Answering Islam - A Christian-Muslim dialog

Jesus Christ – Our Lord And Our God!

Sam Shamoun

Awhile back, I had a run in with Muslim polemicist Paul Bilal Williams in one of the Christian blogs which I have started to visit. When I informed Williams that it is not about me or my glory, but “about the glory of the risen Lord Jesus Christ, your God and mine,” he responded by quoting a verse from John’s Gospel:

Paul said...

"It is about the glory of the risen Lord Jesus, your God and mine."

Er, some news just in Sam, Jesus (allegedly) said in John 20

"Stop clinging to me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.' (20: 17).

So Jesus said he had a God, your God and mine. (The Qur'an never says the text of the Bible was corrupted)

This isn’t the only time that Williams has tried to use this passage to disprove the Deity of the Lord Jesus:

Paul Williams said, on July 16, 2011 at 1:12 pm

Again you cite verses that undermine your trinitarian theology. Here is I Corinthians 11:3

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Clearly this is not trinitarian as Christ has a God.

Similarly you cite john 20:17

Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

So Jesus has a God just as we do. This verse undermines any claim to trinitarianism if you accept, as Muslims and Jews do, that there is only one god.

You are doing my job for me by citing verse after verse that contradict your beliefs!! What kind of apologetics is this? In proving your belief in one god you have effectively destroyed your theology of ‘three in one’! (Messiah)

I have therefore decided to write this article since I had promised Williams that I would respond to his misuse of this text and show how this verse actually proves that Muhammad was a false prophet.

In the first place, this very passage puts the Lord Jesus and his followers at odds with the teachings of Muhammad. According to William’s false prophet, Allah isn’t a father to anyone, and not simply in a physical, procreative sense. Notice, for instance, Muhammad’s response to the Jews and Christians of his day telling him that they were the children of Allah:

And (both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are the children of Allah and His loved ones." Say: "Why then does He punish you for your sins?" Nay, you are but human beings, of those He has created, He forgives whom He wills and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and to Him is the return (of all). S. 5:18 Hilali-Khan

Muhammad also condemned Christians for believing that Jesus is God’s Son:

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! S. 9:30 Pickthall

The Jews and Christians would have obviously explained to Muhammad what they meant that God was their Father or, in the case of Christians, that Jesus is the Son of God. They would have made it clear to him that they meant this in a purely spiritual sense since they did (and do) not believe that God was(is) a material being with body parts who could have sex with women if he wanted to. However, Muhammad still refused to accept this spiritual understanding of God’s fatherhood on the grounds that the only way his god could have any offspring is through sexual intercourse:

The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of all things? S. 6:101 Pickthall

Therefore, the very passage which Williams appealed to in order to refute me ends up actually proving that Allah is a false god, Muhammad is a false prophet, and Islam is a false religion!

In fact, according to John himself, this makes Muhammad one of the antichrists which he warned would come into the world in order deceive people from the truth:

“Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour… Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.” 1 John 2:18, 22-23

Second, this is the very same Gospel which Williams himself acknowledges proclaims the Deity of Christ!

Jesus in the Fourth Gospel

In John, Jesus speaks with AN UNCLOUDED CONSCIOUSNESS OF A DIVINE EXISTENCE WITH GOD from before his time on earth (5.19ff and 8.12ff make this clear). But the question cannot be ducked whether the Jesus of the fourth gospel was intended as a historical portrayal, whether Jesus of Nazareth actually spoke in the terms used by John. Were the Christological claims of John’s gospel already in place from the beginning of Christianity? It is hardly likely. (Judging by the Injil; capital emphasis ours)

He even admits that John’s prologue teaches that the Word of God, who later became the flesh and blood human being named Jesus Christ, is fully God in essence!

Paul Williams said, on January 11, 2012 at 7:38 pm

“if you can read Greek, then do you really understand John 1:1; and since you claim to read Greek and understand it, can you explain the significance of the word order, the Predicate nominative issue, and why the Jehovah’s Witnesses translation of John 1:1 is wrong?”

Claim? Lol. I know the prologue of John 1 in Greek by heart and Yes, I do understand 1:1 and Yes, the JW translation IS WRONG AND YES, I ACCEPT THE TRADITIONAL TRANSLATION OF THE VERSE:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So what? (Can God Become A Man? James White vs Abdullah Kunde; capital emphasis ours)

The reason why Williams has to agree that this is what John says is because a cursory reading of John 1 shows that the Evangelist depicts the prehuman Christ as the Word whom the Father used to bring the entire creation into being. As such, the Word is uncreated and therefore fully God:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it… There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him… And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled (pitched his tent) among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth… No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” John 1:1-5, 9-10, 14, 18

The following Greek scholar brings out the implications of John 1:1 and, in so doing, demonstrates that Jesus is the eternal Word and divine Son of God:

“The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like ‘is’ (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case–the predicate nominative. In the sentence, ‘John is a man,’ ‘John’ is the subject and ‘man’ is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to determine subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.

"As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, ‘and the Word was God.’ But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,

kai   theos  en    ho  logos
and  God   was  the  Word.

"We know that ‘the Word’ is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: ‘and the Word was God.’ Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was theos thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: ‘What God was, the Word was’ is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of ‘God’ (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John's wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of the article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

kai ho logos en ho theos  ‘and the Word was the God’ (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)

kai ho logos en theos  ‘and the Word was a god’ (Arianism)

kai theos en ho logos  ‘and the Word was God’ (Orthodoxy).

"Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in kai theos en ho logos.” (William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1993], Chapter 6. Nominative and Accusative Definite Article (First and Second Declension), pp. 28-29; bold emphasis ours)

Even the radically skeptical Greek NT scholar Bart Ehrman, who happens to be one of the authors whose book Williams recommends to his readers (*; *), admits that John’s Gospel goes out of its way to proclaim that Jesus is fully God in the flesh!

“Things are quite different in the Gospel of John. In Mark, Jesus teaches principally about God and the coming kingdom, hardly ever talking directly about himself [sic], except to say that he must go to Jerusalem to be executed, whereas in John, that is practically all that Jesus talks about: who he is, where he has come from, where he is going, and how he is the one who can provide eternal life.

“Jesus does not preach about the future kingdom of God in John. The emphasis is on his own identity, as seen in the ‘I am’ sayings. He is the one who can bring life-giving sustenance (‘I am the bread of life’ 6:35); he is the one who brings enlightenment (‘I am the light of the world’ 9:5); he is the only way to God (‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me’ 14:6). Belief in Jesus is the way to have eternal salvation: ‘whoever believes in him may have eternal life’ (3:36). He in fact is equal with God: ‘I and the Father are one’ (10:30). His Jewish listeners appear to have known full well what he was saying: they immediately pick up stones to execute him for blasphemy.

“In one place in John, Jesus claims the name of God for himself, saying to his Jewish interlocutors, ‘Before Abraham was, I am’ (John 8:58). Abraham, who lived 1,800 years earlier, was the father of the Jews, and Jesus is claiming to have existed before him. But he is claiming more than that. He is referring to a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures where God appears to Moses at the burning bush and commissions him to go to Pharaoh and seek the release of his people. Moses asks God what God's name is, so that he can inform his fellow Israelites which divinity has sent him. God replies, ‘I Am Who I Am … say to the Israelites, “I Am has sent me to you”’ (Exodus 3:14). So when Jesus says ‘I AM,’ in John 8:58, he is claiming the divine name for himself. Here again his Jewish hearers had no trouble understanding his meaning. Once more, out come the stones.” (Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We don’t Know About Them) [HarperOne, A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, 2009], Three. A Mass Of Variant Views, pp. 79-80; bold emphasis ours)


“… John starts with a prologue that mysteriously describes the Word of God that was in the very beginning with God, that was itself God, and through which God created the universe. This Word, we are told, became a human being, and that’s who Jesus Christ is: the Word of God made flesh. There is nothing like that in the Synoptics… Jesus also preaches in this Gospel, not about the coming kingdom of God but about himself: who he is, where he has come from, where he is going, and how he can bring eternal life. Unique to John are the various ‘I am’ sayings, in which Jesus identifies himself and what he can provide for people. These ‘I am’ sayings are usually backed up by a sign, to show that what Jesus says about himself is true. And so he says, ‘I am the bread of life’ and proves it by multiplying the loaves to feed the multitudes; he says ‘I am the light of the world’ and proves it by healing the man born blind; he says ‘I am the resurrection and the life’ and proves it by raising Lazarus from the dead.” (Ibid, pp. 72-73)


“John does not make any reference to Jesus' mother being a virgin, instead explaining his coming into the world as an incarnation of a preexistent divine being. The prologue to John's Gospel (1:1-18) is one of the most elevated and POWERFUL passages of the entire Bible. It is also one of the most discussed, controverted, and differently interpreted. John begins (1:1-3) with an elevated view of the ‘Word of God,’ a being that is independent of God (he was ‘with God’) but that is in some sense equal with God (he ‘was God’). This being existed in the beginning with God and is the one through whom the entire universe was created (‘all things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being’).

“Scholars have wrangled over details of this passage for centuries. My personal view is that the author is harking back to the story of creation in Genesis 1, where God spoke and creation resulted: ‘And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.’ It was by speaking a word that God created all that there was. The author of the Fourth Gospel, LIKE SOME OTHERS IN JEWISH TRADITION, imagined that the word that God spoke was some kind of independent entity in and of itself. It was ‘with’ God, because once spoken, it was apart from God, and it ‘was’ God in the sense that what God spoke was a part of his being. His speaking only made external what was already internal, within his mind. The word of God, then, was the outward manifestation of the internal divine reality. It both was with God, and was God, and was the means by which all things came into being.

“In John’s Gospel, this preexistent divine Word of God became a human being: ‘And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory’ (1:14). It comes as no surprise who this human being was: Jesus Christ. Jesus, here, is not simply a Jewish prophet who suddenly bursts onto the scene, as in Mark; and he is not a divine-human who has come into existence at the point of his conception (or birth) by a woman who was impregnated by God. He is God’s very word, who was with God in the beginning, who has temporarily come to dwell on earth, bringing the possibility of eternal life.

“John does not say how this Word came into the world. He does not have a birth narrative and says nothing about Joseph and Mary [sic], about Bethlehem, or about a virginal conception. And he varies from Luke on this very key point: whereas Luke portrays Jesus as having come into being at some historical point (conception or birth) [sic], John portrays him as the human manifestation of a divine being who transcends human history.” (Ibid, pp. 75-76; bold and capital emphasis ours)


“The last of our Gospels to be written, John, pushes the Son-of-God-ship of Jesus back even further, into eternity past. John is our only Gospel that actually speaks of Jesus as divine [sic]. For John, Christ is not the Son of God because God raised him from the dead, adopted him at the baptism, or impregnated his mother: he is the Son of God because he existed with God in the very beginning, before the creation of the world, as the Word of God, before coming into this world as a human being (becoming ‘incarnate’)… This is the view that became the standard Christian doctrine, that Christ was the preexistent Word of God who became flesh. He both was with God in the beginning and was God, and it was through him that the universe was created. But this was not the original view held by the followers of Jesus [sic]. The idea that Jesus was divine was a later Christian invention [sic], one found, among our gospels, only in John… What led Christians to develop this view? The Gospel of John does not represent the view of one person, the unknown author [sic] of the Gospel, but rather a view that the author inherited through his oral tradition, just as the other Gospel writers record the traditions that they had heard, traditions in circulation in Christian circles for decades before they were written down. John’s tradition is obviously unique, however, since in none [sic] of the other Gospels do we have such an exalted view of Christ. Where did this tradition come from?” (Ibid, Seven. Who Invented Christianity?, pp. 248-249; bold emphasis ours)  

Third, in the immediate context of John 20 we have one of Christ’s own disciples making the following startling confession:

“But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were saying to him, ‘We have seen the Lord!’ But he said to them, ‘Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.’ After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ Then He said to Thomas, ‘Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.’ Thomas answered AND SAID TO HIM, ‘MY LORD AND MY GOD (ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou)!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed. Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” John 20:24-31

Thomas professes that the risen Christ is his Lord and his God, with Jesus blessing anyone who would believe the same thing without having to see in order to do so!

“Thomas’s words echo statements addressed in the Psalms to the Lord (Jehovah), especially: ‘Wake up!’ Bestir yourself for my defense, for my cause, my God and my Lord [ho theos mou kai ho kurios mou]!’ (Ps. 35:23). These words parallel those in John 20:28 exactly except for reversing ‘God’ and ‘Lord’. More broadly, in biblical language ‘my God’ (on the lips of a faithful believer) can refer only to the Lord God of Israel. The language is as definite as it could be and identifies Jesus Christ as God himself.

“In identifying Jesus as God, Thomas, of course, was not identifying him as the Father. Earlier in the same passage, Jesus had referred to the Father as his God. It is interesting to compare Jesus’ wording with the wording of Thomas. Jesus told Mary Magdalene, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and to your God’ (theon mou kai theon humon, John 20:17). As in John 1:1 and John 1:18, the Father is called ‘God’ in close proximity to a statement affirming that Jesus is also ‘God.’ Here again, as in John 1:18, we do not see the apostle John distinguishing between the Father as ‘the God’ (ho theos) and Jesus the Son as only ‘God’ (theos without the article). In fact, whereas Jesus calls the Father ‘my God’ without the article (theon mou, 20:17), Thomas calls Jesus ‘my God’ with the article (ho theos mou, 20:28)! One could not ask for any clearer evidence that the use or nonuse of the article is irrelevant to the meaning of the word theos. What matters is how the word is used in context. In John 20:28, the apostle reports the most skeptical of disciples making the most exalted of confessions about Jesus. John expects his readers to view Thomas’s confession as a model for them to follow. Recognizing Jesus as the One who conquered death itself for us, we too are to respond to Jesus and confess that he is our Lord and our God.” (Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ [Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI 2007], Part 3: Name Above All Names: Jesus Shares the Names of God, 12. Immanuel: God with Us, p. 143; bold emphasis ours)

The authors also do a fine job showing why Thomas’ words cannot simply be explained away as a praise directed towards the Father, not to the Son:

“There is essentially no controversy among biblical scholars that in John 20:28 Thomas is referring to and addressing Jesus when he says, ‘My Lord and my God!’ As Harris says in his lengthy study on Jesus as God in the New Testament, ‘This view prevails among grammarians, lexicographers, commentators and English versions.’ Indeed, it is difficult to find any contemporary exegetical commentary or academic study that argues that Thomas’s words in John 20:28 apply in context to the Father rather than to Jesus. The reason is simple: John prefaces what Thomas said with the words, ‘Thomas answered and said to him’ (v. 28a NASB). This seemingly redundant wording reflects a Hebrew idiomatic way of introducing someone’s response to the previous speaker. John uses it especially frequently, always with the speaker’s words directed to the person or persons who have just spoken previously in the narrative (John 1:48, 50; 2:18-19; 3:3, 9-10, 27; 4:10, 13, 17; 5:11; 6:26, 29, 43; 7:16, 21, 52; 8:14, 39, 48; 9:11, 20, 30, 34, 36; 12:30; 13:7; 14:23; 18:30; 20:28). It is therefore certain that Thomas was directing his words to Jesus, not to the Father. No one, of course, would ever have questioned this obvious conclusion if Thomas had said simply ‘My Lord!’ It is the addition of the words ‘and my God’ that have sparked some creative but untenable interpretations of the text.” (Ibid, p. 142; bold emphasis ours)

Hence, John’s Gospel sees no problem with the Father being the God of both Jesus and his followers, and with Christ himself being the disciples’ God as well. If the Evangelist didn’t have a problem then neither should we.

It is only when one assumes unitarianism like Williams does, e.g. the belief that only the Father is God, that a supposed problem arises. Yet since neither the author of the Gospel nor the rest of Jesus’ followers were unitarians then this imagined dilemma vanishes:   

“John’s conclusion, at which he wants his readers also to arrive, that Jesus is the Son of God (20:30-31) is not at odds with understanding Thomas’s statement in John 20:28 as a model of confession of Jesus as Lord and God. In the prologue as well, John insists that Jesus is both God (1:1, 18) and the Son of God (1:14, 18). As D. A. Carson has observed, ‘This tension between unqualified statements affirming the full deity of the Word or of the Son, and those which distinguish the Word or the Son from the Father, are typical of the Fourth Gospel from the very first verse.’ Those who find these descriptions of Jesus impossible to reconcile without denying or diminishing one in favor of the other are laboring under the assumption or presupposition of a unitarian view of God (i.e., the view that God can only be a solitary person).” (Ibid., p. 143; bold emphasis ours)

Here is the testimony of John in a nutshell:

1. There is only one God:

“How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?” John 5:44

“This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” John 17:3

2. The Father is God.

3. The risen Lord Jesus is God.

4. The Father and the Son are distinct Persons who love one another and have perfect fellowship with each other:

“But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me. Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of TWO MEN. I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me.’ So they were saying to Him, ‘Where is Your Father?’ Jesus answered, ‘You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also… And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” John 8:16-19, 29

“but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me. Get up, let us go from here.” John 14:31

“Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.” John 17:24

Therefore, by taking all of data into consideration the only conclusion that one can arrive at is that according to John’s Gospel the only true God is a multi-personal Being.

Now the question still remains how could the Father be Jesus’ God if he himself is God, and there is only one God? The answer comes from the fact that Christ is the Word who became flesh (cf. 1:14). As such, Christ took on a created nature that made him a part of the very creation which he brought into being (cf. 1:3, 10). This act of becoming part of creation in order to become a man resulted in the Father becoming Jesus’ God as well. After all, God is said to be the God of all flesh:

“Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?” Jeremiah 32:27

Since it was the Son who became flesh it is only natural that the Father would become his God from that moment on. 

In fact, some of the OT texts which the NT writers interpret messianically confirm this point.

For instance, Psalm 22 is a passage which the NT applies to Christ. In light of this, notice what the following verses say:

My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning… But I am a worm and not a man, A reproach of men and despised by the people. All who see me sneer at me; They separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying, ‘Commit yourself to the LORD; let Him deliver him; Let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.’ … I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death. For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; THEY PIERCED MY HANDS AND MY FEET. I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lotsI will tell of Your name to my brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You.” Psalm 22:1, 6-8, 14-16, 18, 22

With the exception of v. 16, all these references are either quoted or alluded to in the NT:

“When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took His garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also His tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, so they said to one another, ‘Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.’ This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, ‘They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.’ So the soldiers did these things.” John 19:23-24

“And those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads and saying, ‘You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.’ In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking Him and saying, ‘He saved others; He cannot save Himself. He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in Him. HE TRUSTS IN GOD; LET GOD RESCUE Him now, IF HE DELIGHTS IN HIM; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.”’ The robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words. Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ that is, ‘MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?’” Matthew 27:39-46

“For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, ‘I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.’” Hebrews 2:12

What makes this Psalm rather significant is that the Psalmist states quite plainly that Yahweh became his God from the time of his conception in his mother’s womb:

“Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother’s breasts. Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God FROM MY MOTHER’S WOMB.” Psalm 22:9-10

Here is another text which the NT applies to the Son and which also establishes our point:

“‘But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.’ Therefore He will give them up until the time When she who is in labor HAS BORNE A CHILD. Then the remainder of HIS BRETHREN Will return to the sons of Israel. And He will arise and shepherd His flock In the strength of the LORD, In the majesty of the name of the LORD His God. And they will remain, Because at that time He will be great To the ends of the earth.’” Micah 5:2-4

Notice the language, “when she who is in labor has borne a child,” “his brethren,” i.e. clear references to the King's humanity. According to Matthew 2:1-6, Micah 5:2 was fulfilled in the birth of Christ:

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.’ When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They told him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet: “And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.”’” Matthew 2:1-6

Thus, Micah 5:2 prophesied that the Messiah is God (i.e. “From the days of eternity”) who shall be born as a man in order to save his fellow Israelites. Micah also testifies that the Father only became the Son’s God when the latter became a man.

And now for the final example:

“Listen to Me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called Me FROM THE WOMB; FROM THE BODY OF MY MOTHER He named Me. He has made My mouth like a sharp sword, In the shadow of His hand He has concealed Me; And He has also made Me a select arrow, He has hidden Me in His quiver. He said to Me, ‘You are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory.’ But I said, ‘I have toiled in vain, I have spent My strength for nothing and vanity; Yet surely the justice due to Me is with the LORD, And My reward with My God.’ And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength), He says, ‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.’ Thus says the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel and its Holy One, To the despised One, To the One abhorred by the nation, To the Servant of rulers, Kings will see and arise, Princes will also bow down, Because of the LORD who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel who has chosen You. Thus says the LORD, ‘In a favorable time I have answered You, And in a day of salvation I have helped You; And I will keep You and give You for a covenant of the people, To restore the land, to make them inherit the desolate heritages; Saying to those who are bound, “Go forth,” To those who are in darkness, “Show yourselves.” Along the roads they will feed, And their pasture will be on all bare heights. They will not hunger or thirst, Nor will the scorching heat or sun strike them down; For He who has compassion on them will lead them And will guide them to springs of water.’” Isaiah 49:1-10 

The NT alludes to the language of this particular Servant passage in the following places: Luke 2:30-32; 22:19-20; Revelation 1:16; 2:12, 16; 7:17; 19:15, 21.

All of the preceding OT texts confirm that the Father only became the Son’s God the moment when the Son became flesh. As such, Bible-believing Christians see no problem with Jesus having the Father as his God since they affirm the biblical proclamation that Christ is both God and Man at the same time.

So much for William’s misuse of John 20:17. What makes this rather ironic is that this same passage, which Williams erroneously thought refutes my beliefs as a Christian, actually ends up proving that he is worshiping a false god and that Muhammad is a false prophet!  

Lord Jesus willing, we have a lot more rebuttals planned for Williams which should be appearing soon.

Related Articles

Since Jesus has a God, how can he be God himself?
Is the Holy Spirit Jesus' God As Well?