This is part two of my series with Bill Schlegel, former professor of the Israel Bible Extension and long time bible teacher and geography expert. Last time we discussed five major texts in the Gospel of John and this time we cover four or five more:
- John 10.30
- John 10.33
- John 13.18-19
- John 20.28
- 1 John 5.20
Next time we’ll discuss a number of more important verses in the rest of the bible.
—— Links ——
- Check out the other episodes in the Misunderstood Texts about Jesus series.
- To learn about Schlegel’s backstory, listen to Interview 31: Master’s University Prof. Finds Son of God, Loses Job
- Check out his excellent book, the Satellite Bible Atlas here
- Follow Bill Schlegel on his blog or on YouTube
- For an extensive list of verses and explanations from a biblical unitarian perspective, visit christianmonotheism.com (use the scripture index on the right)
- Watch “Five Major Problems with the Trinity” on YouTube
- Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
Great series Sean. I haven’t heard anything new to me but I really like the way Bill explains the scriptures. I hope and pray that many are listening who are not familiar with this way of reading scripture.
re Jn10.30
I appreciated Sean bringing the foregoing context into play in terms of understanding the appropriateness and sense of Jesus’ statement. I have tended to begin in Jn10:30 – and only gone forward – and not backwards – and the foregoing context adds a great dimension.
re Jn20.28
I am severely troubled by Bill’s highly strained exegesis (ultimately Kermit Zarley’s exegesis) of this text – with respect, it is severely flawed and casts despite on our efforts to have a truly Biblically based approach to the typically cherry-picked texts used to support a hypostatic Christology.
My full response –
re John 20:28
Unfortunately there is often confusion re Thomas’ simple statement re Jesus in Jn20.28.
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.
I remain puzzled as to why – Jesus provided us a CLEAR and certain “contextually relevant exegetical basis” for this passage in Jn10.35.
εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή,
Ask yourself – was or was not Jesus one πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγένετο??
Again, we see Psalm 45 proclaiming the King of Israel as God. Ask yourself again – was Jesus NOT the King of Israel?? Likewise Moses is called God, etc. Thus the nomenclature of a man being addressed as God is not only not unusual but quite common and very contextually relevant from Jesus’ own mouth. Such a reading makes perfect sense without doing despite and injury to scripture or common sense which any alternative exegesis necessarily creates.
One alternative exegesis asserts that Thomas is seeing both Jesus and somehow seeing THROUGH Jesus seeing God and, thus, addressing BOTH Jesus (Lord) and ALSO addressing the Father (God). At best, this is a very unusual reading since we don’t see a very strange way of speaking anywhere else at all anywhere in the Bible. Indeed, the notion of Thomas directly addressing BOTH Jesus and somehow, in a most imaginative manner, without the least contextual reference, an ADDITIONAL subject as well as Jesus – is, at best, strained and painful – and, with respect to those who hold it, flat out absurd.
However, lest there be the least consideration of whether such a credulous exegesis has the least merit – one merely has to read the text and note TO WHOM (and the number of the noun) the statement was addressed. Please note there is only a SINGULAR subject (αὐτῷ)
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.
I have recently heard of Jn14.11 being used to support this strained reading. This truly puzzles me because Jesus uses the exact same language regarding us and Him – and us and us – in Jn17. Are we to begin addressing Jesus through one another in the same way?? Etc.
In this matter, I am sorry, as much as I appreciate Kermit Zarley, his exegesis is simply incorrect and does despite to what is the very highest Christology – the MAN Christ Jesus – as clearly taught throughout the NT.
Thus, I am very comfortable in saying that the M-A-N Christ Jesus is my Lord and MY GOD.
@Greg Logan
I don’t believe the John 20:28 exegesis is strained at all if one basis their views on very recently taught things by Jesus in John 14. One of the main tenets of John 14 was Thomas not understanding that to see Jesus was to see God(the Father). Most explicitly the fact that Jesus said something about his own resurrection and what would come about once he was raised.
John 14:19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you”
Verse 20 is explicit that they will know that Jesus is in the Father “that day.” What day? Well based on the previous line it seems the resurrection of Jesus. This was spoken to Thomas(v.5) who was present in this questioning.
One may also say something TO someone and it not be addressed directly TO them. Take the English phrase as if I’m speaking to you aloud:
“Greg! You’re doing well my friend! Praise my God!” and it’s perfectly obvious I’m not calling you(Greg) “God.” I’m addressing you directly about praise to another.
Then there’s also the argument that the ” the lord of me” and “the god of me” Greek construct does fit a grammatical consistency of speaking to two persons, not one person based on Granville Sharp. This is the exact contrast to what Trinitarians often try to do with Titus 2:13 with the Granville Sharp construction. I don’t make this the main thrust of my claims when speaking about it–but it is of note. I’m sure you’re aware of this moreso than I am–I haven’t delved into Greek in a long time.
Don’t misunderstand me either—while I may disagree with your understanding… yours is a perfectly legitimate understanding. We just don’t see the need to understand it that way and don’t find it disconcerting one way or another to call Jesus “god” based on our understanding of the term biblically.
Thank you Sean and Bill for putting for this interesting and educational series. As one who was a lifelong Trinitarian without really giving it much thought, in recent times, without a great deal of struggle, I hopped over to the Unitarian monotheistic side with little difficulty. This series has reaffirmed why I changed thought. I really didn’t have too much trouble, as when Jesus said “no man knows the day or the hour, not even I but only the Father,” it sort of said that if God is all knowing, and Jesus just admitted there was something he didn’t know that it didn’t demean him but rather just said that the Father was God. Thanks again.
Thomas’s words cannot be, in any sense, considered as stating a fact. It’s called an “ecstatic utterance” made in a brief state of shock.
Besides that, speaking Hebrew, he would have said, “Elohai,” “My (literally) great one.”
I believe that this same interpretation could be used in John 1:1 – “and the Word was Elohim.” John was writing in Greek, but his Hebrew mind could not supply a Greek word for “great” besides “theos.”