What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus
A technical study of sixteen biblical passages demonstrating that the New Testament clearly refers to Jesus as God.
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
7 people are currently reading
132 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 6, 2023
Every young man needs a fight. True, it makes young men insufferably obnoxious, but the alternative is worse. Minus the fight, men because wayward and listless. They never learn to confront or exercise courage or even proper restraint. I raise this because my fight was largely about the topic of this book. Is Jesus God? Now, we want to be careful how we frame that, but I came to Christianity firmly convinced that Jesus indeed was the second Person of the Trinity. I was willing to go to the mat on that conviction, and I did.
I would have benefitted from something as academic as Murray Harris's treatise (but I wouldn't have had the Greek to go with it). One of the better defenses of Jesus's divine nature I've read.
I would have benefitted from something as academic as Murray Harris's treatise (but I wouldn't have had the Greek to go with it). One of the better defenses of Jesus's divine nature I've read.
September 6, 2025
“Jesus as God: the New Testament use of theos in reference to Jesus” by Murray Harris was good for improving my NT Greek. More importantly, it set out very clearly that "Jesus is totus deus but not totum dei. He is all that God is without being all there is of God." "If the formulation “Jesus is God” is used without qualification, it fails to do justice to the whole truth about Jesus—that he was the incarnate Son, a man among human beings, and that in his “postexistence” he retains his humanity, albeit in glorified form… without the context afforded by the text of the NT it is wise to qualify the assertion by incorporating a reference to the humanity, sonship, or incarnation of Christ or by noting that the proposition is nonreciprocating." Rahner (quoted) draws out an important ramification: “In praying to “God,” Christians are not addressing God in general or the God of natural theology or even the three persons of the Trinity indifferently. Prayer is to be directed specifically to the Father through the mediation of Christ by those who are “children of God” (not children of the Son or Spirit).”
p.26: “YHWH is more appropriately used to emphasize the direct and personal character of God’s merciful and loving relationship with his covenant people and his immediate lordship over nature and history, while ELOHIM highlights God’s transcendence and power as the universal, majestic, eternal God who created the world and rules and judges it in righteousness.”
p.29: “in certain contexts it is as possible for ho theos to refer generically to divinity as it is for theos to denote God or a particular god.”
p.35-6: “when the term theos is used predicatively in the NT (24 times), it is usually qualified if articular (7 out of 8 examples), often qualified if anarthrous (11 out of 16 instances)…/ Such qualification is only lacking in John 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:21; 5:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; and Hebrews 3:4; 11:10.”
p.41 (citing Karl Rahner, “Theos in the New Testament”, pp. 79-148, in Theological Investigations, vol.1, trans. (Baltimore: Helicon, 1961), pp.128-30): “In praying to “God,” Christians are not addressing God in general or the God of natural theology or even the three persons of the Trinity indifferently. Prayer is to be directed specifically to the Father through the mediation of Christ by those who are “children of God” (not children of the Son or Spirit).”
p.70 “I conclude that the most common translation [of John 1:1c] (“the Word was God”) remains the most adequate, although it requires that “God” be carefully defined or qualified. Harner’s paraphrastic translation “the Word had the same nature as God”, or the paraphrase “the Word was identical with God the Father in nature,” most accurately represents the evangelist’s intended meaning.” [But what about “the Word was what God was”?]
p.102 (fn 171; on John 1:18, quoting W. Milligan & W.F. Moulton, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (Edinburgh: Clark, 1898), p.10): “In Him God is revealed as Father; without Him He can be revealed only as God.”
p.103: “[John] 1:1 and 1:18 (at the beginning and at the end of the Prologue) and 20:28 (at the end of the Gospel) all use theos of Jesus, whether he be thought of as the eternally preexistent Logos (1:1), the incarnate Son (1:18), or the risen Christ (20:28). The evangelist thereby indicates that the acknowledgment of the messiahship of Jesus (20:31) necessarily involves belief in his deity.”
p.117 (fn 54): “Three times in the Fourth Gospel (11:16; 20:24; 21:2) Thomas is described by the phrase ho legomenos Didumos, “who is (commonly) called the Twin.” In John 4:25 there is a similar movement from the Greek translation of a Semitic word (Messias) to the nearest Greek equivalent (Christos) after ho legomenos. The Greek for “Doubter” would be Dipsuchos (cf. James 1:8). In papyri, the word didumos (generally an adjective meaning “double” or “twofold”) is used both as a proper name (“Twin”) and as a common noun (“noun”).”
p.126 (fn 100): “The name kurios that Jesus received from the Father at his resurrection-exaltation was not only an appellation but also signified an office or rank (onoma = SHEM) which had not been his previously, except de iure, viz., the exercise of the function of kuriotes (lordship) in the spiritual sphere, cosmic domination over all sentient beings.” [cf. would Pannenberg agree? Would this not imply change within the unchanging Godhead?]
p.168: “it cannot be deemed incongruous for Paul, who taught that one of the signs of the Antichrist would be his laying claim to the title theos (2 Thess. 2:4), on one or two occasions himself to speak of the true Christ as theos.”
p.227 (on Heb 1:8-9): “The author places Jesus far above any angel with respect to nature and function, and on a par with God with regard to function. There is an “essential” unity but a functional subordination.”
p.234: “just as Paul interprets Isaiah 45:23 christologically in Philippians 2:10-11 so Peter may be relating to Christ the threefold description of Yahweh in Isaiah 45:21 (El-Tsaddiq vmyasha, “a righteous God and a Savior”) when he writes en dikaiosune tou theou hemon kai soteros ’Iesou Christou.”
p.268: “seven NT texts in which, with various degrees of probability, theos is used as a Christological title, viz., John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:31; Hebrews 1:8; and 2 Peter 1:1.”
p.288 (quoting O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, trans. (London: SCM, 1959)): ““All Christology is Heilsgeschichte and all Heilsgeschichte is Christology” (326). Accordingly he believes that “Jesus Christ was God in so far as God reveals himself to the world” (267); “Jesus Christ is God in his self-revelation” (325).”
p.291: “The use of theos as a Christological title shows not that Jesus is God-in-action or God-in-revelation but rather that he is God-by-nature. Not only are the deeds and words of Jesus the deeds and words of God. The nature of Jesus is the nature of God; what God is, Jesus is. By nature, as well as by action, Jesus is God.” [But he is not the Father! He is totus deus, not totum dei!]
p.293: “Jesus is totus deus but not totum dei. He is all that God is without being all there is of God. There is a numerical unity of essence but not a numerical identity of person. Although Jesus shares the divine essence fully and personally, he does not exhaust the category of Deity of the being of God. To use the distinction made in the Johannine Prologue, ho logos was theos (1:1c) but ho theos was not ho logos (cf. 1:1b).” [Indeed!]
p.296-7: “Certainly, if we use this proposition [“Jesus is God”] frequently and without qualification, we are negating the general NT reservation of the term theos as a virtual proper name referring to the Father. When the appellation theos is applied to Jesus in the NT, there is always the wider linguistic and theological context in which ho ’Iesous is distinguished from ho theos…or is depicted as subordinate to ho theos… If the formulation “Jesus is God” is used without qualification, it fails to do justice to the whole truth about Jesus—that he was the incarnate Son, a man among human beings, and that in his “postexistence” he retains his humanity, albeit in glorified form—and therefore tends towards Docetism (with its denial of the real humanity of Jesus), monophysitism (with its denial of the two natures of Jesus), or Sabellianism (with its claim that Jesus as Son was a temporary mode of the Divine Monad, exhausting the category of Deity). There are two ways in which this danger of misrepresentation may be avoided. The first is to prefer an assertion that incorporates both aspects of the truth—Christ’s divinity and his humanity. Jesus is the God-man (theanthropos, a term coined by Origen), God and man, God Incarnate, God in his self-/revelation, God Manifest. The second way is to qualify the affirmation “Jesus is God” by observing that this is a nonreciprocating proposition. While Jesus is God, it is not true that God is Jesus. There are others of whom the predicate “God” may be rightfully used. The person we call Jesus does not exhaust the category of Deity.”
p.297-8: “Since, then, the word God may be used only to identify, not describe, it cannot be used predicatively without suggesting equivalence or numerical identity. But Jesus is neither / the Father nor the Trinity. Unlike Greek…, English has no way of modifying a noun so that inherent qualities are emphasized … The formulation “Jesus is God” may be said to systematize NT teaching, but without the context afforded by the text of the NT it is wise to qualify the assertion by incorporating a reference to the humanity, sonship, or incarnation of Christ or by noting that the proposition is nonreciprocating. And it is necessary to recognize that the meaning attached to “God” in this case, viz., “one who is by nature divine,” is exceptional.”
p.26: “YHWH is more appropriately used to emphasize the direct and personal character of God’s merciful and loving relationship with his covenant people and his immediate lordship over nature and history, while ELOHIM highlights God’s transcendence and power as the universal, majestic, eternal God who created the world and rules and judges it in righteousness.”
p.29: “in certain contexts it is as possible for ho theos to refer generically to divinity as it is for theos to denote God or a particular god.”
p.35-6: “when the term theos is used predicatively in the NT (24 times), it is usually qualified if articular (7 out of 8 examples), often qualified if anarthrous (11 out of 16 instances)…/ Such qualification is only lacking in John 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:21; 5:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; and Hebrews 3:4; 11:10.”
p.41 (citing Karl Rahner, “Theos in the New Testament”, pp. 79-148, in Theological Investigations, vol.1, trans. (Baltimore: Helicon, 1961), pp.128-30): “In praying to “God,” Christians are not addressing God in general or the God of natural theology or even the three persons of the Trinity indifferently. Prayer is to be directed specifically to the Father through the mediation of Christ by those who are “children of God” (not children of the Son or Spirit).”
p.70 “I conclude that the most common translation [of John 1:1c] (“the Word was God”) remains the most adequate, although it requires that “God” be carefully defined or qualified. Harner’s paraphrastic translation “the Word had the same nature as God”, or the paraphrase “the Word was identical with God the Father in nature,” most accurately represents the evangelist’s intended meaning.” [But what about “the Word was what God was”?]
p.102 (fn 171; on John 1:18, quoting W. Milligan & W.F. Moulton, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (Edinburgh: Clark, 1898), p.10): “In Him God is revealed as Father; without Him He can be revealed only as God.”
p.103: “[John] 1:1 and 1:18 (at the beginning and at the end of the Prologue) and 20:28 (at the end of the Gospel) all use theos of Jesus, whether he be thought of as the eternally preexistent Logos (1:1), the incarnate Son (1:18), or the risen Christ (20:28). The evangelist thereby indicates that the acknowledgment of the messiahship of Jesus (20:31) necessarily involves belief in his deity.”
p.117 (fn 54): “Three times in the Fourth Gospel (11:16; 20:24; 21:2) Thomas is described by the phrase ho legomenos Didumos, “who is (commonly) called the Twin.” In John 4:25 there is a similar movement from the Greek translation of a Semitic word (Messias) to the nearest Greek equivalent (Christos) after ho legomenos. The Greek for “Doubter” would be Dipsuchos (cf. James 1:8). In papyri, the word didumos (generally an adjective meaning “double” or “twofold”) is used both as a proper name (“Twin”) and as a common noun (“noun”).”
p.126 (fn 100): “The name kurios that Jesus received from the Father at his resurrection-exaltation was not only an appellation but also signified an office or rank (onoma = SHEM) which had not been his previously, except de iure, viz., the exercise of the function of kuriotes (lordship) in the spiritual sphere, cosmic domination over all sentient beings.” [cf. would Pannenberg agree? Would this not imply change within the unchanging Godhead?]
p.168: “it cannot be deemed incongruous for Paul, who taught that one of the signs of the Antichrist would be his laying claim to the title theos (2 Thess. 2:4), on one or two occasions himself to speak of the true Christ as theos.”
p.227 (on Heb 1:8-9): “The author places Jesus far above any angel with respect to nature and function, and on a par with God with regard to function. There is an “essential” unity but a functional subordination.”
p.234: “just as Paul interprets Isaiah 45:23 christologically in Philippians 2:10-11 so Peter may be relating to Christ the threefold description of Yahweh in Isaiah 45:21 (El-Tsaddiq vmyasha, “a righteous God and a Savior”) when he writes en dikaiosune tou theou hemon kai soteros ’Iesou Christou.”
p.268: “seven NT texts in which, with various degrees of probability, theos is used as a Christological title, viz., John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:31; Hebrews 1:8; and 2 Peter 1:1.”
p.288 (quoting O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, trans. (London: SCM, 1959)): ““All Christology is Heilsgeschichte and all Heilsgeschichte is Christology” (326). Accordingly he believes that “Jesus Christ was God in so far as God reveals himself to the world” (267); “Jesus Christ is God in his self-revelation” (325).”
p.291: “The use of theos as a Christological title shows not that Jesus is God-in-action or God-in-revelation but rather that he is God-by-nature. Not only are the deeds and words of Jesus the deeds and words of God. The nature of Jesus is the nature of God; what God is, Jesus is. By nature, as well as by action, Jesus is God.” [But he is not the Father! He is totus deus, not totum dei!]
p.293: “Jesus is totus deus but not totum dei. He is all that God is without being all there is of God. There is a numerical unity of essence but not a numerical identity of person. Although Jesus shares the divine essence fully and personally, he does not exhaust the category of Deity of the being of God. To use the distinction made in the Johannine Prologue, ho logos was theos (1:1c) but ho theos was not ho logos (cf. 1:1b).” [Indeed!]
p.296-7: “Certainly, if we use this proposition [“Jesus is God”] frequently and without qualification, we are negating the general NT reservation of the term theos as a virtual proper name referring to the Father. When the appellation theos is applied to Jesus in the NT, there is always the wider linguistic and theological context in which ho ’Iesous is distinguished from ho theos…or is depicted as subordinate to ho theos… If the formulation “Jesus is God” is used without qualification, it fails to do justice to the whole truth about Jesus—that he was the incarnate Son, a man among human beings, and that in his “postexistence” he retains his humanity, albeit in glorified form—and therefore tends towards Docetism (with its denial of the real humanity of Jesus), monophysitism (with its denial of the two natures of Jesus), or Sabellianism (with its claim that Jesus as Son was a temporary mode of the Divine Monad, exhausting the category of Deity). There are two ways in which this danger of misrepresentation may be avoided. The first is to prefer an assertion that incorporates both aspects of the truth—Christ’s divinity and his humanity. Jesus is the God-man (theanthropos, a term coined by Origen), God and man, God Incarnate, God in his self-/revelation, God Manifest. The second way is to qualify the affirmation “Jesus is God” by observing that this is a nonreciprocating proposition. While Jesus is God, it is not true that God is Jesus. There are others of whom the predicate “God” may be rightfully used. The person we call Jesus does not exhaust the category of Deity.”
p.297-8: “Since, then, the word God may be used only to identify, not describe, it cannot be used predicatively without suggesting equivalence or numerical identity. But Jesus is neither / the Father nor the Trinity. Unlike Greek…, English has no way of modifying a noun so that inherent qualities are emphasized … The formulation “Jesus is God” may be said to systematize NT teaching, but without the context afforded by the text of the NT it is wise to qualify the assertion by incorporating a reference to the humanity, sonship, or incarnation of Christ or by noting that the proposition is nonreciprocating. And it is necessary to recognize that the meaning attached to “God” in this case, viz., “one who is by nature divine,” is exceptional.”
August 29, 2017
A tremendous help in understanding how the NT uses the term Theos (God) generally and in relation to Jesus.
Reads like a word study and requires knowledge of biblical Greek, while understanding Hebrew would help for the introduction.
This book helps deal with heresies that would deny the deity of Christ, by carefully addressing every occasion the word Theos is used in relation to Jesus.
Reads like a word study and requires knowledge of biblical Greek, while understanding Hebrew would help for the introduction.
This book helps deal with heresies that would deny the deity of Christ, by carefully addressing every occasion the word Theos is used in relation to Jesus.
December 30, 2018
I would have rated this book much higher but for the fact that large swaths of the material were in Greek....and since I do not know Greek it was obviously hard to follow much of this book ....this book is for those that know that language....
January 17, 2020
It's true, Jesus is God.
Made that clear.
Made that clear.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews