was given to the those that obeyed it; Godly men as it says in Exodus 18:21 " Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness."
It’s strange that in the New Testament, the God of Israel now has a Son in the same way as the pagan gods. It seems to me that someone may have added to the story in an attempt to accommodate the pagan audience.
Perhaps this book, might help folks here find answers - to the thread question (among other things)! 
On the contrary, here are results of a cursory examination of commentaries regarding Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
“… [I]n Elohim, the many powers concentrated in one being, lies the germ of the doctrine of a plurality of persons in the Divine Unity.”
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
God said, Let us make man. Man, when he was made, was to glorify the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Into that great name we are baptized, for to that great name we owe our being.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Only a plurality of persons can justify the phrase.
Pulpit Commentary
Having already explained the significance of the term Elohim , as suggesting the fullness of the Divine personality, and foreshadowing the doctrine of the Trinity (ver. 1), other interpretations, such as that God takes counsel with the angels (Philo, Aben Ezra, Delitzsch), or with the earth (Maimonides, M. Gerumlius), or with himself (Kalisch), must be set aside in favor of that which detects in the peculiar phraseology an allusion to a sublime concilium among the persons of the Godhead (Calvin, Macdonald, Murphy).
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
The plural “We” was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity:
David Guzik
a. Let Us make man in Our image : The use of the plural ( Let Us…in Our image, according to Our likeness ) is consistent with the idea that there is One God in three Persons, what we know as the Trinity.
i. Leupold does a good job showing that the plurality of let Us make cannot be merely the plurality of royalty, nor can it be God speaking with and to the angels. It is an indicator of the Trinity, though not clearly spelled out.
John Calvin
“In our image.” Interpreters do not agree concerning the meaning of these words…. If any reader, having leisure, wishes to enjoy such speculations, let him read the tenth and fourteenth books on the Trinity, also the eleventh book of the “City of God.” I acknowledge, indeed, that there is something in man which refers to the Fathers and the Son, and the Spirit:
John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes
Let us make man - The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible
“God created …” The word for “God” here is “[~'Elohiym],” a plural term, and by far the most frequent designation of the Supreme Being in the O.T., being used almost 2,000 times. [1] Despite the plurality of this name, it is connected with verbs and adjectives in the singular. Thus, in the very first verse of the Bible there would appear to be embedded embryonically in the very name of God Himself a suggestion: (1) of the Trinitarian conception more fully revealed in the N.T., and (2) also a witness of the unity of the Godhead. Some have questioned this, of course; but we have never encountered any other adequate explanation of it.
John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible
It is in the plural number, and being joined to a verb of the singular, is thought by many to be designed to point unto us the mystery of a plurality, or trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence:
Don Stewart
One of the most popular ways of viewing this verse is that we have communication within the members of the Trinity. Though not explicitly stated in this verse, the implicit nature of the Trinity is evident.
Elohim Plural
The Hebrew noun Elohim , used throughout chapter one, is plural in form, but it takes a singular verb. This speaks of plurality of persons within the nature of the one God. The pronoun Us also suggests in itself a plurality of persons.
Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae
Here, then, we may see an early intimation of the Trinity in Unity; a doctrine which pervades the whole Bible, and is the very corner-stone of our holy religion. And it is deserving of particular notice, that, in our dedication to our Creator at our baptism, we are expressly required to acknowledge this mysterious doctrine, being “baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [Note: Matthew 28:19.].”]
Zondervan Academic online commentary
Outside of the the New Testament’s revelation of the Trinity, it’s hard to make sense of the singular/plural dichotomy in these passages. Engaging them with a trinitarian understanding sheds new light on their possible implications.
I read the comments, but why would the words “Let’s make man in our image” necessarily imply a Trinity? How do those writers know it does not apply to a Binity? Or even simply the One God and the
Son that He begat as the first of His acts?
Or an advanced alien race, that is more numerous than the sands of the earth! The possibilities are seemingly endless.
I don’t think the Gen1 account has anything to do with a trinity teaching at all, but everything to do with God’s apportioning and appointing to his chosen man His own quality of power, dominion and authority… thus in His image etc. Note the use of the LXX Greek word < ποιέω> poieō and how on occasion it is likewise rendered in the GNT…
Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make (ποιέω) man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Mk 3:14-15 Then He appointed (ποιέω) twelve, that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons.
Heb 3:1-2 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to Him who appointed (ποιέω) Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house.
Like Father like Son/sons.