How 1 Peter 3:15 Teaches The Deity of Christ

It is a verse that all of us who are involved in apologetics have grown to love and cherish. 1 Peter 3:15 is the New Testament’s mandate for being always ready to offer a rational defense for the Christian worldview. It is unfortunate, however, that we have come to be so familiar with this verse that we miss its full significance, for the text teaches far more than the need to provide a defense of the faith. This is best seen when read in the context of verse 14 which precedes it. Here’s the text of 1 Peter 3:14-16. Take particular note of the underlined text.

“But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.”

Verse 14 in fact contains a quotation (the underlined text) from Isaiah 8:12, in which we read, “Do not call conspiracy all that this people call conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread.” Verse 15 of 1 Peter 3 continues the quotation into verse 13 of Isaiah 8, but with a subtle change. Isaiah 8:13 reads, “But the Lord of hosts, him you shall honor as holy.” Compare this to the start of 1 Peter 3:15: “…but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy.” Peter has replaced “the Lord of hosts” from Isaiah 8:13 with “Christ the Lord”, asserting that it is He whom we are to regard as Holy. In so doing, the Apostle Peter has here effectively identified Jesus as being of the same essence as Yahweh, another Biblical proof of the deity of Christ.

The Truth about the Council of Nicaea

Why Did Jesus Say, "The Father Is Greater Than I" (John 14:28)?

Dr. Frank Turek on the Evidence for Christianity

What Really Happened at Nicea?

For many years, the council of Nicea has been the subject of much confusion among laypeople. The misapprehensions which have come to be associated with the council of Nicea have, in part, been fuelled by popular fictional novels such as Dan Brown's notorious The Da vinci Code. No matter what group you are dealing with in your apologetic exploits (including atheists, Muslims, Jehovah's witnesses and unitarians), you are almost guaranteed to encounter some of these misconcepts. For this reason, it is important for Christians to study and learn church history, so that they might correct common myths and falsehoods.

The council of Nicea was famously convened on May 20, 325 AD, at the request of Emperor Constantine (pictured above). What did the council of bishops meet to discuss? Contrary to common misconception (popularised particularly in Muslim circles) that has been widely circulated via the internet, the council of Nicea did not meet to discuss the canon of Scripture -- that is, the decision about which books should make up the New Testament. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that the canon of Scripture was even brought up at Nicea. Another misconception is that the council of Nicea, at the encouraging of Constantine, "invented" the deity of Christ or, at the very least, that the bishops in attendance at Nicea were significantly divided on the issue, the matter being decided with a vote. This too, however, is completely inaccurate. In 325 AD, when the bishops convened at Nicea, the deity of Christ had been affirmed almost unanimously by the Christian movement for close to three hundred years!

Do Islamic Arguments Against the Deity of Jesus Hold Water? James White Responds To Joshua Evans

Part 1:



Part 2:



Part 3:

Did Jesus Deny His Deity When He Said He Didn't Know The Day or Hour of the Second Coming?

Who is the Angel of the Lord?

Throughout the Old Testament, we routinely encounter the mysterious character who goes by the title "The angel of the Lord." By looking at the numerous appearances of this individual, we can piece together clues as to His identity. The first time the angel of the Lord is introduced, he makes an appearance to Hagar, the servant of Abraham's wife Sarai. In Genesis 16:7-13, we read,

⁷ The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. ⁸ And he said, “Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?”

“I’m running away from my mistress Sarai,” she answered.

⁹ Then the angel of the LORD told her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.” ¹⁰ The angel added, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.”

¹¹ The angel of the LORD also said to her:

“You are now pregnant
and you will give birth to a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard of your misery.
¹² He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers.

¹³ She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.” ¹⁴ That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi; it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered.

What is of particular interest here is that the angel of the Lord speaks as though He is distinct from Yahweh yet also presumes Himself to be the very mouthpiece of God. In fact, he speaks in the first person and says "I will increase your descendants." This is very peculiar. What's more, in verse 13, Hagar identifies the Angel of the Lord as "the God who sees me."

Does Colossians chapter one mean Jesus is a created being?

This post comes from a recent discussion with a Jehovahs Witness regarding Jesus deity and Colossians 1:15.

So to give some clarification, the JW's don't use the same Bible many of us do. The organisation released their own version of the scriptures that was finished in 1961 which came to be known as the New World Translation (NWT). The NWT is best known for its rendering of John 1:1 but for those that have dug a little deeper or engaged in discussion with any JW's you may be aware of their controversial rendering of Colossians chapter 1, verses 15-17. It reads as the following:

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist...

Now as you read through this portion of scripture you will notice that contained within brackets is the word other, this is probably the clearest example of how we can see how their translation has been corrupted and changed intentially to support their theological assumptions. What this shows us is that they have clearly translated and added to scripture to support their doctrines which have no space for Jesus being the fathers ontological (Equality in nature, essence and attributes.) equal as part of the trinity.

Did Jesus Deny His Deity in His Conversation with the Rich Ruler?

In Luke 18:18-29 (and the parallel account in Mark 10:17-31), we read the narrative of the rich young ruler coming to Jesus and asking, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus responds by saying "Why do you call me good? No one is good -- except God alone."

Jesus continues, "You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honour your father and mother." The young man replies, “All these I have kept since I was a boy.” Jesus, however, knowing that he valued his wealth and riches more than God, instructs the man to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor, and then to come and follow Jesus. At this, the man walks away greatly saddened because he has no interest in giving up his wealth.

Many of those who seek to deny the deity of Christ (such as Muslims) will often appeal to this passage as an example of Jesus allegedly renouncing his deity. Is this the case, however? Was Jesus really denying that He is God in stating, "Why do you call me good? No one is good -- except God alone."The first important thing to notice is that Jesus Himself claims not only to be "good" but also to be perfect and completely without sin. Consider, for example, John 10:11 ("I am the good shepherd") or John 8:46 ("Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?"). We are also told by Paul that Jesus was without sin, for example in 2 Corinthians 5:21 ("God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God"). Thus, this situation with the rich young ruler is actually an affirmation of Jesus' deity. The argument may be summarised in syllogistic form as follows:

Premise 1: According to Jesus, God alone is good.

Premise 2: According to Jesus, Jesus is good.

Conclusion: Therefore, according to Jesus, Jesus is God.

So what is going on in this incident with the rich young ruler? Jesus, I believe, is teasing out the implications of the young man's statement. It is a rhetorical question designed to make the man think long and hard about Jesus' true identity.

Those who use this example as a proof text for justifying their denial of the deity of Jesus need to allow all of Scripture speak, and read the passages they quote in the context within which they appear. When one handles the text of Scripture honestly and responsibly in this regard, the true identity of Jesus becomes very clear: He is the eternal Son of God, and the second person of the Trinity.

The Meaning of John 10:30 and its Relevance to the Trinity: James White

Why I Love Jesus But Reject Islam: Ivey Conerly

Note: If you are unfamiliar with the background to this, please watch:

Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus

Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus (Muslim Version)

A Christian Response to Kamal Saleh's Islamic Video

The Trinity Defended

The doctrine of the Trinity has come under increasing attack over recent years from a variety of groups. Some of these groups (such as Muslims and Jehovah's witnesses) deny that this doctrine is even found in Scripture. They are often quick to point out that the word "trinity" is to be found nowhere in the Bible. This is correct. While the phraseology is not found in Scripture, however, the concept most certainly is.

In this article, I want to provide a definition of this important doctrine, explaining what exactly the Trinity is, as well as what is isn't. I shall then examine the Scriptures to see whether they provide adequate substantiation of this concept.

So, what exactly do we mean when we talk about the Trinity? Writing in the early third century, in his Against Praxeas, Tertullian is credited with first employing the words "Trinity", "person" and "substance" to convey the idea of the Father, Son and Spirit being "one in essence -- but not one in person". Indeed, Tertullian writes,

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, "I and my Father are One," in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

This concept was established as church orthodoxy at the famous Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. The Nicene Creed speaks of Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father."

It is this definition that I am going to assume in the discussion that follows. Succinctly, then, the doctrine of the Trinity may be defined thusly: Within the one being or essence that is God, there exists three co-equal and co-divine distinct persons -- namely the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- who share that essence fully and completely. This concept is not to be confused with polytheism, which maintains that there are multiple gods. While orthodox Christianity emphatically holds there to be only one God, we nonetheless understand God to be complex in his unity. The concept is also not to be confused with the ancient heresy of modalism, which maintains that God exists in three different modes. The Son has never been the Father and the Holy Spirit has never been the Son or the Father. Modalism is refuted by the picture given to us in all four gospels (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34) in which the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus in the form of a dove and a voice is heard from Heaven "This is my beloved Son. With him I am well pleased." Similarly, it should be noted that the Father, Son and Spirit do not each make up merely a third of the Godhead. Rather, each of the three persons is God in the full and complete sense of the word.

Having shown that Scripture emphatically rejects the notion that the Father, Son and Spirit are synonymous persons, only five propositions remain to be demonstrated in order to provide Biblical substantiation for the concept of the Trinity. Those propositions are:

1. There is only one eternal God.
   
2. The Father is the eternal God.
3. The Son is the eternal God.
4. The Holy Spirit is the eternal God.
5. Although the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are non-synonymous persons, the concept of the Trinity does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

Let's take a look at each of these in turn.

Does Jesus receive worship from Thomas in Johns Gospel?

This short post will seek to demonstrate that the obvious and plain reading of John 20:28 which at first glance appears to record one of Jesus' disciples worshipping Jesus as God, and in return Jesus receives that worship is correct.

Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:24-30)

What I generally hear from the Muslims I have spoken to is that when Thomas makes the statement "My Lord and my God!" is that Thomas is saying this out of surprise or shock which would mean Thomas was taking Gods name in vain (Blasphemy). However there are a few obvious problems with such a suggestion, it is highly unlikely that a God fearing Jewish disciple like Thomas would ever use Gods name inappropriately nor would we expect Jesus to respond in a way that ignored such a serious sin.

A Defense of the Historicity of Jesus' Divine Self-Understanding

A key part of the investigation into the reliability of the New Testament (and the transformative message which it conveys) lies in establishing what Jesus considered Himself to be, and the mission that he thought it was his role to fulfil. While a discernment of Jesus’ self-understanding is only a necessary (but non-sufficient) condition in establishing the truth of the Bible, it can nonetheless fit into a robust consilience of evidence which best makes sense only in light of the truth of the Christian message. If it can be determined historically — with a reasonable degree of confidence — that Jesus really did believe Himself to be the eternal and divine Son of God, the Saviour of all mankind, we can investigate the three candidate hypotheses offered by C.S. Lewis’ famous Trilemma: Was Jesus a Liar, a Lunatic or Lord? Once we have established what Jesus claimed about Himself, we can turn our investigation to which of these three candidate hypotheses best explains the available evidence.