In the past few posts, I have shown from the New Testament that the Messiah, Jesus, is the ultimate agent and Son of God who perfectly fulfills His will, and was exalted to become Lord over all upon His resurrection, although not being Yahweh Himself (contrary to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity). But another legitimate question related to this issue is, what was the Messiah prophesied to be in the Old Testament? Trinitarians allege that the Messiah was indeed prophesied to be a divine individual, and not “merely” a human, whereas unitarians believe that the Messiah was prophesied to be a human Davidic king who would reign in the place of Yahweh, second only to God Himself. In this post, I will examine the Messianic prophecies of the Hebrew scriptures to determine what exactly the ancient Israelites who wrote the Old Testament expected the Messiah to be and do.
What is a “Messiah”?
Central to the question of what the Messiah was prophesied to be is what the word “messiah”, or “christ” in Greek (see John 1:41), actually meant to the ancient Jews. Technically, the word “messiah” simply refers to an “anointed one”, and was applied to a number of people in the Old Testament; what we would today call “the Messiah” refers to the ultimate “anointed one” who was prophesied in the Old Testament, a title which is applied to Jesus in the New Testament.
So, what did being a messiah actually entail? As it turns out, there were three or four categories of people in ancient Israel who could be called the messiah, or anointed one, of God:
1. Priest: four times in the book of Leviticus, the priest is called “the messiah” (4:3, 5, 16; 6:22). This is the first time that the word “messiah” is used in the Hebrew scriptures. It can likely be traced back to Exodus 30:30, in which Moses is told to anoint Aaron and his sons to set them apart as priests, thus making them “anointed ones” or messiahs.
2. Prophet: in Psalm 105:15 (cf. 1 Chron. 16:22), the prophets are called “[God’s] messiahs”.
3. King: the vast majority of the time that the word “messiah” is used in the Old Testament, it refers to the king of Israel (1 Sam. 2:10). This is because the ancient kings of Israel were anointed (1 Sam. 10:1; 16:13), thus making them quite literally “anointed ones” or messiahs. Saul is repeatedly called a messiah (1 Sam. 12:3, 5; 24:6, 10; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam. 1:14, 16, 21), and David is called “the messiah of the God of Jacob” (2 Sam. 23:1 cf. 19:21; 22:51; 2 Chron. 6:42).
4. Savior: Cyrus, the king of Persia, is called “[Yahweh’s] messiah” in Isaiah 45:1, by virtue of being the instrument through whom God would achieve Israel’s salvation from Babylon.
With this multifaceted understanding of the word “messiah”, it makes a lot more sense that Jesus is repeatedly called “Christ” in the New Testament. Jesus fulfills all four of these categories, by simultaneously being a priest (Heb. 7:11-28), a prophet (Matt. 21:11; Lk. 7:16; 24:19; Acts 3:22), a king (Lk. 1:32-33; John 1:49; 12:13; 18:37), and a savior (Matt. 1:21; Lk. 1:68-79; Acts 4:12). This makes Him the ultimate and perfect Messiah of God.
The Messiah in the psalms
There are three main kingly psalms that are quoted in the New Testament as referring to the Messiah, Jesus. Each of these will be examined in turn. The first is Psalm 2, which is applied to Jesus in Acts 4:25-26; 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5; Rev. 2:27; 12:5; and 19:15:
Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahweh and against His messiah, saying, “Let us break their bonds in pieces and cast away their cords from us.” He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; Yahweh shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure: “Yet I have set My king on My holy hill of Zion.”
I will declare the decree: Yahweh has said to me, “You are My son, today I have begotten you. Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; you shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
Now therefore, be wise, O kings; be instructed, you judges of the earth. Serve Yahweh with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in him. (NKJV)
The first key to understanding this passage is that it was originally not a prophecy about the Messiah, but was actually a coronation psalm written for an unnamed Davidic king of Israel. Because of this, everything in the psalm could be applied to any human Davidic king, not necessarily only Jesus, although it certainly finds its ideal fulfillment in Him.
This seems odd to modern readers, because having the privilege of hindsight, we typically consider the title Son of God as unique to Jesus Himself. However, although there is certainly a special sense in which this title is applied to Jesus, to be called Yahweh’s “son” in the Old Testament simply meant to be His chosen king. The Messianic prophecy, “I will be to him a father, and he will be to Me a son”, actually found its original fulfillment in Solomon (1 Chron. 28:5-6 cf. 2 Sam. 7:12-16). Similarly, the council of kings in Psalm 82 is referred to as the “elohim [gods]” and “sons of the Most High”. Thus, based on these precedents, the ancient Jews would have understood the characterization of the Messiah as Yahweh’s son as referring to His chosen, human King from the Davidic royal lineage.
Furthermore, because Yahweh is repeatedly referred to as a separate person from His messiah the king, there is no reason to believe that the ancient Jews would have seen a divine Messiah in this passage. Such statements as “The kings of the earth set themselves... against Yahweh and His messiah” and “Yahweh said to me [the messiah]” would make little sense if the messiah in this passage were to be considered identical to Yahweh. Therefore, this psalm is clear that the coming Messiah will be a human king and not the divine God.
The second psalm which is applied to Jesus in the New Testament is Psalm 45, which is quoted in Hebrews 1:8-9:
To the chief musician. Set to ‘The Lilies’. A contemplation of the sons of Korah. A song of love. My heart is overflowing with a good theme; I recite my composition concerning the king; my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.
You are fairer than the sons of men; grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God has blessed you for the age. Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one, with your glory and your majesty. And in your majesty ride prosperously because of truth, humility, and righteousness; and your right hand shall teach you awesome things. Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; the peoples fall under you. Your throne, O God, is for the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your companions. All your garments are scented with myrrh and aloes and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, by which they have made you glad. Kings’ daughters are among your honorable women; at your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir.
Listen, O daughter, consider and incline your ear; forget your own people also, and your father’s house; so the king will greatly desire your beauty; because he is your Lord, worship him. And the daughter of Tyre will come with a gift; the rich among the people will seek your favor. The royal daughter is all glorious within the palace; her clothing is woven with gold. She shall be brought to the king in robes of many colors; the virgins, her companions who follow her, shall be brought to you. With gladness and rejoicing they shall be brought; they shall enter the king’s palace.
Instead of your fathers shall be your sons, whom you shall make princes in all the earth. I will make your name to be remembered in all generations; therefore the people shall praise you for the age of the age. (NKJV)
This psalm was actually originally written for the wedding day of one of Israel’s kings; currently, the prevailing view is that this was either the wedding of Solomon and the daughter of the king of Tyre or (more likely) the wedding of Ahab and Jezebel. Therefore, this is another psalm that finds its original fulfillment in a human Davidic king, and not uniquely in Jesus Himself. (Otherwise, how would we explain that the king in this psalm is getting married, something that never happened to Jesus Himself?)
This might confuse some people, because it refers to the king as “O God” (in fact, its quotation in Hebrews 1:8 is one of the passages used by trinitarians to establish the “deity of Christ”). How can Ahab, one of the most wicked kings of Israel, have been called God? But if we properly understand the ancient concept of agency, which I dealt with in my most recent post, then we can make sense of this passage. The king of Israel, as the agent of Yahweh and His messiah, can be called “God” in a representational sense.
There is no reason to conclude that this passage, when applied to Jesus, should be understood any other way than it was originally understood when applied to Ahab. When Jesus is called “God” in Hebrews 1:8, the quotation of this passage, He was merely being called such in a representational sense (just as Ahab was), not in an ontological sense equating Him with Yahweh. Therefore, this is another prophecy that finds its ideal fulfillment in a Messiah who is a human Davidic king, not the divine God, Yahweh.
The third Messianic psalm is Psalm 110, which is quoted in the New Testament too many times to count as proof of Jesus’ kingship:
A Psalm of David.
Yahweh said to my Lord [adoni], “Sit at My right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.” Yahweh shall send the rod of your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies! Your people shall be volunteers in the day of your power; In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning, you have the dew of your youth. Yahweh has sworn and will not relent, “You are a priest for the age according to the order of Melchizedek.”
The Lord [Adonai] is at your right hand; He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath. He shall judge among the nations, He shall fill the places with dead bodies, He shall execute the heads of many countries. He shall drink of the brook by the wayside; therefore He shall lift up the head.
The very first verse in this psalm, which is quoted or referenced seventeen times throughout the New Testament, refers to the coming Messiah as an adoni. In contrast to the title Adonai, which was reserved for Yahweh God only, the title adoni was applied to human leaders and rulers (and never to God). Jesus quotes this verse in Matt. 22:44 to show that He was far greater than David, which is indeed true, but neither He nor His Jewish audience would have understood this as a divine claim; instead, they would have recognized that this is the title of an exalted human, never used of God Himself.
The second section of this psalm continues the idea of agency, understanding the prophesied Messiah to be an agent of the Lord God. Just as it is said that God was with the judges of Israel, delivering the nation through their agency (Judg. 2:16-18), the Lord God will be alongside the Messiah (at His right hand) executing the kings of the nations through His agency. This is consistent with the Messiah as a human agent of Yahweh, but not with the Messiah being Yahweh Himself.
In summary, the picture of the Messiah which we get from the Messianic psalms is that He would be a human king of the Davidic line, and an anointed agent of Yahweh Himself. However, contrary to the trinitarian position, there is no expectation of “the deity of Christ” (that the Messiah would be Yahweh Himself). In fact, for the Messiah to be God Himself would be entirely inconsistent with the prophetic picture that is painted by Psalms 2, 45, and 110.
The Messiah in the prophets
The very first explicit prophecy of the Messiah (following the promises to Abraham) can be found in Moses’ final words to the fledgling nation of Israel, in the book of Deuteronomy. According to Moses,
“Yahweh your God will raise up for you a prophet like me [Moses] from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear... I [Yahweh] will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.” (Deut. 18:15, 18)
According to Moses, the coming prophet - the Messiah - would be raised up from among the humans in the nation of Israel. There is no indication that the Messiah will be divine (although, to be fair, there is no indication that the Messiah will not be divine either).
The most detailed non-psalmic prophecies of the Messiah come from the book of Isaiah. The first prophecy comes from Isaiah 7, in which Isaiah gives a sign to Ahaz (the king of Judah) to mark the end of his war with Israel and Damascus:
“Therefore the Lord [Adonai] Himself will give you [Ahaz] a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Curds and honey he shall eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.” (Isa. 7:14-16)
Although verse 14 is applied to Jesus in Matthew 1:23 as a prophecy regarding His birth of a virgin, the context makes clear that the original fulfillment of this prophecy was not Messianic in nature. Instead, the original fulfillment was when a young woman [1] conceived and bore a son to Ahaz, as a sign that the war with the nations of Israel and Damascus was nearing its end.
Some trinitarian interpreters believe that, because the child is named Immanuel (“God with us”), this is a prophecy that the Messiah would literally be God Himself. However, this is simply eisegesis; in the original fulfillment of this prophecy, God certainly did not literally come down to earth, and so there is no reason to believe that it would be different in its ultimate fulfillment. To say that “God is with you” could indeed mean that God is physically present, but it can also mean that God is helping His people; for example, in Joshua 1:9, it is said that “Yahweh is with you [Joshua] wherever you go”, but God did not literally incarnate Himself in order to be physically present with Joshua.
Another Messianic prophecy of Isaiah, this time finding its direct fulfillment in Jesus Himself, can be found in Isa. 9:6-7:
“For unto us a child will be born, unto us a son will be given; and the government will be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even for the age. The zeal of Yahweh of hosts will perform this.” (NKJV)
This prophecy is often understood as referring to Jesus as “mighty God”, thus making Him equivalent with Yahweh, and “everlasting Father”, thus making Him the same as the Father (making this a favorite verse of modalists). Because of this, trinitarians often point to this passage as further proof for the “deity of Christ”.
However, although the title “mighty God” (el gibbor) is often confused by uninformed readers, and even sometimes accomplished exegetes, with the title “Almighty God” of the New Testament, these are different titles. El gibbor is used only twice elsewhere, once referring to God Himself (Isa. 10:21) and the other time (in the plural) referring to mighty human rulers (Ezek. 32:21). This title, in Isa. 9:6, could just as easily be translated as “mighty chief” [2].
The title abi-ad, which is usually translated as “everlasting Father”, has also been mistranslated. This title would be better translated as “father [originator] of the age” [3]. This is not a title unique to God, nor does it support modalism; rather, it is uniquely a title belonging to the Messiah, since He will be the originator (or the “father”) of the coming Messianic age.
It is important to remember that, to properly exegete a passage, we have to put ourselves in the place of the original readers. To the ancient Israelites, the idea that Yahweh Himself would come down and be born as a human would be counterintuitive and even blasphemous. If this was the point that Isaiah wanted to get across, he would have needed to use blatantly divine language to describe the coming Messiah, such as saying that His name would be Yahweh. Instead, he used titles that are not unique to God, like el gibbor and abi-ad. Although this is an argument from silence, this seems sufficient evidence that Isaiah did not believe the coming Messiah would be the divine God.
“There shall come forth a rod from the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. The spirit of Yahweh shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Yahweh. His delight is in the fear of Yahweh, and he shall not judge by the sight of his eyes, nor decide by the hearing of his ears; but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of His lips he shall slay the wicked...
“And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, who shall stand as a banner to the people; for the Gentiles shall seek him, and his resting place shall be glorious.” (Isa. 11:1-4, 10 NKJV)
There is no indication in this passage that the Messiah will be the divine God (although again, to be fair, there is no indication that He will not). Instead, we are told simply that the Messiah will be from the Davidic line of kings (the root of Jesse).
Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of Yahweh been revealed? For he shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from him; he was despised, and we did not esteem him.
Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment, and who will declare his generation? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of My people he was stricken. And they made his grave with the wicked — but with the rich at his death, because he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him; He has put him to grief. When You make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Yahweh shall prosper in his hand. He shall see the labor of his soul, and be satisfied. By his knowledge My righteous servant shall justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul unto death, and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isa. 53 NKJV)
This is perhaps the most famous prophecy about the Messiah, at least among Christians, as it is a perfect depiction of Jesus’ suffering. And yet the doctrine of the “deity of Christ” is nowhere to be found here. Instead, the suffering Servant is repeatedly considered to be a separate individual from Yahweh, not the same being. Statements like “Yahweh has laid on him iniquity”, “Yahweh bruise[d] him”, “[Yahweh’s] righteous servant” would be meaningless if the servant were actually the same as Yahweh.
Similarly, in the very first verse, this Servant is said to be “the arm of Yahweh”. This is the way that agents of Yahweh were described in the Old Testament (for example, Isa. 63:11-12), as the agents through whom God acted out His will could be figuratively considered His arm. But again, if the Servant is equivalent to Yahweh, then He could not be Yahweh’s agent.
Although there are further Messianic prophecies in the rest of the prophets, none of them are pertinent to the question being considered here, and so they will not be covered in this post. However, from the prophecies that have already been considered, it is clear that the ancient Jews would not have expected the Messiah to be the divine God. Rather, as in the Messianic psalms, they would have expected the Messiah to be a human Davidic king and the ultimate agent of Yahweh.
But isn’t Jesus, the Christ, called God?
As we have seen, the Old Testament Messianic prophecies show that the Messiah was expected to be a human king from the Davidic lineage, someone who would be an agent of Yahweh yet even greater than Moses, but the idea that the Messiah would be God Himself is foreign to these prophecies. In fact, the nature of these prophecies is such that if the Messiah were Yahweh, there would be major inconsistencies, as the Messiah is repeatedly treated as a separate person from God.
But at this point, trinitarians will object: “isn’t Jesus called God in the New Testament, in which case the Messiah is God?” Well, as covered in a previous post of mine, Jesus never claimed Himself to be God, which in itself shows that the case for Jesus being considered God is on rather shaky ground. But apart from Jesus’ own words, is there any place in the New Testament that calls Jesus God?
For an examination of whether Jesus is ever called God (ο θεος), we must turn to two of the foremost publications on this subject: Murray J. Harris’ tome Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (1992) and Brian Wright’s publication Jesus as Theos: Scriptural Fact or Scribal Fantasy? (2007). Harris concluded that
Of the nine passages he concludes that four are certainly applying theos to Jesus: John 1:1; 1:18; 20:28; 2 Pet. 1:1. Of the remaining five he concludes three are likely or probably, but not beyond doubt, applying theos to Jesus: Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8-9. The last two, Acts 20:28 and 1 Jn. 5:20, he concludes are unlikely to be referring to Jesus as theos... Harris also examined 7 ‘secondary passages’ – Matt. 1:23; Jn. 17:3; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:5; Col. 2:2; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 3:16. He concluded that each of these secondary passages did not apply theos to Jesus.
And here are Wright’s conclusions:
2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 3:16; Jude 4 – Do not apply theos to Jesus
Matt. 1:23; Jn. 17:3; Acts 20:28; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:5; Col. 2:2; 1 Jn. 5:20 – Dubious
Jn. 1:18; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1 – Highly probable
Jn. 1:1; Jn. 20:28; Titus 2:13 – Certain
It is instructive to note which verses they agreed upon, and which they did not. Here are the seven verses that they agreed were either certainly or probably applying the title theos to Jesus: John 1:1; 1:18; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; and 2 Peter 1:1. (All of the others can be ruled out on the basis of textual problems, or else they are ambiguous about calling Jesus theos.)
Two of these verses, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, are considered to be affirming the “deity of Christ” based on a rule of Greek grammar known as the Granville Sharp rule. According to this rule, whenever two nouns are connected by the conjuction και without a definite article separating them, they both apply to the same individual. Therefore, these two verses which refer to “the God of us and Savior of us Jesus Christ” are taken to mean “our God and Savior Jesus Christ”, rather than referring to two separate individuals, God and Jesus Christ.
However, the problem here is that the Granville Sharp rule has many (seemingly arbitrary) exceptions throughout the New Testament, and cannot be applied when two different people are in view (for example, if the Greek text states “the Paul and Apollos”, these names refer to separate individuals). For this reason, to suggest that the Granville Sharp rule applies to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 is actually begging the question of whether God is a separate individual from Jesus, and those who use these verses to support the Trinity must presuppose the Trinity in order to do so. It is entirely circular reasoning to say that these passages equate Jesus with God (and for this reason, a separate category of exceptions to the Granville Sharp rule has been proposed which would exclude these verses).
This leaves us with only five passages that either certainly or probably use the title theos for Jesus: John 1:1; 1:18; 20:28; Romans 9:5; and Hebrews 1:8. Of these five, as discussed earlier in this post, Hebrews 1:8 must be only referring to Jesus as theos in a representational sense, as the quoted passage (from Psalm 45) was originally written to describe Ahab, the king of Israel; this leaves only four passages to potentially describe Jesus as theos in an ontological sense. Let us examine each in turn:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God (John 1:1)
In my previous post on trinitarian prooftexts, I already discussed this verse; for a more detailed explanation of what I’m about to say, check out that post. Essentially, by suggesting that the word (λογος) was a conscious being prior to the conception of Jesus Christ, trinitarians are reading their own preconceptions about the “pre-existence of Christ” into the prologue of John.
The λογος, in Jewish thought, more accurately describes the impersonal divine word and wisdom, which became manifested in Jesus. The personification of God’s impersonal word and wisdom was a common theme throughout both biblical and extra-biblical Wisdom literature, and John’s prologue would have been understood as such by its original readers. The idea of the divine wisdom becoming embodied in a human being was also a common one in Jewish literature (see here for more information). Thus, the “word” was not actually a conscious being prior to Jesus’ conception and birth, but was the literal wise utterance of God which became embodied in Jesus.
Furthermore, as both Harris and Wright agree, the θεος in John 1:1c (being anarthrous and a predicate nominative) is better understood as qualitative, that is, “divine” rather than referring to God as a being. Therefore, John 1:1 might be paraphrased, “In the beginning was the divine word and wisdom, and the divine word and wisdom was with God, and the divine word and wisdom was what God was”. This divine, yet impersonal, word of God then “became flesh” when it was manifested in the human person of Jesus of Nazareth. This understanding of John 1:1, which is more in line with ancient Jewish thought, does not apply the title theos to Jesus.
No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God, who is on the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him (John 1:18)
The textual evidence for this reading is dubious. Although two of the earliest manuscripts read “only-begotten God”, the majority of patristic writers cite this as “only-begotten Son”, which appears several other places in the Johannine literature (John 1:14, 3:16, 1 John 4:9), whereas this would be the sole example of “only-begotten God” if that were the original reading. For this reason, Wright categorized it as merely a probable example of Christ as theos. This is certainly insufficient grounds on which to base an entire doctrine of the “deity of Messiah” which is foreign to the rest of scripture.
And Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28)
This is the second text that both Harris and Wright agree is certainly referring to Jesus as God, and based on the overwhelming textual evidence for this reading and lack of ambiguity in the original Greek, I am inclined to agree that Thomas indeed said to Jesus, “my Lord and my God”.
But is this evidence that the writers of the Bible regarded Jesus as ontologically equal to His God and Father? I highly doubt this, because if Thomas were truly describing Jesus as Yahweh by this statement, this would be the perfect time for John to once and for all establish Christ’s absolute deity, and yet John immediately goes on to say that “these have been written that ye may believe that Jesus is [God? No, but] the Christ, the Son of God” (v. 31).
So what should we understand by Thomas’ exclamation of “my Lord and my God”? Was he affirming to Jesus, “[You are] my Lord and [You are] my God”, or was he saying something else? I believe the latter is more likely, based on what we know of the concept of agency in the Old Testament. Throughout the Old Testament, the people of Israel worshipped both God and His king, often in the very same breath. For example, see the following passages:
Thus Israel saw the great work which Yahweh had done in Egypt; so the people feared Yahweh, and believed Yahweh and His servant Moses. (Exod. 14:31)
Then David said to all the assembly, “Now bless Yahweh your God.” So all the assembly blessed Yahweh God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and worshipped Yahweh and the king. (1 Chron. 29:20)
“For it shall come to pass in that day,” Says Yahweh of hosts, “That I will break his yoke from your neck, and will burst your bonds; foreigners shall no more enslave them. But they shall serve Yahweh their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.” (Jer. 30:8-9)
Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek Yahweh their God and David their king. They shall fear Yahweh and His goodness in the latter days. (Hos. 3:5)
Furthermore, Jesus applied this same “dual praise” to Himself and God in the New Testament, showing that He should be worshipped in the same way:
“Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me.” (John 14:1)
“this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send — Jesus Christ” (John 17:3)
Twice in the gospel of John, then, we see that Jesus indicated to His disciples to provide Him with the same dual praise that kings received together with Yahweh in the Old Testament. So, when Thomas praised “my Lord [Jesus] and my God [Yahweh]”, he wasn’t necessarily equating Jesus with Yahweh; rather, he was simply praising Christ together with God, an emphatic expression of this type of dual praise. This, also, is not a certain example of the Messiah being referred to as ontologically equal with God [4].
Finally, the fourth and last remaining verse that is used to prove Christ’s deity is Romans 9:5:
[the Israelites] of whom are the fathers, and from whom came Christ according to the flesh, who is over all God, blessed to the ages. Amen.
This verse is, in the original Greek,
χριστος... ο ων επι παντων θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας
However, the above translation is not the only possible way to translate the Greek. In fact, there are three separate, and equally legitimate, ways to translate it. The first is the above translation, which makes it appear that Christ is being referred to as “over all God”. The other two potential translations are “Christ according to the flesh, who is over all. God be blessed to the ages” and “Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed to the ages”.
Since there are three equally legitimate ways to translate this verse, and only one of the possible translations refers to Christ as God, this verse is also not certainly referring to Christ as God. Furthermore, we know that Jesus is not actually “over all”, because the Father is over Him (John 14:28, 20:17, Rom. 15:6, etc.), which casts further doubt on the trinitarian translation. This favors the translation, “Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed to the ages”.
In summary, though there are seven verses that Harris and Wright both agree are either certainly or probably describing Jesus as ontologically equivalent with God, none of these verses actually say this for certain. For Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, circular reasoning must be applied to make these verses describe Jesus as God. The original Greek of Romans 9:5 is ambiguous about calling Jesus God, and could just as easily be translated a different way. Hebrews 1:8 is referring to Jesus as God in a representational, not an ontological, sense. The textual evidence for John 1:18 is unclear about whether it calls Jesus “God” or merely “Son”.
Finally, even the two passages that Harris and Wright both agreed were certainly calling Jesus “God” - John 1:1 and 20:28 - don’t necessarily describe Jesus as ontologically equal to God when understood in their cultural and literary context. John 1:1 does not need to be describing any pre-existent state of Christ unless that idea is forced upon the text; the literary context indicates that this is referring to God’s literal (and impersonal) spoken word which was divine. John 20:28 is merely expressing the Hebraic concept of “dual praise”, in which both God and His king are praised together. Thus, all of the texts that supposedly identify Jesus as God are far from conclusive in this regard.
Conclusion
Throughout Messianic prophecy, the Messiah is not depicted as being someone who would be ontologically equivalent with God, but rather a human being who would be a king of the line of David and a representative agent of Yahweh. In the Old Testament, the human Davidic king was said to sit on the throne of God (1 Chron. 29:23; 2 Chron. 9:8), rule over the kingdom of God (1 Chron. 28:5; 2 Chron. 13:8), be called the “son of God” (1 Chron. 28:6; Ps. 2:6-7), and be worshipped alongside God (1 Chron. 29:20), all of which are things said of Jesus in the New Testament.
Although there are a few texts that are often used by trinitarians to prove that the Messiah, Jesus, is indeed ontologically equivalent to God, these texts do not certainly describe Jesus as God. The only two verses which certainly apply the title of “God” to Jesus, John 20:28 and Hebrews 1:8, can be shown from the Old Testament to be referring to Him as God in a representational sense, not an ontological sense. Thus, there is zero reason from scripture alone to believe that Jesus, the Messiah, is Yahweh God, unless we artificially import our own modern preconceptions into the text based on the fourth-century doctrine of the Trinity.
[1] The word used here in Hebrew is almah, which refers to simply a young woman, not a virgin. Almah was, however, translated into Greek in the LXX as παρθενος (“virgin”), which led to Matthew’s application of this verse to Jesus’ virgin birth. Contrary to some conservative commentators, understanding Isaiah 7:14 in this way does not threaten the infallibility of scripture; rather, it is simply a re-application of this passage that did not originally apply to Jesus, which is common elsewhere in scripture (for example, Hosea 11:1 which originally referred to Israel is applied to Jesus in Matt. 2:15).
